Levenax wrote:
Clare wrote:
[b]
Ah, so now "RC's" have "tainted" the political pool have they? My goodness Lev you're really going to town now aren't you? You who keep saying this isn't about bigotry for you! There are quite a few "aberrations" in Scottish life I would like to see an end to. One is the tendency of some to be unable to function without a bigoted approach to everything leading to the sectarian environment we live in.

No. You'll need to pay more attention Clare. It's the Labour Party's behaviour that caused the aberration that tainted the pool. Their cynical exploitation of of a particular demographic in some areas was reprehensible IMO. It led to farcical decisions like the prohibition of Ken Russell's supposedly anti clerical film "The Devils" in the early seventies from public cinemas in Glasgow.
I share your desire to see an end to the poison of bigotry.

I've paid very close attention Lev, and your posts in particular are tainted with bigotry most of them. Maybe you don't even realise you're doing it. You could have avoided that in this debate and you chose not to. I doubt whether you have any desire whatsoever to see an end to bigotry Lev. Your distaste of all things, and all people, catholic on this particular threads is more than obvious. You seem very comfortable indeed with that state of affairs.

Robin T Cox wrote:
Clare,

As you appear not to recognise either Cardinal O'Brien's use of intemperate language, or indeed your own, far be it from me to enlighten you.

Let me, however, simply observe that it doesn't help either your cause or the quality of the discussion when you accuse me of being 'low indeed' or 'trying to lie'.

My objection to what Cardinal O'Brien is saying does not stem from his religion, but from his failure to understand the nature of the science involved in this research, and from his inability to ascribe other than the most sinister motives to those carrying it out. And, as I have already said, I regard it as perverse to try to deny research which is designed to alleviate much real suffering, whilst hysterically protesting about imaginary Frankenstein monstrosities and the like.

The horror, it seems to me, stems from ignorance, pure and simple.

As I have also said, I regard the argument that only those who oppose such research can be said to be acting in good conscience as spurious. On the other hand, I think it is right to be highly suspicious of those who parade their consciences, since it seems that apart from expecting blind respect they really have no serious argument in this matter.

Robin, first off, I don't have a "cause".

I was not involved in bringing religion into this debate and my position was, and remains, that conscience should play a part in a decision like the one under consideration. I also believe that no government has the right to impose a three line whip on such an issue when public opinion may clash with what that government intends to do.

The person who spoke publicly on the matter happened to be Keith O'Brien. You are quite simply WRONG when you declare, by whose authority I'm not sure, that he does not "know" what he is talking about. He does. That fact has been established over the weekend after a few other people made the same judgement about him that you did. Indeed anyone who thinks a man of Keith O'Brien's intelligence would make a public statement on such a matter without researching it first must think he is very stupid indeed. He is also a Science Graduate. As for your use of the word "imaginery" to describe his concerns there we have yet another example of your opinion presented as fact.

On Sunday, the SH contained a statement by one Dr Minger who claimed that human and animal cells would not be mixed and that there had been a misunderstanding. Yesterday the Herald contained in its Editorial confirmation that there were indeed clauses in this Bill covering just such a situation. Dr Minger is therefore the person lying here, not Keith O'Brien.

The debate on this thread has lacked quality throughout because of the inability of some to move away from religion. That issue, religion, catholicism in particular, has dominated unfortunately and at various times people who follow that religion have been accused of all sorts of things. I would say indeed that the insults hurled were unhelpful, hurtful and downright unnecessary but then I was the target so it doesn't matter presumably. Fine.

I saw no evidence of "hysteria" from Keith O'Brien. I read a homily urging MPs to think very carefully about this Bill and the implications of it. That is not hysteria. I think it was excellent advice. The response of some others was, however, hysterical indeed. This man according to most of you had no right to be involved, how dare he.....and so it went. Let's get away from the issue and attack the man himself. And let's also attack anyone who disagrees with us and if they happen to be catholic also, all the better. Let's accuse them of intemperate language instead of examining our own conduct. So yes Robin, far be it from you to "enlighten" me indeed!

I have said from the beginning this issue was of great importance to all of us regardless of anyone's beliefs. I still believe that. I know, for sure that is, that many people have reservations about the research and about boundaries being removed. I know too that those people care about the sick. I know that many other countries have banned this research, and presumably they weren't all forced into doing so by crazy, lunatic Cardinals. I would like to know why it was banned. I would also like to know why the government in this country sort to FORCE their MPs to back it and I believe that a free vote on some aspects is now to be permitted. (I think I caught that news earlier somewhere.) So if that is true Keith O'Brien has achieved something hasn't he and well done him for as I have always said, it is far easier to run with the pack on such issues than to ask people to stop and think about the consequences. Goodness knows he has been subjected to outrageous attacks in recent days.

I will not take further part in this particular thread you'll be pleased to know Robin. I'm sickened by much of what I've read.

