Well done to the MP's tonight

[WaltonRed]

For this, common sense prevails:

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back hybrid embyro research

As for Ruth Kelly and the others in the cabinet who voted along religous lines, shame on you.

[Big Ig]

Fucking right, there's hope for this country yet...

[Fugitive]

Let's hope they put it good use and create ManBearPig or a Shark boy. That would be rather good if you ask me.

[bobhorse]

dose that mean you can now ask for a cat with a knife ?

[thechap]

Man and jetpack to be brought together at last.

Manpack.

Jetman?

No, hang on... Packman!

[Cath]

Originally Posted by WaltonRed For this, common sense prevails: BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back hybrid embyro research As for Ruth Kelly and the others in the cabinet who voted along religous lines, shame on you.

On the nail. I watched that Dispatches programme last night (yes I know it can be a bit sensationalist) and those religious nutters were some scary shit.

Ruth Kelly should be paired with Nadine Dorries and both told to piss off home.

[Paul]

Whilst I'm also pleased to see this has gone through, there clearly are deeply complex and very important moral and ethical arguments to be made on both sides of this issue that shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

[Spy Bee]

Originally Posted by Paul Whilst I'm also pleased to see this has gone through, there clearly are deeply complex and very important moral and ethical arguments to be made on both sides of this issue that shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Are there, or are these just fabricated issues that people need to believe in to affirm their existence is important?

[TheHitman]

I think one of the arguments that rarely get mentioned is will any advances only benefit people who can actually afford it and will there be a two tier system for those who can pay and those that can't.

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by Spy Bee Are there, or are these just fabricated issues that people need to believe in to affirm their existence is important?

There are always two sides to the debate. It does the pro side no harm to have the against side citing religious reasons as these can easily be dismissed in today's climate.

[G Richards]

Originally Posted by WaltonRed As for Ruth Kelly and the others in the cabinet who voted along religous lines, shame on you.

This seems unduly intolerant, WaltonRed. There was a free vote and this was a good example of democracy in action and all that.

As a religious person I don't have any problem with this myself, though I'd prefer it if there was more evidence as to the likely or even hoped for benefits. I'm also slightly uncomfortable that the parameters aren't nailed down better, but I suppose it is tricky to do that well since they can't be sure where the research might lead. Still, we all benefit from all sorts of medical advances that have been made over the years and long may this continue.

[G Richards]

Originally Posted by Spy Bee Are there, or are these just fabricated issues that people need to believe in to affirm their existence is important?

Surely everbody thinks their existence is important. If they didn't, we wouldn't have any of this research, since the hoped for medical benefits would be irrelevant if existence wasn't important!

[cochcaer]

If used to fight against Parkinson's, spinal injury etc I'm all for it.

[Strontium Dog]

Originally Posted by G Richards This seems unduly intolerant, WaltonRed.

Does it? Which is more intolerant - trying to force your beliefs on everyone by banning hybrid embryos, or criticising someone for doing it?

I welcome the result. It is encouraging that so many MPs have paid attention to the science, rather than being swayed by nonsense about Frankensteinian monsters. I just hope they display the same courage in voting down the attempt to curtail abortion rights later today.

[rb14]

It's unlikely, but I MIGHT have a little more time for the MPs' religion if it didn't seem so closely linked to their desire to get elected.

Although come to think of it, having seen the utter devotion to the good lord jesus of both Blair and Bush, perhaps I'm wrong.

[G Richards]

Originally Posted by Strontium Dog Does it? Which is more intolerant - trying to force your beliefs on everyone by banning hybrid embryos, or criticising someone for doing it? I welcome the result. It is encouraging that so many MPs have paid attention to the science, rather than being swayed by nonsense about Frankensteinian monsters. I just hope they display the same courage in voting down the attempt to curtail abortion rights later today.

Yes it does, that's why I said it (though upon reflection, I hope I didn't put Waltonred on the back foot, as he's a good poster and comes across as a good sort).

As for forcing beliefs, it was an open vote that demonstrated democracy in action. I'm perhaps a bit too apolitical, but in instances such as this I think the system works well. People voted according to their persuasion, and that's a good thing. There should be no shame at all, and that's the part that seemed intolerant to me. I've already said I personally have no problem with it too.

As for the other comment about the abortion bill, that's a separate issue, with highly emotive views on both sides. My personal view is that it would be a very good thing if it comes down from 24 to 20 weeks.