THE EMBRYO DEBATE The case against: Cardinal Keith O'Brien IN MY Easter Sunday homily this year I chose to highlight concerns about many aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Reaction to my text, released on Good Friday, has been widespread.
The coverage has focused on the question of whether or not Labour MPs should be allowed a free vote and on the scientific justification for, among other things, the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos.
On the matter of conscience, there is no doubt in my mind that this bill is one on which all MPs should have a free vote. Since the government has previously allowed free votes on issues such as fox hunting and the docking of dogs' tails, I am amazed anyone would suggest otherwise.
On the question of justification for the use of stem cells taken from human embryos, I think it is high time we deployed a great deal more rigour when listening to the hype-filled claims of those who experiment upon and destroy human life at its most defenceless.
Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance.
We continue to be told that experimenting on embryos will lead us to cures and treatments. Yet, as the years have gone by, not one single treatment or therapy has emerged. In the meantime, research using adult stem cells has led to more than 70 different therapies and treatments, without destroying a single embryo.
It's worth remembering that the company which created Dolly the sheep went bankrupt without producing any useable treatments.
Destroying human embryos is bankrupt science. It is both ethically and economically questionable and the sooner we stop accepting it the better.
Science is always about pushing boundaries and exploring possibilities. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
I wonder how many people reading this are pleased that Dr Robert Oppenheimer and his team on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s succeeded in creating the atomic bomb. Their pioneering work in nuclear and theoretical physics has given us the ability to slaughter millions of our fellow human beings anywhere on the planet at the push of a button.
Should we welcome that reality as a sign of progress or regret it as a symbol of humanity's arrogance?
The question of scientists' responsibility towards humanity is today painfully pertinent as they tamper with human life in its earliest incarnation.
As a science graduate, I am well aware of the procedures and processes by which progress in the sciences is made. Yet I believe strongly that such research must always serve the public good.
To establish what that might be we urgently need a single permanent statutory national bioethics commission - a body that engages with public concerns and informs parliament on complex ethical questions. It is unacceptable that matters of such immense public concern should be left to a simple vote by MPs.
It's worth remembering that France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalise.
Could it be that the citizens and politicians of those countries care nothing for the chronically ill among them? Perhaps they don't want to develop cures or therapies; perhaps they are simply anti-scientific Luddites! Or could it be that we are wrong and these democracies see no reason to attack the sanctity and dignity of human life when many alternatives exist?
Easter is a time of renewal and of celebrating the resurrection and the glory of life. In wishing you the peace and joy of this season, I urge you to pray with me that we become a society that truly and deeply values all human life.
|
|
Posted by: James on 10:35pm Sat 22 Mar 08
This issue concerns a small bundle of human cells that cannot be kept alive for more than 14 days. If the research does not take place here in the UK, it will definitely take place elsewhere - the Cardinal should know this fact, and the potential harm his political interference could have on the long-term interests of the UK science sector.
There are millions of people suffering from degerative illnesses who could be helped by this research. Supporters of the Cardinal will criticize me for using the word "could" but this is the nature of science: this is the nature of science properly regulated and controlled.
It took over 300 years for the Vatican to "clear" Galileo of heresy - how many years will it take before these scientists are cleared?
This issue concerns a small bundle of human cells that cannot be kept alive for more than 14 days. If the research does not take place here in the UK, it will definitely take place elsewhere - the Cardinal should know this fact, and the potential harm his political interference could have on the long-term interests of the UK science sector.
There are millions of people suffering from degerative illnesses who could be helped by this research. Supporters of the Cardinal will criticize me for using the word "could" but this is the nature of science: this is the nature of science properly regulated and controlled.
It took over 300 years for the Vatican to "clear" Galileo of heresy - how many years will it take before these scientists are cleared?
Posted by: Man in white coat, Glasgow on 11:59pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Religion should play no part in political decisions regarding the progress of science. If the like of the Cardinal had his way, we would all still be living in medieval times where the church controlled every aspect of our daily lives. Comparing embryonic studies with the Manhattan project is completely ignorant and tantamount to scaremongering. The Manhattan project has brought many benefits we enjoy today, including a reliable source of power in the form of nuclear energy. If the cardinal cherishes life so much, maybe his church should endorse the use of contraception to help prevent the needless deaths of millions of adults and children from HIV infection across the world.
Religion should play no part in political decisions regarding the progress of science. If the like of the Cardinal had his way, we would all still be living in medieval times where the church controlled every aspect of our daily lives. Comparing embryonic studies with the Manhattan project is completely ignorant and tantamount to scaremongering. The Manhattan project has brought many benefits we enjoy today, including a reliable source of power in the form of nuclear energy. If the cardinal cherishes life so much, maybe his church should endorse the use of contraception to help prevent the needless deaths of millions of adults and children from HIV infection across the world.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:13am Sun 23 Mar 08
"It's worth remembering that France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalise."
Previous posters, please read the article before issuing forth with the usual anti-religion stuff. The above sentence alone states the names of five countries who have all banned this procedure. It seems to me the real extremists are the ones who call for certain others to be excluded from the debate and for what? For daring to hold a view?
"It's worth remembering that France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalise."
Previous posters, please read the article before issuing forth with the usual anti-religion stuff. The above sentence alone states the names of five countries who have all banned this procedure. It seems to me the real extremists are the ones who call for certain others to be excluded from the debate and for what? For daring to hold a view?
