Please, cite one treatment that has been shown possible from embryonic stem cells.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
You're assuming if I can't prove something true it must be false. You are also asking to show results from a research field in it's infancy. And you're ignoring the fact that research has been hampered by politics and lack of funding.
But still, there is plenty of research that shows treatment that might be "possible from embryonic stem cells." Go to PubMed and search on embryonic stem cells (you might notice all the foriegn sounding names of the researchers). You don't think all this research is being done because the researchers like playing with embryos, do you? They see the possiblity of treatment with embryonic stem cells.
Here's the story I posted in #59 if you had any say in it:
In December of 1967, a South African surgeon, Dr. Christiaan Barnard, transplanted the heart of a 23-year-old woman killed in a motor vehicle accident into the chest of a middle-aged man. He lived for eighteen days, until the powerful drugs used to suppress rejection weakened him and he died of pneumonia. All further research was ended.
May I ask, if this exploitation of human beings at their earliest age as embryo is cannibalism (and I firmly believe it is since the human embryo is a human ORGANISM in her/his earliest age of a lifetime), and some of the world wants to do this cannibalism for medical reasons, why we in America must be herded into cannibalism also?
How many lives would you have killed in your search? This is not the same as your example of the heart transplant because (1) the donor was already dead before harvest (probably before being chosen for harvest - he or she definitely was not nurtured for days, checked for health, and then killed purposely for harvest), (2) there was evidence that the transplant of hearts could work in *prior* models and protocols in animals (there is no such evidence in embryonic stem cells and (3) The harvest of the organ was for specific treatment and causes, not to see what the potential for donated hearts would/could be.
That mouse experiment took place in the early to mid '90's. According to the article I linked (from PubMed, by the way), the efficiency in acheiving results in cloning and from cloning is not improving, even in animals.
On the other hand, in your search at PubMed, take a look at the results of use of adult and umbilical cord cells.
Yes, I believe that the research on human embryos for stem cells is for research for the sake of research and unfounded. The purpose is for the future of cloned treatments, and the purpose of cloning is selfish immortality at the cost of hundreds of purposely created and destroyed or enslaved humans, virtual twins of the donor.
Why do you want the government to spend tax money on this research, when adult and umbilical cord research is so promising? If the promise of embryonic research is so high, why aren't private and corporate funds jumping on the band wagon, here or in other countries?
What reason is there to expect better results from embryonic stem cells than those which are being obtained from umbilical stem cells or others derived from non-embryonic sources?
Which is easier to carve a sculpture out of: newly-mixed Jello@reg, or Jello® that's had a chance to set? The newly-mixed Jello@reg; is far more adaptable to fit any desired shape, but is so inclined to adapt by itself that it's impossible to carve. The Jello® that has set is still highly conformable, but is much more workable because it's more prone to hold its shape.