[MHGinTN]

Perhaps waht threw you was the following purposeful onfuscation: “What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism]... The skin cell doesn't turn into the totipotent stem cell, and the writer knew that but chose to make the false statement as an aid in creating fertile ground for his chosen lie about to be supported (supporting a strawman is unusual, but it is still dishonest). The skin cell has the DNA removed, then the DNA of the individual from whom the skin cell came is then injected into the enucleated donor sex cell and zapped, to force cell division of a new individual human life (that's a whole new individual, not just a skin cell in different location).

[MHGinTN]

As to the following, it is a clever way of wording the 'potential' life mischaracterization: "I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained." To save 'could give rise to a person is to have already decided arbitrarily that the embryo from whom stem cells are removed is not deemed worthy of individual living status. There is no equivalency in a skin cell, a stem cell, and an embryo, any more than there is an equivalency in your left kidney and the whole you.