Posted by: brian McDermott, glasgow on 12:32am Sun 23 Mar 08
Man in white coat,
You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
Man in white coat,
You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 12:34am Sun 23 Mar 08
Man in white coat,
You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
Man in white coat,
You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:08am Sun 23 Mar 08
James on 10:35pm Sat 22 Mar 08 AND
James on 10:35pm Sat 22 Mar 08 AND
other suppoerters (or ineed opponents) of this research:
Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?
James on 10:35pm Sat 22 Mar 08 AND
James on 10:35pm Sat 22 Mar 08 AND
other suppoerters (or ineed opponents) of this research:
Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:09am Sun 23 Mar 08
Man in Straight Jacket Says:
The Manhattan project has brought many benefits we enjoy today, including a reliable source of power in the form of nuclear energy.
Man in Straight Jacket Says:
The Manhattan project has brought many benefits we enjoy today, including a reliable source of power in the form of nuclear energy.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:12am Sun 23 Mar 08
Cynicus on 2:08am today writes:
[quote]Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?[/quote]
Yes - but - a referendum on this would be preferable.
Cynicus on 2:08am today writes:
Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?
Yes - but - a referendum on this would be preferable.
Posted by: recovering menticide victim, Calgary, CANADA on 5:24am Sun 23 Mar 08
That this pathetic, ill-informed little man is the leader of any major group is a sad commentary on the human race. Doesn’t he realize that his organization’s current view on the entry of the soul (a highly contestable, arbitrary whim) into the body at conception is a relatively late mental invention? Several centuries ago most Christians believed that the soul did not enter the human until well after the embryonic stage. Getting back even earlier to New Testament times, Christians and Jews hadn’t even significantly developed the capricious notion of the soul; they got that from Greece and the Greeks took if from ancient India. Contrary to the Cardinal’s misinformation, we are now reaping the rewards of stem cell research. We are indeed becoming more human as we drag ourselves out of the superstitious slime that has engulfed us from earliest times.
That this pathetic, ill-informed little man is the leader of any major group is a sad commentary on the human race. Doesn’t he realize that his organization’s current view on the entry of the soul (a highly contestable, arbitrary whim) into the body at conception is a relatively late mental invention? Several centuries ago most Christians believed that the soul did not enter the human until well after the embryonic stage. Getting back even earlier to New Testament times, Christians and Jews hadn’t even significantly developed the capricious notion of the soul; they got that from Greece and the Greeks took if from ancient India. Contrary to the Cardinal’s misinformation, we are now reaping the rewards of stem cell research. We are indeed becoming more human as we drag ourselves out of the superstitious slime that has engulfed us from earliest times.
Posted by: Fed Up, The World Over on 6:26am Sun 23 Mar 08
It is all very well debating the issue of stem cell research from the point of view of conscience and religion. Try debating it from the point of view of the a disabled persons point of view. I have had multiple sclerosis for 27 years and because of this have got to know fellow 'sufferers' and other disabled people through admissions to hospital. I have not met anyone who does not wish to be healthy and lead a life without pain and the various hardships and indignities which disabled people have to suffer.
I am not in a position to vote for research directly and that is why I vote at election time in the hope that the elected representative will vote according to my wishes.
So the next time someone is collecting for disabled people don't always spare a penny but rather spare a thought.
It is all very well debating the issue of stem cell research from the point of view of conscience and religion. Try debating it from the point of view of the a disabled persons point of view. I have had multiple sclerosis for 27 years and because of this have got to know fellow 'sufferers' and other disabled people through admissions to hospital. I have not met anyone who does not wish to be healthy and lead a life without pain and the various hardships and indignities which disabled people have to suffer.
I am not in a position to vote for research directly and that is why I vote at election time in the hope that the elected representative will vote according to my wishes.
So the next time someone is collecting for disabled people don't always spare a penny but rather spare a thought.
Posted by: Brian, Glasgow on 7:12am Sun 23 Mar 08
Frankly, I'm aghast that the Catholic Church has the audacity to make statements like "destroying life at its most defenceless..." They are not on any moral high ground on that score. Let me quote some appropriately familiar rhetoric "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - How many millions of pounds have the Catholic Church paid out in compensation for the betrayal of defenceless children?
While we are at it, let’s ask “What has science ever done for us?”… yeah, yeah, but apart from cures for leprosy, reducing infant mortality, blu-tack, pot noodles, dirt repelling windows etc etc. What has science ever done for us?
How about also having a free vote on the world being flat? In the mean time let’s burn these "heretics" at the stake. Has nothing changed in 2000 years ???
Frankly, I'm aghast that the Catholic Church has the audacity to make statements like "destroying life at its most defenceless..." They are not on any moral high ground on that score. Let me quote some appropriately familiar rhetoric "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - How many millions of pounds have the Catholic Church paid out in compensation for the betrayal of defenceless children?
While we are at it, let’s ask “What has science ever done for us?”… yeah, yeah, but apart from cures for leprosy, reducing infant mortality, blu-tack, pot noodles, dirt repelling windows etc etc. What has science ever done for us?
How about also having a free vote on the world being flat? In the mean time let’s burn these "heretics" at the stake. Has nothing changed in 2000 years ???
