Well, you persuade me with your logic and reasoning.
It's a moral issue, not a scientific issue. Those who deny that the science has no potential, because of moral issues, loses on both because it isn't moral to deny truth just to get your moral values pushed.
An example. You are morally opposed to nukes in 1942. You tell the world that they just don't work. But the Manhattan project occurs. Now, it's time to use it, does anybody listen to you?
Question the ethics of using it, don't deny the science, unless you have evidence to support you.
Bingo. Too bad the gun-grabbers will never understand this concept.
Let me give you the bottom line so far: for ESC, the score is ZERO treatments and ZERO human clinical trials. For adult and cord blood, it is 60 treatments and 1,175 human clinical trials. I OPPOSE ESCs on both moral and scientific grounds. Why should we spend money and attention on ESCs when the other, non-ESCs are yielding great results. Makes no sense.
Whether they mean it or not, the anti-ESC people come off as kind of creepy, because they look like they are rooting for cancer and for people to stay paralyzed
But the science doesn't support embryonic research at this time. If it did as advertised, they wouldn't need the federal research dollars because the pharmaceutical companies would be all over it with their own bucks.
In the future--who knows? But such speculation is not science. This is all about hype for research grant money.