Although President Bush hasn't backed down on his unpopular position opposing federal funds for embryonic stem cells, (NOT Adult Stem Cells, those he encourages)his only veto of 6 years in office most likely will not stand, thanks to a Democratic Congress.
Remember, embryonic stem cells haven't cured anyone yet. All clinical success (and there's been plenty in a variety of diseases) has been with Adult Stem Cells, the kind you get from cord blood, the kind that doesn't involve the death of the donor, as embryonic stem cells do.
3 comments:
How is the fact that "embryonic stem cells haven't cured anyone yet" a good argument?
Let's say you were a venture capitalist, looking for a good investment, between adult stem cells which have been demonstrably successful in curing a number of common diseases, Type 1 diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, etc. and embryonic stem cells which haven't cured a single disease, and actually grow tumors in recipients. Where would a savy investor want to put their money?
The US government, on the other hand, rarely shows such good business sense, and rather invests where the pressure groups tell them to invest, regardless of track record.
Did I mention that in order to extract embryonic stem cells you have to kill a viable human embryo?
That should be enough reason to search elsewhere. No human life may be taken to save another, that's immoral.
If you give scientists enough money and time, they're almost certainly going to find cures using embryonic stem cells. They are eventually going to get the money, so cures will very likely be found and attributed to embryonic stem cell research.
I am simply saying that the pro-life movement should stick to the moral argument. That argument is the most viable.
Post a Comment