Callahan, Brown and Mintrom

An argument that we cannot use Inner Cell Mass cells that come from lines, or that IPS research will forever be tainted because of the embryonic stem cell research that came before it is silly. Much our advanced technology was accelerated by immoral activity (like war or experiment without consent), but we still use it. Are we going to stop using planes are cars? Shoes with ridged soles? In fact, if we are going to refuse any benefit borne out of immorality, every white person should start packing because we'll have to go back to Europe and leave the continent to the descendents of the Native Americans our ancestors murdered to make room for their settlements. This argument is a prime example of how inconsistent American morality can be.

Callahan's point about the certainty of the death of an embryo used in the research vs the hazy future of the research is flawed. An embryo's future as a human child is no where near certain. Even if you discount the fact that the embryo needs a woman's uterus to host it for life to even be a possibility, there's the glaring fact that there's no guarantee it would implant or thrive. That is why they need to make so many embryos for In-vitro fertility treatment. No one can argue the certainty of the future to that degree. Also, if we’re going to start attributing value to potential events in the past and present, the embryos wouldn’t even exist if the researchers had not made them.

Callahan did have very good arguments. First of all, I agree that people shouldn't feel cheated because they develop disease and die. Knowledge of our mortality is a heavy physiological burden to bear, but one would be in better company to look to mythology and literature than Science.
 
We could prevent illness and suffering for more people over more time with more certainty of success if we used the money we're using on stem cell to prevent circumstances that lead to disease. For example, we could work to provide healthy food and nutrition education to those who are not getting it now not only preventing disease, but also promoting health. (The money unfortunately be lost to military spending as it travels the labyrinth it must to be re-routed. Which could spoil this argument.) It also occurred to me that we are spending everyone's money on treatments only the middle class and up could afford, which is also immoral. (You don't see middle class diabetes patients with amputated limbs.) 

We also bump up against the ever-present issue of "Your morals are not everyone's morals." in both Callahan and Brown's pieces. I think this is one of the fundamental contributers to the conflicts in Bioethics.