Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The article has been unable to display.
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 00:21:13
Whatever!
We wait with anticipation the outcome, my views are mixed to the extent I wont pass comment this time on this subject.

However! :-)
You all know me, I gotta say sommid!

Yes, one of the IVF drugs my DYW is having injected by me everyday :-) is derived from,...

'Guinea pig' ovaries!

When I told her, DYW had a 'fit'!

I reassured her all would be OK!

'Squeak Squeak' :D
2

truthsleuth,

19/05/2008 01:15:41
Let the people speak without the religious pressures and prejudices of their obsolete institutional viewpoints.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 01:18:58
BTW! Chinese "Guinea Pigs" for all that! :-(
4

Scullion,

Canada 19/05/2008 01:34:07
If Catholic cabinet ministers vote with their faith rather than the will of their constituents, they are minions of Rome and should be tossed out of cabinet first then tossed out of the house by the people they represent.
5

Canadian Jambo,

19/05/2008 01:44:13
My goodness,you would have thought that anything that helped suffering humans would be supported. But no, 'the church' is not buying it. Who are these people anyway?
And Alex wants to set up 'faith' schools.
Gimme a break.
6

Tom More,

Canada 19/05/2008 02:40:48
About 50 conditions or so can be treated with adult stem cells fairly successfully. Not one--not one--success has been accomplished through killing embryos by removing their stem cells for therapy. In fact, there have been reports of some unfortunate results from people treated with stem cells from embryos. I have had three cancers in my lifetime, and the very thought that I might receive treatment, lifesaving or not, from the killing of a potential human being, or worse, through the creation of a human/animal hybrid, I find absolutely abhorrent. It boggles the mind that it is even being considered, and that the bulk of the population are not rising up and saying "Enough is enough" to politicians such as Brown. Wake up, society ! You don't have to believe in a Hell in the afterlife to realize we are about to create a Hell on earth.
7

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 19/05/2008 03:05:10
Why this war-mongerer was entertained by them demonstrates exactly why Scots have turned away from them - even in greater numbers than their 'son of the manse'. Truly revolting.
8

FS,

Stirling 19/05/2008 03:46:39
#4 No-one to my knowledge has done any type of opinion poll on this issue which by its very nature is contentious so your assumption that everyone is against it is quite simply wrong. As for your little "minions of Rome" line - go back to the 16th century with that bigotry.
9

Scullion,

Canada 19/05/2008 05:12:50
#8 Democracy is not run through opinion polls. Pilate had an opinion poll for Jesus and it didn't turn out the way we'd have expected.
Ah the old standby, throw the word bigotry about and we all back down. It is not going to work. Our Canadian Catholic Prime Ministers Chretien and Martin told the bishops and pope to take a running jump when they tried to press them to vote the way the Vatican wanted on certain issues. I hope Britain does to. If the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Grand Mufti voiced the same opinion, I'd expect Anglicans and Moslems to respond in kind.
10

Macuistean,

Isle of Tiree 19/05/2008 05:32:32
The flat earth society is alive and well.
11

Augusta,

Kirkcaldy 19/05/2008 06:39:13
Methnks the word "moral" is being subjected to what
Fowler called "slipshod extension".
12

Normal!,

Highland 19/05/2008 07:04:25
If lesbians are to be allowed IVF to enable two women to have a child between them, then it follows(in the interests of equality!) that two men should also have some method to achieve the same aim. What next - womb transplants!!!!
13

Pender Paul,

Pender Island 19/05/2008 07:14:38
The only question that need be answered is: "is it good science?" Only an electorate well-schooled in science can answer that one. I doubt that the religious mumbo-jumbo can even come close. Leave the church out of the debate. If scientific research can bring relief to the pain and suffering of humankind then go for it.
14

Peekay,

19/05/2008 07:30:01
Can someone enlighten me please? What exactly is the Catholic Church of Scotland? I thought that was a title held by the established church.
15

,

19/05/2008 07:50:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

thinking,

Scotland 19/05/2008 08:17:10
#6
Well said
If the vast resources being spent on embryo research was spent on stem cell research then we would see many successful treatments.
The only real winners in embryo research are the companies behind it.
17

Guga II,

Rockall 19/05/2008 08:32:52
The Hootsmon manages to get it facts about Scotland wrong again (e.g. SoS telling us yesterday that the Lord President of the Court of Session was presiding in the High Court of the Justiciary, when, in fact, he is known as the Lord Justice General in the latter court).

There is no such thing as the Catholic Church of Scotland. There is the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Then there is the Catholic Church.

These continuing distortions and errors about Scotland, by the Hootsmon, either arise from too many foreigners working for them, incompetent subbies, or both.
18

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:33:16
#6 the god-bothering Tom More.

You are wrong. Precisely such a success was announced last week or thereabouts of significant visual recovery of a patient in a trial. Direct injection to the retina's genetically deficient cells of a modified virus containing stem cells grown in a lab, were meant to be a pioneering step, but turned out to be clinically effective.
19

thinking,

Scotland 19/05/2008 08:36:58
#18
Stem cells grown in a lab, yes, but were those stem cells from an embryo?
20

hertscot,

19/05/2008 08:37:41
For 2000 years the christian religion has tried to control people through fear and ignorance, Why should they stop now?
21

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:39:12
Peekay #14

You can't use enlighten and the Catholic Church in the same post. These are mutually exclusive.

Well done Gordon. Oh and Alex... you've had the loan of my vote for years, but if you really support faith schools (instead of disingenuously highlighting the abomination of separate state fundned indoctrination of Tims) the you can get tae!
22

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:39:46
#19

duh
23

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:44:08
I'm in favour of home made fully differentiated cell engineering. Something like a Pot Noodle.

Cat flattened by a passing Christian in an SUV? Why not grow an identical replacement before the kids get home? Just scoop up some of the pavement pizza, add boiling water and hey presto.

24

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:48:15
#12 Normal

I think you'll find that basic human right was already established by The People's Front of Judea. Or was it the Judean People's front. Splitters!
25

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 08:53:14
The REAL agenda behind this meddling by organised religion is simple. Their status, authority and income depend on the acquiescence of the meek to the notion that human life is special (created in God's image blah blah), which position is undermined, (not by what was God'd penis used for - answers on a post card) but by the uncomfortable continuity of life all the way back to the first blob that twitched.

Who would Adam and Eve it?
26

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 09:00:33
Always the same people, always the same attitude. It's not the Catholic Church that's stuck in the 16th Century but those who still hate it. By the way Peekah there is no established Church in Scotland.
27

kimba,

19/05/2008 09:02:07
With the greatest respect to the catholic church,they should mind their own business,and let the scientists get on with trying to save lives.
28

Vigilant Watcher,

Bo'ness 19/05/2008 09:05:26
Not only does, Gerri Peev, POLITICAL correspondent, get the religious terminology wrong but, more importantly, given the focus of the piece, gets the science wrong as well.

The definitions given for both chimera and hybrid are also wrong.

1. A chimera is an animal that has two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated in different zygotes NOT formed by the merging of 'human' and 'animal' embryos
2. Hybrid is the offspring resulting from cross-breeding of different plants or animals not by fertilising a human egg with animal sp*rm, or vice versa (the difference being is that a hybrid is viable, but not reproductively, whereas the vice-versa option would probably not even be viable)

Too often this sort of reporting is presented as accurate and factual which, indeed, it should be!

NB Post was initially rejected due to using an inappropriate term, see asterisk above, already used in the article.
29

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 09:06:33
Kimba, if the 20th century taught us anything about scientists it's that some will play for anyone who pays the piper and demands a tune. Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ...
30

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 09:08:11
#27 Shug

The established church (of England) gives them the right to seats in the upper house of parliament, precedence (until recently, exclusivity) at state occasions and a say in law. Until Alex succeeds that means the UK state which includes Scotland does indeed have established religion set over it.

Tried buying a bottle of wine on a Sunday morning lately?
31

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 09:11:41
There is no established Church in Scotland, Act of Union 1707 and Act of Security 1707. This is a Scottish newspaper.
32

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 09:21:12
Until those who promote superstition over science can produce one smidgeon of evidence to back up their claims, they do not deserve to be taken seriously.

On this issue Gordon Brown is right.
33

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 09:24:16
Man of Reason, not very reasonable! Where's the evidence that the proposed hybrid-embryos will produce results? If it's mere conjecture then that's the same as the appeal to God/Faith/Church etc.
34

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 19/05/2008 10:03:29
Oh dear, here we go AGAIN.

Mixing politics with religion is a deadly brew with nobody coming out of it intact.

The Catholic Church in Scotland calls Brown's views "strange" yet it is well-acquainted with "strangeness" in the evil actions of its paedophile priests worldwide.

Is the Catholic Church in Scotland speaking for its co-religionists or proclaiming yet another pontifical manifesto designed to be divisive and controversial in all matters?

This matter will not go away and is so replete with religious fervour and hocus-pocus and political machinations that one is discouraged from even contemplating a resolution.
35

A McBay,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 10:09:10
Perhaps the greatest irony in Christian/Catholic opposition to the human embryology bill has been the sight of religious representatives, clergy or laity, with a faith that offers no evidence whatsoever to back up its beliefs, claiming the research should be stopped because there is, er, no evidence (as yet) that stem cell research produces results. Anne Widdecombe’s comments on the BBC were illustrative of this.

Imagine the outcry if scientists took the same approach in considering the views of the religious. “There is no evidence to support the existence of your god, so there is no basis for your beliefs being given any respect, and you should stop believing”.

If religious groups want to demand evidence from scientists, then they should be judged on the same basis, ie that they can themselves produce evidence.
Anything less is hypocrisy.
36

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 10:09:37
Wee Hugh, I'm not familiar with the details, but I do know that the case for carrying out this work will have been made on the basis of a rational hypothesis backed up by evidence that is subject to scrutiny and peer review. This provides the best possible chance of success.

Contrast this with the church's approach - take a 2000-year-old collection of superstitions with no evidence to back them up, and hold them up as absolute truth adn morality that cannot be challenged, no matter the cost in human suffering.

The human race is at a cross-roads here - do we want to be guided by science and reason, or superstition and prejudice? There may no longer be room in this world for both ways of thinking to co-exist.

I for one prefer to keep using my brain rather than switch it off and succumb to the great mind-plague of religion.
37

Miss H,

19/05/2008 10:11:07
It is the Catholic Church and other religious institutions which have chosen to cast this as a 'moral' debate. They do not have exclusive rights to the use of the word moral. In this case I agree 100% with Gordon Brown and I fully support his right to make a moral case for this research.
38

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 10:19:36
#35 I agree it is bizarre for the Catholic Church to call Gordon Brown's views "strange" - this coming from an organisation that believes a supernatural being created the universe in six days, then sent his "son" (who is also himself) to earth, so that he could be tortured and killed, which by some bizarre sado-masochistic logic ensured that all humans would thereafter be forgiven their sins and spared eternal damnation.

Now THAT'S what I call "strange".
39

sam the god,

19/05/2008 10:29:11
#39 man of reason
i agree with what you say but the god squad will object to it
40

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 19/05/2008 10:32:15

"But his view was dismissed as "strange" by the Catholic Church of Scotland, which has also questioned why millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is going on embryology research."

Oh some people just do not realise when they are being funny. LMFAO at the Catholic Church discussing Money and Strange Practices.
41

Rational cynic,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 10:33:39
I don't believe in Santa Claus, or fairies, or UFOs, or gods.

I do believe in the ability of science to conduct research in a rational and ethical way, and to devise new medical treatments for conditions that are currently incurable.

I also believe in our ability to devise a workable ethical compromise between the capabilities of science and the ethical boundaries of the majority of the UK population.

I sincerely hope our politicians are influenced by reason and not by superstition.
42

voltaire's janny,

19/05/2008 10:49:18
32 wee shug

Now you know perfidious Albion interprets treaties any way it likes. 1707 or no, the laws of Scotland including the right of succession as well as the not-quite-defunct Sunday trading restrictions are, as a matter of fact, examples of the established curch of England influencing Scottish Law.

The Churches' views are like the trades unions of the 70's. In a spoof meeting they vote for tea or coffee on a show of hands. Of the six in the room four want coffee and two want tea, but the chair counts the hands...

Coffee? Two million four hundred thousand. Tea? Three million - teas it is.

I assert the churches do NOT speak for their paritioners. How can they prove otherwise?

Just as the unions were forced to seek ballot approval for their claimed collective view, we should demand that churches do the same. But they won't will they? Divine authority as claimed by the pervs in purple and nonces in black is hierarchical, unerring and always delivered down to the flock.

Hierarchy literally means rule by preists. Episcopalians too avow that those in the food chain of power are set above the mere supplicants.

Rational debate and especially TV & papers should give their superstitions no more truck than the Raving Loony Party and screaming Lord Such.
43

kimba,

19/05/2008 10:51:25
30. Take your point,but,if there is a chance of saving livesnow and in the future we must take that chance.
44

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 10:55:12
When you were at school, or since, did any of you read 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley, where people were created according to the needs of society: 'Alphas' to run it, and 'Epsilon semi-morons' to do all the work. Reading it in the seventies we all thought of it as a work of science fiction.

How big a step is it from allowing parents to create an embryo for the 'good' reason of saving an earlier child from some terrible disease to a country deciding who can who can't be born. How big a step is it from creating embryos for reaserch to creating embryos to be brought to birth when we need more scientists/workers/slaves etc. The record of the human race in such things is not great: abortions in some countries are higher once the parents have discovered the sex of the child in the womb. What would happen if a gay gene is discovered?

What most of you who are arguing in favour of the Bill can't get past is that the opposition is coming primarily, but not exclusively, from people of faith.

Ignore where the opposition is coming from, think about the arguments. Do we want to be the kind of people who stepped onto the slippery slope that could lead to Huxley's ghastly vision? This is about human beings, not God. What sort of people are we in danger of becoming?
45

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 11:02:14
Wee Hugh -

If Gordon Brown was in fact proposing any of the dastardly things you list in your post, I could see your point. But he's not.

Your argument is akin to the Wee Free minister forbidding dancing, "because we all know what that leads to".
46

David T.,

Polworth 19/05/2008 11:05:41
#17 Guga II - there is also the Scottish Episcopal Church.

I am a christian and a regular church goer and I fully support embryonic stem cell research. I agree with those above who say that there is no evidence for my beliefs and I do not seek to present any, merely to try an make the point that it is not necessarily incompatible to hold religious beliefs while also retaining one's logical, critical facilities when it comes to matters of science.

I feel that the actions of Catholic Cabinet members in demanding a free vote on this is disgraceful. If their religious beliefs prevent them from supporting the government then they should resign. They should not be seeking to impose their minority religious views onto the secular society they have been elected to represent. It also seems to me slightly curious that these people should feel so strongly about protecting an unborn, equivicoble 'life' and yet were quite happy to support an illegal war which has resulted in the deaths of 1000s of unequivicable lives. Is it only christian embryos that have a right to life?
47

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 11:09:38
Man of Reason,

The Bill is proposing scientific approaches which may lead to discoveries which could help in the treatment of some diseases.

All of this is in the conditional tense, how different is that from what I wrote?

Is the Bill not simply the inverse of you caricature of the Wee Free Minister: let's try it and see where it leads.
48

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 11:11:18
#47

David, which war was that?

49

karinxxx,

19/05/2008 11:14:58
Why is it that scientists can say that this is right because we did research and yet the church is not allowed to say we think its wrong. (i am no follower of the church by the way)

I think the wider question has to be asked. When did science and medicine become the new religion that everyone has to follow?

A scientist is not a god and just becuase you can do something with science does not mean you automatically should.

I think what scientists should be saying when they do something is..............

Is there a benefit here for all mankind (and womankind)and not just some people?

Does this research or thing i am undertaking cause any harm in anyway in thought or deed to any living thing on this planet.

If they cannot provide a yes to the first question and a no to the second then they should not be undertaking the research.

That is the only moral way for scientists or churches to behave.

50

Thistledhu,

Fife 19/05/2008 11:16:10
as allways this kind of story is used to allow people to vent there dislike of certain churches.

all churches should hold there counsel putting pressure on politiceons doesent do them or the debate any favours

a free vote with debate based on the facts at hand and scientific advice is the way forward
51

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 11:23:27
There seems to be a lot of people on here who are falling into the usual trap of reading the Hootsmans Propaganda and getting upset at Churches in General.

Gordon Brown doesnt give a tooss about embryo's, or anything else except not following Jim Callaghan into the list of those that were never elected by the people. The man is immoral and would sacrifice whoever and whatever to just get past 2010 as Prime Minister. The man is an abortion in his right. He doesnt earn the right to be of any importance in any moral issue. Christ he even uses his Dads Church to score political points. Is this the man we want to lead our dysfunctional society. NO !!!!. What we need is the rebirth of Scottish attitudes and enlightenment. This can only be done in a fully autonomous Scottish Nation. So lets get on with that rather than talk the shoite that is in this article.

The only question is whether you would want a treatment to save your life at the expense of another form of life that is committed to trying to live. To me the Island of Dr Moreua idea makes me puke. How dare we tamper with the basic start of live. Do they not deserve to be protected as much as us. Do we not have a moral obligation to protect life from loony Scientists who arrogantly believe they are entitled to go where no one should go.

I say nae, and you lot can keep arguing whether Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims are right, instead of fighting for all forms of living entities rights. When we kack it, we kack it. Live has to go on.
52

karinxxx,

19/05/2008 11:25:23
51 thistledhu

your comment illustrates my point. Just because someone has done research that says this will allow 642 people in the uk to benefit from stem cell research doesnt make it right. (doesnt make it wrong either)

If the church did research that said 796 people thought it wasnt a good idea and they found it upsetting and morally wrong.

Who is right and who is wrong

Is the person with the most statistics right or the person with the most well researched paper?

Scientists get things wrong. So do churches.

Should scientists do something just because it might help some people with a disease.

Scientists have a nasty habit of pushing boundaries. The church has a nasty habit of shoring up boundaries.

Where is the middle ground?
53

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 11:33:59
#52 It's tragically comic how you call for the rebirth of Scottish Enlightenment yet at the same time rail against scientific research.

Perhaps you need to go and do a bit of research into exactly what the Enlightenment was all about. I bet Charles Bell never thought the church would still be interfering medical research 200 years later.
54

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/05/2008 11:36:40
These sorts of issues have always been considered issues of conscience - and they should remain so.

By the way - those who are trying to paint this as purely religious opposition are barking up the wrong tree. I wouldn't class myself as particularly religious but have serious ethical problems with the whole cloning issue.

Whilst I understand and can empathise with the principle of pre-implantation screening I can see it being a slippery slope.

We may start off screening for severe genetic disease (whatever that actually means) but my worry is when they start to push other reasons for screening.

It raises the whole spectre of eugenics - an unwelcome one in my opinion.

As for the notion of saviour babies - why is more effort not put into expanding our existing Cord Blood Bank? That would provide a plentiful supply of stem cells for research on preventing many of these diseases. Moreover, treatment using core blood transfusions does not require the same level of matching that existing bone marrow transfusions require.

I will add that I have never been particularly comfortable with the notion of IVF. This may be controversial but to me it treats the child is a mere commodity - particularly for the middle-classes. It seems their life is not complete if they don't have that 3-bedroom villa, latest sports car and 2.4 children.
55

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 11:41:42
Man of Reason,

Sorry to have to correct you, but, Charles Bell was a fervent believer. In fact, he wrote a famous work about his own work as a proof for the existence of God:
The Hand: Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments, as Evincing Design
56

,

19/05/2008 11:43:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 11:46:53
#48 - That's exactly right, experimentation is the basis of all scientific discovery. This is the process by which scientists attempt to prove their hypotheses - something proponents of religion are not inclined to do.

Unless you believe that an embryo can suffer (which seems extremely unlikely before any nervous system has developed) I don't see the problem in experimentation designed to find cures for serious diseases.

The only argument against is the superstitious religious one - that the embryo has a "soul" which means it is equivalent to a fully developed human. I'd have to disagree with this - it's just a cluster of cells at that stage.
58

Thistledhu,

Fife 19/05/2008 11:51:08
it is very easy for those like myself who are not affected by the conditions that this research would perhaps aid treatment of to critisise

but shouts of Frankenstein are unhelpfull and i think some would prefer if there was no informed debate on this subject
59

kimba,

19/05/2008 11:55:07
Maybe the catholic church should put it's own house in order,before criticizing others.
60

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 11:55:53
#59

This is a debtae for all men and women, not just those who might in theory benefit from such research. It is about who we are as human persons and the limits to which we allow oursleves to go. Our actions go a long way to define who we are.
61

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 11:59:42
#60
Kimba,
If we all had to put our houses in order before speaking then we'd all remain silent. This is a debate about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill not the Catholic Church.
62

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 12:02:54
#56 Wee Hugh -

Charles Bell will be spinning in his grave - the term "fervent believer" gives a very misleading impression!

He was first and foremost a rational thinker. Belief in God was a given in those days - aetheism was not an option. Charles Bell instead struggled to reconcile the existence of God with his scientific research through philosophy. He rejected the preachings of the Church and instead looked for evidence of God in the real world. He has been described as a "natural theologian" - rejecting "revealed religion" based on scripture and religious experience in favour of explanations based on reason and ordinary experience, explaining God as part of the physical, observable world.

There is no doubt in my mind that Charles Bell would have had little truck with the superstitions expressed by the Catholic Church today.
63

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 12:12:57
Man of Reason,

Charles Bell wrote his treatise on Natural Theology as part of a series exploring 'the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.' Such a man would not have thought that one could divorce scientific enquiry from the realm of morality or ethics if you prefer. He would have been happy to discuss the matters we are talking about in the light of faith in God.

As for your remarks about the Catholic Church, are you sure you are a man of reason. Sounds a bit emotive to me.
64

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 12:25:01
Wee Hugh,

Well I guess we could argue all day about what Charles Bell would have thought. I agree he clearly believed in a creator, but he also looked for evidence of God in the real world rather than being told what to believe by the Church. Let's leave it at that otherwise this could go on all day!

The point of today's debate is whether we now choose to be guided by evidence or superstition in the modern world.

I'm not sure what remarks have I made about the Catholic Church that you refer to as "emotive"?
65

Calvinist,

19/05/2008 13:35:51
Instead of persistently revelling its usual propensity for scientific illiteracy (a propensity incidentally shared by most of our political classes) and condemning those with incurable sickness to no hope, the church (and religious people of all hues) would do better to mount a serious campaign against the unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of individuals in wars conducted by those who claim to be ‘Christians’. I sincerely hope the Devil exists because the church is doubly damned for its lack of moral backbone. Is hypocrisy too strong a term?
66

Non!!,

East Britain 19/05/2008 13:40:50
The key issue here is the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.I have spent all of my adult life successfully directing research aimed at the discovery of new treatments for human diseases both in acadaemia and at the most senior level in multinational companies in the USA and in the UK. In my view stem cell research can proceed perfectly well without making hybrids which are a convenience rather than a necessity. This view is I believed shared by Lord Winston. Little will be lost by refusing to sanction the step to make hybrids which is so repugnant to so many people.Gordon Brown's position that it is otherwise is misguided and just plain wrong.I am surprised that he thinks as he does. Perhaps he is just out of his depth or badly advised.
67

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 13:49:10
Man of Reason

Your characterisation of religion as superstition is highly emotive. 85 % of the world’s population have religion as the foundation of their value systems. Admittedly it slightly less in Scotland, only 75% described themselves as Christian in the 2001 census.

The assertion made by many that religion has no place in the democratic debate is to discriminate against a great number of people. No-one would ever absurdly assert that Atheists, Agnostics, Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists or Marxists must leave their personal views behind when entering the public forum. What makes religion so different in this context when a person’s ethic origin, skin tone, sexuality or any other defining feature does not warrant such exclusion?

I can cope with your disagreement. I can even cope with your disparaging remarks; but, I do not like them and find them unworthy of any public forum., they are emotive and not reasonable.
68

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 13:51:47
Calvinist,

You can't have been following the news over the last 15/20 years. I don't rememeber any Church leaders, of any denomination, being anything but opposed to the wars that our nation has chosen to involve itself.
69

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 13:57:20
#67 If what you say is true (and I'm not qualified to say otherwise) then there may indeed be an argument against creating hybrids just to keep everyone happy. Gordon Brown has clearly been advised otherwise however.

But why is it that people find the creation of hybrids "repugnant" as you say? All animals, including humans, come from the same family tree so why should this be so wrong? I think this attitude comes from the deeply ingrained religious belief that humans are somehow special and different from the rest of the animal kingdom - we are created in God's image etc.

From a purely rational point of view there's no down side to this if there's no suffering and it helps find cures for diseases.

70

Media 1,

cape town 19/05/2008 14:00:22
The church cannot be taken seriously, let us face it they are without doubt the most barbaric and inconsistent entity in all of human history.
Need we even discuss the eroneous errors such as the Earth being the centre of the universe? One would think that a direct line with god would have delivered the simple answers concerning the Earth's position within the cosmos. That mistake alone was proof that nobody has ever spoken to this mythical god. Moving along to the modern era of cloning, cell fusion and all these other amazing advances in science, it is safe to say that the church is as always, misinformed and out of their depth. Like any business the churchs' sole aim is to protect it's future. Not for the good of humanity or because of some pure and real belief in god, but because god makes them money and offers them power.
But thankfully we are entering a period in our human history in which god, the bible and the after life will all soon be forgotten.
Cloning is progress and in time we will all have holograms, cloned brothers and sisters, work colleuges and so on.
Science is outstripping god, it was always going to. God has a shelf life, science does not.
71

Man of Reason,

19/05/2008 14:13:21
#68 Wee Hugh,

From the dictionary:

su·per·sti·tion
–noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Seems like a pretty good description of religion to me!

Of course I am not saying you don't have the right to express your beliefs, it's just that I don't agree with them. This is a perfectly reasonable stand to take, as there's no more evidence for the existence of God than for the existence of Santa Claus, fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Religious/supernatural beliefs should indeed be scrutinised and subject to debate in the same way as political beliefs as you say - they are all merely opinions that an individual can choose whether to hold.

The same is not true of skin tone, ethnic origin or sexuality - these are not choices that an individual has made, they are part of who they are.

It is perfectly acceptable to criticise someone for their political or religious beliefs, especially when they are of the more extreme/bizarre/objectionable variety. It is not acceptable to criticise someone for their skin tone, ethnic origin or sexuality (despite what the Catholic Church preaches).
72

,

19/05/2008 14:20:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

kimba,

19/05/2008 14:22:16
62.If our houses were as disrupted as the catholic church,we'd do well to keep silent!
74

Calvinist,

19/05/2008 14:36:17
#67
What sort of scientist are you? Where's the evidence to back up your opinions? And please don’t misquote Lord Winston.

# 69 I said SERIOUS campaign-get it? If you made the same fuss about adults as you make about embryos then I'd accept your point.

#73 How generous. One of the wealthiest organizations on earth donates £25,000 to stem cell research- this would not even pay the salary of a good technician for a year.

Here’s a thought- block the progress of scientific research in this country and it will continue in China- I kid you not- I’m sure the church will have a great influence there.
75

Media 1,

cape town 19/05/2008 14:42:36
Can anyone on here tell me what would be wrong with cloning a human being?
76

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 14:44:09
Religion has no place in this debate; it's just superstitious clap-trap.

Let the scientists get on with helping humanity and also witness the sanctimonious religious zealots who will snap up the new medical treatments that come from this research when they (or their families) need. them. Ignorant hypocrites, the lot of them.
77

Calvinist,

19/05/2008 15:18:57
#81

I bet you'll go screaming to the nice science-based western doctor when your time comes.
78

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/05/2008 15:26:26
#75 I think you miss the point - it is not the amount that they have donated but the fact they have donated.

It is not long since the Church's position was opposed to stem cell research.

The fact that they have shifted should be welcomed.
79

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/05/2008 15:27:31
78 Methalions,19/05/2008 15:03:01
"#76 Media 1,

"Can anyone on here tell me what would be wrong with cloning a human being?"

We might get another of you?

;-}"

Or you . . .


. . . yikes . . .!!
80

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 15:34:43
#83 You're right. All the Popes will seek out whatever scientific treatments are available for their ailments when their time comes. Hypocrites. Look at that other great Catholic, Cherie Blair who writes about her multiple (simultaneous) boyfriends - we have a word for girls like that - and her "contraceptive equipment" in Balmoral Castle. A "good Catholic girl"? No, another religious hypocrite.
81

Conan the Librarian™,

19/05/2008 15:41:44
81
interstellarmince
I agree about religion.
However; ALL science and engineering came about from that first step,knocking two pieces of flint together to get an edge that could cut through tough skin to the meat beneath.
And of course it can't be banned, the potential profits are too much of a temptation.
So, we have a situation much like the use of drugs.
Make it illegal and watch bootleg labs flourish.
82

,

19/05/2008 15:48:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

Calvinist,

19/05/2008 16:01:48
#91

Obviously you went to the wrong hospital: it’s spelt PSYCHIATRIC for future reference. That will be 100 guineas my good man.
84

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 16:37:50
#77

Mikko,

At least we always have such rational enlightened tolerant people like you to keep us all right.
85

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/05/2008 17:01:10
The Scotsman censorship continues.

Why was my post #73 removed?

It did not contravene any of the house rules.

86

Lady inwaiting,

Glenrothes 19/05/2008 17:27:56
It Look Like Nazistyle to destroy the Human's right and They want the human to be prefect!!!!!!
87

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 17:29:06
How do these people 'know' what god thinks? I mean if you were a bishop or something couldn't you just state a fact that YOU disagreed with, regardless of your lack of understanding in and particular subject, and tell everyone God disagrees too ?!

Can someone PROVE that God even exists ? or is it just the 'faith' thing again ?

Blindly believing with no questions asked - outside religion what is that called ? Oh Yes - Labour/Lib Dem voters ... ! hehe ..

If it saves lives - do it !
88

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 17:31:30
#75

Re #69.

Don't confuse what Christian leaders say about war with what little is reported about it. Much of the Media was in thrall/afraid of the govt. prior to our various wars of the last 20 years.
89

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 17:35:48
Man of Reason,

Re#72

Usually in our western pc world it's enough for me to say that I am offended by your tone for that to be accepted. Or does the liberal mind not accept that religious viewpoints are worthy of the same respect as any other. Who is it that can't cope with pluralism?
90

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 17:39:02
Voldemort,

Since you are such a questioning individual: do people have a right to believe in a god and follow the teaching of that god/religion/church?
91

Conan the Librarian™,

19/05/2008 17:47:31
99
Who they prefect?It Look Nazistyle.Human doublegood!!!

Doubleplusgood duckspeaker!!!
92

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 17:55:32
#103 Wee Hugh,

Of course people have a right to follow whatever claptrap they like but the rest of us have a right to point out how silly they are. And please don't talk about "teaching" when it comes to religion. You can only "teach" facts and religion hasn't got a single fact to rub between all its various and equally ridiculous looking guises.

Honestly, if you believe in Adam and Eve you might as well believe in the Mormon's pile of plates in their founder's back garden or L. Ron Hubbard's Thetans and his special mind reading device (a rebadged cheap- looking multimeter from the local high street electrical outlet).
93

Miss H,

19/05/2008 18:03:12
102 IThe liberal mind can very easily accepot that religious viewpoints are worthy of the same respect as any other. What it can't accept is that the religious viewpoint is automatically more moral.

In contrast it appears in this article to be the Catholic Church which cannot accept that any viewpoint other than their own can be moral. This is part of a deliberate strategy in my view whereby religious objections to any particular policy or course of action are described as being based on morality - implication being that to disagree with the Church's position is immoral.

It is the refusal to recognise that people can have moral beliefs and moral values which are not based on religious beliefs and values that is so morally repugnant.

They wish to claim that the only morality is their morality.



94

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:04:47
Mikko,

Re#105

We either live in a pluralistic society or we don't. You can either cope with views which are completely opposite to your own and argue with them, or else you can ridicule them.

It strikes me that many of those who today have described themselves as rational on this forum are among the least tolerant of all the posters. Why is that?

Pluralism means living in a scoiety with a divergence of views. Demonising the views of others is surely the sin of the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials?

But some people just can't resist such tactics in life!
95

Miss H,

19/05/2008 18:13:31
107 Oh come on. Look at what the Catholic Church spokesperson is quoted as saying. The worst line is actually that it is about 'good' science as opposed to 'bad' science. That's an outrageous statement to make. There is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' science.
96

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:15:50
Miss H,

What is your point?

Oh come on?
97

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 18:18:51
#106 Agree completely.

#107 Wee Hugh,

No lack of tolerance on my part: it's the church (mainly the Catholic church in this case) that gives its view and ascribes it to God and then it tells the rest of us that we are all sinners who will burn in hell if we don't agree with it. At least they can’t burn us “heretics” at the stake anymore. They surely would if they could for that is their creed.

As for the Salem witch trials and the Inquisition, I don't recall either being organised by abstainers or agnostics. In fact, tally up the body count over the whole of human history and I think you will find that religion - rather than those who choose to shun the nonsense - has far and away the biggest number of corpses to its name.

You want to see real intolerance? Then read global religious history followed by a few good books about contemporary religion and the devastation it is still causing today.
98

Miss H,

19/05/2008 18:21:55
107 My point is your point - 'Demonising the views of others is surely the sin of the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials.'

Yes very true and such events were presided over by those who believed their morality came from God.

If there is an issue here it is one of science. Not morality. Yet the churches have chosen to frame the debate as being about morality versus 'bad' science.

99

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:25:46
Mikko,

Re#110

Can I get an answer to what I posted in #107 instead of a anti-religious rant. Too many today have concentrated their views on those of religions/church/God. This argument is about whether the Bill before parliament is moral, that is the claim that the Prime Minister made. Are religious people/religions/Churches not entitled to challenge his viewpoint?

PS I think the last people to die in our country because of their views were Catholics.
100

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:28:06
Sorry Miss H,

It was the Prime Minister who chose yesterday to characterise this Bill in terms of a moral crusade. As with post #112, are religious people/religions/Churches not entitled to challenge his viewpoint?
101

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 18:47:39
#112 and 113

Wee Hugh,

Of course religious people are entitled to challenge whether the Bill before Parliament is moral But if they can manage to win that argument based on their views then I will eat my hat; most religions don't seem to have much in the way of historical moral principles (at least on this earth) to back up their viewpoints. Left to the moral principles of the Catholic Church the likes of poor old Galileo faced death and Leonardo DaVinci nearly came a cropper as well. More recently the Catholic Church had to apologise to the Jews for its tacit support of the Nazis in WWII and even more recently the Pope has been apologising to all those wee choir boys in America that have received “religious teaching” at the sharp end (so to speak). So I don't think moral “teachings” from those kinds of people are worth the paper they are printed on.

Judge a person on what he has done – well yes I am, and that is why I laugh at religions spouting off on "morality" while expecting the rest of us to take them seriously.
102

Frank Brady,

19/05/2008 18:48:18
The same old anti-religion ranters are on prominent display here. As they (tiredly)always are when the Catholic Church has the temerity to speak out on matters of morality. Vitriolic and irrational language are the weapons of choice (a little like the chants heard last week in Manchester)of those who don't want anyone/any institution to attempt to restrain their actions, based as these are on their strangely relativistic interpretation of the word "morality." These individual practitioners of bigotry just operate now under a different umbrella. After reading the third or fourth examples of such bigotry most informed people would do better to switch to reading the sports pages; they would get a lot more from indulging themselves in that activity.
103

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:51:57
It's a pity that your opinions seem so poisoned by anger/resentment/fear (take your pick). Hardly rational.

Too many people on this forum today are guilty of the very judgemental attitudes which religion and specifically the Catholic Church have been accused of.

