Ö÷²¥´óÐã

One of the keys in Brown's statement is "The scientists I speak to" - he is only speaking to scientists who support this sort of work, most of whom are not even misguided in thinking they will do some good, but are in it for the research itslelf - like Nazi doctors research on twins.

Secondly, Brown wants Britain to lead the way on this cos he thinks there will be money and jobs in it.

It is the worst sort of "ends justify the means" morality.

Howabout we introduce legislation allowing fatal research on existing sufferers of cystic fibrosis - think of the future sufferers who could be cured.

We shouldn't be playing god here, this sort of research is totally immoral and could have devastating consequences in terms of what is classed as human life, let's live as long as nature intended and use the money that is being spent on this sort of arcane research to improve the lives of those less fortunate than us in other ways

What nonsense. What is demeaning to humanity is the ridiculous insistence that what we value as "human life" extends to an embryo that does not have a brain.

This is ethical research, carried out by ethical people, and is already giving us fundamental insights into human biology.

If the nay-sayers really believed what they say they believe (i.e. that embryos are morally equivalent to babies), they would recognise that the daily loss of millions of fertilised but non-implanted embryos down the pans of the UK is the greatest public health emergency facing our nation.

But they don't. Because the embryo is NOT the same moral entity as a human baby, and they know this. Opposition to ethical embryonic stem cell research is motivated by a different agenda - one that is a pernicious attempt to degrade what is meant by being human.

Helio - millions of adult humans die every day, the same as embryos - that's part of life - some humans get a long life, some day cut off in their thirties, some as children, and some, as you say, at the earliest stages of their existence. Death of part of life. Morality comes in when we chose to cause the death of that human being - and killing another innocent human being to get something we want is immoral.

How odd. Smasher, I take it then that you would consider it moral to refuse to give aid to China or Burma in the wake of their natural disasters? Get over it, chaps - death is part of life?

Yet here we have millions of innocent *human beings* getting flushed down toilets, and you stand idly by?

I suggest you do not *really* believe that embryos are human beings, and your pretence is just a rhetorical stunt to justify a received position.

Tell me - if we developed a wee toilet net that could catch these embryos, could we experiment on them *then*?

Two votes have just been taken. The first, calling for the creation of hybrid embryos to be banned, was easily defeated (336-176). The second, limiting the types of hybrids that could be created, was defeated by a smaller margin.

I'm happy to see scientific research not being restricted. Well done Parliament.

Good news indeed Peter!

Now I wonder...if these measures do indeed bring forth medical breakthroughs will all those people who campaigned and objected to this bill refuse such treatments if they need them?

DD, such breakthroughs take time to come about. By the time they're there, those who objected will have long forgotten and would get angry with you if you reminded them of how they tried to obstruct the progress of our knowledge. They yell their lungs out against it and then stand first in line to use the fruits of what they tried to destroy.

The same thought occurred to me recently when the new 7 sins were announced, including genetic manipulation. Does anyone know of even a single Vatican cardinal who doesn't use insulin (harvested from genetically manipulated e-coli bacteria) on principal grounds?

Three cheers for the House of Commons. Sanity has prevailed over the forces of reaction, ignorance and religious power.

The abortion vote today, however, may be a lot closer. Indeed, it seems there is a chance that the limit could be reduced to 20 weeks.

So the overall outcome could be mixed.

I expect the vote today will be much the same as yesterday. Why would MPs suddenly develop a conscience over-night? and moving things by a few weeks tends to accept the bogus notion of "viability" as a measure of moral worth.

Well Helio, what can I say? You're right. I am just stupid. Somehow I failed to make the connection between people dying in a flood in Burma and research on embryos.

Smasher, that is precisely what I am saying.

Except that I actually believe you DO make a distinction operationally. You DO NOT regard embryos in the same way as you regard people, despite your protestations. Your own innate morality of course trumps the drummed-in religious mantra, but you just haven't recognised the fact that what you say and what you do are different.

That's OK - hypocrisy is part of the human condition, but I would suggest that you re-examine the issues sensibly.

Indeed Peter,

I was thinking of how many Church people rejected the small pox vaccine, reaped the benefits of the germ theory of disease, use pasteurised milk etc...

Though I would love to see how many of them stick to their guns if indeed medical breakthroughs do come about through this research.

Helio, I appreciate you are inarticulate at the best of times, but I cannot follow your point at all.

You suggest I think it would be moral to refuse to send aid to Burma or China because death is part of life. I was distinguishing between natural death and death caused by individuals.

There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) that are natural but that doesn't mean we wouldn't try to stop them happening, through medication or bed rest. But they do happen. I'm not sure what your ridiculous reference to nets and toilets was about.

Smasher, I was simply pointing out that millions of perfectly viable normal embryos die every year in the plumbing of the UK sewers because they pass through the womb (NOT miscarry) without managing to grab on to the endometrium.

These are (according to your rather odd excuse for logic) "human beings", yet you seem happy to write them off and let them die.

Yes, this sounds like a ridiculous argument, but it is PRECISELY what is implied by the frankly nonsensical (and demeaning) assertion that the "human life" of an embryo means the same thing as the "human life" of a baby.

If you can't follow the argument, that's a pity, but accusing me of being inarticulate is a/ a little harsh, and b/ hugely ironic, coming from you.