Ben, York, "Greg - it is not possible to disprove god. That does not mean existence and non-existence are equally probable. "

But nevertheless assuming that the concepto has no soul is presumption. There is no data behind that assumption. 40% of physicists believed in a divine being of some sort in circa 1995, so science is no help here.

"the pope still opposes contraception and the policy kills millions. It is possible for the church to 'decide' if a policy is no longer valid, as with limbo. Why can it not back down for the greater good?"

Limbo was St Thomas Aquinas' theory, not Church policy. The Church made a statement that suggests that limbo is impossible. Contraception contradicts the nature of the act.

"My belief is that it is important to give people any possible benefit from science. Nothing should be banned unless absolutely necessary."

And many religious believe, and may be right, that the concepto may be a person, and so by your rule should be protected.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Ben - the Pope opposes artificial contraception. The Billings method is as effective as the pill and I believe more so than the condom. The Billings method is natural and has the beautiful outcome of deepening and strengthening the union of husband and wife. I read a statistic that amongst Catholics who defy the Church's teaching on artificial contraception the divorce rate is approaching the national average (>30% I believe) whereas those who use natural methods it is about 2%. Limbo has never been an article of faith (ie something that has to be believed by the faithful). It was a supposition of what might happen to the unbaptised soul. Since Christ said that baptism is necessary for salvation we don't know what happens to the infant who dies before the stain of original sin is wiped away in the sacrament of baptism. Pope Benedict has said that we must entrust such a soul to the infinite mercy of Almighty God. I can't see how banning artificial contraception costs millions of lives.

Michael, Farnham Common,

Michael -the pope still opposes contraception and the policy kills millions. It is possible for the church to 'decide' if a policy is no longer valid, as with limbo. Why can it not back down for the greater good?

Greg - it is not possible to disprove god. That does not mean existence and non-existence are equally probable.

Stephen - what is the problem with having a secularist lobby? I'd rather that than a religious lobby.

My belief is that it is important to give people any possible benefit from science. Nothing should be banned unless absolutely necessary.

Ben, York,

Anthony from Alton challenged any Catholic to explain "why the Pope in Rome dictates that people must die of HIV/Aids rather than use a condom." The short answer is that the Pope doesn't want anyone to die from HIV/AIDS. In 1999 the Bishops of South Africa said, “Certain authorities and governments advocate using the condom as a preventative against the spread of AIDS. However, condoms are not always reliable and, if a person persists in sexual promiscuity, he or she will still be at great risk of contracting HIV/AIDS even using a condom. Furthermore, if an attitude of accepting that sex is now safe prevails, then the condom message can increase rather than decrease the incidence of AIDS." Around that time the countries in Africa with the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS also had the highest number of condoms per man per year. The corollary is of course that those countries with fewer condoms per man per year also had a lower incidence of HIV/AIDS. The Pope teaches chastity for our good.

Michael, Farnham Common,

While I agree with most of david's articles, I have to part company with him on this one.

There is a very strong secularist lobby in the Labour Party, I would say that they are very zealous about this and are definitely anti any religion at all. In another time, they would have been called godless. Just because you don't see them demonstrating on the streets, doesn't mean that they are not there - which makes them even more frightening as far as I'm concerned. I would say that they are insidious and probably embedded in the Labour party's culture.

The fact is that there should be more legislation in Parliament that is subject to a free vote. I think that way, we would get more legisalation that reflects the wishes of the people. Party politics, as well as being frankly ugly, is one of the reasons why people are put off politics of all shapes and sizes at the moment.

Stephen Edwards, Wokingham,

Paul, Northampton:"To claim that there is a soul in a petrie dish is irrational. "

Why is that, Paul? Is a soul too big to fit in a single cell? Or have you presumed the non-existence of spiritual realities: a presumption since so far as anyone can tell it is not possible to prove that God does not exist.

