These were not embryonic stem cells. This issue has typically been muddied to cause this confusion. They were adult stem cells. The reason to be against the use of embryonic stem cells is because they involve the death of the embryo, and contrary to popular opinion, any first-year textbook on embryology will inform you that an embryo is a human being.
What therapies have embryonic stem cells given us?,And what expectation is there for embryonic stem cells to be used in therapies? None. What therapies have adult stem cells given us? Well, it has made people with spinal injuries walk, for starters. Do a google search for: "Adult Stem Cell Grafts Help Paralyzed" for an example. If Christopher Reeve was alive today, he would have egg on his face for supporting embryonic stem cell research.
Now, with induced pluripotent stem cells being produced in vast numbers safely - just do a google search for "Scripps ipsc" - what is the point of any embryonic stem cell research? IPSCs can be generated quicker, cheaper, and by less-experienced personal (including medical doctors themselves). It has the one feature of embryonic stem cells for which they are prized - pluripotency - without the problems of embryonic stem cells - lack of sufficient genetic relationship to a patient (even with cloning, you don't get that). There is no therapeutic requirement for embryonic stem cells - and never was, by the way, as said by even James Thompson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cell research. There is no research requirement anymore with IPSCs.
So, I rephrase your question ... is there any reason to be for embryonic stem cells? I can think of a possible reason ... it gives drug companies a source that they can control. I am sure it is just a co-incidence that drug companies are spending billions on trying to influence political candidates to support embryonic stem cell research.