Stem cell veto, continued

My last post and the following discussion touched upon whether or not acting to restrict or ban the destruction of embryonic human beings is somehow an abandonment of science and reason for religion. University of Chicago law school professor Geoffrey Stone thinks it is. Joseph Bottum at First Things reveals the poor logic that Stone suggests, and Paul Horwitz (who disagrees with the president's veto) makes the case that 1) Bush did not make religious arguments in his veto statement, and 2) even if he had, while religious arguments may be unwise or unpersuassive, there is nothing illegitimate about them.

Let's engage arguments rather than ignoring them because of supposed motivations.