"Anyway I believe it was Thomas Aquinas said that male embryos get their souls much earlier than female ones. "

Aquinas had many theories, few of which feature in Catholic Doctrine.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

On the 26th Jan this year Dr Lyle Armstrong of Newcastle University and Chris Shaw (King's College, London) accused Roman Catholic priests of spreading lies about the HFE Bill which was at that time having its first reading in the Lords. The scientists were incensed that the Catholic Bishops were warning that the Bill would allow the production of 'half human, half animal' hybrids by combining ova of women with animal sperm. Dr Armstrong said this idea was particularly distasteful and wished to make it absolutely clear that their work did not involve this. I have three questions:
1. Why does Clause 4 allow such a perversion?
2. Why did the HFEA grant one year licences to Newcastle Uni and Kings' College to produce these true hybrids just two days after the Labour-whipped vote in the Lords approved this clause?
Note that Parliament alone can change the law and the Bill has not yet been debated in the Commons let alone reached the statute book.
3. Vox populi, who are the liars?

Michael, Farnham Common,

It doesn't matter what Thomas Aquinas thought, or what anyone thinks about a "soul". What matters is that scientists wish to use living human embryos in order to carry out experiments that would be far more effectively anyway on adult donor stem stells. If society, as represented (however inadequately) by Parliament thinks this is unethical then it is right to outlaw such research.

RevJohn, Guildford,

To claim that there is a soul in a petrie dish is irrational.


Anyway I believe it was Thomas Aquinas said that male embryos get their souls much earlier than female ones.

Presumably the catholic church will support experiments on early female embryos then?

Paul, Northampton, UK

To Greg Lorriman, from Leatherhead

"Ultimately the argument resolves down to: are we willing to presume that there is no human soul, which is the atheist and pragmatic agnostic position. Or not assume it: the cautious agnostic and religious believers position."

Your beliefs makes you imply that a ghostty force inhabiting a human body exist is the likely basic position. However, until proven evidence of supernatural occurence (of any kind, missing limbs growing back could be a quite decent proof IMO), the likely position is that there isn't more to us than our bodies and that we as a specie have a vivid imagination. Remember we used to think our self was in our "heart" which turned out just to be a blood pump.

And on the subject, a free vote is a good thing as MPs should always be able to vote what they want. The debate must be purge of gross misrepresentations of what the actual Bill will allow to do.

Tom, London,

James, Bristol" a vast number of non-believers are still waiting to see any reliable and testable proof [of God]".

The Bible tells us that we are to persevere in asking and seeking, and then God reveals/proves Himself. You get it direct from the source, not a third party. Real proof, not the pseudo proofs of science and maths. Sit there waiting for proof, if you wish, but why should God give it when you won't even ask?

Planes are flying on the basis of theories, approximations, and trail and error: not proof. Science does not prove. Read up Karl Popper. And most Christians, by the way, are not formal creationists, since most are not biblical literalists: I myself reckon evolution is very compatible with the Adam and Eve story.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Sarah, London, UK: "The 'embryos' in question are certainly not 'conceived', they're produced in the lab by a process similar to cloning, and they result in an early-stage animal embryo modified so it can produce certain human tissues that are useful for research. It's in fact a way to *avoid* using actualy human embyros. "

Actually it is an early stage human embryo: the essential DNA is human: it is only the surrounding material of the egg that is non-human.

In anycase the question resolves down to whether there is a human soul involved: which is not a question for scientists. That counts just as much for cloning as for a more normal conception.

Ultimately the argument resolves down to: are we willing to presume that there is no human soul, which is the atheist and pragmatic agnostic position. Or not assume it: the cautious agnostic and religious believers position.

Presumption is irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

We're condeming the church here, and rightly so, but more needs to be said about the members of cabinet who threatened to resign, Ruth Kelly for instance, linked to the catholic consevative movement opue dei. These people have no right to stay in the cabinate if they choose their obligations to the church over thier obligations to the people/state.
The catholic church was not voted into power.

Steve, Sheffield,

David Leslie"A book that says the earth is at most 8,000 years old, against unproven science that demonstrates the earth to be billions of years old."