Posted by: Spinoza, the holy mountain on 7:31am Sun 23 Mar 08
The question of whether or not this research [italic]may or may not[/italic] result in treatments for the ill and disabled is,from a moral perspective,not the issue.Given the uncertainty of these outcomes we need to examine [italic]now[/italic]our moral justifications for research such as this.As a Nietzschian I disagree with the Cardinal on just about everything but he is correct to call for,at the very least,a thorough debate of this research and not a simple rubber stamping by the herd that populate the house of commons.They represent me in [bold]nothing[/bold] at all and issues such as this should not be in the fiat of people such as this who seem keen to decide this expressly without engagement and debate.To those who appear to support the bill I would ask this-what might the politicians motives be in acting this way?I trust them on nothing.
The question of whether or not this research
may or may not result in treatments for the ill and disabled is,from a moral perspective,not the issue.Given the uncertainty of these outcomes we need to examine
nowour moral justifications for research such as this.As a Nietzschian I disagree with the Cardinal on just about everything but he is correct to call for,at the very least,a thorough debate of this research and not a simple rubber stamping by the herd that populate the house of commons.They represent me in
nothing at all and issues such as this should not be in the fiat of people such as this who seem keen to decide this expressly without engagement and debate.To those who appear to support the bill I would ask this-what might the politicians motives be in acting this way?I trust them on nothing.
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 8:33am Sun 23 Mar 08
I am always very wary of people who argue for their case on the basis that if we don't do it someone else will
This is a sure sign they know they are on dodgy ground and hope this throwaway line makes us think why should we bother to oppose this?
It hasn't worked with me I am in complete argreement with the archbishop
I am always very wary of people who argue for their case on the basis that if we don't do it someone else will
This is a sure sign they know they are on dodgy ground and hope this throwaway line makes us think why should we bother to oppose this?
It hasn't worked with me I am in complete argreement with the archbishop
Posted by: RossWB, Wemyss Bay on 8:46am Sun 23 Mar 08
It is clear that Keith O'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork.
I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy?
It is clear that Keith O'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork.
I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy?
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 9:55am Sun 23 Mar 08
Quote - Keith O'Brian, [italic]"Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."[/italic]
Stem cell research has already produced these very successful medical treatments;
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Bone Marrow Stem Cells
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Peripheral Blood Stem Cells
Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplant
Of these 'Bone Marrow Stem Cells' is the best known stem cell therapy to date which has been used for over 40 years to treat leukemia and other types of cancer, as well as various blood disorders.
Future treatments based on stem cell research will be for;
Diabetes
Heart disease
Alzheimer’s
Parkinson’s
Stem cell research is not about [italic]"mights, coulds or mays"[/italic] as Keith O'Brian wishes us to think. It is a scientific and medical reality that is treating thousands of people in this world right now, even the those in the catholic priesthood.
Who would have thought that a man of god would tell untruths of this holiest of days.
Quote - Keith O'Brian,
"Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."
Stem cell research has already produced these very successful medical treatments;
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Bone Marrow Stem Cells
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Peripheral Blood Stem Cells
Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplant
Of these 'Bone Marrow Stem Cells' is the best known stem cell therapy to date which has been used for over 40 years to treat leukemia and other types of cancer, as well as various blood disorders.
Future treatments based on stem cell research will be for;
Diabetes
Heart disease
Alzheimer’s
Parkinson’s
Stem cell research is not about
"mights, coulds or mays" as Keith O'Brian wishes us to think. It is a scientific and medical reality that is treating thousands of people in this world right now, even the those in the catholic priesthood.
Who would have thought that a man of god would tell untruths of this holiest of days.
Posted by: William, Ayrshire on 9:56am Sun 23 Mar 08
It is time the Cardinal realised that his ideas are dated as are his teachings. We are now in the 21st century and his Church (and others)are struggling to retain members. In this day and age people in developed countries will not be dictated to on matters by the men in black robes. It is time religion was taken out of the equation, I say carry on with any research which is likely to save lives.
It is time the Cardinal realised that his ideas are dated as are his teachings. We are now in the 21st century and his Church (and others)are struggling to retain members. In this day and age people in developed countries will not be dictated to on matters by the men in black robes. It is time religion was taken out of the equation, I say carry on with any research which is likely to save lives.
Posted by: Al on 10:12am Sun 23 Mar 08
"Human/Animal hybrids" the cardinal said.
Since I cannot believe the cardinal is anything other than well informed on this issue I suggest he's lying in order to stir up emotions.
These are not animal/human hybrids as he well knows and his frankenstein nonsense again shows he'll use any old emotive language to scare his blind, unthinking followers into toeing the church's line.
This church, along with others, have almost two millennia of experience of this tactic.
The problem the church has in this day and age, since they failed to keep the printing press banned and then failed to have complete control over it, is we can get news and information from all over the place. From the horses mouth in fact.
Centuries ago these scientists would have just been silenced by the catholic church, put under house arrest, tortured or killed.
They no longer have this 'option' since civilisation has overtaken the church.
Now though they resort to scare tactics, lies and any other underhand means. Shameful stuff from the allegedly moral.
"Human/Animal hybrids" the cardinal said.
Since I cannot believe the cardinal is anything other than well informed on this issue I suggest he's lying in order to stir up emotions.
These are not animal/human hybrids as he well knows and his frankenstein nonsense again shows he'll use any old emotive language to scare his blind, unthinking followers into toeing the church's line.
This church, along with others, have almost two millennia of experience of this tactic.
The problem the church has in this day and age, since they failed to keep the printing press banned and then failed to have complete control over it, is we can get news and information from all over the place. From the horses mouth in fact.
Centuries ago these scientists would have just been silenced by the catholic church, put under house arrest, tortured or killed.
They no longer have this 'option' since civilisation has overtaken the church.
