**Embryos are a dime a dozen, nothing rare about them.**

Every embryo is unique and is therefore by definition, rare.

**Are you trying to ignore the laws of nature?**

There is a cavernous difference between ignoring nature ... and interfering with nature.

“If we could isolate the genes that determine our future appearance and extrapolate that data, we could create a complete image of the adult that is destined to be. Confronted with this image, would we still consider this life unworthy of reaching its full potential?”

From this would a computer file containing someone's DNA sequence be a human if it were possible to create a human from it? Should we make atoms illegal if they can be used to make illegal drugs? Is cutting your hair or blowing your nose akin to murder because of all the potential human beings it destroys? Clearly humanity comes from the interaction with other humans and the world around us. Concepts like humanity and value arise from this interaction, but have no meaning for a cluster of cells, a strand of hair or a computer file.

"Your honour, I did punch my pregnant wife in the abdomen, and this did cause a miscarriage, however; it is legal in this country to create and destroy early life."

The decision to bring a human being into the world is the decision of at least one human. To suggest that legalising stem cell research would result in legalising the killing of an unborn foetus against the mother's will is false.

“We can't CHOOSE the conditions under which we will CHOOSE to value life.”

But people do Chris. You seem to forget that the choice to have or not have a child is a decision of the mother. I would be interested to know why you think one source for a potential human being to be of more value than another?

"Every embryo is unique and is therefore by definition, rare."

Unique embryos are a dime a dozen, so nothing rare about that.

"There is a cavernous difference between ignoring nature ... and interfering with nature."

So are you going to stop producing vaccines etc, which interfere
with nature?

This debate is going to follow the lines of the abortion argument, as pointed out earlier, it all comes down to what you consider a human life.

This subject is so contentious, that the end result isn't considered - indeed, the argument that the end justifies the means is dismissed entirely because the 'means' is perceived by some to be tantamount to murder.

I for one, don't consider an embryo to be a human being - for starters, they're not going to allow them to be implanted into a human being, thus the argument that if left alone they would become people is only valid if there is further assistance along the way.

Unfortunately, similar arguments can be put forth for babies - if left alone without care, they would die.

But as I see it, a baby is a separate entity - it doesn't need a womb, it only needs someone - anyone with the right knowledge - to care for it.

Note here I'm talking about basic survival.

This isn't the case for an embryo.

An embryo can't breath on it's own, it can't hear, see, it hasn't a brain to form thoughts. Even a baby will cry for it's own survival, but an embryo is incapable of doing that.

No doubt a flurry of emotive arguments can be hurled at these statements.
The correct rejoinder to those arguments are those emotive ones involving people suffering from debilitating conditions for whom research gives hope - take Multiple Sclerosis - we don't know what causes it and we have no cure. We really know next to nothing about it at all.

So, to those who wish to disagree, I say very well - but please put forth arguments based on reason.

"I for one, don't consider an embryo to be a human being"

TLTR, I have to agree to disagree here. An embryo is a being,
ie an organism, which can be of human origin. The thing is
that does not make it a person.

So how do we define what is a person? Well the reality
is that we can function with a pigs heart, somebody else's
face, any manner of organ transplants, apart from the brain.

So a person is somebody with a functioning human brain,
which kicks in and functions at around week 25 of pregnancy.

All quite simple, no functioning human brain means no person.

Doctors and medical researchers used to have to obtain dead bodies by illegal means to carry out essential life-saving research.

Jehovah's Witnesses disapprove of blood transfusions.

The orthodox Muslim view seems to be that organ transplants are against the will of Allah:

"Is organ donation permissible?
Answered by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, Darul Iftaa (Leicester, UK)"

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/hh/organ-transplant.html

Lots of opinions, depending upon one's religious/philosophical/spiritual/humanist and whatever else views.

I realise this is a bit different, but I was a blood donor for many years and I am a [total] organ donor. If I was unfortunate enough to die in a plane crash in an inhospitable, isolated area, then the survivors would be welcome to eat my body in order to stay alive. After all, just like my organs, my human body is of no further use to me after I'm dead, is it?

I've never been a sperm donor, but had an apparent need arisen, then I would have been happy to oblige. Free of charge, of course, like my other sundry contributions, real or possibly in the future, to people who have a need.

I see embryonic stem cell research as similar in concept. Just because the possible ensuing benefits to the health of incurably sick people have not yet been adequately proven [as far as I am aware], that doesn't mean that these benefits cannot be forthcoming. I believe that there's a very good chance that human suffering will be relieved by this research, so let's go for it.

As others have said, we need to address the pain and suffering of those who are actually experiencing it now, rather than become philosophical about some early stage of pre-life which is never going to be able to progress to the next stage anyway