You are being deliberately obtuse and you know it. There are many subjects one can discuss with children without getting into trouble with their parents. I've managed to do it for years!
The bus driver in question "just happened to" stumble into a position that fully half of the people in the United States disagrees with. It's not quite the same thing as a random, known crackpot disagreeing that grass is green. But you knew that.
Not at all, I was demonstrating a fallacy in your logic. It seemed to me you were trying to support a specific judgment in this instance by stating a universal standard. I demonstrated that making such a standard universal was absurd.
The bus driver in question "just happened to" stumble into a position that fully half of the people in the United States disagrees with
Hardly. Most of the people don't care one way or the other. Those of us arguing the finer points of morality, law, and politics have to step back and realize this. Moreover, considering the age of the children, most of them probably didn't care either. To those few who might have taken an interest, it seems perfectly reasonable to supply them with facts that will help them form their own opinion.
It's not quite the same thing as a random, known crackpot disagreeing that grass is green. But you knew that.
Mentioning the crack pot was part of exposing your fallacy. I would describe the people objecting as being merely unreasonable (they might be full blown crack pots too, but there are things even AndyTheBear can't deduce). Not because they (presumably) believe using fetal stem cells is morally objectionable. That indeed is a complex moral issue. But because they (presumably) desire to suppress information--not information that challenges this moral belief mind you--but simple straight forward information which makes the moral question irrelevant. Among reasonable people one should expect this to end the divisiveness.