Society must address the moral status of embryos
Thank you for an editorial piece on the human embryology debate that tries to balance science and ethics. There still needs to be a greater focus on the moral status of the human embryo, not just its usefulness for science and for other human beings. There must be a moral issue to using human life as a means to an end. If not, we are the most abject of people.
The inability to focus on the moral status of the embryo has been compensated for by taking almost desperate refuge in the proposed legal safeguard that newly created admixed human-animal embryos will be destroyed after 14 days. But we need to be clear that the 14-day rule does not make it okay to create, experiment on and then suppress embryonic human life. Legality is rarely a good substitute for morality.
There has been little public acknowledgement in this debate that experimentation on human embryos has produced zero results for medical science in more than 10 years, and that scientists, researchers and clinicians are themselves divided on the scientific and medical value of embryo-destructive research. The debate within the scientific and medical community shows that the appeal to possible cures for serious medical conditions as a justification for embryo research is as premature as it is manipulative.
Lastly, it is tempting for many to classify the debate as one between religion and science. This is a lazy option. The debate is much more about the good use of science and the bad use of science, which is first of all a matter of right reason, and that is accessible to all people of good will.
As a believer, I would argue religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on these matters. In a pluralistic society, faith may not be considered as public knowledge, but until very recently it was recognised that faith carries a wisdom which is useful for public knowledge. Legislators ignore it to the detriment of the whole community.
Philip Tartaglia,
Bishop of Paisley,
Cathedral Precincts, Paisley.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:31pm Tue 13 May 08
''The inability to focus on the moral status of the embryo has been compensated for by taking almost desperate refuge in the proposed legal safeguard that newly created admixed human-animal embryos will be destroyed after 14 days. But we need to be clear that the 14-day rule does not make it okay to create, experiment on and then suppress embryonic human life. Legality is rarely a good substitute for morality''
This passage implies that the ''human-animal embrayo'' could have a future after 14 days, that it could somehow develop. It couldn't. The Bishop precedes this statement by saying that,
''There must be a moral issue to using human life as a means to an end''
No proposal to experiment upon human life, or animal/human life which is viable in any sense is contained within the bill.
He then proceeds to rubbish the science behind this research.
I congragulate him on avoiding ''grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions'', but I still think that this is a misleading letter.
I will leave other people to debate the science, I am no expert and acknowledge it. But I think if the Bishop wants to be taken seriously in his desire to shed his light and wisdom upon this debate, he should reconsider his words.
''The inability to focus on the moral status of the embryo has been compensated for by taking almost desperate refuge in the proposed legal safeguard that newly created admixed human-animal embryos will be destroyed after 14 days. But we need to be clear that the 14-day rule does not make it okay to create, experiment on and then suppress embryonic human life. Legality is rarely a good substitute for morality''
This passage implies that the ''human-animal embrayo'' could have a future after 14 days, that it could somehow develop. It couldn't. The Bishop precedes this statement by saying that,
''There must be a moral issue to using human life as a means to an end''
No proposal to experiment upon human life, or animal/human life which is viable in any sense is contained within the bill.
He then proceeds to rubbish the science behind this research.
I congragulate him on avoiding ''grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions'', but I still think that this is a misleading letter.
I will leave other people to debate the science, I am no expert and acknowledge it. But I think if the Bishop wants to be taken seriously in his desire to shed his light and wisdom upon this debate, he should reconsider his words.
Posted by: Craig, Glasgow on 10:27pm Tue 13 May 08
Philip Tartaglia seems to imply that his view is that of all belivers. He is wrong I am an elder of another branch of Christianity and do not see any issue with experimentation on embryos before 14 days. This should not be a religion v science debate as their are varied views from those with a religious or scientific view or neither.
Philip Tartaglia seems to imply that his view is that of all belivers. He is wrong I am an elder of another branch of Christianity and do not see any issue with experimentation on embryos before 14 days. This should not be a religion v science debate as their are varied views from those with a religious or scientific view or neither.
Posted by: julie, glasgow on 11:06pm Tue 13 May 08
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate.
On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.
What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it.
This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate.
On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.
What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it.
This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.
Posted by: julie, glasgow on 11:11pm Tue 13 May 08
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate.
On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.
What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it.
This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate.
On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.
What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it.
This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 11:33pm Tue 13 May 08
Julie seems to know what she is talking about, and it reinforced what I heard at the public meeting I attended at Glasgow University. Thos ein favour need to do more to convince us and that means the population and not just a majority in parliament.
Julie seems to know what she is talking about, and it reinforced what I heard at the public meeting I attended at Glasgow University. Thos ein favour need to do more to convince us and that means the population and not just a majority in parliament.
Posted by: ColinE, Dundee on 11:37pm Tue 13 May 08
Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.
Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.
Posted by: Kenny McGuigan, Coatbridge on 6:13am Wed 14 May 08
[bold]"I would argue religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on these issues," says the bishop.[/bold]
Eh?
Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion. The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation, proving we share DNA with rats, even the humble fruit-fly. We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees. Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.
The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question. The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death. Although there is no official written decree regarding this, Pope John Paul II said it occurred when the egg was fertilised. But, as we know, a newly fertilised egg can divide and eventually become twins. When are they ensouled? Do they share a soul? Is one twin ensouled after its sibling?
