Thinking Anglicans

more on the embryology bill

Updated again Saturday morning

The Church Times has a report by Bill Bowder Bishops attack embryos Bill and also a Leader: Church fails its Biology exam. (Another comment article by Paul Vallely is subscriber-only until next week.)

The news report refers to earlier evidence given to Parliament by the CofE Mission and Public Affairs Council, last June, on a separate but related topic. See this press release Church says IVF children need fathers and the PDF with the full text here.

And Dave Walker on the Church Times blog draws attention to a report by Jonathan Petre on 18 March of some remarks made by Rowan Williams, Society can’t handle science, and a rather more useful contribution made this week by Alan Wilson Embryo Wars — five critical questions.

Update Friday evening

The Tablet carries this article by Colin Blakemore For pity’s sake.

Update Saturday morning

The Times carries this article: Sir Leszek Borysiewicz says Church is wrong on hybrid embryo Bill:

The most senior Roman Catholic scientist in Britain has attacked his Church’s opposition to proposed laws that will allow the creation of human-animal embryos for research.

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz made a passionate defence of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and the science that it will make possible…

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen H Smith
Stephen H Smith
16 years ago

Christian Concern for our Nation has a very clear outline of the legal issues involved via

poppy tupper
poppy tupper
16 years ago

rowan williams:

scientists don’t understand morality
an embryo is a person
evolution has limitations
darwinism is flawed

some of these ideas have some very limited truth, but the overall effect of saying these sorts of things is a disaster. this clown is an embarrassment to us. can’t anyone get rid of him?

Cheryl Va.
16 years ago

Right on Poppy. It was the secular rather than the priests who responded to John the Baptist. Similarly in this generation, the secular and scientists have been faster and more credible to recognise divine inspiration than the priests. Oh, and morality is a non-biblical word (doesn’t exist in it). Yes, an embryo is a person. Just as a GLBT, woman, non-Christian or sentient entity (even if metaphysical) is a person. God is in charge of and loves ALL creation. Evolution has limitations. So do priests and theology. That’s why God sends prophets. Darwinism is flawed. So is fundamentalist biblical theology… Read more »

16 years ago

“Yes, an embryo is a person . . . We don’t need to murder souls, however immature they might be.”

Cheryl Va,

I really have NO idea of what you mean by “person” or “souls” in this context. Is any organic mass w/ Homo sapiens DNA a “person” (w/ a “soul”)?

I have almost become inured to Rowan Cantuar *embarrassing* me. Almost. >:-/

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
16 years ago

“Is any organic mass w/ Homo sapiens DNA a “person” (w/ a “soul”)?” JCF, An embryo isn’t merely an “organic mass with Homosapiens DNA”. My appendix is an organic mass with homo sapiens DNA, yet it can never, not even with stimulation, develop into an entire person. An embryo can, and all it needs is the right place to reside for 9 months. I think there are probably two logical starting points for life: conception or birth. I lean towards the former, since, at fertilization, something happens that is akin to a switch being activated. But then, I also have… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x