Ahhh…I see we’ve been talking at cross purposes. My misunderstanding of your comments apparently arose from your misunderstanding of my position. My comments concerning the meat packing industry were apparently too subtle. Let me restate.
Suppose a vegan president is elected and decides to end federal subsidies to the beef, pork and dairy industries. After all, There are alternatives to eating beef and pork. Vegetable protein is readily available and does not require the suffering of sentient creatures, which many vegans find morally untenable.
What is so different about this scenario than the one you are proposing? Replace “Cow” with “Embryo”, and “Vegan” with …well…choose the label of your choice, and you arrive at the same place. No doubt you will label this as a frivolous argument, (which is a lot easier than actually considering it), since you are probably not a vegan, but in doing so you miss the point that your views carry no more heft, despite how much in the right you think you are.
And the “established industry” argument doesn’t cut it. The distillery business was an established industry when prohibition came around. As I recall, that didn’t turn out to be a really good idea, no matter how righteous the intention was.
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? The government has already gotten involved in subsidies (i.e. witholding them) and imposed regulations, before it has shown its potential. You do see the irony here, don’t you?
So, to claim that more research is necessary is politically motivated, but to clamor
for a ban is not?