Pro-life MPs confident as embryo bill battle moves to Commons
One of the biggest political battles of recent years will move to the Commons today, with pro-life MPs confident they can defeat plans to extend embryo research while they muster votes for an attempt to lower the limit at which it is legal to have an abortion in the UK.
The second reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will herald the opening of a clash of morals which will come to a head in three weeks time when MPs discuss the most controversial measures.
During today's reading of the bill, anti-abortion campaigners will attempt to persuade the Commons to lower the legal cut-off point for most abortions from 24 to 20 weeks - arguing medical science has rendered the later limit out-of-date.
An alliance of Roman Catholic MPs, traditionalist Conservatives and representatives of other faiths are confident they will defeat plans to extend embryo research and stave off other scientific advances contained in the bill.
Provisions for the creation of human-animal embryos have been attacked by Roman Catholic bishops led by Scotland's Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who said the bill would allow "grotesque procedures" of "Frankenstein proportions".
Patient groups and scientists have accused these critics of trying to block life-saving research. Plans to remove the requirement that clinics consider a child's need for a father before starting IVF are equally contentious.
Gordon Brown has been forced to grant Labour MPs a free vote on some aspects of the bill in the face of a rebellion from Catholics within the party, including at least three cabinet ministers.
As well as the traditional conscience vote on abortion, MPs will not be whipped on amendments relating to the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos, so called "saviour siblings", and
the scrapping of the requirement for a father during IVF treatment.
The all-party parliamentary pro-life group is confident as many as 60 Labour MPs will vote against all three measures, but yesterday the group wrote to the PM urging him to grant a free vote on every aspect of the contentious bill. Labour MPs are required to vote in line with government policy at the second and third reading of the bill, irrespective of their personally-held views, while other parties have given members a free vote.
"This requirement puts Labour MPs in an untenable position and in direct conflict with their own government," said MP Jim Dobbin, chairman of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, in his letter urging Mr Brown to reconsider.
"Many members of parliament, including those who intend to vote with the government, are incapable of understanding why the Prime Minister is intent on this disastrous course of action, because no amount of persuasion, whipping or sanction will make some MPs vote against their conscience."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:00pm Sun 11 May 08
There is nothing in this bill which will lead to grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions. I sincerely hope that for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill if it is passed, that common sense will win the day.
There is nothing in this bill which will lead to grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions. I sincerely hope that for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill if it is passed, that common sense will win the day.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 10:17pm Sun 11 May 08
I think you've lost this one Observer.
I think you've lost this one Observer.
Posted by: Silver Shred, Paisley on 11:16pm Sun 11 May 08
I've just read the Bill. and it's scared the doo-da out of me.
Contrary to what Observer has said, there is much in this Bill to cause alarm.
I've just read the Bill. and it's scared the doo-da out of me.
Contrary to what Observer has said, there is much in this Bill to cause alarm.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 11:17pm Sun 11 May 08
genomics = eugenics. My mistake arose from the great incense I have at those who push for legislated genocide.
genomics = eugenics. My mistake arose from the great incense I have at those who push for legislated genocide.
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:21pm Sun 11 May 08
Observer's continues to display Wendy Alexander-esque denial of the truth on this issue. It is very strange.
Observer's continues to display Wendy Alexander-esque denial of the truth on this issue. It is very strange.
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:23pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote][bold]Silver Shred[/bold] wrote:
I've just read the Bill. and it's scared the doo-da out of me.
Contrary to what Observer has said, there is much in this Bill to cause alarm.[/quote] II've asked Observer repeatedly if she has read the Bill. She has continually declined to give an answer.
Silver Shred wrote:
I've just read the Bill. and it's scared the doo-da out of me.
Contrary to what Observer has said, there is much in this Bill to cause alarm.
II've asked Observer repeatedly if she has read the Bill. She has continually declined to give an answer.
Posted by: Big Stu on 11:24pm Sun 11 May 08
Observer
[quote] for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill[/quote]
This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case.
Observer
for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill
This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case.
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:27pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Stu[/bold] wrote:
Observer
[quote] for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill[/quote]
This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case. [/quote] Alternatives which have been proven to work in producing cures and treatments, as opposed to the Mengelian nightmare being inexplicably defended by Observer, who claims what is in the Bill isn't in it despite refusing to say whether or not she has read the Bill.
Confused? Me too.
Big Stu wrote:
Observer
for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill
This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case.
Alternatives which have been proven to work in producing cures and treatments, as opposed to the Mengelian nightmare being inexplicably defended by Observer, who claims what is in the Bill isn't in it despite refusing to say whether or not she has read the Bill.
Confused? Me too.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:01am Mon 12 May 08
Whoa - is this thread turning into an Observer kickfest? State yer point re: the issue. Observer is not the issue.
Whoa - is this thread turning into an Observer kickfest? State yer point re: the issue. Observer is not the issue.
Posted by: NumptyHeid1952, Ayrshire on 5:37am Mon 12 May 08
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future.
You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish.
[bold]DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS.[/bold]
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future.
You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish.
DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS. Posted by: Carnwarth on 7:23am Mon 12 May 08
These people are not pro-life - they are anti-health and anti-choice.
These people are not pro-life - they are anti-health and anti-choice.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:11am Mon 12 May 08
Too late, Pandora's box has already been opened. Embryonic research is happening and a bill in the parliament of a minor nation on the world's stage will not stop it. All that will happen, if it is pased is that their will be no research carried out in the UK. Do any of you really think that the rest of the world gives a **** about what a handful of religious wonks in the UK think? They'll probably raise a glass or two and thank them for removing serious competition, and eventually creating another brain drain as some of our brightest and best head off to where they can work without fear of religious persecution.
If we're not careful religion will turn the UK back into a third world client state with stone age medicine and ignorance being passed off as knowledge..
Too late, Pandora's box has already been opened. Embryonic research is happening and a bill in the parliament of a minor nation on the world's stage will not stop it. All that will happen, if it is pased is that their will be no research carried out in the UK. Do any of you really think that the rest of the world gives a **** about what a handful of religious wonks in the UK think? They'll probably raise a glass or two and thank them for removing serious competition, and eventually creating another brain drain as some of our brightest and best head off to where they can work without fear of religious persecution.
If we're not careful religion will turn the UK back into a third world client state with stone age medicine and ignorance being passed off as knowledge..
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 8:26am Mon 12 May 08
McSomeone
Absolutely correct.
Scotland can be a world leader in this sphere of scientific activity. Just because some funny men in fancy long frocks and big pointy hats are against it,, doesn't make it a bad idea.
The men in fancy frocks said the earth was flat. They said the universe revolved around the earth. They don't accept evolutionary theory.
This is the 21sy Century. Let's leave hobgoblins back in the dark ages.
Slainte Mhor
McSomeone
Absolutely correct.
Scotland can be a world leader in this sphere of scientific activity. Just because some funny men in fancy long frocks and big pointy hats are against it,, doesn't make it a bad idea.
The men in fancy frocks said the earth was flat. They said the universe revolved around the earth. They don't accept evolutionary theory.
This is the 21sy Century. Let's leave hobgoblins back in the dark ages.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: ColinE, Dundee on 8:42am Mon 12 May 08
The dinosaurs who oppose the scientific research which can alleviate human pain and sufferung should be ashamed of their lack of humanity. They are taking the side of a bunch of cells against real human people. They are deluded, stupid, arrogant and cruel.
The dinosaurs who oppose the scientific research which can alleviate human pain and sufferung should be ashamed of their lack of humanity. They are taking the side of a bunch of cells against real human people. They are deluded, stupid, arrogant and cruel.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 8:45am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
Whoa - is this thread turning into an Observer kickfest? State yer point re: the issue. Observer is not the issue. [/quote] I have been on previous threads with Martin Mcdonald so I am not surprised by his reaction, but thank you for your generosity Scunnert.
Yes I have read the bill, as much of it was technical I have read various summaries of the bill. I see nothing there to justify the comparison with Mary Shelley's wee book, let alone Dr Mengele.
But Martin, big Stu, et al - if you justify the description grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportins, now is your perfect opportunity to do so.
Scunnert wrote:
Whoa - is this thread turning into an Observer kickfest? State yer point re: the issue. Observer is not the issue.
I have been on previous threads with Martin Mcdonald so I am not surprised by his reaction, but thank you for your generosity Scunnert.
Yes I have read the bill, as much of it was technical I have read various summaries of the bill. I see nothing there to justify the comparison with Mary Shelley's wee book, let alone Dr Mengele.
But Martin, big Stu, et al - if you justify the description grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportins, now is your perfect opportunity to do so.
Posted by: Kenny McGuigan, Coatbridge on 8:55am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]NumptyHeid1952[/bold] wrote:
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future. You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish. [bold]DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS.[/bold] [/quote] The tag given to this is "pro-life". A misnomer if ever there was one!
Like you NumptyHeid1952 I have motor neurone disease and if this bill falls it will be because the Flat Earth Society, The Religious Maniacs Club and the Smug, "I'm Alright Brigade" are all alive and well.
If the supertitious religionists don't want to take the treatment for fear of offending Popes, Bishops and their God, then refuse it and leave the rest of us alone!
NumptyHeid1952 wrote:
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future. You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish. DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS.
The tag given to this is "pro-life". A misnomer if ever there was one!
Like you NumptyHeid1952 I have motor neurone disease and if this bill falls it will be because the Flat Earth Society, The Religious Maniacs Club and the Smug, "I'm Alright Brigade" are all alive and well.
If the supertitious religionists don't want to take the treatment for fear of offending Popes, Bishops and their God, then refuse it and leave the rest of us alone!
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 9:29am Mon 12 May 08
I am not religius in anyway, in fact I think it's a pile of superstitious claptrap. And a few years ago, I was for abortion, especially for women who have been raped etc.
Now, I have changed my mind.
We found out that my wife couldn't get pregnant.
We spent three years going through hell, using Chlomid tablets, then four sessions of IUI treatment before finally getting onto the IVF treatment. It's not much fun when you walk in on your wife in the bathroom, and find her crying her heart out in the shower because she feels that she is "letting me down." And with all her other friends becoming pregnant here and there didn't help either.
Its an emotional rollercoaster, one minute your in tears because you can't do, what's supposed to be. "the most natural thing in the world" by getting pregnant. And the next, you're bitter that these junkies and teenage mums are breeding like rabbits, and can't look after themselves, nevermind a wee one.
Fortunately, at the second attempt (our last attempt), she fell pregnant and we have a 15 month old little terror, with another one on the way. Don't ask me how the second one was created, after what we went through, we're still baflled by its still.
At 15 weeks, a baby can feel pain, and I think a baby can still be aborted at 24 weeks. For a human life to be liquidised and scraped away like this is murder. Simple.
One more thing, my sister fell pregnant when she was 16. At the last hour she decided not to abort the baby and she had a boy. He's now 17 years old and going to medical school and wants to be an osteopath. Think, before you kill the life inside you.
I am not religius in anyway, in fact I think it's a pile of superstitious claptrap. And a few years ago, I was for abortion, especially for women who have been raped etc.
Now, I have changed my mind.
We found out that my wife couldn't get pregnant.
We spent three years going through hell, using Chlomid tablets, then four sessions of IUI treatment before finally getting onto the IVF treatment. It's not much fun when you walk in on your wife in the bathroom, and find her crying her heart out in the shower because she feels that she is "letting me down." And with all her other friends becoming pregnant here and there didn't help either.
