I think I actually stated in my previous post that there is no moral issue here. I am not making any kind of moral arguement, simply looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. I will reiterate for you, though: I do not know how powerful the potential for stem cells actually is, having not done research on this issue, but simply having read other peoples opinions (which isn't enough for me to feel educated on the issue). My point is that as long as abortions are legal, there is a ready supply of stem cells that are simply being wasted. There is no way you can deny that. How is throwing away the stem cells of an aborted fetus somehow better than using them for research? Medical research facilities already use cadavers, or parts of them, for research purposes, so why is it such a huge, drastic jump to use an aborted fetus? To me, the potential (and I emphasize potential) benefit of stem cell research should not be curbed when there is a constant and ready supply of stem cells being produced on a daily basis. I will go further and say that the government has no right whatsoever to dictate research direction. I say this for several reasons. First, in the case of a research institution that does recieve government money, the money is applied for and it is made specifically clear how that money will be used for the research project, so the government is approving of the topic before it grants the money (this is the only point in the process where the government should have any say). In the case of a private comapany that recieves no government funding (many industrial pharmacuetical companies, for example, are totally funded by private investors) the government has no right to dictate research direction unless it becomes a potential societal threat. Second, there is certainly not enough scientific knowledge in the law making branches of government for it to accurately weigh and judge a huge percentage (if any) of the issues arising from scientific research. Third, as has been discussed repeatedly in this blog, the arm of the governement is entirely too long already. From my understanding of recent SC decisions, the government now has the right to halt my production of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug because it affects commerce of other products. For example (and this is true), there has been a boone in blueberry consumption by AD facilities because the polyphenols are known to inhibit the onset of dementia and other AD symptoms. So if I cure AD, I'm affecting blueberry farmer's commerce and the government can shut me down? Madness. Fourth, if the government is controlling my research direction, it is, essentially, controlling my thought processes (by limiting the direction of my research, my ability to think freely is totally inhibited) which it most certainly cannot do.
I don't know how you view scientific research (from your concluding remark I would guess you view it as some sort of Nazi science - random, pointless and mostly amoral), but to me, as a researcher, the goal of my research is to develop a better understanding of the issues at hand (i.e. not simply sit and make "claims to have another discovery on the horizon if only this or that sacrifice could be made" but to actively pursue it to see if it's possible) and to (hopefully) be able improve the quality of human life. I will state again that there is much hopeful speculation on the potential of stem cell research. Whether or not that speculation is legitimate cannot be determined without experimentation and research. I will also admit that my position on this issue is influenced a great deal by my sister's condition and that anything that might potentially improve her situation is something I am willing to try, especially in this case, where the source of potential aid is simply being "morally" discarded.