Only a small minority of Christians are creationist/biblical-literalists; however anti-religionists use them as straw men. Catholics have never been biblical literalists, and so have come to accept the creation story as symbolic of the reality, as was fitting for an almighty God when talking to a non-scientist, Moses. And the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, as well as that a Catholic monk is regarded as the father of modern genetics. Evolution combines slow development - natural selection - with instantaneousness - mutation: theologically very attractive. I have no problem with Adam and Eve possibly being twins in the womb of a Cro-magnon woman, as suggested by the strange anthropological happenings of 30,000 years ago (sudden emergence of culture, wipe-out of neanderthals, nuclear families).

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Brilliant commentary! I wholeheartedly agree. It's simply shameful that religious leaders would pass up an opportunity to save and improve lives that does no harm.

Trent Eady, Renfrew, Canada

Hurrah, David Aaronovitch speaks sense. Totally agree! Apart from the last paragraph, Yes we must speak out against people that want to continue horrendous suffering to curable ilnesses just because they believe in a 2000 year old fairytale.

Gary, Harrow,

Life begins at conception according to several people here and apparently the Catholic church. Presumably that is when god implants a soul.

Unfortunately some 50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted, i.e. no medical or other assistance required. Why does god allow this to happen? What happens to the souls of these embryos? Off to Limbo, or does that no longer apply now that the pope has declared not to exist?

Colin Walls, Gee Cross, Cheshire

ps I don't like your tone, David Aaronovitch

michael, harrogate, uk

How can you 'debate' with people that believe in supernatural power!! I am fully in support of embryo research by the way.

Martin, Edinburgh,


It's not as difficult as debate with people who think that science has the answer to everything despite all the evidence to the contrary. I suppose someone somewhere is thankful they didn't use the embryo that grew up into you for research.

Tam Earl-Aine, cheltenham,

It doesn't trouble me that priests or anyone puts their case too high with sweeping rhetoric. But the response should be in facts and reasons, not broad denunciations nor doubts as to whether religious ideas should enter public debate. Anyway, the bit about disposable elderly rather depends on whether you believe voluntary euthenasia is always a perfectly free choice. So the accusation of lying is badly made. But really, I am generally in favour of the Bill, but I wish I could find more articles debating the merits.

Also, Aaronovitch cites human rights, as if churches are generally opposed. A quick course on the history of human rights might disabuse him of this, but never mind. My point is that human rights themselves have become a faith. We have our modern "decalogue" in the European Convention. Our priests the judges tell us what they mean. And we are all supposed to adjust our laws and sense of what is fundamentally right and wrong to fit in.

Joseph, London,

'The 'embryos' in question are certainly not 'conceived', they're produced in the lab by a process similar to cloning, and they result in an early-stage animal embryo modified so it can produce certain human tissues that are useful for research. It's in fact a way to *avoid* using actualy human embyros'.

Sarah, London

OK Sarah. So these embryos aren't naturally 'conceived' and are not actually human. So why not implant them in an animal's uterus (for experimental purposes- if it could be hypothesised that so to do would offer fresh insights that might be of medical benefit to others). You could allow these embryos to mature for a few weeks and then abort them well before whatever the current limit for abortion is. It wouldn't matter as you've said they are not actually human. Granted it might make you squeamish but is that relevant if your original position is a 'reasonable' one?

Greg , Glasgow,

The vast majority of civilised countries have rejected this. Are we, once again, the only soldier marching in step?

I resent the scurrilous accusation, that substitutes for a reasoned argument, that the people who object to this are ignorant of the science. I know exactly what's involved, and I object to it. The pro-argument seems to be "we can do it, so we should".

Well, one day it may be possible to graft the head of a dead person onto the body of a pig. It may be possible to animate it, and some scientists will scream that there is much potential medical progress to be gleaned from it. And then, what possible objections can we have, and why?