I wish I could be you. You obviuosly have all the perfections which you assume the Catholic Church claims for itself.
104

Miss H,

19/05/2008 18:52:20
113 Sorry Wee Hugh it was Cardinal O'Brien who described the legislation as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life", adding that it would allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7310918.stm

What Gordon Brown has said was in response to these sorts of over-the-top attacks by religious organisations.
105

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:54:50
Mikko,

Sorry. Comment #116 was meant for you.
106

Miss H,

19/05/2008 18:56:55
115 I have no objection to anybody speaking out on any issue. What most people object to is the assumption that because a point of view is held by a religious group it is - automatically - more moral than a different point of view.

It is that arrogance which leads people to make outrageous claims about science being 'good'or 'bad' and to label scientists engaged in research of which they do mot approve as 'monstrous'.

This is not how policy should be decided and I certainly hope that parliamentarians will not allow themselves to be bullied by such arrogant and aggressive tactics. And I am sure that most voters feel the same way.
107

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 18:57:20
Miss H,

Who was speaking to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland yesteday? Who is the article above about?

It is a moral question. At least he accepted that!

108

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 19/05/2008 19:08:27
A wee snippet of the Catholic Morality from one of their many POPES in ROME who speak directly for God.

Benedict IX was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods. He was also one of the youngest Popes (reigning from around age 18-20). He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life, and also allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family, although in terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.

He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne.

Obviously I should be taking my scientific advice from those numpties.
109

Wee Hugh,

19/05/2008 19:10:54
re #121

Jock,

Are you Ian Paisley in disguise?
110

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 19:13:10
#115 Frank,

I am anti-organised religion (I never said I don't believe in God). But I take exception to what you said because I also believe I am a moral, principled and law abiding person. It seems you compared people like me to chanting yobs in a Manchester football match. Just because my views might not be yours doesn't make me a chanting yob.

But Frank, I will agree with you that I do not want any organisation based on fairy tales to tell me what to do or to try seek to control me and my life in any way. I can derive no authority figures from myths, fairly tales, superstition and mythology.

#116 I don't assume any “perfection”. Unlike the Holy See or whatever it’s called, I don't need any mythological creature to come and tell me that I'm flawed and then to offer to die to redeem my sins. I already know I'm flawed but like any decent human being who doesn't belong to an organised religion I'll try and fix those flaws (probably fail mostly - like most people do) but keep on trying regardless.

As Miss H put it in her own words: morality does NOT equal religion and religion does not equal morality, so stop sticking religion down our throats and suggesting that we are unprincipled moral-less beings because we choose to argue with you and your (in my humble opinion) medieval views.
111

,

19/05/2008 19:13:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
112

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 19/05/2008 19:40:46
Well, I don't want to gloat but us pro-embryo research folk have just won the first vote in Parliament. Let's hope we win all the rest.
113

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 21:43:02
Interesting.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/05/scientific-bigots-oppose-human.html
114

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 19/05/2008 22:33:27
122 Wee Hugh,19/05/2008 19:10:54
re #121

Jock,

Are you Ian Paisley in disguise?

-----------------------

No. It would not be a very good disguise. Him pretending to be anti the catholic church. A better disguise would be dressing up in fancy clothing and pretending to be Gods representative on earth while presiding over an organisation who's history is full of some of humanities biggest crimes while having the total brass neck to pretend to be innocent moral guardians of the lost sheep.

As for my comments about the pope the details were taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia although not quoted.

I am totally against the Catholic Church trying to stop another human development on the basis it reminds many of your followers of a science fiction novel or film they have seen. Not much scientific background to most of the comments here from the prohibitors.

If you god bothers spend more time keeping your own house in order the world would be a much better place. Murder, War, Famine, Suffering direct your prayers to the problems in front of you now instead of pontificating about future potential problems.

Your faith was built on lies, deception and idolatory and not much has changed about your methods from 325AD until now. It is just a different list of prohibitive instructions to keep people in ignorance.
115

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 19/05/2008 22:37:55
Update.... Genetic Research is OK.

I just heard a load trumpet and an Angel came down from heaven and advised that Genetic Research is OK with GOD.

Well thats it confirmed. Thank God thats the end of that argument.
116

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 19/05/2008 22:56:36
The church have enough wealth to solve a majority of the earths hunger, health, and poverty issues. Gordon Brown is a moron. Neither have the authority to judge morality on any level. Leave that to the truly pious and righteous people on earth. There aint many of those around nowadays...Were all pretty much doomed...
117

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2008 22:56:45
Jock MacTamson 2, @#128,

This being your 'Guardian Angel',?
118

Haggis MacBagpipes,

Central Canada - ex Perth & Glesca' 20/05/2008 05:07:09
#76-Media 1,Cape Town

Re: your question about cloning a human being..I think that has already been done.

They are called, Identical Twins.

Cheers,
Haggis MacBagpipes™©
119

Jehovah,

20/05/2008 14:47:29
I think too many of the God-botherers on this forum are confusing people disagreeing with them with people denying them the right to have their say.

At post #107 Wee Hugh even compares Man of Reason disagreeing with him to the sins of the Inquisition. Well Wee Hugh, if Man of Reason does track you down before torturing you then burning you at the stake then you might have a point.

But of course that could never happen - how could he possibly justify such barbarity without believing he was doing God's work?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 

More UK

More UK >>

More Cloning & stem cell research

More Cloning & stem cell research >>

Features

Drink Driving - Don't Risk It Drink Driving - Don't Risk It
Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.