I Have an Idea:

Let's do scientific research on death-row inmates! After all, they're "slated for destruction" anyway. Why waste all those supple, live organs when we could be advancing the cause of science?

Now, I don't actually believe we should actually use death-row inmates for scientific experimentation. But I don't see how the shape of the argument is any different than the argument of those who claim to believe life begins at conception but who still favor embryonic stem cell research. Take this quote from candidate for the Republican nomination for the Senate in Florida, Bill McCollum, found at NRO:

"I'm not for stem-cell research that takes life," says McCollum. "I also don't think embryos should be created for research purposes. But I do think that fertilized eggs slated for destruction should be available. I don't think that's life. It's not viable. I think that's a pro-life position."

Actually, I think I was unfair to McCollum's position at the start of this post. He doesn't support killing embryos for research purposes. He simply supports doing research on embryos who've already been killed. That's more like mandatory scientific research on the bodies of recently executed prisoners, without their consent. Which is, while still objectionable, less objectionable than doing research on living condemned prisoners.

Of course, McCollum is living in a dream world if he believes that embryonic stem cell research is being done only on embryos who've already been killed for other reasons, rather than on embryos who've been killed specifically for the purpose of doing research on their parts. But he's allowed to have his self-deluding positions, I suppose. Kudos to National Right to Life for endorsing Mel Martinez instead.