Honestly, the bottom half of your own article makes note of almost everything I explained to you. Tada!
I'm sorry, but the bottom half of the article does not contradict the top half, it merely lists some of the arguments against embryonic stem cell research. They are, with the exception of two, ethical objections. The other two? They acknowledge the time and labor that will be involved. You don't actually consider that a reason to not do the research, do you?
And your "sources" are suspect. You realize that posting a link to a website that discusses the issue is not the same as providing a source, right? A hyperlink is not necessarily a source. Citizenlink.org is a Focus On the Family affiliate and its "source", Wesley J. Smith, is from the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute). It provides no link to the quote in question and you're kidding if you expect me to take their word at face value. I have a difficult enough time doing that when it's coming from a source I trust.
There's nothing wrong with medicalnewstoday.com, but I don't know why you're offering it as a "source" for any of your disputed claims. I don't deny the advances made in adult stem cell research.
And the Wiki article. Um. Thanks, but I already know what adult stem cells are. You've got to provide something to back up these claims. Copy-pasting random links that relate to the topic in general is not the same as actually providing sources for your specific claims.
Claims like: "I could go on about how researchers are finding ways to make adult stem cells just as flexible as embryonic stem cells and how embryonic stem cells are relatively less controllable than adult stem cells"
Please do "go on" and bring some sources to back it up while you're at it.
And here you are arguing that I'm unwilling to listen. Quite the opposite, I'm asking you to provide sources regarding specific claims that you've made and you're providing bupkis. I am trying very hard to "acknowledge the other side", but you've got to bring something to the table other than anecdotes and sourceless links to Right-Wing websites. I'm trying to understand, my ears are wide open, so why aren't you fulfilling your end of the bargain and backing up your argument with some compelling evidence?
But let's make this as simple as possible. Forget all of the issues I've raised so far, just provide some evidence to support the assertion that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and more, without any of the problems I mentioned. Please address the specific benefits that I listed (like damage to the genes, plasticity, and ease of production) and please have your link be from a trustworthy source (i.e. professionals with expertise in the area of stem cell research, not Focus on the Family).
no subject
I'm sorry, but the bottom half of the article does not contradict the top half, it merely lists some of the arguments against embryonic stem cell research. They are, with the exception of two, ethical objections. The other two? They acknowledge the time and labor that will be involved. You don't actually consider that a reason to not do the research, do you?
And your "sources" are suspect. You realize that posting a link to a website that discusses the issue is not the same as providing a source, right? A hyperlink is not necessarily a source. Citizenlink.org is a Focus On the Family affiliate and its "source", Wesley J. Smith, is from the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute). It provides no link to the quote in question and you're kidding if you expect me to take their word at face value. I have a difficult enough time doing that when it's coming from a source I trust.
There's nothing wrong with medicalnewstoday.com, but I don't know why you're offering it as a "source" for any of your disputed claims. I don't deny the advances made in adult stem cell research.
And the Wiki article. Um. Thanks, but I already know what adult stem cells are. You've got to provide something to back up these claims. Copy-pasting random links that relate to the topic in general is not the same as actually providing sources for your specific claims.
Claims like: "I could go on about how researchers are finding ways to make adult stem cells just as flexible as embryonic stem cells and how embryonic stem cells are relatively less controllable than adult stem cells"
Please do "go on" and bring some sources to back it up while you're at it.
And here you are arguing that I'm unwilling to listen. Quite the opposite, I'm asking you to provide sources regarding specific claims that you've made and you're providing bupkis. I am trying very hard to "acknowledge the other side", but you've got to bring something to the table other than anecdotes and sourceless links to Right-Wing websites. I'm trying to understand, my ears are wide open, so why aren't you fulfilling your end of the bargain and backing up your argument with some compelling evidence?
But let's make this as simple as possible. Forget all of the issues I've raised so far, just provide some evidence to support the assertion that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and more, without any of the problems I mentioned. Please address the specific benefits that I listed (like damage to the genes, plasticity, and ease of production) and please have your link be from a trustworthy source (i.e. professionals with expertise in the area of stem cell research, not Focus on the Family).