Its an emotional rollercoaster, one minute your in tears because you can't do, what's supposed to be. "the most natural thing in the world" by getting pregnant. And the next, you're bitter that these junkies and teenage mums are breeding like rabbits, and can't look after themselves, nevermind a wee one.
Fortunately, at the second attempt (our last attempt), she fell pregnant and we have a 15 month old little terror, with another one on the way. Don't ask me how the second one was created, after what we went through, we're still baflled by its still.
At 15 weeks, a baby can feel pain, and I think a baby can still be aborted at 24 weeks. For a human life to be liquidised and scraped away like this is murder. Simple.
One more thing, my sister fell pregnant when she was 16. At the last hour she decided not to abort the baby and she had a boy. He's now 17 years old and going to medical school and wants to be an osteopath. Think, before you kill the life inside you.
Posted by: jomellon, Lodève, France on 9:37am Mon 12 May 08
The invective here from some posts on both sides does their argument no service I think: they look angry, unreasonable and a bit fanatic.
The argument "they are doing it elsewhere" is not an argument in itself: it comes down to the specifics of the bill. It also seems grotesque to me that MPs are forced to vote in one way or another on this bill.
It comes down to the specifics. Here is MHO:
1) The "grotesque procedures... Frankenstein" claim seems to be polemic designed to obscure what is actually proposed which is not creation of human/other species beings, but the use of egg cell walls for the early phase of development.
2) 24 weeks is very late for a termination of a pregnancy: what we are talking about here is not "abortion" but the killing of a human being. There may still be be cases where the termination of the pregnancy is unavoidable due to the state of health of the mother: that the foetus or child can be destroyed as part of that procedure is another matter.
3) Requiring a father for IVF is discrimination against lesbians. Many lesbians happily and sucessfully raise children, and some heterosexual couples make a complete mess of it.
4) Saviour siblings: It cannot be ethical to take non-replacable parts of person without their consent, and that cannot be given when they are young. But if bone marrow or blood it required I cannot see why this should be banned.
The invective here from some posts on both sides does their argument no service I think: they look angry, unreasonable and a bit fanatic.
The argument "they are doing it elsewhere" is not an argument in itself: it comes down to the specifics of the bill. It also seems grotesque to me that MPs are forced to vote in one way or another on this bill.
It comes down to the specifics. Here is MHO:
1) The "grotesque procedures... Frankenstein" claim seems to be polemic designed to obscure what is actually proposed which is not creation of human/other species beings, but the use of egg cell walls for the early phase of development.
2) 24 weeks is very late for a termination of a pregnancy: what we are talking about here is not "abortion" but the killing of a human being. There may still be be cases where the termination of the pregnancy is unavoidable due to the state of health of the mother: that the foetus or child can be destroyed as part of that procedure is another matter.
3) Requiring a father for IVF is discrimination against lesbians. Many lesbians happily and sucessfully raise children, and some heterosexual couples make a complete mess of it.
4) Saviour siblings: It cannot be ethical to take non-replacable parts of person without their consent, and that cannot be given when they are young. But if bone marrow or blood it required I cannot see why this should be banned.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:55am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]NumptyHeid1952[/bold] wrote:
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future. You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish. [bold]DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS.[/bold] [/quote] Well said Numptyheid1952,
Funny how most of the protesters against this bill are the delusioned religionists. When will they ever get the point that not everyone believes in their "gods" or the hypocrits that preach their beliefs.
Just wait until one of your loved ones has the misfortune to get one of these diseases, see how you'll feel then, you'll find out that praying unfortunately won't work, but you'll probably shed no tears as they'll get the chance to meet "god". Thy're going to be awfy disappointed.
NumptyHeid1952 wrote:
Those in this thread who wish to condemn me and others like me to death, then may your God forgive you. You who wish to FORCE your so called morals and your so called RELIGIOUS beliefs on me are no better than the islamic terrorist who wants to kill innocent folks because of THEIR religious beliefs. Virtually nothing is done to help people like me who have Motor Neurone Disease and nothing can be done, but this bill does give at least a tiny little bit more hope for sufferers in the future. You have the right to refuse any treatment you wish. DO NOT DENY ME IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS.
Well said Numptyheid1952,
Funny how most of the protesters against this bill are the delusioned religionists. When will they ever get the point that not everyone believes in their "gods" or the hypocrits that preach their beliefs.
Just wait until one of your loved ones has the misfortune to get one of these diseases, see how you'll feel then, you'll find out that praying unfortunately won't work, but you'll probably shed no tears as they'll get the chance to meet "god". Thy're going to be awfy disappointed.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:56am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
There is nothing in this bill which will lead to grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions. I sincerely hope that for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill if it is passed, that common sense will win the day. [/quote] Gaun yerself hen.................
....
I know that you're one of the ones who have seen the light.
Observer wrote:
There is nothing in this bill which will lead to grotesque procedures of Frankenstein proportions. I sincerely hope that for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill if it is passed, that common sense will win the day.
Gaun yerself hen.................
....
I know that you're one of the ones who have seen the light.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 10:10am Mon 12 May 08
[quote]The argument "they are doing it elsewhere" is not an argument in itself:[/quote]
Nor is the argument for banning it based on ancient unprovable myths. If believers in fairy stories don't like it then all they have to do is the same as the Jehovah's Witnesseses, just tell the doctor that they want no part of modern medicine. No one will force you to have any of this treatment.
The argument "they are doing it elsewhere" is not an argument in itself:
Nor is the argument for banning it based on ancient unprovable myths. If believers in fairy stories don't like it then all they have to do is the same as the Jehovah's Witnesseses, just tell the doctor that they want no part of modern medicine. No one will force you to have any of this treatment.
Posted by: Michael Mullins, Dalry on 12:24pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote:
The dinosaurs who oppose the scientific research which can alleviate human pain and sufferung should be ashamed of their lack of humanity. They are taking the side of a bunch of cells against real human people. They are deluded, stupid, arrogant and cruel.[/quote] Few beyond the irrationally obdurate would maintain that human embryos are anything other than biologically Homo sapiens and alive, even at the earliest developmental stages.