Now though they resort to scare tactics, lies and any other underhand means. Shameful stuff from the allegedly moral.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 10:14am Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Mac[/bold] wrote:
Quote - Keith O'Brian, [italic]"Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."[/italic]
Stem cell research has already produced these very successful medical treatments;
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Bone Marrow Stem Cells
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Peripheral Blood Stem Cells
Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplant
Of these 'Bone Marrow Stem Cells' is the best known stem cell therapy to date which has been used for over 40 years to treat leukemia and other types of cancer, as well as various blood disorders.
Future treatments based on stem cell research will be for;
Diabetes
Heart disease
Alzheimer’s
Parkinson’s
Stem cell research is not about [italic]"mights, coulds or mays"[/italic] as Keith O'Brian wishes us to think. It is a scientific and medical reality that is treating thousands of people in this world right now, even the those in the catholic priesthood.
Who would have thought that a man of god would tell untruths of this holiest of days.
[/quote] Mac = you should have kept on reading before you accused the man of telling porkies.
[quote]We continue to be told that experimenting on embryos will lead us to cures and treatments. Yet, as the years have gone by, not one single treatment or therapy has emerged. In the meantime, research using adult stem cells has led to more than 70 different therapies and treatments, without destroying a single embryo.[/quote]
Mac wrote:
Quote - Keith O'Brian, "Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."
Stem cell research has already produced these very successful medical treatments;
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Bone Marrow Stem Cells
Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Peripheral Blood Stem Cells
Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplant
Of these 'Bone Marrow Stem Cells' is the best known stem cell therapy to date which has been used for over 40 years to treat leukemia and other types of cancer, as well as various blood disorders.
Future treatments based on stem cell research will be for;
Diabetes
Heart disease
Alzheimer’s
Parkinson’s
Stem cell research is not about "mights, coulds or mays" as Keith O'Brian wishes us to think. It is a scientific and medical reality that is treating thousands of people in this world right now, even the those in the catholic priesthood.
Who would have thought that a man of god would tell untruths of this holiest of days.
Mac = you should have kept on reading before you accused the man of telling porkies.
We continue to be told that experimenting on embryos will lead us to cures and treatments. Yet, as the years have gone by, not one single treatment or therapy has emerged. In the meantime, research using adult stem cells has led to more than 70 different therapies and treatments, without destroying a single embryo.
Posted by: Gerry, Penicuik on 11:49am Sun 23 Mar 08
Same old, same old from a reactionary leader of a reactionary church. Let's face it the Catholic church is against condoms, the pill and any other scientific advance that gives women more control of their fertility and reduces the liklihood of them becoming breeding machines. The fight against AIDS in Africa has also been severely hampered by the teachings of this self-appointed group of allegedly celibate men.
It also opposes IVF treatment which has brought joy to millions of people worldwide.
I might just treat the views of the RC Church more seriously when the stop ordering their members to believe that communion wine LITERALLY turns to blood in their mouths. I'd be happy to send a sample off to the lab for analysis!
Let's address important social and scientific matters without the biased and bigoted nostrums of the Catholic (and other) church.
As the old feminist slogan goes - "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". Was true then - is true now
Gerry (baptised a Catholic - thankfully now seen the atheist light)
Same old, same old from a reactionary leader of a reactionary church. Let's face it the Catholic church is against condoms, the pill and any other scientific advance that gives women more control of their fertility and reduces the liklihood of them becoming breeding machines. The fight against AIDS in Africa has also been severely hampered by the teachings of this self-appointed group of allegedly celibate men.
It also opposes IVF treatment which has brought joy to millions of people worldwide.
I might just treat the views of the RC Church more seriously when the stop ordering their members to believe that communion wine LITERALLY turns to blood in their mouths. I'd be happy to send a sample off to the lab for analysis!
Let's address important social and scientific matters without the biased and bigoted nostrums of the Catholic (and other) church.
As the old feminist slogan goes - "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". Was true then - is true now
Gerry (baptised a Catholic - thankfully now seen the atheist light)
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 11:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 10:58am today
Excellent clear-sighted balance of comment in article.
All technology, tools and knowledge is capable of moral or immoral application whether it is a knife in a surgeon’s hand with the consent of the patient, or in the hands of a street yob stabbing a defenceless person for money or just blind hate.
Few would want the mis-use of hybrid DNA; that is for legislation to prohibit and sanction if the law is broken.
So I read that the Cardinal now issues a Fatwa on such knowledge to be gained and that Des Browne is likely to rebel and vote against human-animal embryo experiments as being anti-life as a matter of grave moral conscience. How noble...
The Cardinal and his disciple Browne are morally concerned about a few molecules of DNA being altered but not for the thousands if not a million of real men, women and children having been mutilated or blown to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Slaughter of the Innocents aka Herod, where it now claimed this was righteous violence and killing to get rid of one man.
Where is the Cardinal’s moral outrage from his pulpits on this ongoing slaughter?
So we have Des Browne trying to muzzle coroners and a First Minister from commenting on The Fourth Crusade while a Pope welcomes Tony Blair – war criminal extraordinary – to the church and Archbishop Devine pronounces that we cannot judge Mr Bliar for his actions.
Sometimes I despair of the church I was brought up in; but can't say I am surprised what with the church just recently acknowledging that Galileo was right when he observed that the earth went round the sun
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 10:58am today
Excellent clear-sighted balance of comment in article.
All technology, tools and knowledge is capable of moral or immoral application whether it is a knife in a surgeon’s hand with the consent of the patient, or in the hands of a street yob stabbing a defenceless person for money or just blind hate.
Few would want the mis-use of hybrid DNA; that is for legislation to prohibit and sanction if the law is broken.
So I read that the Cardinal now issues a Fatwa on such knowledge to be gained and that Des Browne is likely to rebel and vote against human-animal embryo experiments as being anti-life as a matter of grave moral conscience. How noble...
The Cardinal and his disciple Browne are morally concerned about a few molecules of DNA being altered but not for the thousands if not a million of real men, women and children having been mutilated or blown to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Slaughter of the Innocents aka Herod, where it now claimed this was righteous violence and killing to get rid of one man.
Where is the Cardinal’s moral outrage from his pulpits on this ongoing slaughter?
So we have Des Browne trying to muzzle coroners and a First Minister from commenting on The Fourth Crusade while a Pope welcomes Tony Blair – war criminal extraordinary – to the church and Archbishop Devine pronounces that we cannot judge Mr Bliar for his actions.
Sometimes I despair of the church I was brought up in; but can't say I am surprised what with the church just recently acknowledging that Galileo was right when he observed that the earth went round the sun
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 12:00pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Sorry should have said
Excellent clear-sighted balance of comment ON Cardinal's article.
Sorry should have said
Excellent clear-sighted balance of comment ON Cardinal's article.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 12:07pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Always remember this man blongs to an organisation that did it's very best to suppress scientific research in the past. It imprisoned Galileo for daring to write a thesis on astonomy saying that it was the earth that circled the sun and not the other way around. A fact that was already known in ancient Egypt, Greece and China but wasn't allowed to be taught in Europe for fear it would undermine the church's authority. Leonardo de Vinci had to do his research in secret and hide his findings for fear of the inquisition and it is only now that we are fully coming to fully understand the depth and breadth of his intellect. He was hundreds of years ahead of his time. His helicopter, aeroplane and parachute have all been proven to work and are in constant use today.
As someone said earlier this century, "If it wasn't for christianity mankind could have walked on the moon 100 years earlier". The knowledge was already there except we dare not use it for fear of Rome.
Always remember this man blongs to an organisation that did it's very best to suppress scientific research in the past. It imprisoned Galileo for daring to write a thesis on astonomy saying that it was the earth that circled the sun and not the other way around. A fact that was already known in ancient Egypt, Greece and China but wasn't allowed to be taught in Europe for fear it would undermine the church's authority. Leonardo de Vinci had to do his research in secret and hide his findings for fear of the inquisition and it is only now that we are fully coming to fully understand the depth and breadth of his intellect. He was hundreds of years ahead of his time. His helicopter, aeroplane and parachute have all been proven to work and are in constant use today.
As someone said earlier this century, "If it wasn't for christianity mankind could have walked on the moon 100 years earlier". The knowledge was already there except we dare not use it for fear of Rome.
Posted by: Watson, Isle of Tiree on 12:28pm Sun 23 Mar 08
The church is only interested in controlling people. Through this they can even control the governing of a country. This priest is only doing what priests do best and that is dictating to the peasants.
The church is only interested in controlling people. Through this they can even control the governing of a country. This priest is only doing what priests do best and that is dictating to the peasants.
Posted by: Aurora, Glasgow on 12:33pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]brian McDermott[/bold] wrote:
Man in white coat, You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD\'s Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?[/quote] Strikes me that the Rev O'Brien has been taking lessons from Wee Eck - great at posturing and spouting fibs but, like the man in Holyrood, hopeless in actually doing anything positive while his Church numbers diminish by the hour !
brian McDermott wrote:
Man in white coat, You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD\'s Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
Strikes me that the Rev O'Brien has been taking lessons from Wee Eck - great at posturing and spouting fibs but, like the man in Holyrood, hopeless in actually doing anything positive while his Church numbers diminish by the hour !
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:20pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]RossWB[/bold] wrote:
It is clear that Keith O\'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy? [/quote] RossB Keith O'Brien is a science graduate.
Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don't back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it.
RossWB wrote:
It is clear that Keith O\'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy?
RossB Keith O'Brien is a science graduate.
Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don't back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it.
Posted by: heady on 1:23pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]RossWB[/bold] wrote: It is clear that Keith O\\\'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy? [/quote] RossB Keith O\'Brien is a science graduate. Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O\'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don\'t back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O\'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it. [/quote] How arrogant would one have to be to accuse others of being unable to be objective while pursuing a particular agenda yourself?
Clare wrote:
RossWB wrote: It is clear that Keith O'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy?
RossB Keith O\'Brien is a science graduate. Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O\'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don\'t back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O\'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it.
How arrogant would one have to be to accuse others of being unable to be objective while pursuing a particular agenda yourself?
Posted by: Kelvin Kid, Glasgow on 1:33pm Sun 23 Mar 08
It is silly of Brown not to confirm that he will permit a free vote on this debate in the Commons. However, the Cardinal is not really interested in a 'free vote' at all. The Cardinal is interested to force a vote in which Catholic MPs will vote in a manner dictated by the Catholic Church. I'm all for a free vote and I'd like Cardinal O'Brien to let one take place.
It is silly of Brown not to confirm that he will permit a free vote on this debate in the Commons. However, the Cardinal is not really interested in a 'free vote' at all. The Cardinal is interested to force a vote in which Catholic MPs will vote in a manner dictated by the Catholic Church. I'm all for a free vote and I'd like Cardinal O'Brien to let one take place.