The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years. Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy while their massive, well organised propoganda machine muddy the waters and threatens politicians. Still, nice to see Cardinal O'Brien enjoying a new lease of life with his pacemaker, despite exceeding his allotted biblical time span.
The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little. He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments so as to impede any progress. Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable. He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.
"In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church? If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals and superstitious nonsense then he and his church should butt out. As I have said before, religious people are quite free to refuse such treatments if they consider them evil, much as Jehova Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.
"I would argue religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on these issues," says the bishop.
Eh?
Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion. The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation, proving we share DNA with rats, even the humble fruit-fly. We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees. Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.
The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question. The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death. Although there is no official written decree regarding this, Pope John Paul II said it occurred when the egg was fertilised. But, as we know, a newly fertilised egg can divide and eventually become twins. When are they ensouled? Do they share a soul? Is one twin ensouled after its sibling?
The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years. Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy while their massive, well organised propoganda machine muddy the waters and threatens politicians. Still, nice to see Cardinal O'Brien enjoying a new lease of life with his pacemaker, despite exceeding his allotted biblical time span.
The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little. He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments so as to impede any progress. Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable. He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.
"In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church? If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals and superstitious nonsense then he and his church should butt out. As I have said before, religious people are quite free to refuse such treatments if they consider them evil, much as Jehova Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.
Posted by: Paul, Paisley on 7:33am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote:
Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.[/quote] So why not experiment on babies, children and older adults who may not also be able to protest? It's for the good of mankind.
ColinE wrote:
Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.
So why not experiment on babies, children and older adults who may not also be able to protest? It's for the good of mankind.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 8:54am Wed 14 May 08
For once the Bishop is right - the moral status of the embryo must be addressed - it is not life but potential life, just as an egg or a sperm cell is - it has no rights unless it is born.
For once the Bishop is right - the moral status of the embryo must be addressed - it is not life but potential life, just as an egg or a sperm cell is - it has no rights unless it is born.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 10:12am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]julie[/bold] wrote:
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate. On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law. What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it. This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.[/quote] [quote]Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.[/quote]
That's rather nice of him, I think you'll find that it is the scientific community and the majority of folk who want this research done that are the ones being charitable to the bishop.
[quote]The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease.[/quote]
That's why it is called research. It's not a quick fix.
[quote]Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.[/quote]
It is not a person, it is not a person until it is born. It is NOT human life.
[quote]What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back[/quote]
Abject nonsense, it is only the container that will be animal derived, your nonsense makes it sound like the streets will be full of centaurs, and other mythological creatures, whoops sorry you religionistas belive that nonsense.
Nobody will force you to turn into a sheep, although the way you follow religous dictats, you appear to be sheep already.
julie wrote:
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease. It is becoming increasingly obvious that embryonic stem cells will not provide these cures; they are not biologically compatible with adult tissue, they have chromosome deficiences as a result of the cloning process used to obtain them, and there is also host rejection problems as they are not genetically identical to the person being treated. No embryonic trial has got past animal trials as yet. By constrast, adult stem cell research has already produced over 70 cures and therapies and has made huge strides in Parkinsons and spinal injury. This has barely been acknowledged in the public debate. On the matters of ethics, the law and Christianty share a common base; that is, protection of human life directly or indirectly. So laws against murder and assault protect life directly; laws regarding property, free speech and the right to health care are laws that deal indirectly with protecting human life. Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law. What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back; we would have to live (or die) with it. This bill is bad science and bad ethics and it should be shot down.
Bishop Tartaglia is absolutely correct to query the science behind hybrid embryos and is actually being rather charitable towards those who propose it.
That's rather nice of him, I think you'll find that it is the scientific community and the majority of folk who want this research done that are the ones being charitable to the bishop.
The scientific community have advanced the argument for hybrid embryos on the basis that it 'might' produce cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers and motor neurone disease.
That's why it is called research. It's not a quick fix.
Some may argue that an embryo is not a person, but what can not be disputed is that it is human life and to ignore this is to lose sight of the basic principle of the law.
It is not a person, it is not a person until it is born. It is NOT human life.
What is most worrying about this is that there has been no discussion about crossing the species barrier. With xenotransplantation ( transplanting animal parts into humans such as heart valves from pigs) there has been an ongoing discussion about animal disease crossing the species barrier, and those who get neural transplants from animals are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to use a condom when having sex. This is a step further; this legislation permits 50:50 animal/human hybrids as well as the de-nucleated egg ones and there has been no discussion about bird flu, swine fever, BSE or any other possible diseases. At the moment, it takes several mutations of the bird flu virus to cross over to humans; if this experimentation went ahead and things went wrong, we could be looking at bird flu being able to cross over in a couple of mutations. We could end up with a pandemic and we would not be able to turn the clock back
Abject nonsense, it is only the container that will be animal derived, your nonsense makes it sound like the streets will be full of centaurs, and other mythological creatures, whoops sorry you religionistas belive that nonsense.
