Here’s the big thing about embryonic stem cells. If the child was already dead (stillborn, aborted, miscarried or whatever) then what does it matter how the cells are used? If the child was specifically aborted to use the cells, that’s a different story.
The funding is low, but the payoff is so high that we need to be doing the research. I’m not a big fan of people who are so stuck in their beliefs that they want to stand in the way of human progress.
It’s because of where some people think THAT will lead to. If you use the stem cells regardless of where they came from, some people THINK it MAY lead someone to have a baby JUST for the stem cells and kill it. It’s the same with gun shows....people don’t want to stop criminals from getting them at Gun Shows through a new law, because it MIGHT lead to OTHER laws at Gun Stores.
Somebody already addressed what I’ll call the ‘oops angle’. So, I’ll take the other.
Of the funding, you assert that ‘the payoff is so high that we need to be doing the research’. We ARE doing the research. Public funding is available to anybody who will research alternate (non-embryonically derived) stem cells. From a purely scientific perspective, the embryonic cells don’t do very well. A propensity to develop into cancerous cells has been identified.
There is a probability that I’ve read insufficiently, but if you do have any sources that show that ‘the payoff is so high that we need to be doing the research’, I’d like to see it.
You say, “if the child was already dead...”
First, thanks for acknowledging that an embryo is a child, which we knew anyway. Second, your reasoning - in truth, your rationalization - leads to: 1) first killing the child, then; 2) claiming that such “research” is okay, since the child is already dead. This is exactly what opponents of embryonic stem cell “research” have fought because we know it would take place just as you describe.
Third, embryonic stem cell “research” has no track record of success, which should answer your question. Those who champion this version of “research,” along with the likes of Michael Fox, should, when found in this girl’s circumstances, just stay home and wait for embryonic stem cell research to cure them, rather than go to where real stem cell research can accomplish its cures. Clearly this girl’s parents had their heads in the right place in selecting the only mode of research with real hope of curing her blindness.
Given the success deficit of embryonic stem cell research, and your insistence that it persist, despite its “low funding,” who is really so stuck in their beliefs here, you or those who recognize real research and real success? Recall that insanity is defined by some as making the same mistake again and again, hoping for a different result.
Which dovetails nicely with the notion that liberalism, with its blind-faith support of futile embryonic stem cell “research,” is a mental disease.