Science can blow up the world. Science can do just about anything. Is that the criteria by which we assess its scope and use? The hubris that many in the scientific community have had on this matter has certainly left me very worried about the future of humanity were they to be left to their own devices.

Michael Calwell, Edinburgh,

Wicked untruths? Well, and your comments are all "above reproach" and "squeaky clean and accurate?" Hardly.

Why, oh why, do people like you think that they have a monopoly on truth? Or at the very least try and "guide" people to that conclusion.

Why on earth do these scientists (and you) want to try and solve problems when the tools are not understood well, if at all?

Andrew, Los Angeles, USA

I didnt vote for these priests. Neither did any christian. Men in dresses who are as self appointed as all the muslim 'leaders' we give airtime to cannot in any way claim to represent a legitimate 'christian conscience'. Get thee hence to Rome (and Canterbury).

e skelton, cardiff, wales

So this "wicked untruth" is because the bill says the embryos will be destroyed after two weeks and this is the essence of your argument? The last bill which now needs amending outlawed this very thing but now scientists are back with the same excuses that we think this research will save lives. We are all in favour of saving lives but not at any cost. Does he really really believe it will stay this way and I understand the bill allows it to change further at a later date without coming back for more legislation? There is no doubt this is the beginning of even more experimentation. NO doubt whatsoever. I think he is being a little disingenuous not to think this will happen. And so I say come on please give the bishops some credit for understanding human nature and warning against this slippery slope and saying we really must draw a line here and mean it , otherwise this utilitarianism and moral relativism will be the ruination of our society but for these prophetic voices of truth.

Mike G, Newcastle, UK

A question one may ask about Aaronivitch's article is, "Where does he get his morality from to make such dogmatic statements?" When something as radical as this is proposed it is incumbent on those moving it to give us moral safegaurds that the new freedom will not be abused.

I do not find this in the article. Indeed a quite arrogant position is taken against the Bible and people who question his position . Personally I do not agree with the cardinal's or bishop's religion but at least their morality is there for all to see and hear. There is evidence as to whether they can be trusted.

The Bible is regularly rubbished by the science establishment, as in this article. It is never done fairly though. One wonders what these people's science is like if they cannot even read a book with an open mind. It leads me to actually read what the Bible says and I find a humility about its moral statements that I do not read in articles such as this.

Robert, Leeds,

Although this is presented as a battle between 'reason' (the secularists)and 'superstition' (the Catholic Church)in fact it is quite the other way round. The Catholic position is straightforward and reasonable: human life begins at the moment of conception (which, frankly, if we drop the pretence, we all know to be true). It is the 'secularist' position which depends on emotion and 'squeamishness'. And thus the definition of life for the secularist sways in the breeze depending on the subject under consideration. Is it life if it is in a test-tube? Is it life if it hasn't come down the birth canal? Is it life if it has a central nervous system? Is it life at 14 days? Or 24 weeks? Is it not life at 16 weeks one day, but becomes life the next depending on how advanced ultrasound technology is? The proponents of this Bill are really saying "look, it's OK. These embryos are just balls of cells. No head, arms or legs. Nothing to feel squeamish about!" That's 'reason'?

Greg O'Neill, Glasgow,

"I believe, on the basis of an authority that science cannot match, that a conceived human embryo is fully alive with an eternal soul made in the image of God. Not a matter of science. "

That's a perfectly fine belief to have, but I'm not sure it's relevant here. The 'embryos' in question are certainly not 'conceived', they're produced in the lab by a process similar to cloning, and they result in an early-stage animal embryo modified so it can produce certain human tissues that are useful for research. It's in fact a way to *avoid* using actualy human embyros.

Sarah, London, UK

Who cares about a few cells in a petri dish! "An embryo has a soul"??? We've already had that debate and made a decision 40 years ago. Its not the issue before parliament now.
If you're so concerned about saving souls, go to Sudan, Zimbabwe or Iraq where real, thinking, feeling people with real nervous systems are dying. What hypocrisy!
Or maybe try visiting a family that has to deal with one of the many horrible diseases that we still have no cure for. Modern medicine is responsible for our increased life expectancy. If you don't like it go back and live in a cave.

