I did provide sources. I gave you two links to articles that explained that adult stem cells are doing what they are intended, which is far more than embryonic stem cells can say.
I am not wrong because I mentioned they are easy to harvest and plentiful. However, this, to me, does not outweigh the negative aspects of using embryonic stem cells. I am not understanding this "embryonic stem cells are necessary" bit. So far, that does not seem to be the case. There are quite a few tissues that adult stem cells research has not covered yet, but it would make more sense to me to invest more time in researching these than researching the whole of embryonic stem cells. For the 23094824902th time, they have yet to work while adult stem cells have. It's wiser to spend time researching the one that works, especially if it avoids a moral boundary. I understand you are not against this kind of research but try to put yourself in the shoes of those who are. If those who are against it consider it murder or otherwise unethical then you can imagine the kind of stress it will put these people through, which can be avoided completely with adult stem cells. I've noticed a terrible habit of people not caring about the other side's feelings; as long as it suits the individual, then it is okay. That's really not a great way to look at things.
Adult stem cells can also be grown in labs. They may not grow as quickly, but this is beneficial. The rapid growth of embryonic stem cells is what likely leads to tumours. As for the mice, it's already been shown that it's an isolated success that won't occur in human beings, so that "success" doesn't count, considering I'm talking about human growth. Adult stem cells don't have to just be from the patient that is being treated, though foreign stem cells have the potential to be rejected by said patient.
I'm pretty sure I already covered the fact that embryonic stem cells are easier to work with/harvest in my first reply, but I also explained why that doesn't really matter in the long run. I feel like you're being unreceptive to what I am trying to say, otherwise you likely would not have repeated what I have been saying.
I still don't think any of those things justify the research more than the detrimental effects detract from it. I'm weighing the pros and the cons and I still reach the same conclusion, both scientifically and ethically. Now, if embryonic stem cells weren't shown to fail on almost every count - and then some - then I could look past the ethical attribute to it and agree that it is wise to research both adult and embryonic stem cells. But that isn't the case, so I don't support it.
Edit: I just checked your source and noticed that it also provides plenty of arguments against embryonic stem cells as well, so we're just back to square one.
Re: I see a lot of extraordinary claims and not a lot of extraordinary evidence
I am not wrong because I mentioned they are easy to harvest and plentiful. However, this, to me, does not outweigh the negative aspects of using embryonic stem cells.
I am not understanding this "embryonic stem cells are necessary" bit. So far, that does not seem to be the case. There are quite a few tissues that adult stem cells research has not covered yet, but it would make more sense to me to invest more time in researching these than researching the whole of embryonic stem cells. For the 23094824902th time, they have yet to work while adult stem cells have. It's wiser to spend time researching the one that works, especially if it avoids a moral boundary. I understand you are not against this kind of research but try to put yourself in the shoes of those who are. If those who are against it consider it murder or otherwise unethical then you can imagine the kind of stress it will put these people through, which can be avoided completely with adult stem cells. I've noticed a terrible habit of people not caring about the other side's feelings; as long as it suits the individual, then it is okay. That's really not a great way to look at things.
Adult stem cells can also be grown in labs. They may not grow as quickly, but this is beneficial. The rapid growth of embryonic stem cells is what likely leads to tumours. As for the mice, it's already been shown that it's an isolated success that won't occur in human beings, so that "success" doesn't count, considering I'm talking about human growth.
Adult stem cells don't have to just be from the patient that is being treated, though foreign stem cells have the potential to be rejected by said patient.
I'm pretty sure I already covered the fact that embryonic stem cells are easier to work with/harvest in my first reply, but I also explained why that doesn't really matter in the long run. I feel like you're being unreceptive to what I am trying to say, otherwise you likely would not have repeated what I have been saying.
I still don't think any of those things justify the research more than the detrimental effects detract from it. I'm weighing the pros and the cons and I still reach the same conclusion, both scientifically and ethically. Now, if embryonic stem cells weren't shown to fail on almost every count - and then some - then I could look past the ethical attribute to it and agree that it is wise to research both adult and embryonic stem cells. But that isn't the case, so I don't support it.
Edit: I just checked your source and noticed that it also provides plenty of arguments against embryonic stem cells as well, so we're just back to square one.