From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiological balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together, specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells.
Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
ColinE wrote:
The dinosaurs who oppose the scientific research which can alleviate human pain and sufferung should be ashamed of their lack of humanity. They are taking the side of a bunch of cells against real human people. They are deluded, stupid, arrogant and cruel.
Few beyond the irrationally obdurate would maintain that human embryos are anything other than biologically Homo sapiens and alive, even at the earliest developmental stages.
From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiological balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together, specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells.
Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
Posted by: Doug Blaney, Glasgow on 12:33pm Mon 12 May 08
Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help.
I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.
Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help.
I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.
Posted by: Big Stu on 12:46pm Mon 12 May 08
The idea that religious people want to stop science and return the world to some sort of dark age is a ridiculous exaggeration. The reality is that there are a couple of areas in the vastness of the scientific endeavour that some people (not all religious by a long way) are asking for caution to be exercised and alternatives to be pursued.
This case is almost never put for religious reasons much as many people would like to make this the issue as their case is otherwise logically, morally and reasonably weak.
No-one has any objections to Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, etc ,etc. Generally speaking, Religious people want science to be pursued to the benefit of us all as much as anyone else.
There are two narrow areas where there are issues.
The first is the Darwinism vs Creationism , or Intelligent Design (in which I personally take the side of Darwinism as does the RC Church) this is off topic so I'll say no more about that.
The second is specifically around the use of Human embryos in Scientific experiments. No-one is saying that research should stop, simply that alternatives, and in this case there exist very good and arguably better ones, should be pursued.
And, broadly, that's about it. Would anyone care to explain exactly how these issues will bring to a halt or reverse the Scientific endeavour?
As far as the present Bill is concerned, MHO is:
First regarding terminology since people are unhappy about the use of the words "Frankenstein" and "Mengele". These are not words I would use myself, however, I think that they are legitimate descriptions for the following reasons. The main theme of the Frankenstein story is a warning that messing around with powerful forces that we do not fully understand will produce unforseen and possibly tragic results. As regards Josef Megele; the Auschwitz camp Doctor experimented on and killed one group of humans (notably Jewish children) to benefit others (Aryans). The same can be said for experiments on Human embryos which are experimented on and killed to benefit other people.
The parallels, while not exact, are reasonable enough in my view for people to use these terms if they wish. It falls to people who object to these terms to say why they are unreasonable in this case.
Part of the bill under discussion deals with reducing the legal time limit in which abortions can take place. I am not totally anti-abortion, I take the view that many people have which is that it should be safe, legal and rare. Nobody would dispute the first two points, it's the third that we all have issues around. Late term abortions are traumatic for everyone concerned, I won't go into detail but anyone with a view on this argument should aquaint themselves with the procedures. The argument usually given for late abortions is where the child is severely deformed or disabled or non-viable or where the life of the Mother is threatened .
Anyone who found themselves having an abortion in these tragic circumstances would have my full sympathy, understanding and support. However, this is far from the full picture.
It is now widely known that many late abortions are performed on foetuses with minor, correctable deformities - the examples usually given are cleft palates and club feet. Can anyone seriously argue that this should be allowed? This is the first point - mission creep. Where the law is being stretched or misused the only recourse is to tighten it. The next point is around viability. Those who would argue that the limit should remain at 24 weeks are citing research which says that babies born at these extremes are no more likely to survive than ten years ago, but this is again only part of the story, these figures are a national average, when looking at individual locations the picture is entirely different, viability at these early birth ages is now demonstrably better. We should be spending the money on bringing all locations up to the best standards in terms of equipment and training, rather than spending it on unnecessary abortions.
The part of the bill dealing with the admixture of human and animal cell material is, in my view the least controversial in itself. I do have issues with it, first, although this type of work will not in itself produce a viable human/animal hybrid it is paving the way for exactly this sort of thing, which I do object to strongly. Those who doubt that this will eventually happen should note that many people are very much in favour of, or have no objections to, the creation of human/animal hybrids. Professor Hugh V. McLachlan, the Professor of Philophy who contributes to these blogs has said elsewhere that he sees no moral objection to the creation of "Humanzees".
(Apologies if I've misquoted you Hugh). Professor Richard Dawkins has recently called for the creation of Human/Animal hybrids to be looked at sympathetically as part of a way to improve the Human race as a breed. Again, the mixing of human/animal cell material would be portrayed by some as mixing one blob of jelly with another, which is a risible over-simplification, they must have been asleep during High School Biology lessons, there is much more to a cell than DNA, indeed it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments, not counting accidents, which will happen.
The idea that religious people want to stop science and return the world to some sort of dark age is a ridiculous exaggeration. The reality is that there are a couple of areas in the vastness of the scientific endeavour that some people (not all religious by a long way) are asking for caution to be exercised and alternatives to be pursued.
This case is almost never put for religious reasons much as many people would like to make this the issue as their case is otherwise logically, morally and reasonably weak.
No-one has any objections to Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, etc ,etc. Generally speaking, Religious people want science to be pursued to the benefit of us all as much as anyone else.
There are two narrow areas where there are issues.
The first is the Darwinism vs Creationism , or Intelligent Design (in which I personally take the side of Darwinism as does the RC Church) this is off topic so I'll say no more about that.
The second is specifically around the use of Human embryos in Scientific experiments. No-one is saying that research should stop, simply that alternatives, and in this case there exist very good and arguably better ones, should be pursued.
And, broadly, that's about it. Would anyone care to explain exactly how these issues will bring to a halt or reverse the Scientific endeavour?