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 1:36pm Sun 23 Mar 08
brian, glasgow - 7:12 am today,
Brian I think we should use different names because people are just going to get confused as to who the are responding to. As our debating styles if you used 'brian 2'it might make things easier for others.
brian, glasgow - 7:12 am today,
Brian I think we should use different names because people are just going to get confused as to who the are responding to. As our debating styles if you used 'brian 2'it might make things easier for others.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:44pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Watson[/bold] wrote:
The church is only interested in controlling people. Through this they can even control the governing of a country. This priest is only doing what priests do best and that is dictating to the peasants.[/quote] Watson I take great exception to your use of the word "peasants." Just who do you think you are that you are fit to judge in such a way? I really don't get you people. But you're all in good company. Hitler was into this sort of thing was he not supporting as he did the violation of the ovaries of young Jewish girls in search of eggs for experimentation purposes in the pursuit of his Master Race? And we called him a lunatic.
I would say that in calling for people to consider the detail of what is proposed and examine their consciences as they decide Keith O'Brien has urged a responsible approach and I see nothing wrong in that.
Charles I have no problem with our quest to acquire knowledge but there are boundaries we should not cross. Mixing the cells of humans and animals is one such boundary and I believe many people feel that way. We were told a long time ago that scientists would never be allowed to do such a thing. It isn't about religion either. We must have boundaries. When embryo research began there was an outcry but they pushed it aside then too. Now they have moved on to the next step, they want to mix cells with other animals. Where will it stop Charles? What will they want to do next? And if the Prime Minister at the time again will not allow a free vote do we still call it democracy?
Also Charles Keith O'Brien was very much opposed to the war in Iraq and has said so publicly on many occasions. The church he belongs to made its feelings quite clear as did Pope John Paul. He worked with other churches in opposing the invasion of Iraq too.
I think it is fair enough for people to quote on here the sins of the church but I think it is also a sad thing when the issue under discussion is something so serious. It seems to matter not a jot that so many other countries have already banned this type of research, its just all about attacking Keith O'Brien for who he is. I thank my own good fortune not to be designed in a way that makes me view people and all they are saying by the religion they hold for that is a burden I would hate to carry destroying as it does one's judgement and one's ability to think fairly. Indeed, I would say it is a curse.
Watson wrote:
The church is only interested in controlling people. Through this they can even control the governing of a country. This priest is only doing what priests do best and that is dictating to the peasants.
Watson I take great exception to your use of the word "peasants." Just who do you think you are that you are fit to judge in such a way? I really don't get you people. But you're all in good company. Hitler was into this sort of thing was he not supporting as he did the violation of the ovaries of young Jewish girls in search of eggs for experimentation purposes in the pursuit of his Master Race? And we called him a lunatic.
I would say that in calling for people to consider the detail of what is proposed and examine their consciences as they decide Keith O'Brien has urged a responsible approach and I see nothing wrong in that.
Charles I have no problem with our quest to acquire knowledge but there are boundaries we should not cross. Mixing the cells of humans and animals is one such boundary and I believe many people feel that way. We were told a long time ago that scientists would never be allowed to do such a thing. It isn't about religion either. We must have boundaries. When embryo research began there was an outcry but they pushed it aside then too. Now they have moved on to the next step, they want to mix cells with other animals. Where will it stop Charles? What will they want to do next? And if the Prime Minister at the time again will not allow a free vote do we still call it democracy?
Also Charles Keith O'Brien was very much opposed to the war in Iraq and has said so publicly on many occasions. The church he belongs to made its feelings quite clear as did Pope John Paul. He worked with other churches in opposing the invasion of Iraq too.
I think it is fair enough for people to quote on here the sins of the church but I think it is also a sad thing when the issue under discussion is something so serious. It seems to matter not a jot that so many other countries have already banned this type of research, its just all about attacking Keith O'Brien for who he is. I thank my own good fortune not to be designed in a way that makes me view people and all they are saying by the religion they hold for that is a burden I would hate to carry destroying as it does one's judgement and one's ability to think fairly. Indeed, I would say it is a curse.
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 1:45pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Brian[/bold] wrote:
Frankly, I'm aghast that the Catholic Church has the audacity to make statements like "destroying life at its most defenceless..." They are not on any moral high ground on that score. Let me quote some appropriately familiar rhetoric "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - How many millions of pounds have the Catholic Church paid out in compensation for the betrayal of defenceless children? While we are at it, let’s ask “What has science ever done for us?”… yeah, yeah, but apart from cures for leprosy, reducing infant mortality, blu-tack, pot noodles, dirt repelling windows etc etc. What has science ever done for us? How about also having a free vote on the world being flat? In the mean time let’s burn these "heretics" at the stake. Has nothing changed in 2000 years ??? [/quote] Brian,
Was he not also reported to have said:'...go and sin no more.', I can't remember him being accused of casting-up the person's entire list of misdemeanours. I think science is great and the scientists are not often supported enough, but I think certain issues concern a wider public.
Brian wrote:
Frankly, I'm aghast that the Catholic Church has the audacity to make statements like "destroying life at its most defenceless..." They are not on any moral high ground on that score. Let me quote some appropriately familiar rhetoric "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - How many millions of pounds have the Catholic Church paid out in compensation for the betrayal of defenceless children? While we are at it, let’s ask “What has science ever done for us?”… yeah, yeah, but apart from cures for leprosy, reducing infant mortality, blu-tack, pot noodles, dirt repelling windows etc etc. What has science ever done for us? How about also having a free vote on the world being flat? In the mean time let’s burn these "heretics" at the stake. Has nothing changed in 2000 years ???
