Defusing the "pro-life opposition?"

There's a strange comment from the Instapundit this morning. The latest stem cell news, as reported in the Washington Post this morning is about the likelihood of being able to generate "embryonic stem cells" without actually destroying embryos.

the gathering consensus among biologists is that embryonic stem cells are made, not born -- and that embryos are not an essential ingredient.

In response to this, Reynolds said "This would defuse the pro-life opposition." Well, yeah, it would, since it's the destruction of embryos that the "pro-life opposition" is actually opposing. His comment makes it sound like people oppose the stem-cell research itself, as opposed to just the means by which the cells are gathered. It's like thinking that what the abolitionists were opposed to was cotton farming. "Hey, if we just free the slaves, that'll defuse the abolitionist opposition." Are there some people opposed to medical research because they're luddites? Certainly. But the vast majority of the opposition to "embryonic stem-cell research" isn't opposition to "embryonic stem-cell research" - it's opposition to destruction of human embryos. Period. There's no principled pro-life case against embryonic stem cell research if embryos aren't being destroyed.