by 
One of the toughest problems that we face in pro-life circles is that we defend life from the time where it’s not recognizable as a human– when it is still a rapidly dividing group of cells. People have a hard time visualizing anything that they cannot see, especially in today’s day in age. We live at a time when we see everything from birth to death, and the microscopic just isn’t that much “fun.”
So, when we try to defend the unborn’s right to live, and that killing baby humans at any stage is wrong, it’s hard! Fortunately, medicine has shown us that it’s not only embryonic stem cells that have medical benefits, and that some of the wild claims that they believe they have are not true.
The latest news on this front came out this week. A new approach, which would take a single cell from the embryo instead of destroying the whole thing, could be the key to defusing the issue. Maybe:
Some stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn’t as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.
Meanwhile, hard-line opponents of stem cell science argue that the technique solves nothing, because even the single cell removed by the new approach could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human. Some also object over the possibility the procedure could harm the embryo in an unknown way.
Although this new way may have more questions than answers, the best way to do this research is still with adult cells. These humans aren’t allowed the ability to choose, and it’s still the result of fertility practices that God never condones– He alone opens and closes the womb.
I’ve not heard of one single cure or treatment involving embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand have been involved in dozens.
If ESCs were so promising, there would be hundreds of millions of private dollars involved like there is with ASCs.
To play Devil’s Advocate, wouldn’t the fact that so many people (ie. customers, etc.) oppose the research make it not as profitable for companies to invest in the research. I mean, there’s a cost to doing something controversial, and who can afford the press and the boycotts?