As far as the present Bill is concerned, MHO is:
First regarding terminology since people are unhappy about the use of the words "Frankenstein" and "Mengele". These are not words I would use myself, however, I think that they are legitimate descriptions for the following reasons. The main theme of the Frankenstein story is a warning that messing around with powerful forces that we do not fully understand will produce unforseen and possibly tragic results. As regards Josef Megele; the Auschwitz camp Doctor experimented on and killed one group of humans (notably Jewish children) to benefit others (Aryans). The same can be said for experiments on Human embryos which are experimented on and killed to benefit other people.
The parallels, while not exact, are reasonable enough in my view for people to use these terms if they wish. It falls to people who object to these terms to say why they are unreasonable in this case.
Part of the bill under discussion deals with reducing the legal time limit in which abortions can take place. I am not totally anti-abortion, I take the view that many people have which is that it should be safe, legal and rare. Nobody would dispute the first two points, it's the third that we all have issues around. Late term abortions are traumatic for everyone concerned, I won't go into detail but anyone with a view on this argument should aquaint themselves with the procedures. The argument usually given for late abortions is where the child is severely deformed or disabled or non-viable or where the life of the Mother is threatened .
Anyone who found themselves having an abortion in these tragic circumstances would have my full sympathy, understanding and support. However, this is far from the full picture.
It is now widely known that many late abortions are performed on foetuses with minor, correctable deformities - the examples usually given are cleft palates and club feet. Can anyone seriously argue that this should be allowed? This is the first point - mission creep. Where the law is being stretched or misused the only recourse is to tighten it. The next point is around viability. Those who would argue that the limit should remain at 24 weeks are citing research which says that babies born at these extremes are no more likely to survive than ten years ago, but this is again only part of the story, these figures are a national average, when looking at individual locations the picture is entirely different, viability at these early birth ages is now demonstrably better. We should be spending the money on bringing all locations up to the best standards in terms of equipment and training, rather than spending it on unnecessary abortions.
The part of the bill dealing with the admixture of human and animal cell material is, in my view the least controversial in itself. I do have issues with it, first, although this type of work will not in itself produce a viable human/animal hybrid it is paving the way for exactly this sort of thing, which I do object to strongly. Those who doubt that this will eventually happen should note that many people are very much in favour of, or have no objections to, the creation of human/animal hybrids. Professor Hugh V. McLachlan, the Professor of Philophy who contributes to these blogs has said elsewhere that he sees no moral objection to the creation of "Humanzees".
(Apologies if I've misquoted you Hugh). Professor Richard Dawkins has recently called for the creation of Human/Animal hybrids to be looked at sympathetically as part of a way to improve the Human race as a breed. Again, the mixing of human/animal cell material would be portrayed by some as mixing one blob of jelly with another, which is a risible over-simplification, they must have been asleep during High School Biology lessons, there is much more to a cell than DNA, indeed it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments, not counting accidents, which will happen.
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 1:12pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote:
Observor has no respect for the value of life. If it isn't genetically perfect he says kill it. Guess what you disgusting Hitler genomics supporter: what makes humans special is that we don't leave the infirm and weak to die on their own like the rest of the natural world. We have a value for the gift of life. You disgust me. You are no better than a supporter of alcohol.[/quote] iI one more numpty like you compares the vital medical research being carried out today with the Holocaust! It is massively ill informed and hugely insulting to victims of that time. It is you that is disgusting and completely contradictory. It is this research which is humane and caring not some misguided supernatural belief system which holds developing, unconscious life as being of greater importance to fully functioning, conscious life and the quality of that said life.
Alkie wrote:
Observor has no respect for the value of life. If it isn't genetically perfect he says kill it. Guess what you disgusting Hitler genomics supporter: what makes humans special is that we don't leave the infirm and weak to die on their own like the rest of the natural world. We have a value for the gift of life. You disgust me. You are no better than a supporter of alcohol.
iI one more numpty like you compares the vital medical research being carried out today with the Holocaust! It is massively ill informed and hugely insulting to victims of that time. It is you that is disgusting and completely contradictory. It is this research which is humane and caring not some misguided supernatural belief system which holds developing, unconscious life as being of greater importance to fully functioning, conscious life and the quality of that said life.
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 1:14pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Martin McDonald[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Big Stu[/bold] wrote: Observer [quote] for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill[/quote] This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case. [/quote] Alternatives which have been proven to work in producing cures and treatments, as opposed to the Mengelian nightmare being inexplicably defended by Observer, who claims what is in the Bill isn't in it despite refusing to say whether or not she has read the Bill. Confused? Me too. [/quote] Here is another one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
Martin McDonald wrote:
Big Stu wrote: Observer for the sake of people suffering from degenerative diseases, who might be assisted by the contents of this bill
This would only be any kind of point if there were no alternative, that is not the case.
Alternatives which have been proven to work in producing cures and treatments, as opposed to the Mengelian nightmare being inexplicably defended by Observer, who claims what is in the Bill isn't in it despite refusing to say whether or not she has read the Bill. Confused? Me too.
Here is another one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 1:21pm Mon 12 May 08
"As regards Josef Megele; the Auschwitz camp Doctor experimented on and killed one group of humans (notably Jewish children) to benefit others (Aryans). The same can be said for experiments on Human embryos which are experimented on and killed to benefit other people."
This is only partly true if you put human embroys on a par with human life, fully conscious, functioning, aware human life with thought, feelings, ambitions, loves and a threshold for intense pain.
The other huge flaw in your argument is of course that this medical research is designed to help all, not just one ethnic group. Human Embryos are developing "potential life" they cannot be treated on the same par as a human being. If you want Nazi analogies then why not concentrate on the treatment of pregnant women by the religious community over the centuries. This is yet another way of denying choice and progress based on what is a completely unproven and unsubstantiated belief in a supernatural being.
"As regards Josef Megele; the Auschwitz camp Doctor experimented on and killed one group of humans (notably Jewish children) to benefit others (Aryans). The same can be said for experiments on Human embryos which are experimented on and killed to benefit other people."
