Stem Cell Ethics

Now that the ball has been cast back over the net into the embryonic stem cell camp itis amazing how few people are genuinely interested anymore. Obama waves a pen, signs an order and suddenly a really, really bad idea becomes law. What is at issue isn't the value of being able to use new and multiple cells to advance science. After all, Embryonic Stem cells haven't helped anyone to date be cured of anything. At the core of the debate is controlling the issue of when life begins. If we agree that embryonic stem cells are worthy of protecting then what are we saying an embryonic stem cells is? It is a life. Once we believe that it is worthy of protection the pro-abortion debate becomes mute and suddenly we have a grounds to end Roe V. Wade. I haven't heard this arguement anywhere else but I believe that it is largely true.
Good ideas always attract capital from investors and yet venture capital has largely steered away from embryonic stem cells. This is most likely because adult stem cells and cord blood have shown far more promise in the last few years, both are currently used in treatments, so it makes more sense to invest in something with promise.
The promise of embryonic stem cells is so far into the future that one could make the arguement that we should be focusing our efforts on things that are currently producing exciting results. It's conceiveable that the brilliant minds working on embryonic stem cells could speed any number of new therepies if their efforts were focused on things that are not things that might could maybe be.
I know many people will have volumes to say arguing my thesis but the truth is that not one person has been treated with embryonic stem cells. The arguments about adult stem cells not being as viable or easy to work with have been rendered mute.
embryonic stem cell research has been going on all over the world so one must wonder why the only major breakthrough we heard of turned out to be a fraudulent South Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk.