Yes, it does make a difference, centrosome or centromere. But, even the idea that the centrosome is provided by the sperm is controversial. Human oocytes have centrioles, just like every other cell, and not everybody agrees that they are there just "for the looks". If I have time, I'll dig out some references later on. But for now, somebody else in this thread put it really good: if you are creating a handicapped embryo, that still does not give you the right to destroy it (or make sure it self-destroys).
You and I can disagree on whether this process is cloning (it's just a matter of semantics) and on whether or not the embryo formed is a human being (if it wasn't human, there would be no interest in using it to "treat" human diseases), but you have to agree with one thing: in case of doubt you ought to give it the benefit of the doubt, maybe it is a human embryo, maybe it has the inalienable right to life (given to him by his Creator, not by a researcher). So you are most likely killing a human being, for what? Nothing! That's the sad part of this discussion. Like I said before, there hasn't been a single cure using embryonic stem cells, while adult stem cells are already helping people. So, I have to wonder why the obsession with using embryos, what is your real agenda.
I do believe that the parthenogenetic human embryo is a human being and we agree on the ethics of destructive embryonic research.
Take a look at my posts, especially number 6 and 13, again. (I said, “However, if it looks like an embryo and makes cells that act like embryonic cells, it’s an embryo.” And, “The only benefit to this research is publicity value and the doubt that is created by noting how un-natural the process is. This is not the time to create new ethics - old ethics works. If you’re not sure whether or not there’s an embryo, don’t do it, if you are sure, certainly don’t do it.”)
Those are pretty good references that I posted on the contribution of the sperm to the embryo. (I use the NCBI website, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ )
From that first abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16467269&dopt=Abstract
“The proximal centrosome adjacent to the sperm nucleus may become the center of the sperm aster that brings the male and female pronuclei to the center of the zygote, but it may not be essential for embryonic development per se.”
The article is not describing cloning or SCNT: there’s nothing inserted in the oocyte (I hate the term, “unfertilized egg.” It’s redundant - after fertilization, there’s no egg!
From O’Rahilly (Human Embryology and Teratology, Third Ed., 2001, p.34)on parthenogenesis:
“Parthenogenesis is the production of an embryo, with or without later development into an adult, from either a female or male gamete in the absence of any contribution from the gamete of the opposite sex. . . It is believed that parthenogenetic activation and development may be relatively common in the human. However, the probability of abortion of a parthenogenetic embryo is very high because of poor development of the extra-embryonic tissues, for which the male genome is mainly responsible.”