This is only partly true if you put human embroys on a par with human life, fully conscious, functioning, aware human life with thought, feelings, ambitions, loves and a threshold for intense pain.
The other huge flaw in your argument is of course that this medical research is designed to help all, not just one ethnic group. Human Embryos are developing "potential life" they cannot be treated on the same par as a human being. If you want Nazi analogies then why not concentrate on the treatment of pregnant women by the religious community over the centuries. This is yet another way of denying choice and progress based on what is a completely unproven and unsubstantiated belief in a supernatural being.
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 1:26pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Doug Blaney[/bold] wrote:
Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.[/quote] Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents?
I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.
Doug Blaney wrote:
Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.
Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents?
I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 1:28pm Mon 12 May 08
"As well as the traditional conscience vote on abortion, MPs will not be whipped on amendments relating to the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos, so called "saviour siblings", and the scrapping of the requirement for a father during IVF treatment."
Not the case since the bill does not allow for the creation of "animal/human hybrid embryos". That is simply ignorance - or wilful misinterpretation - of the science involved.
And Big Stu your statement that "there is much more to a cell than DNA", in this context, doesn't make any biological sense. This is about the genetic material which gives rise to a putative cell line. That DNA is would be human, not some chimeric mix of human and non-human DNA, such as a cloned human insulin gene expressed in [italic]E.coli[/italic] , for example, something which happened years ago and did cause this sort of moral outrage.
What exactly do you mean by "it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments"? The whole point is to replace an animal nucleus (and so genetic material) with a human nucleus so, in that sense, there isn’t “much more to a cell than DNA” since all cellular functions are encoded in the genome. What you allude to sounds more like cloning a human gene into a non-human cell line or other biological system.
"As well as the traditional conscience vote on abortion, MPs will not be whipped on amendments relating to the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos, so called "saviour siblings", and the scrapping of the requirement for a father during IVF treatment."
Not the case since the bill does not allow for the creation of "animal/human hybrid embryos". That is simply ignorance - or wilful misinterpretation - of the science involved.
And Big Stu your statement that "there is much more to a cell than DNA", in this context, doesn't make any biological sense. This is about the genetic material which gives rise to a putative cell line. That DNA is would be human, not some chimeric mix of human and non-human DNA, such as a cloned human insulin gene expressed in
E.coli , for example, something which happened years ago and did cause this sort of moral outrage.
What exactly do you mean by "it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments"? The whole point is to replace an animal nucleus (and so genetic material) with a human nucleus so, in that sense, there isn’t “much more to a cell than DNA” since all cellular functions are encoded in the genome. What you allude to sounds more like cloning a human gene into a non-human cell line or other biological system.
Posted by: Doug Blaney, Glasgow on 1:48pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]arg1272[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Doug Blaney[/bold] wrote: Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.[/quote] Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents? I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.[/quote] There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.
We all have freewill to do what we want. This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and thats why environmentalists are to be supported.
I am sad that you that a young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment untul I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost whta was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgow Presbytery, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. Its great to have god within us. You beleive what you want to believe and thats fine with everyone, but do not knock it.
arg1272 wrote:
Doug Blaney wrote: Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.
Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents? I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.
There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.
We all have freewill to do what we want. This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and thats why environmentalists are to be supported.
I am sad that you that a young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment untul I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost whta was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgow Presbytery, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. Its great to have god within us. You beleive what you want to believe and thats fine with everyone, but do not knock it.
Posted by: Doug Blaney, Glasgow on 1:59pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]arg1272[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Doug Blaney[/bold] wrote: Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.[/quote] Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents? I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.[/quote] There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.
We all have freewill to do what we want. This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and that’s why environmentalists are to be supported.
I am sad that young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and Jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment until I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost what was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgo, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. It’s great to have God within us. You believe what you want to believe and that’s fine with everyone, but do not knock it.
arg1272 wrote:
Doug Blaney wrote: Thisreally has nothing to do with religion. Its about personal belief. I am a Presbyterian Christian and I belive that God has given us knowledge to repair our bodies. In my case I have many inherited diseases which do affect my quality of life and welcome any medical intervention which would help. I also believe that God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Blessing to you all.
Sorry to sound heartless, but why do you think you have these inherited diseases if God prevents people from passing on certain diseases by making people unable to have their own natural children. Would that not have applied to your parents? I too have an inherited disease and unfortunately it is likely to prevent me having children. It has NOTHING to do with a God and is just my bad luck that I inherited these genes. I can life with my condition a lot better knowing it is unordained or planned thank you very much. Stick your blessing.
There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.
We all have freewill to do what we want. This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and that’s why environmentalists are to be supported.
I am sad that young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and Jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment until I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost what was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgo, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. It’s great to have God within us. You believe what you want to believe and that’s fine with everyone, but do not knock it.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 2:47pm Mon 12 May 08
[bold]Michael Mullins[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.[/quote]
If there was a fire at the hospital, would you save two IVF embryos awaiting implantation instead of one 2 day old baby, if the choice arose?
Michael Mullins wrote:
Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
If there was a fire at the hospital, would you save two IVF embryos awaiting implantation instead of one 2 day old baby, if the choice arose?
Posted by: sam the god on 3:00pm Mon 12 May 08
Doug Blaney you are entitled to your belief that god exists but other people like me believe that god does not exist so why should we be deprived of possible medical break through just to ease our MP’s consciences. You got your hearing back not as a miracle but through
Man made medical advancements.
Doug Blaney you are entitled to your belief that god exists but other people like me believe that god does not exist so why should we be deprived of possible medical break through just to ease our MP’s consciences. You got your hearing back not as a miracle but through
Man made medical advancements.
Posted by: robmcdonald, East Kilbride on 3:09pm Mon 12 May 08
Doug:
[quote]There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. [/quote]
Was that your god's will that killed thousands and crushed 900 Chinese teenagers in a school just now? Is it because they're not worshiping him hard enough?
Doug:
There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will.
