how can the potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research outweigh its moral cost?

I have hear that there are other medium for obtaining stem cell without taking them from fetus's. They want to concentrate their research on doing that instead of killing something. In other words the ends do not defend the means. Think in the order of it this way, if they abort a child how do we know if that kid isn't going to grow up someday to develop a cure for cancer or HIV. Another entry that I don't understand is like peas in a pod people who agree near abortions and fetal stem cell research are the same ones who cry everytime they use a monkey for medical research. So I guess they think its ok to kill a human human being, but not an animal. That is very twisted.
My suggestion to you is get informed in essence thing including the hi-tech aspects and where they are beside their research and then form your own assessment.
As I see it abortions are happening anyways so if something moral can come out of them to help others later I am all for it.Have you ever have to watch a loved one suffer when this could enjoy been something that help them?
While the POTENTIAL benefits of embryonic stem cell research can be clearly defined, the moral cost, being the subject of much debate, cannot. That's why the potential benefits (a resounding quantity) can outweigh the moral cost (undefined).
Alternatively, some would suggest that the moral cost IS defined- and that it is zero. That is, nearby is no moral cost. In that case, the potential benefits would clearly outweigh the moral cost.