Nobody will force you to turn into a sheep, although the way you follow religous dictats, you appear to be sheep already.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 11:02am Wed 14 May 08
Here we go again. Once again a Bishop chooses to intervene. I don't have a scooby as to how many Roman Catholic MPs there are. Even if they formed a majority and could prevent the passage of the Embryology Bill, they would have no business to do so, unless they could find reasons other than religion on which to base their opposition. Society is not a religious organisation such as a church. Laws must be made as far as possible in the interests far wider than matters of faith of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MPs and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. It is the role of legislatotors to be consequentialists. They must not ask, "What does my religion teach about this measure?" but "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?"
Once again a poitically weakened Macavity has dithered and allowed himself to be brow-beaten. Once again a secularist society is being dictated to by a vociferous religious minority. Once again this is totally unacceptable.
Here we go again. Once again a Bishop chooses to intervene. I don't have a scooby as to how many Roman Catholic MPs there are. Even if they formed a majority and could prevent the passage of the Embryology Bill, they would have no business to do so, unless they could find reasons other than religion on which to base their opposition. Society is not a religious organisation such as a church. Laws must be made as far as possible in the interests far wider than matters of faith of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MPs and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. It is the role of legislatotors to be consequentialists. They must not ask, "What does my religion teach about this measure?" but "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?"
Once again a poitically weakened Macavity has dithered and allowed himself to be brow-beaten. Once again a secularist society is being dictated to by a vociferous religious minority. Once again this is totally unacceptable.
Posted by: Big Stu on 11:16am Wed 14 May 08
Kenny
[quote]Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion[/quote]
Of course it is, and the vast majority of religious people find that the vast majority of science sits very comfortably alongside their religious faith. Indeed, lots of Scientists including Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome project you mention find that science enhances their religious belief and vice versa. His book "The Language of God - a Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" is worth a read. To many people, the biggest scientific challenge to religious belief is evolutionary theory. The Bishop's church endorses this theory.
[quote] The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation.[/quote]
No it didn't, mainly because there was nothing to explode, people of all views have always known that physically men and animals are made of the same stuff and broadly to the same patterns. Not even the most ardent Creationist would argue with that. The Human Genome project says nothing about the things that do make us unique, our minds, personalities, and grasp of purely conceptual ideas among many other things.
[quote]We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees[/quote]
This percentage has been increased to somewhere between 6 and 8% recently.
[quote]. Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.[/quote]
The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I respect your right to come to a different conclusion.
[quote]The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question[/quote]
This was also the case with Kings and Queens, Governments, Tax collectors - it's how things were done in the past, not a specifically church problem. We have all moved on together since then.
[quote]. The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death.[/quote]
This is emphatically not the major problem in this debate. Who has mentioned souls? What has that got to do with the arguments which have been presented?
[quote]The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years[/quote]
In the context of the present debate - what, specifically, are they backtracking on?
If you are one of the people who criticise the church for not changing and you might be..
[quote]the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion.[/quote]
...how can you criticise the church for changing?
[quote]. Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy[/quote]
Religious people and churches emphatically do not "rubbish every new development" the ones you cite are just about the only examples in all the vastness of science where there are issues. Further, no-one is "rubbishing" anything. These developments are being challenged in the same way that you allow science to challenge religion, and for the umpteenth time, they are being challenged with facts and reason. The challenges should be responded to with facts and reason rather than the entire religion v. science red herring.
[quote]their massive, well organised propoganda machine[/quote]
Which is up against an even more massive, well organised propaganda machine. Is this fair or not? I would dispute your use of the word propaganda, can you give some examples of this?
[quote]The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little[/quote]
Ok, except it's not tired, it's not old and it's not an excuse. It's a fact.
[quote]. He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments[/quote]
He also omits to mention the huge influence the liberal left movement has exerted on the US Government - so what? Why should he have mentioned this?
[quote]so as to impede any progress[/quote]
Progress cannot always be made at any cost, and remember, as far as the current debate is concerned there are demonstrably better alternatives where progress can arguably be faster.
[quote]. Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable.[/quote]
The various churches don't set the budgets for Scientific research. I find it laudable that Prof Wilmut recently abandoned human cloning as he felt there are better alternatives.
[quote]. He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.[/quote]
People arguing against the bill use the term embryo as does the media and, well, virtually everyone. The term blastocyst is very rarely used on any side of the debate, it's just less commonly used out of scientific circles - that's all.
[quote] "In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church?[/quote]
Can you tell me of any organisation that would not "threaten" to exclude those who do not abide by the rules of the organisation?
Why is this wrong?
[quote] If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals[/quote]
If you are an Atheist, then it is likely that you consider everything humans do to be animalistic. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to be levelling this accusation at the Bishop? Could you say which rituals you think are animalistic, I'd like a chance to respond please.
[quote]superstitious nonsense.[/quote]
Matter of opinion. I don't agree.
[quote]he and his church should butt out[/quote]
This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?
Kenny
Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion
Of course it is, and the vast majority of religious people find that the vast majority of science sits very comfortably alongside their religious faith. Indeed, lots of Scientists including Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome project you mention find that science enhances their religious belief and vice versa. His book "The Language of God - a Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" is worth a read. To many people, the biggest scientific challenge to religious belief is evolutionary theory. The Bishop's church endorses this theory.
The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation.