Clare,

As you are a lady, I concede your right to have the last word. I have nothing further to add.

There's been a lot of talk on this subject about MPs voting with their conscience. Don't forget, these are the people who were happy to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq in their grab for oil. Conscience appears to be something MPs leave at the door when they enter Westminster.

For what it's worth. I've been following this debate since the start and I have to say that I'm 100% behind Clare, not on religious grounds but purely on personal beliefs.

I'm all for any research that could in the future eradicate cancer and other diseases but I feel that the cloning of a 'twin' is just a step too far.

Clare wrote:


Tibbie do you have a view on the mixing of human and animal cells or are you another one who favours ignoring that issue in favour of catholic-bashing.


Yes I do have a view on animal cell/human DNA stem cell investigations.

Catholic-bashing, why Clare? My questions are valid, perhaps you are just unable to answer them.

Clare, I wasn't quoting from a book, I merely asked you if you'd ever read it. I gather from your reply that you haven't.

Lev, thank you, yes, I'm aware that the human beings' ability for rational thought and development of a conscience sets us animals apart from the other animals on the planet; however, I don't see how that ability should privilege is over the other species that share the planet with us. I know the Old Testment of the Bible (somewhere in Genesis) says, "Man shall have dominion...." blah, blah, blah, but given the damage Man's dominion has caused.... what's the point in having a conscience, individual or collective, if it's not going to be exercised with due care?

In my next life, I'm coming back as someone's pampered pooch! An obnoxious, yappy ankle-biter.

Tibbie, I asked about your view on it as that was what the thread was about, that's all. I didn't get into the other issues you raised as they were obviously a departure from what we were discussing. I don't have a problem discussing them elsewhere but I can say I support the work Amnesty does in other areas. There are sometimes issues obviously with the type of "help" we provide for our sisters elsewhere in the world. I recall when the contraceptive injection was first being trialed and it was the women of Africa who were used as guinea pigs for it. The drug was effective allegedly for up to a year, as were the side effects associated with it, which weren't known at that time as it was only just being tried out. But then we Western women need to know we're safe don't we? Better to test these things on the women of Africa first and call it "aid".

Lily, the point you appeared to make yesterday was that we were the same as animals. I said that no matter what book you refer to you wouldn't change the fact that we are different from animals. We have consciences. I said that, not Lev. We also make the decisions for the planet and what an almighty mess we have made of that. I haven't read the book you refer to, no.

I very much agree that animals get a rough deal from man. A very rough deal. I think embryos do too.

(I said later yesterday I wouldn't add further to this thread but did so today in order that Tibbie and Lily wouldn't think I was ignoring their replies to me.)

Claire, I am aware you were first to say human beings have a conscience. My comment to Levenax was my way of thanking him for recognizing that I too am aware of distinction without having to state it outright.

Embryos created and used for scietific research get a raw deal, true, but at the same time I wouldn't say they're human beings who have "rights" like the people who walk and talk on this planet. IMO, stem cell research and genetically altering stuff is a bad idea. Diseases, like war and famine, act as a necessary population control. Cure all the diseases, let every embryo mature to a live birth and the planet is overrun. Where do we put all the people? How do we feed them? I cringe.

I hope the scientists and the HFEA soon get the platform to put to rest all the misinformation that has overwhelmed and distorted this important advance in human science.
Once the world was the center of the universe and little has changed in the following centuries.
What I wonder would be the torrent of abuse I would attract if I offered one of my skin cells for implanting in an empty cow embryo. You see I have rights in what I do with my genetic code, and I fail to see how anyone can prevent me from doing so.

Lilybean wrote:
Claire, I am aware you were first to say human beings have a conscience. My comment to Levenax was my way of thanking him for recognizing that I too am aware of distinction without having to state it outright.

Embryos created and used for scietific research get a raw deal, true, but at the same time I wouldn't say they're human beings who have "rights" like the people who walk and talk on this planet. IMO, stem cell research and genetically altering stuff is a bad idea. Diseases, like war and famine, act as a necessary population control. Cure all the diseases, let every embryo mature to a live birth and the planet is overrun. Where do we put all the people? How do we feed them? I cringe.

And there, Lilybean, you have cut right to the heart of the issue, thank you very much.

While trying very hard to present a balanced picture, I will try to outline the fundemental difference which underpins this argument.

The Catholic church, in common with many other denominations and faiths, believe that human life is present from the moment of conception. Therefore, any manipulation of those cells, (embryos, babies or whatever name your rhetoric chooses to use) is seen as an act on another human being and, as such, completely abhorrent. So terms like murder in the case of abortion and frankenstein in the case of cell manipulation are felt to be justified. If you accept the premise that human life is present from conception, all other scientific arguments justifying the research are irrelevant

In the case of many of the scientific community, they stat that an embryo is not human until it is viable outside the womb, although they cloud this opinion by saving so many premature births and so are not able to put a figure on this time. Also, the viability argument can be made just as validly for a car crash victim who is in a coma.

