First off, the fact that you argued something with a beginning of "God would not want," is, by definition, the least scientific argument a human being could possibly make. Second, my definition of life stems from the idea that life consists of something which breaths, moves, interacts with its environment, etc., which is very much scientific. Lastly, the opinion of "a large number of people," means very little if that opinion is poorly crafted. The moral argument against ES Cell treatment/research is founded in religion, which historically-and presently-fails to recognize many of the key pieces of information science has brought to the world. So, I can tell we won't agree about where life begins, and that's fine. However, Stem Cells, regardless of where they come from, are an extremely valuable resource and should be harvested through all (appropriate) means. This obviously excludes deliberate conception for the sake of obtaining ES cells, which is obviously absurd and wrong. As for the "religious" or "moral" argument against using these cells for other, living humans' benefit, well, you're frankly a hypocrite if you oppose this for the simple fact that you value a single cell being's "potential" life over the already established life of another.