No it didn't, mainly because there was nothing to explode, people of all views have always known that physically men and animals are made of the same stuff and broadly to the same patterns. Not even the most ardent Creationist would argue with that. The Human Genome project says nothing about the things that do make us unique, our minds, personalities, and grasp of purely conceptual ideas among many other things.
We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees
This percentage has been increased to somewhere between 6 and 8% recently.
. Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.
The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I respect your right to come to a different conclusion.
The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question
This was also the case with Kings and Queens, Governments, Tax collectors - it's how things were done in the past, not a specifically church problem. We have all moved on together since then.
. The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death.
This is emphatically not the major problem in this debate. Who has mentioned souls? What has that got to do with the arguments which have been presented?
The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years
In the context of the present debate - what, specifically, are they backtracking on?
If you are one of the people who criticise the church for not changing and you might be..
the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion.
...how can you criticise the church for changing?
. Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy
Religious people and churches emphatically do not "rubbish every new development" the ones you cite are just about the only examples in all the vastness of science where there are issues. Further, no-one is "rubbishing" anything. These developments are being challenged in the same way that you allow science to challenge religion, and for the umpteenth time, they are being challenged with facts and reason. The challenges should be responded to with facts and reason rather than the entire religion v. science red herring.
their massive, well organised propoganda machine
Which is up against an even more massive, well organised propaganda machine. Is this fair or not? I would dispute your use of the word propaganda, can you give some examples of this?
The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little
Ok, except it's not tired, it's not old and it's not an excuse. It's a fact.
. He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments
He also omits to mention the huge influence the liberal left movement has exerted on the US Government - so what? Why should he have mentioned this?
so as to impede any progress
Progress cannot always be made at any cost, and remember, as far as the current debate is concerned there are demonstrably better alternatives where progress can arguably be faster.
. Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable.
The various churches don't set the budgets for Scientific research. I find it laudable that Prof Wilmut recently abandoned human cloning as he felt there are better alternatives.
. He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.
People arguing against the bill use the term embryo as does the media and, well, virtually everyone. The term blastocyst is very rarely used on any side of the debate, it's just less commonly used out of scientific circles - that's all.
"In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church?
Can you tell me of any organisation that would not "threaten" to exclude those who do not abide by the rules of the organisation?
Why is this wrong?
If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals
If you are an Atheist, then it is likely that you consider everything humans do to be animalistic. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to be levelling this accusation at the Bishop? Could you say which rituals you think are animalistic, I'd like a chance to respond please.
superstitious nonsense.
Matter of opinion. I don't agree.
he and his church should butt out
This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?
Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 11:21am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]Paul[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote: Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.[/quote] So why not experiment on babies, children and older adults who may not also be able to protest? It's for the good of mankind.[/quote] Paul, you're a fool of the worst kind! You seem to think that debate is achieved by ignorance and stupidity?
Repeat after me, a human being becomes a human being WHEN IT IS BORN!!!!! Only then does it become viable! If you believe otherwise, try feeding a 14 week miscarriage!
Paul wrote:
ColinE wrote: Yawn..... I'm so tired of these superstitious ignoramuses inflicting their stupid opinions on the majority of us who have no truck with their weird cults. They have their churches, chapels, covens etc where they can pontificate as much as they like to their daft disciples but they have no credible input into whether or not scientists should be allowed to benefit the rest of mankind; these latter men of wisdom should be encouraged in their attempts to alleviate human pain and suffering.
So why not experiment on babies, children and older adults who may not also be able to protest? It's for the good of mankind.
Paul, you're a fool of the worst kind! You seem to think that debate is achieved by ignorance and stupidity?
Repeat after me, a human being becomes a human being WHEN IT IS BORN!!!!! Only then does it become viable! If you believe otherwise, try feeding a 14 week miscarriage!
Posted by: Big Stu on 11:26am Wed 14 May 08
Hi Chris,
[quote]unless they could find reasons other than religion on which to base their opposition.[/quote]
This is the whole point, the arguments being presented against the bill are based on reason and facts. I can't see any mention of God, Bibles , religion or souls except by people arguing for the bill. I don't think this is fair.
Hi Chris,
unless they could find reasons other than religion on which to base their opposition.
This is the whole point, the arguments being presented against the bill are based on reason and facts. I can't see any mention of God, Bibles , religion or souls except by people arguing for the bill. I don't think this is fair.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 11:31am Wed 14 May 08
Big Stu
I think we disagree totally on this one, but thanks for the good manners you show to me at least, and as always, in disagreeing with me.
Big Stu
I think we disagree totally on this one, but thanks for the good manners you show to me at least, and as always, in disagreeing with me.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 12:04pm Wed 14 May 08
The argument against embryo science seems to be that as yet it has not produced the results of adult stem cell research. But without enhancing the research methods as this bill proposes how will we know ? I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ?
The argument against embryo science seems to be that as yet it has not produced the results of adult stem cell research. But without enhancing the research methods as this bill proposes how will we know ? I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ?
Posted by: Big Stu on 1:20pm Wed 14 May 08
Hi Observer
[quote]I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ?[/quote]
I think you are quite correct in principle and of course I agree, but for me personally the issue is about whether we should allow science a completely free rein and there are only a tiny number of issues which are a problem. I am sure there are many things you would be wary of allowing scientists to do.
Hi Observer
I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ?
