i have my suspicions about people who get emotional about the scientific use of embryos. How much is their position based on their religious beliefs?

When does a human embryo become an actual human? At was stage does the developing human embryo becomes as complex as a tadpole?

To define a human all one needs to ask is – “in what ways do I differ from my dog”? From this you can only conclude that you become a human when you think like a human. Attempting to put more into the definition is definitely driven by one’s religious hang-ups.

Well, I am sure this is a totally unbiased research article as it has been written by a pro-life advocate of some years with a record (see previous articles below) of pro-life positions

In answer to the title of this piece, evidently not, especially if they are taken in by the rhetoric surrounding this piece.
The straw argument of the Indian doctor demonstrates that yes, people are conned.

The extension of this argument to a national debate draws a deceptively persuasive link between the conned and the informed in an attempt to paint any who disagree with the author's pro-life stance as misinformed.

A similar tactic could be used by describing a hysterical christian anti-abortionist and opponents of embryo research - though it would of course group a wide variety of people under a single image, an image that many would feel less inclined to listen to.

Rather than attempt to denigrate either side of the debate, I'm going to post some of the opening remarks made by Natasha Stott Despoja during last year's stem cell debate and allow you to make your own conclusions.

"it is important to emphasise that SCNT does not involve sperm or fertilisation or making genetically identical fetuses or making a baby. Implantation of an embryo created through SCNT is illegal and will continue to be prohibited under this bill.”

The article attempts to say that if research is done into embryonic stem cells that this will reduce research into adult stem cells.

A very muddled argument, like saying research into breast cancer will reduce research into lung cancer.

Parliament, the only real arbiter we have on issues like this (although flawed), has made the decision. Sorry Doctor your argument was not successful

What is it that drives this resistance to embryonic cloning. It has no scientific basis whatsoever. The emotional language used to justify the resistance can only be because of ethical considerations, and even with the best will in the world, it cannot be claimed that all people have or even should have the same sets of ethics.

Having said that, let us consider for a moment what drives this opposition. Generally it can be said that it comes from the concept that the origin of life, comes from God. This has already been disproved by the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep, so the next step logically will be the successful cloning of a human being with a baby being born. This will ultimately take place, even though the anti-cloners are doing everything in their power to prevent it, using their ethical claptrap.

Preventing embryonic cloning is completely illogical and merely restricts the chances that some very useful techniques will be discovered.

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint - whether they be pro-life or pro-choice. Unfortunately, too often, this type of ethical debate is conducted by extremists on both sides of the spectrum. Those against embryo experimentation or cloning will often present the most negative arguments that view such "Frankensteinian science" as ushering in a "brave new world" where human dignity and respect for life is completely missing. On the other hand, we see passionate advocates for such research as ushering in a possible panacea for all medical ills including Alzheimer's, Cancers and everything in between. Rational argument and objectivity should reject both as unrealistic. Continued ethical and scientific investigation in a wiser, less-emotive climate is what is needed.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz/index.html