Clarification is needed: did the court find in favor of the plaintiffs, or did it simply rule against a motion to dismiss thus allowing the case to go to trial?

Now just so we're all clear on what exactly an embryo is, the dictionary definition for a human embryo is "the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." A plain ole fertilized egg is a zygote. An embryo is the next step, and then after the eighth week of pregnancy you have a fetus.

As for stem cells, they don't just come from embryos. They can be harvested from blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cords discarded after childbirth. I highly doubt anyone has any moral objection to any of these forms of stem cell treatments.

Embryonic stem cells are a political issue because they got tied up in abortions. I look at it this way though, the only logical reason to disagree with the harvesting of embryonic stem cells is that this activity provides some kind of justification for the continued legality of abortion. Abortions are legal, and embryonic stem cells are harvested as a result of this legal activity. Abortions are not performed for the sake of harvesting stem cells, they are performed for the sake of aborting a fetus. As long as abortion is legal in some way, shape or form, there will be aborted fetuses from which to harvest embryonic stem cells. Plain and simple, embryonic stem cells are a result of abortions, not a justification for them.

But we're dealing with morals here, and no one ever accused the human race of being logical, especially when it comes to morals.