A pragmatic conservative would argue against embryonic stem cell research based on the following reasoning. The adult stem cell research has produced a great deal of successes, while embryonic stem cell research has had little to show. Therefore, we should keep on doing adult stem cell research, and let's not offend the religious zealots by insisting on (useless) embryonic stem cell research. They just don't know how science works. Take a look at the history of automobiles. The first engine driven vehicle was built in 1770, weighed 8000 pounds and had a top speed on 2 miles per hour. This was as useless as one can get in an invention. This thing was so heavy it would crush the road it rides on. The only way to run it was on a rail. Why would anyone try to do research on such a beast, when a horse drawn cart is light, convenient, and many times faster? Indeed, when many attempts were made in England to develop a practical vehicle that didn't need rails, a series of accidents and propaganda from the established railroads caused a flurry of restrictive legislation to be passed. The development of the automobile therefore bypassed England. It is curious that this was just about the time when the leadership in science and technology changed from England to France (and later Germany). A frenchman named Etienne Lenoir patented the first pratical gas engine in Paris in 1860 and drove a car based on the design from Paris to Joinville in 1862. Selectively restricting scientific research based on random political agendas is the surest way to lose your technological edge. Japan, South Korea, and China will happily take the lead away from us.