A.McKaskill, Bristol, Bristol

Well said David!
I am of the opinion that we all have the right to make up our own minds based on fact (or at least some information) rather than blindly taking the words of someone I've never met to be Truth. That goes for scientists and politicians as well as bishops!
Unfortunately religious leaders seem to take advantage of their position, spouting doctrine where scientific logic is evident. Morally speaking, I think that vastly more lives will be saved from this type of research than would be "lost" (and I'm not convinced that a pile of cells constitutes life...).
FYI: I was brought up as a catholic and have a Masters in Physics, so I hope I have a reasonably balanced viewpoint

Rob, London,

"Science and mathematics are based on unproven commonsense assumptions. They can't prove anything. They, and our senses, are also subject to the problem of subjectivity, as illustrated by "The Matrix". Faith is defined as "Assent to Divinely revealed (ie. proven) Truth": even the mad can have faith. The opposite of the OED: "Belief without knowledge"

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK"

So Greg, science and mathematics are unproven are they? Then it must seem strange to you how there are many things that are based on the findings of science and mathematics that work. For example, how mobile phones, Nuclear reactors, medical tomography systems, the list is almost endless.

You go on to talk about Faith being "proven", yet myself and a vast number of non-believers are still waiting to see any reliable and testable proof.

James, Bristol, UK

Greg Lorriman, I'm assuming here that you've just connected some random letters on your keyboard with the ramblings of sages though the ages, as I've not read such a mish-mash of unconnected thoughts for some time. Science and maths are unproven commonsense, whilst faith is proven. An authority that science cannot match......this would be a book written both before and after the act, but not at the time of the act. A book that says the earth is at most 8,000 years old, against unproven science that demonstrates the earth to be billions of years old. Do you suggest that sun revolves around the earth, or is the scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun enough for you?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Which has the greater detrimental environmental impact? A rich, First Worlder or a poor Thrid Worlder!

Why commit so much money & resources to the prolonging of a normal First World human life by artificial means, when many otherwise healthy people in the Thirld World might benefit simply from the provision of clean drinking water.

Crazy!

John Pitt, Liverpool, England

"David Aaronovitch reveals all! He points out that no embryo can be kept alive for more than two weeks. "Kept alive"?

So an embryo has life, is living a life that is then taken away - after two weeks.

Thank you David for (unintentionally)supporting the Church leaders' arguments

Liam Affley, Cardiff, Wales"

Liam - these embryos are "alive" in the same capacity that sperm are "alive". I find it hilarious that you and the religious right can trot out the "All life is precious" argument again and again, yet non of you appear to shed a tear for the 300 million (alive) sperm that are produced and die in a mans testicles every single day!

James, Bristol, UK

I was thinking of replying to some of the comments here, but then I read Greg Lorrimans glorious effort, and realised nothing I could say could possibly illustrate better what we, as a rational society, are up against...

Nathan, Mid-Wales,

I am Catholic and cannot understand how we can have 200,000 killings of unborn babies every year. This is not because I am Catholic, it just makes common sense. I can't however understand how we can have 200,000 abortions a year and then prevent other forms of embyonic manipulation for the sake of research. The first thing that needs banning is abortion.

Simon, York,

". As atheists become ever more ridiculous in their denunciation of a religion that does not directly affect them"

When bishops, cardinals and imams are able to stand up in the House Of Lords and express their opinions, unelected as they are, or when Cardinals try to influence the course of public debate with lies and untruths, or when elected politicians bow down not to the will of the people, but to the will of some imaginary supernatural force, then yes, the atheists are affected.

James Day, Ely, UK

The aspect of this bill regarding human animal embryos used for research is one I support.

I am not Catholic, although a beloved grandmother was. On this issue as with a number of issues of doctrine: women priests, abortion, contraception I profoundly disagree with a church I do not belong to and whose authority I do not recognise. A Catholic or any those of any other faith have the right to their opinions, but we live in a democracy not a theocracy. Notice how the Church of England have wisely kept their counsel.

