I personally can see and understand both sides of the argument. One side, the pro lifers, look at it as killing a baby, murdering a human life, killing a soul before it has a chance at life. The other side say it is not a life yet, it's unwanted, why waste it when so much good can come from it. The religious nuts are against it, the science nuts are for it....... I hate to say it but religion is like a moral compass or a moral stop gap to science. Without them, scientists would go absolutely morally nuts creating all sorts of weird abominations.......because they can.
I am glad to see religion doing this because this question can be a moral hell hole. I am also glad to see the religious checks and balances looking at this closely because without them, I would hate to see what scientific frankensteins they could create.
On saying all that I think that cloning and harvesting foetuses would be the least objectional way to do it. I think that religion doesn't accept that a clone has a soul, and therefore they can't use that as an argument. Also using aborted foetuses would be the same as using eyes, lungs, heart etc, for transplants, as long as the mother gives consent.
I thought it was law that you can refuse treatment in hospitals.