You say, “if the child was already dead...”
First, thanks for acknowledging that an embryo is a child, which we knew anyway. Second, your reasoning - in truth, your rationalization - leads to: 1) first killing the child, then; 2) claiming that such “research” is okay, since the child is already dead. This is exactly what opponents of embryonic stem cell “research” have fought because we know it would take place just as you describe.
Third, embryonic stem cell “research” has no track record of success, which should answer your question. Those who champion this version of “research,” along with the likes of Michael Fox, should, when found in this girl’s circumstances, just stay home and wait for embryonic stem cell research to cure them, rather than go to where real stem cell research can accomplish its cures. Clearly this girl’s parents had their heads in the right place in selecting the only mode of research with real hope of curing her blindness.
Given the success deficit of embryonic stem cell research, and your insistence that it persist, despite its “low funding,” who is really so stuck in their beliefs here, you or those who recognize real research and real success? Recall that insanity is defined by some as making the same mistake again and again, hoping for a different result.
Which dovetails nicely with the notion that liberalism, with its blind-faith support of futile embryonic stem cell “research,” is a mental disease.
I'm stunned (stuned?) Your "logic" would also outlaw human organ donations. We'd soon be killing people to get them, wouldn't we? You've really carried your thinking way beyond all common sense.
I'm not claiming that it couldn't happen, but if a child were murdered to obtain his stem cells, then that crime would have to be punished. But to outlaw the use of embryonic stem cells from any source is just selfish and unscientific.