Was that your god's will that killed thousands and crushed 900 Chinese teenagers in a school just now? Is it because they're not worshiping him hard enough?
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 3:11pm Mon 12 May 08
If a young boy survives a life and death situation in the operating theatre, some parents thank God, that he made it.
If the young boy died duringthe operation, its the surgeons that would take the blame, not God.
If a young boy survives a life and death situation in the operating theatre, some parents thank God, that he made it.
If the young boy died duringthe operation, its the surgeons that would take the blame, not God.
Posted by: Big Stu on 3:14pm Mon 12 May 08
Deasun
Thanks for your considered response. Before reading my comments, note that I said "this type of work will not in itself produce a viable human/animal hybrid" - the rest of my post needs to be read with this in mind.
[quote] ...the bill does not allow for the creation of "animal/human hybrid embryos". That is simply ignorance - or wilful misinterpretation - of the science involved.[/quote]
This depends on the meaning you use for the word "hybrid".
( Though I'm second guessing someone here, this isn't how I would put it. ) In the strict Scientific sense you are correct, however the common usage of the word, "hybrid car" for example is applicable too. Dictionaries allow for this non-scientific use of the word -
for example -
Hybrid
3. anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds e.g. a hybrid of the academic and business worlds.
6. composite; formed or composed of heterogeneous elements.
In this sense the cells produced are indeed "hybrid" but not in the strict Biological sense. I personally think this could have been put better.
[quote]And Big Stu your statement that "there is much more to a cell than DNA", in this context, doesn't make any biological sense.[/quote]
It's not supposed to make Biological sense, the point I was making here is that I am uneasy about the mixing of DNA from a human cell with the mitichondria, ribosomes, vesicles, RNA etc. from an animal cell. Note also that not all DNA is in the cell nucleus (and yes I broadly understand it's function).Now the point may be made that we mix human and animal material all the time when we eat for example, but this misses the point that it's about exactly what we mix, how and why, so for example, I'm ok with drinking cow's milk (an animal product) but for reasons of safety, hygeine, caution and basic human dignity I would not drink cow's p1ss (an animal product). I have similar feelings about the mixing of cells that will not be strictly hybrid, but which will be viable mixtures of human and animal elements. I don't think we have been given the full facts by scientists who wish to promote this kind of work.
Note my main point about this type of research paving the way for the creation of true hybrids.
[quote]What exactly do you mean by "it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments"?[/quote]
See above. Animal DNA and RNA will be in the same cell as human DNA.
Deasun
Thanks for your considered response. Before reading my comments, note that I said "this type of work will not in itself produce a viable human/animal hybrid" - the rest of my post needs to be read with this in mind.
...the bill does not allow for the creation of "animal/human hybrid embryos". That is simply ignorance - or wilful misinterpretation - of the science involved.
This depends on the meaning you use for the word "hybrid".
( Though I'm second guessing someone here, this isn't how I would put it. ) In the strict Scientific sense you are correct, however the common usage of the word, "hybrid car" for example is applicable too. Dictionaries allow for this non-scientific use of the word -
for example -
Hybrid
3. anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds e.g. a hybrid of the academic and business worlds.
6. composite; formed or composed of heterogeneous elements.
In this sense the cells produced are indeed "hybrid" but not in the strict Biological sense. I personally think this could have been put better.
And Big Stu your statement that "there is much more to a cell than DNA", in this context, doesn't make any biological sense.
It's not supposed to make Biological sense, the point I was making here is that I am uneasy about the mixing of DNA from a human cell with the mitichondria, ribosomes, vesicles, RNA etc. from an animal cell. Note also that not all DNA is in the cell nucleus (and yes I broadly understand it's function).Now the point may be made that we mix human and animal material all the time when we eat for example, but this misses the point that it's about exactly what we mix, how and why, so for example, I'm ok with drinking cow's milk (an animal product) but for reasons of safety, hygeine, caution and basic human dignity I would not drink cow's p1ss (an animal product). I have similar feelings about the mixing of cells that will not be strictly hybrid, but which will be viable mixtures of human and animal elements. I don't think we have been given the full facts by scientists who wish to promote this kind of work.
Note my main point about this type of research paving the way for the creation of true hybrids.
What exactly do you mean by "it is known that genetic material will be mixed in these experiments"?
See above. Animal DNA and RNA will be in the same cell as human DNA.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 3:21pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]robmcdonald[/bold] wrote:
Doug: [quote]There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. [/quote] Was that your god's will that killed thousands and crushed 900 Chinese teenagers in a school just now? Is it because they're not worshiping him hard enough? [/quote] Good point.
You could also look at recent ones like the recent Burmese flooding and the Boxing Day Tsunami in Indonesia.
What's that saying again? Ahhh yes, "God works in mysterious ways."
Christians only say that, because when someone questions their belief after a disaster has happened, they can't give you an answer.
What's that other "reverse pscyhology" saying. Something about the Devil wanting to fool people that he doesn't exist.
So if I say, [italic]"I don't believe in God or the Devil."[/italic]
A Christian would say: "[italic]Ha. That's exactly what the Devil wants you to think."[/italic]
Clever, but I'm not buying it.
It wasn't too long ago the Romans and the Greeks believed their were numerous Gods. Its now called Roman and Greel mythology.
The Bible is only 2000 years old, so it is still in its infancy. In another few hundred years time, the Bible will eventually be known as Middle Eastern mythology.
robmcdonald wrote:
Doug: There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will.
Was that your god's will that killed thousands and crushed 900 Chinese teenagers in a school just now? Is it because they're not worshiping him hard enough?
Good point.
You could also look at recent ones like the recent Burmese flooding and the Boxing Day Tsunami in Indonesia.
What's that saying again? Ahhh yes, "God works in mysterious ways."
Christians only say that, because when someone questions their belief after a disaster has happened, they can't give you an answer.
