The Second Part of "Nothing is Lost"

Not suprisingly, several responses to Professor Outka's "nothing is lost" argument focus on the first prong, the notion that the innocent person would die anyway.  While that is the more interesting side of the question, it is worth observing that the second prong is hardly unassailable either.  The second part of the "nothing is lost" argument is that other innocent life will be saved." 

I'm not an expert on the state of stem-cell research, but my understanding from what I have read is that the best we can say is that further stem-cell research offers the potential to save or improve lives.  Many of the values of the research discussed - faciliating drug testing, aiding in treatment in Parkinsons, arthritis and burns - while very beneficial, do not rise to the level of saving an innocent life and many of the benefits discussed are, as of now, possibilities only. 

Even if one is willing to accept the nothing is lost argument at its tightest - an innocent life lost for an innocent life saved - do we really want to stretch the argument to say that the "benefit" side of the equation is satisfied by something that may (or may not) improve (rather than save) the lives of some in the future.

Susan