Albert Cilia-Vincenti (November 7) argues that “the State is responsible for man’s quality of existence”, whereas “religious belief centres around the concept of God and the mystery of the afterlife”.

This is an extremely reductive version of religious belief. The 10 commandments include worldly issues like “thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not give false witness”, etc. These are social directives.

Evidently even religion concerns itself with the dignity of human life and the quality of human existence, while promoting a just social order.

When I had referred to the Westminster Parliament’s euthanasia debate, the point at issue was that parliamentary debates should not, in principle, exclude religious values held by citizens. In that context, I was not “being economic with the truth discussing other specific British laws would have been a digression.

Parliament may legislate but not make actions ethically permissible. Several countries passed, say, ethically heinous racist laws. Britain’s and Sweden’s legislation permitting the use of embryonic stem-cells in no way justifies that practiceethically. Science has demonstrated that human life starts at conception. So embryonic stem cells are human cells. In philosophical ethics, the end does not justify the means.

Even in view of a good end (like medical research for the relief of human suffering), to terminate the embryo’s life as the means to harvest/use its human cells is unethical. Catholic moral teaching is in full agreement.
Catholicism affirms the dignity of every human being, making itself the voice of the voiceless human embryo. If affirming the embryo’s dignity requires signalling limits to medical and legislative action, this is not so as to hinder genuine efforts to relieve suffering, but to offer a higher service, proclaiming the dignity and worth of life itself.