Comments on: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: The Catholic Church Attacks Brown’s Achilles’ Heel http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill-the-catholic-church-attacks-browns-achilles-heel/ Resisting the efforts to impose a unitary British value system and identity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:44:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: David http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill-the-catholic-church-attacks-browns-achilles-heel/#comment-1020 David Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:25:58 +0000 http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/?p=95#comment-1020 Darren, if a cluster of human embryonic cells is not a human being, is a human-animal hybrid embryo human or not? If not, where does being merely animal, or merely living tissue, end and being human begin? And does what you call the non-human-being status of human embryonic cells make these cells also in a sense not human? Is the humanity of living human cells therefore dependent on those cells forming an individuated human person or being? If so, does this make it OK to conduct experiments on living human cells (indifferently - or to a different degree? - whether inserted into an animal ovum or not) so long as they're just a cell cluster - up to 14 days, say, or whatever random point the legal limit is - but not after that point, when those cells are supposed to be an individual human person (but not, apparently, a human being with human rights as it can still be legally aborted, if not killed through experimentation)? These are the kind of logical contortions and fallacious, self-serving categorial distinctions that are involved in trying to justify destructive procedures against some forms of pre-natal human life but not (or, depending on your point of view, equally as much as) others. Far simpler and more respectful of the sacredness of human life and the universality of human rights to say that if something is alive and human it should not be wilfully destroyed, which equates to it being treated as if it were non-human or partially human. As in all such supposedly progressive and egalitarian science, this involves treating the needs and status of some human beings (or entities, or living cells), such as sufferers from chronic diseases, as taking precedence over those of others: 'my rights are greater than those of embryos / embryonic cells'; 'all men are equal - but some are more equal than others'. This is not to say that the needs of those who suffer from chronic diseases aren't worthy of the full attention of medical science. But there has to be a better way; and with our God-given ingenuity and the truth of a loving God that wants to heal our hurts and sicknesses, I'm sure we can find alternatives that will bring the same results. But maybe the choice for anti-human methods just shows the extent to which we've lost our respect for the sanctity of human life and our faith in a loving God. Darren, if a cluster of human embryonic cells is not a human being, is a human-animal hybrid embryo human or not? If not, where does being merely animal, or merely living tissue, end and being human begin? And does what you call the non-human-being status of human embryonic cells make these cells also in a sense not human? Is the humanity of living human cells therefore dependent on those cells forming an individuated human person or being? If so, does this make it OK to conduct experiments on living human cells (indifferently – or to a different degree? – whether inserted into an animal ovum or not) so long as they’re just a cell cluster – up to 14 days, say, or whatever random point the legal limit is – but not after that point, when those cells are supposed to be an individual human person (but not, apparently, a human being with human rights as it can still be legally aborted, if not killed through experimentation)?

These are the kind of logical contortions and fallacious, self-serving categorial distinctions that are involved in trying to justify destructive procedures against some forms of pre-natal human life but not (or, depending on your point of view, equally as much as) others. Far simpler and more respectful of the sacredness of human life and the universality of human rights to say that if something is alive and human it should not be wilfully destroyed, which equates to it being treated as if it were non-human or partially human. As in all such supposedly progressive and egalitarian science, this involves treating the needs and status of some human beings (or entities, or living cells), such as sufferers from chronic diseases, as taking precedence over those of others: ‘my rights are greater than those of embryos / embryonic cells’; ‘all men are equal – but some are more equal than others’.

This is not to say that the needs of those who suffer from chronic diseases aren’t worthy of the full attention of medical science. But there has to be a better way; and with our God-given ingenuity and the truth of a loving God that wants to heal our hurts and sicknesses, I’m sure we can find alternatives that will bring the same results. But maybe the choice for anti-human methods just shows the extent to which we’ve lost our respect for the sanctity of human life and our faith in a loving God.

]]> By: Darren Reynolds http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill-the-catholic-church-attacks-browns-achilles-heel/#comment-1019 Darren Reynolds Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:05 +0000 http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/?p=95#comment-1019 I see suffering. Parkinson's Disease. Alzheimer's Disease. Motor Neurone Disease. These usually affect the elderly but can affect the young too. The suffering is real and the people suffering are real. Medical researchers need available to them a full range of tools to tackle these diseases. A cluster of human embryonic cells is not a human being. It is a potential human being. In fact, it is several potential human beings, because the cells can be split apart leading to identical twins. Are we to force people to reproduce, to ensure every potential being is born? Should we intervene in the process to split embryos, so that twins are born instead of a single person? No, these ideas are ridiculous. Let the study and research continue so that the suffering of real people can be brought to an end. I see suffering. Parkinson’s Disease. Alzheimer’s Disease. Motor Neurone Disease. These usually affect the elderly but can affect the young too. The suffering is real and the people suffering are real. Medical researchers need available to them a full range of tools to tackle these diseases. A cluster of human embryonic cells is not a human being. It is a potential human being. In fact, it is several potential human beings, because the cells can be split apart leading to identical twins. Are we to force people to reproduce, to ensure every potential being is born? Should we intervene in the process to split embryos, so that twins are born instead of a single person? No, these ideas are ridiculous. Let the study and research continue so that the suffering of real people can be brought to an end.

]]>