Even though there were one or two attempts around the edges to present the moral problems with ESCR, you missed the real argument around the source of these cells. I'll trust Dr. Taylor that there are people who believe that embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses, but even so, there are those who would be more amenable to such research if that were the source, on the rationale that the life or death question had been rendered moot in the case of the aborted fetus, but in ESCR we are actively and intentionally destroying nascent human life for the purposes of research (this is precisely the distinction that the Bush Administration made in its restriction of federal funding of ESCR to existing stem cell lines). Dr. Taylor's repeated characterization of these nascent human lives as "tools that nature has given us" is a big red flag to those of us concerned about the research, as it explicitly declares that these human lives are means to other ends.
Those of us who have problems with ESCR wouldn't have problems with research using cells derived from anywhere else she mentioned, such as bone marrow (or even urine!). Perhaps there are very good reasons why she is engaging in such morally problematic and controversial research rather than trying alternative sources for stem cells, but her repeated celebration of science doing what was unthinkable 10 or 50 years ago, along with her statement that we need to "drive carefully," should have at least prompted you to ask the question.
More information about text formats