Verified answer

Every argument opposing stem-cell research inevitably boils down to religious motive and rationale (every life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, life begins at conception) which is in violation of the Constitution of the United States (I assume you are American, pardon me if I'm wrong).

It's a conflict of interest when legislative opponents of SCR are funded by drug companies and/or religious groups. I'm sure there are loopholes allowing such practices but, at their core, they are wrong.

Laws prohibiting such a highly effective school of therapy are negligent and potentially malfescient (sp?).

The stem cells in ? would be gotten from sources that would be throwing the eggs away anyway--fertility clinics. The laws, as they stand now, prohibit the sale of the eggs, therefore theoretically there would be no dubious schemes of ethical consequence--I hope that made sense.

But new research has made it possible for stem cells from living humans to be used, without consequence to what some would consider 'a life', in the near future.

I hope this made sense, I'm not very good with words.

PRO: The strains currently allowed by the government need to be replaced because they are tainted. Against: No big leaps have been made from using stem cells from abortions. All advances have come from stem cells from Umbilical cords or adult stem cells. Umbilical cords have stem cells and no child has to die in order to gather them. To use live embreo/abortions creates a marketplace for abortions to be bought and sold. So children may be purposefully killed/aborted in the future for $$.