[r9etb]

Those "theoretical advantages" have thus far turned out the be bullshit, despite the massive amounts of research already done in the area.

The same could be said of any number of other inventions which we now take for granted. How many thousands of trials did Edison make, before he finally invented a practical light bulb?

The unpleasant truth is that ESCs probably can, and thus probably will, be used to create successful treatments for certain ailments. You can't hang your hat on the failures to date, because the first success makes your argument moot.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The unpleasant truth is that ESCs probably can, and thus probably will, be used to create successful treatments for certain ailments. You can't hang your hat on the failures to date, because the first success makes your argument moot."

We are talking about SCIENCE here, not speculation. One does not base public policy on speculation, which is what the ESC proponents are asking for. The MORAL agrument against ESC is un-questioned, but by NOT pointing out the fact that ESC has thus far FAILED all SCIENTIFIC tests to date, we are leaving the field open to the proponents to make speculation-based arguments. Propaganda HAS to be answered, or "preception becomes reality".

[PropheticZero]

The same could be said of any number of other inventions which we now take for granted. How many thousands of trials did Edison make, before he finally invented a practical light bulb?

Men died in the developement of the technologies that allow us to leave the Earth and enter orbit in space as well. The difference was that these men knew that they could die from hanging onto the very edge of developing technology.

The difference is that unborn children can't make the personal decision to sacrifice themselves on the altar of medical technology. The difference is between a pile of broken lightbulbs and broken babies.