I think you are quite correct in principle and of course I agree, but for me personally the issue is about whether we should allow science a completely free rein and there are only a tiny number of issues which are a problem. I am sure there are many things you would be wary of allowing scientists to do.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 1:21pm Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Stu[/bold] wrote:
Kenny [quote]Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion[/quote] Of course it is, and the vast majority of religious people find that the vast majority of science sits very comfortably alongside their religious faith. Indeed, lots of Scientists including Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome project you mention find that science enhances their religious belief and vice versa. His book "The Language of God - a Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" is worth a read. To many people, the biggest scientific challenge to religious belief is evolutionary theory. The Bishop's church endorses this theory. [quote] The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation.[/quote] No it didn't, mainly because there was nothing to explode, people of all views have always known that physically men and animals are made of the same stuff and broadly to the same patterns. Not even the most ardent Creationist would argue with that. The Human Genome project says nothing about the things that do make us unique, our minds, personalities, and grasp of purely conceptual ideas among many other things. [quote]We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees[/quote] This percentage has been increased to somewhere between 6 and 8% recently. [quote]. Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.[/quote] The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I respect your right to come to a different conclusion. [quote]The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question[/quote] This was also the case with Kings and Queens, Governments, Tax collectors - it's how things were done in the past, not a specifically church problem. We have all moved on together since then. [quote]. The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death.[/quote] This is emphatically not the major problem in this debate. Who has mentioned souls? What has that got to do with the arguments which have been presented? [quote]The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years[/quote] In the context of the present debate - what, specifically, are they backtracking on? If you are one of the people who criticise the church for not changing and you might be.. [quote]the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion.[/quote] ...how can you criticise the church for changing? [quote]. Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy[/quote] Religious people and churches emphatically do not "rubbish every new development" the ones you cite are just about the only examples in all the vastness of science where there are issues. Further, no-one is "rubbishing" anything. These developments are being challenged in the same way that you allow science to challenge religion, and for the umpteenth time, they are being challenged with facts and reason. The challenges should be responded to with facts and reason rather than the entire religion v. science red herring. [quote]their massive, well organised propoganda machine[/quote] Which is up against an even more massive, well organised propaganda machine. Is this fair or not? I would dispute your use of the word propaganda, can you give some examples of this? [quote]The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little[/quote] Ok, except it's not tired, it's not old and it's not an excuse. It's a fact. [quote]. He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments[/quote] He also omits to mention the huge influence the liberal left movement has exerted on the US Government - so what? Why should he have mentioned this? [quote]so as to impede any progress[/quote] Progress cannot always be made at any cost, and remember, as far as the current debate is concerned there are demonstrably better alternatives where progress can arguably be faster. [quote]. Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable.[/quote] The various churches don't set the budgets for Scientific research. I find it laudable that Prof Wilmut recently abandoned human cloning as he felt there are better alternatives. [quote]. He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.[/quote] People arguing against the bill use the term embryo as does the media and, well, virtually everyone. The term blastocyst is very rarely used on any side of the debate, it's just less commonly used out of scientific circles - that's all. [quote] "In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church?[/quote] Can you tell me of any organisation that would not "threaten" to exclude those who do not abide by the rules of the organisation? Why is this wrong? [quote] If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals[/quote] If you are an Atheist, then it is likely that you consider everything humans do to be animalistic. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to be levelling this accusation at the Bishop? Could you say which rituals you think are animalistic, I'd like a chance to respond please. [quote]superstitious nonsense.[/quote] Matter of opinion. I don't agree. [quote]he and his church should butt out[/quote] This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?[/quote] Big Stu,
There is much in your post I take exception too but in the interests of not going over everything, I'll stick to this one point.
[quote]This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?[/quote]
If the bishop was speaking personally I would say that is his democratic right to do so and defend it, whither I agreed with his point or not.
But he is speaking for the RC church, they do not vote for the govt, they are not a democratic organisation themselves(even for their own members) they have a narrow view of society, they speak only for themselves not society. Therefore this is not undemocratic for Kenny to say that.
If the church want to see laws implemented that they agree with, they should stand for election, although persoanlly living in a theocracy of any hue usurps democarcy.
Big Stu wrote:
Kenny Well, I would argue that science is constantly challenging the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion
Of course it is, and the vast majority of religious people find that the vast majority of science sits very comfortably alongside their religious faith. Indeed, lots of Scientists including Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome project you mention find that science enhances their religious belief and vice versa. His book "The Language of God - a Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" is worth a read. To many people, the biggest scientific challenge to religious belief is evolutionary theory. The Bishop's church endorses this theory. The Human Genome project exploded the myth that man was a unique creation.
No it didn't, mainly because there was nothing to explode, people of all views have always known that physically men and animals are made of the same stuff and broadly to the same patterns. Not even the most ardent Creationist would argue with that. The Human Genome project says nothing about the things that do make us unique, our minds, personalities, and grasp of purely conceptual ideas among many other things. We are less than 2% genetically different to chimpanzees
This percentage has been increased to somewhere between 6 and 8% recently. . Far from being created by a god, we, as an animal, have evolved over millions of years to become what we are today.
