As for equating embryonic stem cell research with abortion, the comparison is apt. You define abortion as “the purposeful destruction of an embryo.” You also state that “stem cell research is…the creation of embryos and/or embryonic stem cells.” To be completely correct, stem cell research that does not use existing stem cell lines create and destroy embryos by definition. So if in stem cell research we’re creating embryos, and we’re destroying them on purpose to perform research, we have met your definition of abortion.

I’m in the process of writing a post regarding the definition of human life and I’ll state my views more clearly there.

I have to agree, however, that too many people who are pro-life are pro-death penalty. In theory, the death penalty can be a just punishment for heinous crimes, but as carried out in the United States, with the biases (especially racial and economic) inherent within the system, it is abhorrent to continue it. But that’s a discussion for another day.

I can’t get to your embryonic stem cells cause cancer link. But for what it’s worth, it appears that the idea that badly controlled stem cell therapy of any kind could result in cancer - though you might be correct that embryonic stem cells are more likely to grow uncontrollably. In fact, this, as far as I can tell/have read is the primary reason embryonic stem cells are interesting, medically - they have the potential to divide for a year or more, whereas adult cells “can’t self-renew for more than a couple of weeks (same source as above).” Yielding hundreds of pluripotent genetically identical stem cells would obviously speed research faster than a few adult stem cells.

Amendment 10, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The language in the proposed Amendment is simply restating the obvious. Bad form, possibly, but not implying or inviting anything other than the fact that if the Federal Government legislates something, the states have to comply. Furthermore, the idea that this Amendment could never be repealed is specious.

Equating stem cell research with abortion is preposterous - abortion is the purposeful destruction of an embryo (or worse, a fetus). As you’ve mentioned, stem cell research is cloning - the creation of embryos and/or embryonic cells. Moreover, the elective abortions that are so generally opposed often terminate a viable pregnancy, whereas embryonic stem cell research often uses embryos that (would) have been consigned to the freezer or the “biological waste” can. Would you rather that continue to be the case, or should those embryos help further the research for cures to disease?

Next, the nits: an embryo is not inherently a genetically unique organism (identical twins, other corner cases), and “An embryo is … capable of developing into a human being” implies that it is not yet human.

Finally, finally. What everyone is waiting for - and what I mentioned in my out of order post re: Michael J Fox. The real debate. And the really unanswerable questions. What is a human? Does humanity require a soul? One interesting argument I heard relies on the power of God - is it not possible that He decides, or decided, which embryos grow to be human and which embryos grow towards a cure to some debilitating disease?

For relevance and interesting stages, consider:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/1.html

The only problem with throwing our hands up and saying, we don’t know when a person becomes a person is that questions about abortion and embryonic stem cell research are very hard to answer (well, we would also have much less to argue about). For my part, I don’t believe the joining of two cells, whether sperm and egg or nucleus inserted into another cell, immediately results in a human life. As you said, the potential is there, but it is only potential.

I’ve tried for about two hours to write things along the lines of, “Considering the development as outlined in the link above, I’d have to say the earliest sign of any kind of development is the time 13 days post-ovulation as the embryo first begins to shape itself,” but I just don’t think humanity is well-definable. Which does create a problem when advocating stem cell research. Mightn’t it be reasonable to hold that which is easily labelled human life above that which might become human life?

On a nearly related note, I wonder whether pro-life (abortion or stem cell issues) stances extend, in general, to the death penalty.

Regardless, excellent post and a good discussion starter. Obviously.