I drove down south this morning in what will be a regular occurrence until we sort out where we will eventually end up living. All in all it wasn't too bad, leaving Manchester at 8 and getting me to work around 11.
I enjoy listening to the radio while driving as it keeps me intellectually involved (my lower brain functions can cope with avoiding hitting things and watching for hazards without too much input). However I may have to consider what I listen too after the Today programme. I enjoy debate and I think there is a useful role played by radio phone in programmes in informing the national discussion. However this morning I found myself wanting to shout at the radio during this mornings debate about the upcoming embryo bill. One person even came on and had the arrogance to state (roughly paraphrased) "Any right thinking person can see it's morally wrong to mix human and animal cells". I'm fairly sure none of the major faiths and their "prophets" have carefully considered and discussed the point at which a collection of cells become sentient and "human". It's almost certain the Bible/Koran/A.N.Other holy book don't discuss cell biology and it's moral implications. I find it arrogance of the highest order for religions to assume they are the authoritative source of morals and ethical behaviour.
It was interesting hearing a number of suffering believers talk about how they would refuse treatment based on any of this potential scientific work. It shows there is a poor understanding of the way science works by building on a global pool of knowledge.
However who am I to deny them their right to refuse treatment? Of course it begs the question of who they are to deny scientific advance to the rest of us?