Ethics and morals vary from person to person. If individuals wish to abolish ESCR, they should formulate a argument grounded in facts, not emotion or the Bible, if they wish to be taken seriously.I have to ask then, is any argument that rests on a moral or ethical objection an illegitimate argument?
There's no reason why we cannot use all of the resources we have in our quest to eliminate illness in already living beings.There are now alternatives to destroying embryoes in pursuing ESCR, e.g., cord blood, cell reprogramming, and, as such, we can avoid all of the ethical and moral entanglements that come with destroying embryoes for scientific research.
I consider it illegitimate because you are opposed to ESCR and have yet to explain why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive. Again, what is your reason for opposing ESCR, besides the availability of alternatives?Yes, these are ethical and moral problems that I have with such research. You can disagree and argue that such problems are outweighed by the promise of such research (and it remains only a decades-long promise), but don't simply dismiss it as illegitimate.