Brian,
Was he not also reported to have said:'...go and sin no more.', I can't remember him being accused of casting-up the person's entire list of misdemeanours. I think science is great and the scientists are not often supported enough, but I think certain issues concern a wider public.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:51pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]heady[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]RossWB[/bold] wrote: It is clear that Keith O\\\'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy? [/quote] RossB Keith O\'Brien is a science graduate. Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O\'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don\'t back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O\'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it. [/quote] How arrogant would one have to be to accuse others of being unable to be objective while pursuing a particular agenda yourself?[/quote] Heady, I don't have a particular agenda. I have pointed out that the subject under debate is being buried beneath personal attacks on Keith O'Brien and the church he belongs to. Read the thread yourself. That isn't arrogance its stating a fact. You just proved it in your own response.
heady wrote:
Clare wrote: RossWB wrote: It is clear that Keith O'Brien does not understand the science and has resorted to myth and guesswork. I am an atheist and do not want any church to hold back science. That is what happens in the US with the Christian Fundamentalists and in Iran. Do we want to turn Britain in to a theocracy?
RossB Keith O\'Brien is a science graduate. Secondly it is a great pity that people cannot objectively comment on or debate this very serious issue, which is of concern to many who do not have any faith whatsoever, without going the anti-religious route and using these threads to attack a particular church just for the sake of it. It is seriously worrying that they automatically want to destroy the thread and the debate by insults at a person. The more worrying concern is that in choosing that option they are happy to set aside the nature of the experimentation being proposed, the mixing of human and animal cells, and the fact that the current government refuses to allow a free vote on the issue. Some accuse Keith O\'Brien of dictating to MPs. Gordon Brown goes further. With a three line whip in place he is threatening his MPs with disciplinary action if they don\'t back the legislation! Presumably those above who hate Keith O\'Brien for merely being who he is are ok with that. Presumably they will also call themselves democrats. Such people make these threads increasingly difficult to take seriously when the quality of the debate depends on the religion of the person who has provoked it.
How arrogant would one have to be to accuse others of being unable to be objective while pursuing a particular agenda yourself?
Heady, I don't have a particular agenda. I have pointed out that the subject under debate is being buried beneath personal attacks on Keith O'Brien and the church he belongs to. Read the thread yourself. That isn't arrogance its stating a fact. You just proved it in your own response.
Posted by: The Bookseller, Edinburgh on 1:56pm Sun 23 Mar 08
"Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."
Oooooh, nearly a whole decade and still no cure for Alzheimers. We'd best all give up and go back to church then. Part of the reason for the bill is to enable the pace of research to increase as more stem cells will result from the new method and he chances of viable therapies will go up.
The much-vaunted 'science degree' must have been put to great use in the classrooms of 1960s Fife. I hope that the 'shut-up at the back and pay attention to me' approach won't work for the Cardinal in these more enlightened times.
"Claim after claim that such research might'', could'' or may'' lead to treatments for many diseases have been made for almost a decade without any substance."
Oooooh, nearly a whole decade and still no cure for Alzheimers. We'd best all give up and go back to church then. Part of the reason for the bill is to enable the pace of research to increase as more stem cells will result from the new method and he chances of viable therapies will go up.
The much-vaunted 'science degree' must have been put to great use in the classrooms of 1960s Fife. I hope that the 'shut-up at the back and pay attention to me' approach won't work for the Cardinal in these more enlightened times.
Posted by: Stephen, Glasgow on 1:59pm Sun 23 Mar 08
If the cardinal wants a proper debate and a free vote, let the vote be based on facts and information not mis-information and scaremongering.
It is yet another double standard in place by the Catholic Church while demanding a free vote but yet telling their members who are Catholic MP's to vote in a certain way.
The Catholic Church in this country is a vocal minority whether you like it or not. The vast majority of people an MP represents won't be Catholic or follow any religion.
It is the 21st Century after all and religion should not be dictating which way a certain group of MP's should vote.
If it does, then these MP's should be out on their ear at the next election as they are not representing their constituents on their own beliefs.
If the cardinal wants a proper debate and a free vote, let the vote be based on facts and information not mis-information and scaremongering.
It is yet another double standard in place by the Catholic Church while demanding a free vote but yet telling their members who are Catholic MP's to vote in a certain way.
The Catholic Church in this country is a vocal minority whether you like it or not. The vast majority of people an MP represents won't be Catholic or follow any religion.
It is the 21st Century after all and religion should not be dictating which way a certain group of MP's should vote.
If it does, then these MP's should be out on their ear at the next election as they are not representing their constituents on their own beliefs.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:44pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Come on then who's going to be first in the queue to tell soeone they'll no be getting a cure for their chronic illness, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suffering just because some erse in a cassock said God wouldn't like it.
Perhaps the "good" cardinal will be first in that queue, aye right!
Not quite the headlines he aspires too. The hypocritical stance of these churchmen(not just the RCs, the proddies are just as bad) knows no bounds
Come on then who's going to be first in the queue to tell soeone they'll no be getting a cure for their chronic illness, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suffering just because some erse in a cassock said God wouldn't like it.
Perhaps the "good" cardinal will be first in that queue, aye right!
Not quite the headlines he aspires too. The hypocritical stance of these churchmen(not just the RCs, the proddies are just as bad) knows no bounds
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 4:08pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Clare I always appreciate your comments on many posts and this one also.But I do have a different boundary.
