I'm not exactly sure why but last night, in a fit of mild insanity, I challenged the VodkaPundit on his sorta-hysterical rumination on what will happen if the US bans embryonic stem cell research. The fun continues in the comment thread this morning.
Summing up my opinions on the matter: there are so many sources of stem cells now that refusing to create nascent human life for the sole purpose of destroying it should be a no-brainer. I don't consider this opinion to be based solely on my religious beliefs.
In the course of writing my replies, I found all sorts of nifty papers and information over on the NIH Stem Cell site.
Stephen's post was inspired by the events on the President's Bioethics Council, with Leon Kass stepping down and Edmund Pellegrino stepping up. Pellegrino is opposed to all embryonic stem cell research, and supports a ban. Needless to say, this is causing much gnashing of teeth among those who share Stephen's views.
Via Instapundit, this discussion on Hit and Run is, I think, pretty typical. I give major props to commenter Dave W, though, who hits the nail on the head: The US has already had one Civil War over bioethical issues. In that war, as you will recall, the bioethics side beat the property side. Needless to say, countless people jump all over him for his interpretation, but in essence, he's right.