I admit I'm a little behind the times. I waited until "Million Dollar Baby" released on DVD (July 12) to order it on Netflix, and only today did I get around to actually watching it. If you haven't seen it and plan to, don't read on, because I'll ruin the ending for you.

For you who are still reading, I must preface my remarks by saying I realize Clint Eastwood at 74 has more talent oozing out of his pinky than I have in all of my digits combined. The flick garnered 4 Oscars, another 30 wins, and 23 nominations.

Nevertheless, I would have given the movie a much different ending had I been the storyteller. Attempted suicide and active euthanasia wouldn't have been on my list of options. Here's how I would have done it:

First, I would have shown that people who have lost the use of all their limbs can still find purpose in life. What an opportunity to inspire hope! The same woman who refused to take "no" for an answer as she learned the craft of busting people in the face could have applied her drive to living with severe limitations.

Second, I would have ended with Hillary Swank's character walking again. That's right, I'd have had her walking after a spinal cord injury. Walking awkwardly, but walking. I would have projected her story into the not-so-distant future and helped her walk again with the aid of adult stem cell therapy.

Think I'm nuts? Unrealistic? Too optimistic? Too in love with happy endings (as if such a thing were possible)? Perhaps you'd believe it if you heard it from Dan Rather? Okay, follow this link to see it with your own eyes: http://www.cord-blood-video.com/paralyze_walk_again/

Old news again, huh? Yeah, that was last December. Eight months ago. Others have reported similar experiences since then.

So here's what I want to know. Why is it that Christopher Reeve made the front cover of a major news mag when fighting for the right to destroy embryos so people could walk again, but the news stories about people actually walking again after cord injuries (thanks to adult stem cell therapies) remain buried?

And while we're on the subject of embryonic stem cell research, I seriously doubt Senator Frist did a flip-flop this week because he was newly impressed with the science of it all. Methinks it had more to do with eyeing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as a potential home address and positioning himself to come off as more moderate.

Here's where I'm not "behind the times": A study published yesterday by researchers in Massachusetts confirmed an earlier finding that some adult stem cells in the bone marrow show a cycle of genes normally expressed only in eggs. They migrate from the bone marrow through the bloodstream to the ovary where they form new eggs. This adds to the rapidly growing evidence that some adult stem cells are "pluripotent," able to form most or all body tissues. Adult stem cells keep showing up with positive results and therapies; meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research continues to flail. Not one person has yet to benefit from one therapy using embryonic stem cell research. Yet people paralyzed for twenty years are walking again thanks to adult stem cell therapies.

The unethical therapies are non-existent; the ethical therapies have people walking again.

So I ask...why is it that those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research and support adult stem cell research are often portrayed as being "against" scientific advances, and "against" improving the quality of life for those who are ill and injured? Why, indeed!