Parliament should be allowed a free vote, but do not ever expect me to vote for a strongly religious candidate of whatever church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Thankfully my current MP could not be defined as such.

S.Pearce, London, UK

There is no place or need for religion in our society. This debate should be decided as a matter of conscience, not faith. If the church had a place in science and politics, we would still be in the dark ages persucuting witches and believing that a virgin birth is possible!

katie, London, UK

The illustrious writer seems to assume that do the experiments and all will be well. The religious are the new Luddites to be dimissed by their betters who hold the only true version of "truth." But what happens if these play God scientists get it wrong, unwittingly releasing on mankind a new animal plague. Oh, I know, it can't happen. Every possible care and all that. Yet Windscale happened, Three Mile Island happened, and Chernobyl too. Wasn't TB helped along by rash venting of experimentation into Berlin's air. Since when did scientists, and elitist Times writers, become Gods?

Graeme, Reading, GB

Well Greg Lorriman...science has proved that the world is round a fact that the bible failed to mention....I wonder why....................................science based on common sense....ha!

Julian blackwell, winchester,

Please will any member of the Roman Catholic Church tell me why the Pope in Rome dictates that people must die of HIV/Aids rather than use a condom. What double standards they preach.

Anthony, Alton, UK

The Church's position is that no party can every as matter of policy adopt a position that the Church disagrees with - such things should be a matter of "consience". In other words the chuch should have a veto on party policy. That may sound extreme, but this is in effect what they are saying. This is a profoundly undemocratic approach, whatever the merits of free votes in general.

They then claim victimhood against the "secular lobby" when it is obvious that the church is a far more effective and disciplined lobby group than any group of scientists. Can you name any "secular lobby"? There only seemed to be a few isolated individuals like Richard Dawkins, who are invairably labelled "extreme" and "shrill" for taking an opposite stance to that espoused by the religious up and down the country on a daily basis.

Nick, France,

Like many people, I find the idea of mixing human and animals viscerally disgusting. However, I don't see my gut response as constituting an argument against doing it. As long as the embryo is terminated/killed/sent to a better place before it is complex enough to be conscious - and I would have thought that a couple of weeks is not sufficiently long - then it is not going to suffer. However, it may very well help alleviate the suffering of a great many living human beings, so I can see no good reason for not doing it.

Alan Goldwater, valencia, spain

In recent times, little in the news have made me more angry than the way this Bill is being debated. The work this Bill would allow has the potential to produce treatments for diseases which are profoundly destructive for suffers, families and communities. It might not work for there are no guarantees - but science has a track record of improving human health and quality of life. Science has given us vaccines and is winning the war on cancer. This research does not produce part human hybrids - it uses empty animal cells to grow adult human cells. Either the Church has misunderstood the science or has chosen to misrepresent it. Either these churchmen are misguided or have distorted the truth to sell their case. Our elected representatives should make their decision based upon whether they think the long term risks, on balance, outweigh the benefits rather than on conscientious squeamishness. They should base their judgement on evidence rather than rhetori

GH, Newcastle,

I accept the right of the clergy to express a moral judgement, but not a religious one. My concern is that their views carry more weight than they are entitled to do.

When religion is a private matter, I have no issue with it; when it impacts upon me and mine, I become more antagonistic toward it.

Tony Pegg, leicester, England

"But these are not personal convictions, they're matters of doctrine."

We believe the Church to be the Body of Christ, and the Pope in union with the Bishops to be God's Divinely guided authority on earth. So her doctrines are certainly a matter of personal, as well as corporate, conviction. I believe, on the basis of an authority that science cannot match, that a conceived human embryo is fully alive with an eternal soul made in the image of God. Not a matter of science.

Meddling with such life, without a Divine mandate, is nuts. It is that which is the core Catholic objection, not the hybridisation, which is just a distraction.