The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I respect your right to come to a different conclusion. The problem for the peddlers of religion is that they dance on a pin head. Before, it was sufficient for leaders to issue instructions and the ignorant masses obeyed without question
This was also the case with Kings and Queens, Governments, Tax collectors - it's how things were done in the past, not a specifically church problem. We have all moved on together since then. . The major problem in this debate is when a human being is "ensouled" - ie gets a soul from god which lives somewhere after the person's death.
This is emphatically not the major problem in this debate. Who has mentioned souls? What has that got to do with the arguments which have been presented? The religious leaders cannot backtrack now on all they have preached for thousands of years
In the context of the present debate - what, specifically, are they backtracking on? If you are one of the people who criticise the church for not changing and you might be.. the fixed beliefs of the bishop and religion.
...how can you criticise the church for changing? . Rather than embrace new findings they rubbish every new development, birth control, IVF, stem cell therapy
Religious people and churches emphatically do not "rubbish every new development" the ones you cite are just about the only examples in all the vastness of science where there are issues. Further, no-one is "rubbishing" anything. These developments are being challenged in the same way that you allow science to challenge religion, and for the umpteenth time, they are being challenged with facts and reason. The challenges should be responded to with facts and reason rather than the entire religion v. science red herring. their massive, well organised propoganda machine
Which is up against an even more massive, well organised propaganda machine. Is this fair or not? I would dispute your use of the word propaganda, can you give some examples of this? The bishop trots out the tired old excuse that in the last 10 years this type of stem cell research has yielded little
Ok, except it's not tired, it's not old and it's not an excuse. It's a fact. . He omits to mention the huge influence his church, along with the neo-right conservative born-again movement in the US, have exerted on governments
He also omits to mention the huge influence the liberal left movement has exerted on the US Government - so what? Why should he have mentioned this? so as to impede any progress
Progress cannot always be made at any cost, and remember, as far as the current debate is concerned there are demonstrably better alternatives where progress can arguably be faster. . Prof Iain Wilmutt's project to create Dolly the sheep was accomplished on a shoestring budget while in years past, scientific researchers were underfunded - making Wilmutt's achievement all the more laudable.
The various churches don't set the budgets for Scientific research. I find it laudable that Prof Wilmut recently abandoned human cloning as he felt there are better alternatives. . He also uses the term "embryo" knowing that it immeidately conjours up an image of a semi-formed foetus like those shown in anti-abortion posters. While embryo is not incorrect, the result of a newly fertilised egg is known as a blastocyst - not quite the same emotional impact for propoganda purposes.
People arguing against the bill use the term embryo as does the media and, well, virtually everyone. The term blastocyst is very rarely used on any side of the debate, it's just less commonly used out of scientific circles - that's all. "In a pluralistic society..." he continues; What is pluralistic about threatening excommunication of Roman Catholic politicians who refuse to vote as instructed by the catholic church?
Can you tell me of any organisation that would not "threaten" to exclude those who do not abide by the rules of the organisation? Why is this wrong? If he means those of us who don't share his animalistic rituals
If you are an Atheist, then it is likely that you consider everything humans do to be animalistic. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to be levelling this accusation at the Bishop? Could you say which rituals you think are animalistic, I'd like a chance to respond please. superstitious nonsense.
Matter of opinion. I don't agree. he and his church should butt out
This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?
Big Stu,
There is much in your post I take exception too but in the interests of not going over everything, I'll stick to this one point.
This is very serious stuff, what do you mean by this? Don't you think you're being very anti-democratic?
If the bishop was speaking personally I would say that is his democratic right to do so and defend it, whither I agreed with his point or not.
But he is speaking for the RC church, they do not vote for the govt, they are not a democratic organisation themselves(even for their own members) they have a narrow view of society, they speak only for themselves not society. Therefore this is not undemocratic for Kenny to say that.
If the church want to see laws implemented that they agree with, they should stand for election, although persoanlly living in a theocracy of any hue usurps democarcy.
Posted by: Big Stu on 1:40pm Wed 14 May 08
Hi Sam
Personally I would hate to live in a theocracy myself!
The reason I felt Kenny's comment was anti-democratic is because even though you may feel that the church has a narrow view of interest only to a minority, surely this still needs to be aired and tested in public, if it's wrong it'll eventually be shown to be wrong? Lots of individuals and organisations try to influence Politicians and laws without being elected. I'm just generally very much pro-free speech and free access to Politicians.
Hi Sam
Personally I would hate to live in a theocracy myself!
The reason I felt Kenny's comment was anti-democratic is because even though you may feel that the church has a narrow view of interest only to a minority, surely this still needs to be aired and tested in public, if it's wrong it'll eventually be shown to be wrong? Lots of individuals and organisations try to influence Politicians and laws without being elected. I'm just generally very much pro-free speech and free access to Politicians.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 1:46pm Wed 14 May 08
Whatever else it lacks the debate on this thread had been a credit to those who have participated (so far). When I hear Kenny speak, he does so with a rare passion, and God knows I can understand that, given Kenny's predicament and life "narrative". He for one stands to gain from the successful passing of this Bill. It's to his great credit that he fights on with such inteligence and courage. And he bases his arguments on fact and rational evidence, always.
