(a) The argument is found in the link, as you suspect. It is also recorded in the MP’s debates in the House of Commons.

(b) By “full account of morality,” I do not want to suggest we must have a fully worked view of morality. Instead, my language is too loose. Rather, my claim is that to claim “x is morally wrong” is question-begging. That some action, etc. is morally wrong is rarely, if ever, obvious. I am claiming that some of those against the legislation thought it was obvious that hybrid embryos were immoral.

(c) I am only claiming that those who state that hybrid embryos are morally wrong are mistaken to think it is obvious: the position requires more argument from them, not us, as it is they who are trying to convince us these embryos are immoral. I am asking the question of how we might know this.

(d) You understand me correctly: an old fashioned positivist view of law (e.g., law and morality are not inextricably bound).

a. You say (in (1)) that “There are several problems with this argument.” What argument? No argument is provided for our consideration; it looks to me as though what you’ve got is a bare conclusion unsupported by any argument. (Are we supposed to have found the argument in one of the links?)

b. “It is no use to say that x is “morally wrong” without a full account of morality…” This is not at all obvious to me! Does anyone anywhere have a full account of morality? I think not — but we all seem to go around making moral judgments anyway.

c. “… not least as there are many different camps and what is wrong (and right) is not self evident.” Again, this isn’t obviously true (to me).

d. You say “that a view is morally wrong may be insufficient to demonstrate that the view should not be adopted politically.” What does it mean for a view to be “morally wrong”? But I think I get the point here: I think you mean that the fact that an action is morally wrong does not, by itself, tell us anything about what the law should be. If that’s your point, it seems true.