Science and mathematics are based on unproven commonsense assumptions. They can't prove anything. They, and our senses, are also subject to the problem of subjectivity, as illustrated by "The Matrix". Faith is defined as "Assent to Divinely revealed (ie. proven) Truth": even the mad can have faith. The opposite of the OED: "Belief without knowledge"

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

There is some irony that many Jews care less for their own Law of Moses than the Gentile Christians do. Some Jews seem to love the works of Plato more than Moses. The Law of Moses, when properly understood in Christ, is a far better basis for society than Plato's Republic, which Popper thought was tyranical.

Leviticus 19:19 'Do not mate two different kinds of animals.'

Andrew, Exeter,

David Aaronovitch reveals all! He points out that no embryo can be kept alive for more than two weeks. "Kept alive"?

So an embryo has life, is living a life that is then taken away - after two weeks.

Thank you David for (unintentionally)supporting the Church leaders' arguments

Liam Affley, Cardiff, Wales

How can you 'debate' with people that believe in supernatural power!! I am fully in support of embryo research by the way.

Martin, Edinburgh,

Well said, David! But most of these comments entirely miss your point. It's not a matter of whether the religious have a right to their views, however bizarre, on embryo research. It is that they have no right to lie about what is proposed in order to fight it.

Rational debate requires a level of integrity on the part of participants. The churches are again showing themselves unable to grasp that wild exaggerations, lies and distortions disqualify their contributions from serious consideration - just as with the debate on assisted dying in 2006, when they used deceit and lies to kill a Bill that had 80% public support - see http://www.humanism.org.uk/uploadedFiles/cms/store//Campaigns/splash_HR%2520and%2520ethical%2520issues_files/ATTACHMENTS/In%20Bad%20Faith%2008%2005%2006.pdf

As for Jon from USA, churches do directly affect us: with 26 seats in Parliament & huge deference from those in power they are in line for contracts by Govt to run many regular public services.

David Pollock, London,

I look forward to the day when ALL issues before parliament are resolved without the democracy stifling party whip!
On this,as on a number of issues,I would have thought that the unarguable stance of the Church should be," If God hadn't wanted man to use embryonic healing techniques,He would not have given him the power to utilise them.

Tony Ash, Hua Hin, Thailand

Ah, so the embryoes are living creatures? Therefore, is it not immoral to create and kill living creatures merely for scientific curiosity? Further, Orthodox Jews take the Levitical codes very seriously.

Sean, Manchester,

'there is no way i would have wanted her cured if it meant mixing human and animal embryos'

that's an absolutely disgusting view, but admirably sums up the church's position: dogma is more important than human life.

Hugh, London,

While watching an American television show two weeks ago, I sat in amazement as it became clear to me that two clerics were attempting to convince the audience that the timescales apparent in Genesis and the rest of the bible are accurate - i.e. the "age of the earth" that can be extrapolated from the bible of c.7000-8000 years old, is true. I saw a report of American high schools that teach the bible creation story as history, and mention evolution only as a necessary part of the syllabus in order to demonstrate some alternative thoughts on the matter. I think the fact that the world's one true super power (however short a life span that title might now have) harbours medieval thought processes about the history of man is a clear indication that religion (and the blind faithful) and science (and the fanatically logical) will NEVER find common ground as they are fundamentally at odds with each other. The faithful will believe what they are told, as is their wont, the scientist will not

Simon Ellison, Egerton, Bolton, Lancashire

The Cardinal is not "just" a priest but also a science graduate. I would guess he is better qualified to comment than Aaronovitch on both counts.

RevJohn, Guildford,

I find David Aaronovitch's sudden concern to highlight the 14 day period beyond which embryos cannot be kept alive as curiously inconsistent with his own support for abortion well beyond this period of time.
He is, in effect, stating that the embryo is morally irrelevant because it is only 'allowed' to live for a short period. What about the foetus that has twenty weeks life? Is that, too, irrelevant?
The conclusion here is obvious: to this commentator, human life only has value when he says it has. Human status is an 'achievement' not an 'endowment' in his thinking and is thus a totally relativistic concept.
Is it any wonder that Church leaders and ethicists have sounded alarm bells at what is proposed in the forthcoming bill?

