Lying in bed listening to 'Today'. They ran a feature on the 'World's Oldest Mother at 66' story. Not getting into it. Except to say that very many entirely unsuitable people become parents; many suitable people don't. It's always been the way of the world, always be. The world, and human beings, and their lives, don't fit into some neat ideal. Get over it.
Anyway, they decided to debate the ethics, and they had two guests. One was a Professor of some branch of medical science, another was the Bishop of Oxford. Now, this is not an attack on that particular postholder, because I happen to think that Richard Harries is a man of considerable integrity, compassion and humanity. I also know that he was invited because he is a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Nevertheless, the in-general thought struck me. Why did they invite a clergy person? There seems to be a predisposition to involving religious-type people in debates about ethics. It rankles with me.
In general, why is their point of view - and is only a point of view - more valid than, say, a taxi driver? Or a blogger. In the end, they are all more-or-less self appointed opinionators, with little accountability to the wider community. And why is a clergyman on the HFEA anyway?
I can only conclude that the Establishment believe that a religious input is vital to the ethical well-being of our society. Considering the tiny number of people who attend churches, and the even tinier number who live their lives according to religious doctrine, it is at best anachronistic. It is based on a false premise that religious people are, in general, 'moral', and, in my view, plain wrong.
