Update : An unlikely tie-in via Instapundit and TCS. Habemus Papam...Ad Perpetuitatem?

(First a not-so-bold prediction)

Cloning will replace the abortion debate inside of a decade.

Don’t believe me? You can already see career politicians shrewdly framing their positions on cloning, genetic engineering, and transhumanism in general. Some of these folks are motivated by genuine representation of their constituency (Feinstein), others through a canny grasp of  political futures(Graham), and others through a mix of self-interest and the aforementioned factors (Specter).

Cloning and transhumanism are even pervading popular culture in a manner more realistic than in any previous era. Glenn Reynolds has been leading the blogosphere in this are for quite some time and his position largely reflects my own personal conundrum. I am by most accounts a conservative (fiscally) (even a right-wing lunatic according to a few here at JU) and a traditionalist (culturally) but I am also a supporter of genetic research, cloning, and stem cell research. This likely stems from my secular nature and it sets me at odds against many of my erstwhile ideological brethren in much the same manner that the Schiavo case did for much of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 Now I don’t know the precisely gerrymandered boundaries of this particular philosophical district but I would be willing to wager that it nearly mirrors the South Park Conservative phenomenon. I simply find it difficult to embrace Luddism on this issue. Since I am not religious I find few compelling arguments for enforcing ignorance of this branch of science (as if that were even feasible).

Do you have any? If you do I suggest framing them soon since th debate will only grow more intense and the stakes will only go higher.

(Feel free to voice religious abjections if you want but keep in mind that they are quite unlikely to sway anyone who isn’t already a convert so voicing them will bring little new support your side of the argument.)