Setting boundaries is always a matter of judgement; I think we should judge not just against a means but also the end benefit. Ends and means-to-ends are inherently to be judged as one. If a few cells of DNA combinant can release a fellow human being from a serious debilitation I can see no barrier to this anymore than creating an anti-biotic body, or antivirus from a pre-existent, ‘natural’ life-form or near-life form.
And as far as boundaries go, I think in making a public welcome of embracing and holding harmless without sanction, Mr Blair on his fast-track Catholicism before the whole world, especially the Muslim World, in the middle of an ongoing invasive war of occupation, the Vatican & Pope Benedict and Archbishop Devine crossed the boundary of good taste and moral authority.
As an individual I claim no obedience from those that hear me and they do have the right to criticise my view; but when an institution claims obedience by way of Divine Guidance and proceeds to push for a ban on a particular biotech subject or condoms for Aids-ravaged Africa, then they can expect to be challenged including Cardinal O’Brien not as a person but as to his arguments – albeit a fine line. Tony Blair and George Bush claim divine guidance and look what that has achieved.
Clare, we do both agree that G Brown is wrong to impose his political fatwa on a matter of controversial moral judgement; MPs should have a free vote, according that is to the dictates of their conscience or perhaps ‘con-science’ – ‘putting the knowledge all together’.
Clare I always appreciate your comments on many posts and this one also.But I do have a different boundary.
Setting boundaries is always a matter of judgement; I think we should judge not just against a means but also the end benefit. Ends and means-to-ends are inherently to be judged as one. If a few cells of DNA combinant can release a fellow human being from a serious debilitation I can see no barrier to this anymore than creating an anti-biotic body, or antivirus from a pre-existent, ‘natural’ life-form or near-life form.
And as far as boundaries go, I think in making a public welcome of embracing and holding harmless without sanction, Mr Blair on his fast-track Catholicism before the whole world, especially the Muslim World, in the middle of an ongoing invasive war of occupation, the Vatican & Pope Benedict and Archbishop Devine crossed the boundary of good taste and moral authority.
As an individual I claim no obedience from those that hear me and they do have the right to criticise my view; but when an institution claims obedience by way of Divine Guidance and proceeds to push for a ban on a particular biotech subject or condoms for Aids-ravaged Africa, then they can expect to be challenged including Cardinal O’Brien not as a person but as to his arguments – albeit a fine line. Tony Blair and George Bush claim divine guidance and look what that has achieved.
Clare, we do both agree that G Brown is wrong to impose his political fatwa on a matter of controversial moral judgement; MPs should have a free vote, according that is to the dictates of their conscience or perhaps ‘con-science’ – ‘putting the knowledge all together’.
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 4:35pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Cynicus asks:
[quote]Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?[/quote]
Free of what? The party whip? Religious dogma? The reciprocal favours required by their funding from Big Pharma?
New Labour has always tried to serve all three of these masters. They seem to have experienced no conflicts of interest.
Cynicus asks:
Do you believe MPs should have a free vote on this measure?
Free of what? The party whip? Religious dogma? The reciprocal favours required by their funding from Big Pharma?
New Labour has always tried to serve all three of these masters. They seem to have experienced no conflicts of interest.
Posted by: Jim, Irvine on 5:29pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Strange ! I thought they had already settled the 'Human/Animal Embryo '. Get real . Look around ! The Bliar was all both and was hated but accepted by The Electorate at Voting times.
And more strange was accepted into the RC Church and is Lecturing about Truth , Democracy
and Belief in God. !
Its amazing the Manipulations that can be accepted in Life.
Strange ! I thought they had already settled the 'Human/Animal Embryo '. Get real . Look around ! The Bliar was all both and was hated but accepted by The Electorate at Voting times.
And more strange was accepted into the RC Church and is Lecturing about Truth , Democracy
and Belief in God. !
Its amazing the Manipulations that can be accepted in Life.
Posted by: M C S, Edinburgh on 9:46am Mon 24 Mar 08
The Church should not meddle in science, those of us who would wish to take advantage of new treatments, should be free to access it. The medics should be allowed to continue with their procedures and no Politician should be in office if they cannot leave their Religion at home. Politician are the voice of the electorate and therefore have to look at the bigger picture. How about asking the whole country what they think? I don't think the majority of people listen to the Church as it is rather outdated.
The Church should not meddle in science, those of us who would wish to take advantage of new treatments, should be free to access it. The medics should be allowed to continue with their procedures and no Politician should be in office if they cannot leave their Religion at home. Politician are the voice of the electorate and therefore have to look at the bigger picture. How about asking the whole country what they think? I don't think the majority of people listen to the Church as it is rather outdated.
Posted by: Roy, Edinburgh on 1:25am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]brian McDermott[/bold] wrote:
Man in white coat, You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?[/quote] How many people have propigated and suffered from the contraction of AIDS in the third world countries as a consequence of the rule of the Catholic church that contraception use of condoms should not be used?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Hunders of thousands?
...?
brian McDermott wrote:
Man in white coat, You really must think the Church is more influential than it really is. In Scotland and Britain the Church is able to influence a small minority of the population, so when we think of the increasing levels of STD's Aids and pregnancies of school children who do you blame?
How many people have propigated and suffered from the contraction of AIDS in the third world countries as a consequence of the rule of the Catholic church that contraception use of condoms should not be used?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Hunders of thousands?
...?
Comment | Read Comments (39)
Print this story
Email to a friend