One of the problems is that whereas people like Stu, who also holds strong opinions, is less concerned about "winning" and will always search for the common ground, Conservative Christianity thinks it is winning the argument. They mimic the tactics of the US right. They make the risible assumption that since the world is "against" them, that means they must be right. But the ultimate irony is that the more urgently they profess the need to "win" the nation for Christ, the more they repel those they most wish to save.
Whatever else it lacks the debate on this thread had been a credit to those who have participated (so far). When I hear Kenny speak, he does so with a rare passion, and God knows I can understand that, given Kenny's predicament and life "narrative". He for one stands to gain from the successful passing of this Bill. It's to his great credit that he fights on with such inteligence and courage. And he bases his arguments on fact and rational evidence, always.
One of the problems is that whereas people like Stu, who also holds strong opinions, is less concerned about "winning" and will always search for the common ground, Conservative Christianity thinks it is winning the argument. They mimic the tactics of the US right. They make the risible assumption that since the world is "against" them, that means they must be right. But the ultimate irony is that the more urgently they profess the need to "win" the nation for Christ, the more they repel those they most wish to save.
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 2:15pm Wed 14 May 08
"The debate is much more about the good use of science and the bad use of science..." And to do so, you must get the science right in the first place. The bill does not create 'human-animal embryos', that would be a chimera (such as cloning and expressing the Human insulin gene in [italic]E.coli[/italic] ). Philip Tartaglia's use of the term 'human-animal embryos' is misleading in the extreme. These putative embryos would be human genetically and immunologicallly. That's the whole point of the technique.
Also to question the validity of this line of research because it has not yet produced results is not, in itself, unreasonable but to suggest that this line of research should be dropped for that reason is as premature as it is manipulative. By that standard, very little research would be concluded and I doubt if we would all be sitting in front of flat screens typing away!
"The debate is much more about the good use of science and the bad use of science..." And to do so, you must get the science right in the first place. The bill does not create 'human-animal embryos', that would be a chimera (such as cloning and expressing the Human insulin gene in
E.coli ). Philip Tartaglia's use of the term 'human-animal embryos' is misleading in the extreme. These putative embryos would be human genetically and immunologicallly. That's the whole point of the technique.
Also to question the validity of this line of research because it has not yet produced results is not, in itself, unreasonable but to suggest that this line of research should be dropped for that reason is as premature as it is manipulative. By that standard, very little research would be concluded and I doubt if we would all be sitting in front of flat screens typing away!
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 2:56pm Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
The argument against embryo science seems to be that as yet it has not produced the results of adult stem cell research. But without enhancing the research methods as this bill proposes how will we know ? I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ? [/quote] No Observer, the main argument against embryo science is that we are (from a Christian point of view at least) experimenting with an as yet unborn human life. This is the sticking point upon which I guess we will never agree. I would ask you to consider this however. If a child has no rights before it is born, then are you saying that a woman could be on the bed in a labour ward, decide on a whim that she doesn't want the child any more, and then have an abortion? As a poster on here a few days back pointed out, an embryo can feel pain at 15 weeks, and a child born prematurely at 26 weeks can easily survive with the right support. If you ask me, whether the child is in or out of the mother's womb is irrelevant, it is still living, if allbeit on a natural "life support machine" so to speak.
[italic]As well as all this[/italic] there have been no results forthcoming, whereas there have been numerous results from experimentation with adult stem cells. As well as this, dress it up as you like, but at the end of the day, what is being proposed here is human/animal hybrid research. Once that principle is established, any matters of percentages involved in the hybrid mix are purely arbitrary, and can be changed at a whim.
And finally, am I correct in thinking that this is the same bill that proposes the removal of automatic registration of the father? Is it not outrageous that the state can remove a child's right to know who its father is? It is bad enough to remove the father figure from a child's life. Marital breakdowns happen, although they are tragic, and the worst affected are always the children. But to remove a child's right to know who its father ever was in the first place? That in my view is absolutely abominable. I may be talking about a different bill, I am open to correction on this, but my understanding is that it is all part of the same proposed legislation.
Observer wrote:
The argument against embryo science seems to be that as yet it has not produced the results of adult stem cell research. But without enhancing the research methods as this bill proposes how will we know ? I thought science was about experiementation. How does it go forward if it has to prove what it can do before it does it ?
No Observer, the main argument against embryo science is that we are (from a Christian point of view at least) experimenting with an as yet unborn human life. This is the sticking point upon which I guess we will never agree. I would ask you to consider this however. If a child has no rights before it is born, then are you saying that a woman could be on the bed in a labour ward, decide on a whim that she doesn't want the child any more, and then have an abortion? As a poster on here a few days back pointed out, an embryo can feel pain at 15 weeks, and a child born prematurely at 26 weeks can easily survive with the right support. If you ask me, whether the child is in or out of the mother's womb is irrelevant, it is still living, if allbeit on a natural "life support machine" so to speak.
As well as all this there have been no results forthcoming, whereas there have been numerous results from experimentation with adult stem cells. As well as this, dress it up as you like, but at the end of the day, what is being proposed here is human/animal hybrid research. Once that principle is established, any matters of percentages involved in the hybrid mix are purely arbitrary, and can be changed at a whim.