Karol J Gajewski, Accrington, United Kingdom

In his summing up, David Aaronovitch complains that "Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want to tell the rest of us how to live". In one sense, they have the right to do so, just as the advocates of manmade global warming, or the anti-smoking activists have done. The list is endless: diet, alcohol, fireworks, ID cards, fox hunting, etc. - all have pressure groups that would impede the presumed freedom of the individual. There is nothing unusual in trying to persuade others to a particular view, provided that they have the right to reject it. The danger comes when the state removes that right by law, allowing no dissent.

Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK

David Aaronovitch assumes - but does not prove- that the Bill will actually ameliorate or improve the human condition. In addition, he assumes a universality of the Christian position while failing to recognise that, whatever his individual views, "there is a growing shrillness and unpleasantness" in the political position adopted by "the top faithless" which is equal too - if not greater- than that adopted by the faithful. Aaronovitch is naive in not understanding the political nature of the debate surrounding the Bill and confuses argument with faith in a manner which characterises those against whom Dr Wright rails. In essence there is no difference between Aaronovitch and those he disparages: each wishes to impose their values, or lack of them, on everyone else. The difference is that Aaronovitch doesn't recognise the arrogance of his own discourse which is more sanctimonious than anything the two clerics could ever produce. Apparently, there are two views - his and the wrong one!

Dr Phil Thomas, Merseyside, UKJ

Bill from Doncaster, you have hit the sweet spot. Aaronovitch, as usual, lets his bigotry blind him to the correct argument. Anyone can take a particular side but Brown seeks to prevent a debate. That is totalitarianism under no other name.

The subject requires substantial debate, but as usual the Left seeks to stampt out contrary opinions to its own.

Edwin, Bucharest,

When I hear the views of a cleric, especially a Catholic cleric, who has spent years caring for a relative with dementia, motor neurone disease or any of the other diseases that embryo research will help with, then I'll take some notice. Until then, I'll take the attitude that clerics are welcome to advise the members of their own flocks on how to think, but since I am not a member of any religion, I'll make my own mind up, thank you. Morality and religion are not necessarily linked.

Jenny Latimer, Dundee,

Amen

Jan, Utrecht, The Netherlands

I think you are missing the point here. All we are seeing is a contest of the shrill. As atheists become ever more ridiculous in their denunciation of a religion that does not directly affect them, the religious become ever more extreme in their tirades against an external "enemy" that can't harm them.

This is a debate of the idiots versus the idiots. The rest of us are not actually obliged to take it seriously. Let us simply ignore this foolishness and perhaps those involved will eventually grow up.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US

If you don't believe in sanctity at all then you won't have any understanding of an argument from the sancity of human life.

However I submit that the disbelief in sacredness is actually a formal rather than a real philosophical position. The instinct resurfaces in a belief that money, or the environment, or wild animals are sacred and may not be manipulated in a sacriligious manner.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I am totally against human and animal embryo fertilisation not because of any faith i feel the doctors are just going a step too far my mother had senile dementia and its very hard to watch someone you love so much not even knowing who you are but there is no way i would have wanted her cured if it meant mixing human and animal embryos. No one knows what the next step will be.

anne scullion, fife, scotland

I think Wright and O'Brien are correct to call attention to what is going on here. The point is that we are being promised a possible good (cure for diseases) while taking the human race in a direction which it has not properly debated. It is the usually the religious who are accused of unverifiable promises for the future (heaven), but here it is the medical-economic brigade that is lined up with those who seem to think it does not matter whether children know who their fathers are.

Aaronivitch has bigger pulpit than either of the religious protagonists and seems to be arguing against a free vote. He accuses the religious of being doctrinaire: that surely is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, for what can be more doctrinaire than his own position?

Bill, Doncaster,