The Embryology Bill

Ian Dale says that anyone who has a public platform should be prepared to show how he would vote on a sensitive issue like the Embryology Bill. He may be right and for what it’s worth I’ll give a couple of observations. All societies condemn killing and just as when I was young we had to reach for a definition of what ‘dead’ meant – stopped breathing, no viable life predicted, brain dead etc – so now we have to reach for a definition of what being alive is. And in my view we have to do it before we start discussing more complicated matters such as the Embryology Bill.

The only conclusion I have been able to come to that makes any sense (to me) is that life begins at the moment of conception. I should say immediately that I bear no resentment or ill will to anyone who has come to a different conclusion – it is a difficult matter, particularly in my case because its implications are unpopular. The people I do despise are those who vote for abortion because it is convenient.

For me it means that there is no moral difference in killing a human 20 weeks after conception to killing one 20 weeks or 20 years after birth. Accordingly I would have abstained on the 20-24 weeks issue on the grounds that the difference is purely aesthetic: the age and similarity of the aborted foetus to a grown human. I might possibly have persuaded myself that animal-human hybrids are not humans so you can do what you like with them but I doubt it and find the scales tipped by its sheer repugnance. I should certainly have voted against ‘saviour siblings’ because in my terms this is saying your child can live if we kill 99 others. That I should have done so in the knowledge that this might limit the chances of a cure for a number of diseases is an indication of how difficult an MP’s job can be.

I hope MPs have informed themselves fully on this and related matters, such as whether the alternatives to embryo cells are viable. Some people are saying that embryo cells are not as good as stem cells taken from the spine or from blood because they are naturally carcinogenic. Some are saying we simply cannot progress using only non-embryo stem cells. Which is the truth?

But I have my doubts as to whether MPs are taking their responsibilities seriously and the Tory response of splitting the difference between the proposed 20 weeks and the existing 24 smacks of canny politics which has no place in this debate. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Lastly, I am fed up with being grouped with the ‘religious objectors’ and therefore regarded as mad by the left wing press. This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion: it is a secular, humanist morality with which the Roman Church (to which I don't belong) agrees.

Conscience

All the papers report that Brown has allowed a free vote on the Embryology Bill. But I wonder if they have read the small print – always important when dealing with Brown. He says that if the Bill is passed – and it will be, the protesters are in a minority – they will be expected to vote for the Bill at its final reading.

So it isn’t a free vote at all. Ruth Kelly, for example, who has welcomed the concession, will find herself voting against the clauses her conscience does not permit her to support, then voting in favour of them a few days later, in order to keep her salary. Is this where Brown’s moral compass has led him? Is this where Ruth Kelly’s conscience has led her?

Embryology

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is getting its first airing. The bill proposes permitting human/animal mix embryos. The idea is that they mix the genes of humans and, say, moles, creating a man/mole creature, mess around with it and then destroy it.

The Roman Catholic Church is against it, although I have heard nothing about the Church of England’s position on the matter. Its website says ’Research using human embryos donated by IVF patients.... is acceptable but using human embryos created specifically for research from donated eggs and sperm is not.’ Which would seem to suggest it is against the bill but not against the general idea of making and killing embryos. I will try to find out but they don’t answer the phone on Good Friday.

Most astonishing is that the government will not allow a free vote of its MPs. Surely if there is one thing that is a matter of conscience it is this. I find it incredible that Gordon Brown (who always wants to portray himself as a son of the Manse, with a moral compass) not only should feel that this legislation is OK, but should be so insensitive as to think nobody else’s views matter. Labour MPs are thus reduced to mere political fodder: they are being told that they are not there to represent their constituencies, they are not there because they are deemed to be people to whom the governance of the nation should be entrusted, they are just robots who do as they are told. For all their scope for free thinking they might be half mole already.

For myself, and many others, this is not really a religious matter, and I hope it will not be portrayed as religious, despite the fact that the Church of Rome is leading the opposition. For many of us who have looked at this on humanitarian grounds, life begins at conception. For us there is no moral difference between killing a 14 day old foetus (they say the procedure is OK because they will kill them all when they are two weeks old) and a 14 day old, or 14 year old born child. All, in my view, are equally wrong.

I don’t mind people thinking differently, but I do object to the government thinking its MPs shouldn’t be allowed an opinion on this.

It goes without saying that I hope any MP who does think this is wrong will vote against it, despite the views of their party, particularly those who like Ruth Kelly make a publicity issue of their beliefs.