After reading the July 27 article on Hillary Clinton’s speech to the American College of Transplant Surgeons in Boston, I have several comments.

First, I, like millions of Americans, am not as educated on the stem cell debate as I should be.

Second, again like millions of Americans, I have a degree of emotional confusion when it comes to the question of when life begins. Is the in-vitro fertilized cell a human life? Does it have that spark that makes it “human”?

Sen. Clinton is firm in her belief that there is no wrong in the destruction of a fetus, but to a large number of Americans, destruction of a fetus for any purpose is questionable, and this is the crucial point that makes fetal stem cell research controversial.

Stem cell research will go on, with or without federal dollars. Stem cell lines not approved for federal funding are still being created from “donated” in-vitro fetuses.

In my opinion, what President Bush did was unheard of in Washington D.C.; he kept a promise that was made, despite polls to the contrary. In 2001, George Bush stated that he would not approve federal funding that made new stem cell lines, and he has kept that promise.

Is it wrong to be confused about this issue? Should we accept the cold, scientific facts and disregard our humanity and emotions when we debate where human life begins? Or should there be a true national debate with both sides given equal exposure?

Heather M. Sult, Lisbon Falls