Embryonic Stem Cells Are Bad; Abortions Aren't

Renowned bioethicist Wesley J. Smith criticized reporter Kitta MacPherson for relying on scientists to tell the truth about embryonic stem cells; he calls it "biased in the direction of promoting ESCR."

MacPherson's article cited a study using neural stem cells, both embryonic stem cell derived and "adult," that prolonged the lives of mice suffering from a fatal degenerative brain disease (Sandhoff disease).

In other words, in mice adult stem cells were just as therapeutic as embryonic! That should have been the headline and the story’s emphasis. Moreover, if this is so, why use ESCs in human trials, as these scientists want to do, given their propensity to cause tumors and their ethical contentiousness?

Chalk up another hyped story of a purported embryonic stem cell success that is less then advertised, and which actually boosts the argument in favor of adult stem cell research.

Here, Smith argues that this study is a boost to the ethically uncontentious adult stem cell research. His argument is the following quote from MacPherson's article:

The international team, headed by Snyder, a physician-scientist at the Burnham Institute in California, also compared the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells versus the "adult" variety and found them to be equally effective.

The "adult" variety. Their source?

..."adult" cells that had been isolated from human fetal brain cells.

In effect, Smith is saying that fetal stem cells – obtained from abortions – are morally acceptable, while embryonic stem cells obtained from discarded in-vitro fertility embryos are not.

"Abortions are better than ESCs!"

My question: Will abortion clinics pay Smith royalties for their new slogan?

More Media Stem Cell Ignorance on Display [wesleyjsmith.com]