Nickhere...It would require another 9 paragraphs to reply adequately. But look at the embedded assumptions in your post:

"It is based on the empirically-backed view that the embryo is a human being. It is also based on the sanctity of human life."

That 'empirically backed' view is hotly debated and variously understood! What do you SAY to someone who argues that a human being is something that can live OUTSIDE the womb? What makes a zygote suddenly become a 'human'? Most who accept your view are saying that at the moment of conception, a 'soul' enters the zygote...and off we go again. Even the linguistic construction "sanctity of human life" implies something metaphysical...otherwise, why use it? Do penguins have 'sanctity'? Or goldfish? Do they have 'souls'? Why not? Where do souls come from? Is God sitting 'up there' with a holy assembly line? When there were only 1,000,000 humans, were there 6 billion extra souls waiting? Are souls recycled? If reincarnation is possible, do we get a new one each round?
*sigh*...no, you are not expected to actually answer such questions...they are just examples of the awkward implications of accepting certain premises.

You say "The 'set of instructions' are designed for our own good... " but this [being designed]is what is being debated! Did some Supreme Being say so, or did we just work out for ourselves that some rules are a good idea? Kant says the latter...but there is a HUGE difference between a moral imperative that is required by a deity and one that is suggested as a pragmatic way of behaving.
At what point in our evolutionary development did bashing someone over the head to get a meal or a mate suddenly become 'forbidden morally' instead of just dangerous?

We have created many, many sets of religiously based 'moral standards' over 15,000 or so years...some of which oppose any form of killing others, but most of which allow certain types of killing, and some of which directly encourage killing in certain circumstances....mostly to protect the religious beliefs on which the rule is based. Talk about circular reasoning! Sorry, but it all looks like rationalized self-interest to me.

My overall, basic point is that 'most' of us skeptics get where we are by seeing these questions and confronting the implications and refusing to adhere to a system that has no plausible¹ answers.....while 'most' members of religious groups stay where they are by not seriously confronting awkward questions, and when necessary, saying something like, "well, it certainly is confusing, but it is God's will and we can't hope to understand why He does many things".

Not only ain't it easy, it ain't likely to GET much easier when we seem just to be wired to take one path or another.


¹..plausible- meaning answers that do not just lead in circles to more questions.