And finally, am I correct in thinking that this is the same bill that proposes the removal of automatic registration of the father? Is it not outrageous that the state can remove a child's right to know who its father is? It is bad enough to remove the father figure from a child's life. Marital breakdowns happen, although they are tragic, and the worst affected are always the children. But to remove a child's right to know who its father ever was in the first place? That in my view is absolutely abominable. I may be talking about a different bill, I am open to correction on this, but my understanding is that it is all part of the same proposed legislation.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 3:25pm Wed 14 May 08
Chris:
[quote]One of the problems is that whereas people like Stu, who also holds strong opinions, is less concerned about "winning" and will always search for the common ground, Conservative Christianity thinks it is winning the argument. They mimic the tactics of the US right. They make the risible assumption that since the world is "against" them, that means they must be right. But the ultimate irony is that the more urgently they profess the need to "win" the nation for Christ, the more they repel those they most wish to save.[/quote]
Whatever impassioned a plea anyone makes on behalf of Christianity, you are absolutely right re. the US Christian Right. I think anyone who holds a strong view about anything will, by definition, consider themselves "right" (that is surely the nature of having a strong view). But we must NEVER, EVER, go down the road of the US Christian Right, complete with Jimmy Swaggart et al. Thank you for your timely reminder to all those who hold the Christian faith.
Chris:
One of the problems is that whereas people like Stu, who also holds strong opinions, is less concerned about "winning" and will always search for the common ground, Conservative Christianity thinks it is winning the argument. They mimic the tactics of the US right. They make the risible assumption that since the world is "against" them, that means they must be right. But the ultimate irony is that the more urgently they profess the need to "win" the nation for Christ, the more they repel those they most wish to save.
Whatever impassioned a plea anyone makes on behalf of Christianity, you are absolutely right re. the US Christian Right. I think anyone who holds a strong view about anything will, by definition, consider themselves "right" (that is surely the nature of having a strong view). But we must NEVER, EVER, go down the road of the US Christian Right, complete with Jimmy Swaggart et al. Thank you for your timely reminder to all those who hold the Christian faith.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 3:25pm Wed 14 May 08
Alastair Aberdeen
It's your "most enlightened poster" here, as you like to put it.
As you will be well aware I support the Embryo Bill and have made that plain. However, on more than one occasion, starting several weeks ago, and from a social engineering perspective, I have also made it clear that I am opposed tp the withdrawal of the child's right to know who its father was. To me that is just plain crass. and to that extent I have been persuaded by the "Catholic" position for want of a better way of putting it, and I'm sure there are (better ways).
I would not choose as you have done to use the expression "absolutely abominable" to depict the fathers' issue since I find the discussion is handicapped enough by verbal incontinence a la Tony Blair. You are not usually given to this lexicon and I am surprised you employ it here.
Anyways, I doubt that my whimsicality, if that's what it is, is of any consequence in the larger scheme of things. As I always say my opinions are but dust in the balance.
Alastair Aberdeen
It's your "most enlightened poster" here, as you like to put it.
As you will be well aware I support the Embryo Bill and have made that plain. However, on more than one occasion, starting several weeks ago, and from a social engineering perspective, I have also made it clear that I am opposed tp the withdrawal of the child's right to know who its father was. To me that is just plain crass. and to that extent I have been persuaded by the "Catholic" position for want of a better way of putting it, and I'm sure there are (better ways).
I would not choose as you have done to use the expression "absolutely abominable" to depict the fathers' issue since I find the discussion is handicapped enough by verbal incontinence a la Tony Blair. You are not usually given to this lexicon and I am surprised you employ it here.
Anyways, I doubt that my whimsicality, if that's what it is, is of any consequence in the larger scheme of things. As I always say my opinions are but dust in the balance.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 3:36pm Wed 14 May 08
Chris:
I use the tone advisedly, as in my opinion it is absolutely central to the identity of every human being to know who their parents were. I do not use this lightly but I feel very very strongly about this - extremely so in fact.
On a personal note, a friend of mine's marriage recently broke down. As I say, this is always tragic, and as ever, the children are always the worst affected. In this case, the children constantly ask their mother "when is daddy coming home?" Now, this is bad enough if the parents stay in the same city or even the same country, but she walked out and went back to her country of upbringing the other side of the Atlantic, and took the children with them. He is inconsolable, the children are inconsolable, and if he is lucky he will see his children twice a year. Having said that, they know who their father is, and the oldest spent the first eight years of her life with a loving father figure in her life. They will still have a relationship of sorts, as my friend adores his kids, and they adore him. In other words, he as a father figure has been a central formative figure in who they are. To remove that is, in my view, nothing short of an abomination. I'm sorry if you don't approve of the language, but there it is. I'm glad you oppose that part of the bill.
KInd regards
Alastair
Chris:
I use the tone advisedly, as in my opinion it is absolutely central to the identity of every human being to know who their parents were. I do not use this lightly but I feel very very strongly about this - extremely so in fact.
On a personal note, a friend of mine's marriage recently broke down. As I say, this is always tragic, and as ever, the children are always the worst affected. In this case, the children constantly ask their mother "when is daddy coming home?" Now, this is bad enough if the parents stay in the same city or even the same country, but she walked out and went back to her country of upbringing the other side of the Atlantic, and took the children with them. He is inconsolable, the children are inconsolable, and if
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (68)
