If it's immoral to remove an embryo, then all cancers are also sacred.

If new cells (cancer) are created because of a mutation (which is out of our control) then those are equally sacred, and cannot be touched. Add in anything else that surgeons can remove: bad valves, imperfect anatomy, failing organs, in-grown toenails, the list is endless.

In every hospital in the world, in any moment, people are having their "god-given" cells re-arranged and/or removed by modern medicine.

Why is it that when a man chooses to deposit HIS cells into a woman, they're suddenly "SACRED"????

If they're so bleating SACRED, then he should have kept them TO HIMSELF!!!!

Nothing special about an embryo, nothing sacred either. A woman has the last say about whether it stays in her body or not.

The only reason this is an issue is to get a number of people who are one issue voters to get this point put forth without realizing the price paid. What else goes with this line of thought? Women's rights, health care, giving up the rights to good health insurance, putting people who will vote against the other things you think matter. Waste chemicals in rivers that use the water for drinking, drilling for oil in places where there is no way to capture any spills, put radioactive material into the environment, making the debt rise with no means to pay it back without taking away SSI, Medicare, Medicade, programs that help the poor. The last time they tried something it cost 40,000,000 homeless to be made, have many jobs that are minimum wage.

It is not sacred because we are not sacred.

Human embryos are animal embryos, no different. Man as god is Ego.

In my opinion, it is something special but nothing is scared.
Theist jump through a lot of hoops to justify their beliefs.

Is no too simply of an answer?.........

the justification is easy as silk. "God called them home". when your fantasy includes a being who can do no wrong, then even obvious wrongs become right when it does them.

genocide is wrong, but the flood was right. War is wrong, but the destruction of Jericho was right.

no problems.

not a believer, just saying, they can justify anything in that story, anything at all.

Maybe if people realized all embryos are genetically related. What each becomes and what sexes it is are all determined by evolution/natural selection.

Once we get over the god thing, we'll look at procreation and evolution as we should. Life is to be respected. The embryo comes second to the woman bearing it. And if it's in a dish/tank it's just an experiment. Brains are just part of evolution, not some ethereal super-space.

It's a bundle of cells. Human infants are among the most helpless in the animal kingdom. I think if the fetus cannot reasonably survive outside the womb, it's not a person-should not be accorded human rights. When this is precisely, I am not educared ebough to say, but I can say without a doubt, an embryo is not "sacred" to me. Then again, I don't believe in inherently sacred things. To me this smacks of superstitious nonsense.

No its not sacred!

Any Embryo is simply just that, it is collection of cells with an as yet indeterminate purpose awaiting the effect/s of hormones to " kick-start" the processes that will determine what it will, hopefully, eventually become.
To ask if something is " sacred, " in my opinion, implies that it should be considered as a " Loan" or " Gift" from some Supremely Higher Entity BUT it is not and never has been, there are only the Forces of the Natural Universe and the effects they can have or not have that determine what will be and what will NOT be, nothing more, nothing less.
A womans body is HER own property, what happens within that body as in pregnancy, etc, is HERS and HERS alone to determine and NO-ONE elses what-so-ever just as is the body of a man as well.
Unfortunately, the only thing we have NO control over body-wise are diseases, injury and death, BUT in the case of OUR own death WE should have the choice to chose how, when and why we die and it NOT be determined by some Arcane, Arcaic Superstitions and belief system imposed upon us.

It has no experiences, no memory, and can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester. Its potential parents will feel pain if there is a miscarriage. Sacred though? How can any atheist or agnostic say that it is? Any theist that says it's sacred is just guessing. If life is so sacred then why does nature shit on it so much?

It and I say it intentionally, is simply a function of biology. There is no magical properties and I apologize to those that can not conceive as it may feel differently to them.
It is no more a human that the seed that has yet to sprout and become a tree.

It is only as important as the 2 people that created it feel it is

Potential human life is nothing. There is nothing to protect - end of story. Bazillions of "what ifs" since the beginning of humanity means that potential human life is wiped out and wiped in with millions of direct and indirect decisions each second of each day. In fact, often one potential human life is not compatible with another (the case of an embryo lost for any reason only to be replaced in a uterus a month later, etc). A clump of human cells with "potential" really is nothing but that.

The next question is when does life begin and at what point (or maybe at no point) does the state have the right to prioritize one over another's? I'm not touching that one today.

Not in my opinion, but in the opinion of many others yes.

Is the human embryo sacred or something special ?

NO

The collision arises first with the assumption that a collection of cells is more than that. This would need to be demonstrated. Until that demonstration we should treat it as it is.
I think if you have to introduce a supernatural explanation to your argument you have already lost on a rational level. Is an collection of cells sacred? No. Or you would have to concede that a sperm cell can also be sacred and somehow nobody (that I'm aware of) seems to want to make this argument.
Is an embryo special? Yes, everything is special, so no, nothing is special. What does special even mean?
The moral status of an embryo depends on your morality. For me, moral consideration starts with consciousness. How you want to define that is another rabbit hole you might want to go down, but there is a point where an embryo is definitely not conscious and a point where it is definitely conscious. Somewhere in between is good enough for me, for now.

Professor Wyatt is thinking that we are our bodies, and that is getting him in trouble, off on an irrational course IMO. No human body or any organism is worth much because bodies are manufactured at more than a sufficient rate. Sure, embryos are sacred, but everything is sacred. Human bodies belong to the natural world and are subject to nature’s laws. Every acorn does not become an oak tree—there’s not enough room.

IMO Conscious Awareness desires a river of organisms with which to interact, but the fate of a single organism is of little concern—organisms are temporary by design. They are also nothing but robots, finely made but unaware and without free will, a sense of beauty, or love.

Embryos are under the total control of the manufacturer until such time as conscious awareness takes possession of the product. After that she has no say.

No life is sacred. It simply exists or is.