What's that other "reverse pscyhology" saying. Something about the Devil wanting to fool people that he doesn't exist.
So if I say,
"I don't believe in God or the Devil."
A Christian would say: "
Ha. That's exactly what the Devil wants you to think."
Clever, but I'm not buying it.
It wasn't too long ago the Romans and the Greeks believed their were numerous Gods. Its now called Roman and Greel mythology.
The Bible is only 2000 years old, so it is still in its infancy. In another few hundred years time, the Bible will eventually be known as Middle Eastern mythology.
Posted by: Duncan B, Glasgow on 3:26pm Mon 12 May 08
Embryos are not capable of independent life, and by any definition are not 'alive'. Many major abnormalities are not capable of being detected late on in the pregnancy. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that foetus's develop lacking a brain. Should a woman carry that to full term, knowing her 'baby' will be born dead? Any restrictions on time limit , and that is what the antiabortionist campaigners are going for over the embryology bill, will be a disaster for women.
When people talk about rights for embryos, rights for women vanish. In the USA we have seen pregnant women denied treatment for cancer on the grounds that it will harm the foetus.
In reality many people who are campaigning against late abortions are actually against [italic]any[/italic] abortions they want to return to a time when before the 1967 Abortion Act, abortions were illegal.
They are also anti sex. Sex in their view is simply animal like. In fact they are against having sex for anything other than procreation, hence their stance against contraception. Sex in their view is not sex for fun or love or affection, sex is only for creating children. The Catholic Church in Brazil, refused to marry a quadriplegic man on the grounds that his marriage would be pointless because he was incapable of producing children.
These bigots are a tiny minority in society, and they know it. So instead of arguing their position, they have to resort to distortion and misrepresentation of the facts of the Embryology Bill hoping that they will get their way by obscuring their real aims. We should reject this attack on womens rights.
Embryos are not capable of independent life, and by any definition are not 'alive'. Many major abnormalities are not capable of being detected late on in the pregnancy. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that foetus's develop lacking a brain. Should a woman carry that to full term, knowing her 'baby' will be born dead? Any restrictions on time limit , and that is what the antiabortionist campaigners are going for over the embryology bill, will be a disaster for women.
When people talk about rights for embryos, rights for women vanish. In the USA we have seen pregnant women denied treatment for cancer on the grounds that it will harm the foetus.
In reality many people who are campaigning against late abortions are actually against
any abortions they want to return to a time when before the 1967 Abortion Act, abortions were illegal.
They are also anti sex. Sex in their view is simply animal like. In fact they are against having sex for anything other than procreation, hence their stance against contraception. Sex in their view is not sex for fun or love or affection, sex is only for creating children. The Catholic Church in Brazil, refused to marry a quadriplegic man on the grounds that his marriage would be pointless because he was incapable of producing children.
These bigots are a tiny minority in society, and they know it. So instead of arguing their position, they have to resort to distortion and misrepresentation of the facts of the Embryology Bill hoping that they will get their way by obscuring their real aims. We should reject this attack on womens rights.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 3:31pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote]There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.[/quote]
What a complete and utter load of Ballocks! The sky fairy has nothing to do with it. It does not start fires, earthquake, organise multiple pile ups, air crashes or train crashes. We are the cause of our own misfortunes, not some sky pixie with a malicious sense of humour.
[quote]We all have freewill to do what we want.[/quote]
You do realise that your first statement and this are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a sky pixie deciding out fate on one hand and us having free will on the other.
[quote]This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and that’s why environmentalists are to be supported.[/quote]
No congenital conditions are and have been inherited since we broke away from our remote ancestors. Nature isn't perfect and makes many mistakes.
[quote]I am sad that young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and Jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment until I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost what was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgo, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. It’s great to have God within us. You believe what you want to believe and that’s fine with everyone, but do not knock it.[/quote]
OK belief in a sky pixie works for you but what has it done for anyone else. Believe in it if you must but keep it to yourself as it doesn't do a thing for me and many others here. Also don't assume just because you believe that the rest of us are unhappy because we have no sky pixie to look after us.
You have a right to believe what you will but you do not have a right to impose those beliefs, either directly or indirectly on anyone else. Britain is primarilly a secular group of nations, where secular laws are made for the benefit of all and not for a minority, no matter what their beliefs!
There is no such thing as luck, its nature and God's will. Nature and God are one, who do you think created nature? it is "by chance", of course not.
What a complete and utter load of Ballocks! The sky fairy has nothing to do with it. It does not start fires, earthquake, organise multiple pile ups, air crashes or train crashes. We are the cause of our own misfortunes, not some sky pixie with a malicious sense of humour.
We all have freewill to do what we want.
You do realise that your first statement and this are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a sky pixie deciding out fate on one hand and us having free will on the other.
This also means that many of the diseases we inherit are caused by man making things that harm us all. Nature is needing a helping hand and that’s why environmentalists are to be supported.
No congenital conditions are and have been inherited since we broke away from our remote ancestors. Nature isn't perfect and makes many mistakes.
I am sad that young person like you is unhappy, my belief in God and Jesus has helped me to cope with my disabilities. I have been in full time employment until I was 60. Then I was made redundant, lost what was left of my hearing six months later. I got a call that a part time job was going in Glasgo, went for an interview and got it despite being profoundly deaf. 6 months later I got a cochlear implant and started hearing again. It’s great to have God within us. You believe what you want to believe and that’s fine with everyone, but do not knock it.
OK belief in a sky pixie works for you but what has it done for anyone else. Believe in it if you must but keep it to yourself as it doesn't do a thing for me and many others here. Also don't assume just because you believe that the rest of us are unhappy because we have no sky pixie to look after us.
You have a right to believe what you will but you do not have a right to impose those beliefs, either directly or indirectly on anyone else. Britain is primarilly a secular group of nations, where secular laws are made for the benefit of all and not for a minority, no matter what their beliefs!
Posted by
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (69)
