I watched the signing ceremony on CNBC for President Obama's "lauded and historic" signing; an executive order to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Larry Kudlow following the signing quickly added, "This is a bad idea. I have moral and religious objections to this type of stem cell research. It's a hot button issue. I'm not objecting to having private investment in the free market for this, but to ask the taxpayers, who have religious and moral objections, to pay for this is just a bad idea. It's a hot button issue."
Following that quote, the CNBC host reported that many stem cell research companies are already seeking those funds.
A glance at major news headlines tells a one-sided story. One states, "Stem-cell policy change liberating to researchers" [emphasis added]. Empryonic stem cell researches could get any person in the world for funding, but only now do they feel "liberated" now that the restrictions lifted on federal funding have been removed.
Many people assume (and rightly so due to the media) that funding for embryonic stem cell research stopped in 2001. This is incorrect. Connecticut, Arkansas, and most notibly California have been funding for it.
There are currently 70 stem cell lines that are producing very positive results and effective treatments - using adult stem cells.
This begs the question: Why is embryonic stem cell research still being pushed? Follow the money.
On a side note, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, embryonic stem cell research would not fit the criteria for an Abortion in the legal sense.
"Ab" in Abortion means literally "to pull away from". The term Abortion in US criminal law did not include the killing of the child. For example, in Virginia's anti-abortion statute, which passed in the 1850's through 1971, the language read, "No abortion, except to save the life of the mother or the child." So, clearly, Abortion did not mean the killing of the child, rather the separation of mother and child. And since the embryo is concieved in a petri dish, this would not be concidered an abortion.
If Roe v. Wade was thrown out due to no grounds to make the ruling in the first place, then to protect life you would need personhood amendment's in the states which defined life at conception, and did not take into account the means of conception, whether it be a petri dish or intercourse.