Sorry, I don’t buy it. Even if everything Dr. Condic says is true, it means nothing. I believe embryonic stem cells should be available for study and the government shouldn’t limit funding to research facilities that use embryonic stem cell lines. Individual scientists and the organizations they represent are best equipped to determine research direction. If embryonic stem cell research proves fruitless, oh well. However, Dr. Condic doesn’t get to make the call.
At least be honest about the real reason you oppose embryonic stem cell research – and I don’t think it has to do with the saving money. Ultimately, it is the morality and not the feasibility that concerns ordinary Americans. That’s fine. We can have a nice debate on that. But don’t try and muddy the water by throwing in some poorly conceived argument about the utility of research. That’s a concern for the scientific community in which Dr. Condic is just one voice of many.
Your entire argument is about "utility." If it is "useful" (read beneficial; "saves lives"; helps "me"), then so be it. To relegate the science community to make the decisions is idiotic (or don't you remember how US scientists once liked to practice on inmates in prisons which was finally banned?). And that did not only occur in the Deep South!
Science must follow moral guidelines. Just because we "can" do it does not mean we "should" do it. If a physicist has a bright idea about an experiment that will ignite the entire atmosphere, is he justified in doing it because he "can?"
We can solve this of course. If you wish to use the utilitarian approach, let's have registers in which people can sign up their own babies for termination if the parts are needed by adults. That makes sense. The kid is not as "valuable" to your way of thinking while the adult is far more valuable. Then, only those who sign up can profit by sacrificing their own progeny. I find that revolting. It smacks of Moloch and Baal, but that is where society is headed in this post-pagan age.
Dr. Condic was pointing out that science has no idea how to control an incredibly complex process. Rather than throw money after bad science, why not use the adult stem cells that are now available in abundance? Her argument is framed in finances, but it is actually about a Greek term called "hubris."
1. They are available for research.
2. The government is not punishing facilities that conduct Embryonic research.
3. Are you suggesting that taxpayer money be freely given to "scientists" just because they want it with no input from the taxpayer and no regard for the ethical questions involved?
Question: Have you contributed any of your money to facilities conducting embryonic research?