After watching Josh Bolten's performance on Meet the Press this morning, I find myself wondering, not for the first time: what principled justifications exist for the president's current set of positions on embryonic stem cell research? If destroying embryonic stem cells is murder (to paraphrase Tony Snow), how are we morally permitted or justified to use the products of murder in scientific research, regardless of who committed the murder and when? If it is murder, why is it morally permissible to allow private researchers to commit and use the results of additional murders? As far as I could tell, Bolten's only real answer to these questions was that this was where the president had chosen to strike a balance. Why he chooses to strike the balance here in particular went unanswered. Similarly unanswered was the question of why the president feels that his policy on stem cells must take the feelings of much of the American people on stem cell research into account, but does not feel that way about abortion.

If anybody wants to suggest principled reasons for the president's position, I'd be very interested.