When you see an op-ed called, "A Middle Ground For Stem Cells," it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to assume that what follows will be an attempt to find a middle ground in the debate over stem cell research.  Well, you know what happens when you assume.  

Among the many clues that the author of this piece might be slightly to the right of Randall Terry, is this description of an embryo that could be used for research:

That embryo is human, and it is alive; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later surrounded by children and grandchildren.

You can almost hear future generations crying out, "Don't kill Grandma!"  

Maintaining his version of the middle ground, the author describes stem cell research as "embryo-destructive."  He says that advocates of federally funded research shouldn't judge a human life because of size or because they don't look like us, adding, "surely America has learned the hard way not to assign human worth by appearances." Trotting out the Declaration of Independence, common humanity and inalienable rights in arguing his "moral case," the author says:

President Bush’s stem cell policy seeks to meet that challenge. It encourages scientists to pursue the cells they seek without destroying life.

But whenever George Bush, or anyone speaking in his defense makes this claim, it's time to ask them to answer the questions posed by Senator Tom Harkin last year on the floor of the Senate:

So I ask, if using discarded embryos to extract stem cells is murder, isn't it then immoral to allow federal research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells as the current administration's policy permits?  Murder is murder, Mr. President.  [...]

And if it's really murder...why isn't the President using his authority, his moral authority, to shut down all the in-vitro fertilization clinics in America?  By his definition of murder, these clinics are institutions of mass murder.

Perhaps the author could address those questions the next time he waxes poetic about protecting our "highest ideals."

And by the way, the most obvious clue as to the author's agenda comes in the blurb at the end of the op-ed:

Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a former executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

Mr. Levin would have a long way to go to find the middle ground.