Brian, you argue against religion, but the fact of the matter is that much of the Australian population, and indeed, much of civilisation in general hold religious beliefs. These beliefs inform the way they live, the decisions they make and what, ultimately, is right and wrong.

While you and many others do not agree with them, the furthest reasonable step you can take is to argue against their reasons. You can't call for an abolition of religion, just because you see it as the root of their decision making. It makes you look like a silly wishful thinker; kind of like calling off the bout on a technicality, rather than jumping in the ring.

Besides, many opponents of abortion, stem cell research, cloning etc. have very sound reasons for their views, apart from reasons informed by their religion, that could sit right with the most fervent secular humanist.

It is discriminatory to attempt to silence fellow citizens because you think their views are religious, which you consider to be something outdated and 'baloney'.

Furthermore, you can’t accuse the Catholic Church of sticking its head up to “have yet another pie thrown in its face” without being prepared to cop one yourself: you state: “There is no comparison between research which sacrifices laboratory-created embryos which are unviable without a uterus and the Nazi research which sacrificed living children.” Of course an embryo can’t survive without a uterus! What do you mean by viable? What a nice euphemism for ‘human person’! I am not viable without food and shelter. So starve me and keep me in the cold and I am no longer a human person, so you can manipulate me and experiment on me. This isn’t a matter of religion – this is common sense. The only reason that an embryo is useful for stem cell research is that it is living!

Rather than pull the wool over your own eyes, just say what side of the fence you are on – you are either in favour of creating human life for experimentation and healing of other humans or against it.

All modern genetic science is based on the work of Father Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian priest in good standing. There are even some thinkers who suggest that Aquinas, another Catholic priest made much of modern scientific thinking possible by re-allerting the west to Aristotle, and by being a seious thinker himself. Criticise bad examples of religious intolerance and ignorance all you like but this wide brush polemical stuff just obscures the real issues. There's an artticle on Christopher Hitchen's latest book at
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/
that makes my point better than I have.

It is hard to believe that anyone still believes in evolution after having so many hoaxes uncoverered. You don't need to be to smart to see the results of our so called free thinkers who use false science in order to make themselves accountable to no one. A 5 year old can see that the created world has order. It takes a lot more faith to swallow the unscienific, unproven theory of evolution. That is free thinking I suppose. It has resulted in people believeing that the aborigines have not yet evolved to the level of others yet.

Brian appears to be a typical fundamentalist athiest who is not open to views other than his own. Many of the worlds greatest scientist such as Isaac Newton were Creationist. Of course Brain believes humans came about by chance and then tries to use logic to win his arguement. Brain I suggest at best is a church hater and at worst a god hater. This has clouded his bigotted views.

I have to wonder just which of two options could be called a "crime" against humanity.

1) To manipulate a few cells in a laboratory which might lead to cures for many horrific physical conditions, or.....

2) Force children at a ridiculous age to believe in the superstition of organised religion.

If religion was not forced upon children at such an early age, then eventually it would practically die out since adults are much more able to distinguish between fairy tales and reality.
You don't need religious dogma to keep the world's population in check. Sound scientific knowledge will do just fine.

Thanks Aime for your sensible comment.

Unlike that of 'stop&think', who could more aptly be tagged 'don't think, react with prejudice'.

Brian's primary argument is against the unwarranted influence of religion, superstition and other irrational thinking on important areas of public policy.

Brian does not deny 'that much of the Australian population, and indeed, much of civilisation in general hold religious beliefs. These beliefs inform the way they live, the decisions they make' - he clearly agrees with this contention.

Nor does Brian 'call for an abolition of religion'. He simply calls for less irrational thinking and less religious influence.

Nor does he 'attempt to silence fellow citizens because [he] thinks their views are religious.

And I'm certain he is 'prepared to cop one' himself, when warranted.

He is simply observing that an embryo is not a 'human being', unless you believe the unprovable idea that human embryos are both human and have 'souls' from the instant of conception.

Nor is Brian attempting to 'pull the wool over [anyone's] eyes': he is being completely open, honest and straightforward. He is certainly prepared to 'just say what side of the fence [he is] on': he is clearly in favour of using early stage embryonic cells for experimentation and healing of other humans, and prepared to argue for it in a forum rife with all manner of irrational believers in all manner of unscientific gods, spirits, theories, superstitions and dogmas. You have to admire his courage, for he has to contend with the petty, inaccurate and dishonest ripostes from religious zealots who have nothing better to do than re-cycle their unscientific beliefs on these sites!

As soon as I started reading htis, I wondered when the religious groups were going to jump on athiesm... Nice to see they started up early.

What I want to understand is this: If your god is going to pass judgement on you, assuming that he/it exists, then surely it's your own decisions which matter, not what others do. So, therefore, if you think that abortion is "wrong", don't get one. Let those who do face the consequences (and let's not kid ourselves - there are consequences in this life and any others that may exist).

The point is: if you object to medicines which come from use of theraputic cloning, then don't use them. That's your decision to make. However we who do want them should be allowed to have them.

And before anyone brings in the typical sorts of points on polygamy or beastiality, can we please keep this on topic - we're dealing with theraputic cloning.