I really don't see an answer to this argument, certainly not in the short term.

I have tried to present a balanced view of the argument, pointing out he weaknesses in the scientific argument. I think the weaknesses of the religious argument have already been extensively explored.

I am really disappointed with the tone of this discussion, I have to say. What we have here is a fundemental scientific and philosophical disagreement, which has been and will be debated for some time to come. However, accusation of people being delusional, bigoted and many others have polluted this discussion and helped its progress not at all.

Martin

I keep saying I'm withdrawing from this debate. Sorry that I'm still here and I can only hope I don't pollute the debate further than you may think I have already.

The "scientific" community doesn't save premature babies by the way, the medical community does.

Sitting on the fence as you have really isn't the answer either tho is it? You have, I feel, judged two sides of the debate without actually committing yourself on the issue. That is unfortunate. If we all do that how will anything ever get done?

My objections to what is proposed are straightforward. One major lie has emerged in recent days, told by one Dr Minger, who claimed that research to produce hybrid embryos was not proposed. Oh yes it is. That fact has been established now.

Many people, I'm not sure of the numbers, are against research of this kind on principle. Those people are not necessarily religious, they simply believe in having boundaries in science and mixing humans and animals is something they feel goes beyond that. The embryo, regardless of the viability argument, is what we develop from, and for that reason I cannot view it as raw material for experiments but as something entitled to more respect. Again I have to stress this is not just a "catholic" approach but one which many people hold who believe in "conscience" when such decisions are being made.

As for your view that the weakness of the "religious" argument has been explored I disagree emphatically Martin. There was NO religious argument put. This issue was simply made into one because Keith O'Brien kicked off the debate and others clearly resented that and preferred to focus on his religion and attack him on those grounds rather than debate the issue itself.

Scientists can happily discuss science and I have no problem with that. When, however, it interferes as this legislation does, with those lines and boundaries I keep talking about then I will speak out. I do not go with the view that scientists are always right and I certainly don't trust them. That is why I will opt for boundaries every time. Then we ALL know the rules.

I will say no more on this issue this time.

And btw I don't care what people do to my karma. I'm not here for a high score in Karma

Hi Claire, you have accused me, quite fairly, of sitting on the fence. I do take issue, however, with your statement that it does not move the debate on. What I attempted to do was to put the discussion into some context around which a discussion can be continued, and take some of the emotion out of the debate which was clouding discussion. The slagging off of each other as to who is delusional, who blindly follows the instructions of an ill-informed cleric, who is bigoted, who has or does not have a monopoly on conscience etc is what was stopping this debate going forward.

My opinion, (and I brace myself following this, Lev ) is that life does in fact begin at the moment of conception. The fact that the medical community (scientists all ) continually save children earlier and earlier into pregnancies and the fact that no one will put a date on when life begins leads me to that conclusion. Consequently, as a convinced Christian, I have to believe that if human life begins at conception, then a human soul is created at that point. In Christian theology, it is the immortal soul that makes us different from the animals. Therefore, if an immortal soul is present, any tampering with this is fundementally wrong.

So, if a human egg is fertilised, then life is created. However, there are many other areas of research not fully explored. For instance strem cell research; stem cells present in many places, eg in the umbilical cord, these are just cells and experimentation on them is no less acceptable than experimentation in blood. Why do scientists not concentrate efforts on this form of research?

That's my opinion, Folks, made from thought, prayer and research, including the teachings of my church and priests. However, they are my own thoughts, not mindless regurgitation.

How's that, Clare.

I too am a fence sitter Clare but this does not mean that I will not come to a conclusion. Like many people, I struggle with the thought of the research that is being proposed however, I know that in the future, if some medical advance were to happen as a result of it and I could benefit, then I would most likely want that treatment. I may never be in the position to need any of that treatment but is it right to deny it to other people? This is why I find it difficult to decide.

Regarding Dr. Minger's proposed research I can say the "good" doctor is prone to porkies.

"There are cow versions of proteins and some mitochondria (which provide the cells with energy), but as the cell lines expand over time, those proteins will be exclusively replaced with human proteins and the mitochondria will become predominantly human."

tinyurl.com/34kz8a

This isn't true and he should know it. The research I have read indicates that in NT embryos the oocyte mitochondria (mtDNA) predominates at the blastocyst stage.

tinyurl.com/3afhoq

www.abbs.info/fulltxt/365/..%5C..%5Cpdf%5C365%5C04p371.pdf

There may mav have been some technical breakthrough that has overcome this limitation but my reading is that any breakthrough would be in favour of the oocyte mtDNA rather than donor mtDNA. Why would he lie about this?