Friday, May 23, 2008

L’Osservatore Romano on HFE Bill


(CNA).- The L’Osservatore Romano published an article this week slamming an anti-life package passed this week by Britain’s House of Commons that includes measures allowing the creation of human-animal embryos, in vitro fertilization, and artificial insemination for lesbians who want to have a child.
LOR reporter Assuntina Morresi explained in her article that the most controversial measure in the package is the approval of human-animal hybrids. “There is no demand for these embryos in the scientific community, despite reports in the media. So far only tow British groups have requested permission to create the hybrids, using egg cells from cows and adult human cells,” Morressi said.
She called the proposed research “outdated and useless,” noting that last December Ian Wilmut, the creator of the sheep Dolly, publicly announced his refusal to continue harvesting embryonic stem cells from therapeutic cloning, saying “the technique is inefficient and has never worked in humans and has done nothing but harm to animals.”
Morressi also pointed out that human-animal hybrids could not be used to treat humans because of the possibility of contamination from animal biological material. “Neither could they be used as models to study certain diseases,” she added.
In her piece, Morressi also explained that the creation of “savior babies” through in vitro fertilization would mean producing a large number of human embryos in order to pick the ones with the best genetic characteristics. The “acceptable” embryos would then be allowed to develop so that after birth their tissues could be used to help sick family members. The other embryos would be destroyed.
Labor representative Des Turner noted, “If therapeutic measures exist, it’s a moral imperative to use therapies to save lives.” But, Morressi said, “Who knows what effect being considered a ‘therapeutic measure’ would have on someone, knowing that one was born because his genetic profile was exactly what the family needed,” Morressi asked.
Orphans before they were conceived
Referring to the third measure of the controversial bill on the right of a people to have a father and a mother, Morressi said the new law doesn’t respect this right but rather only requires that it be shown someone exists that will take care of the future child. Sponsors of the measure said, “It’s the quality of being parents that matters, not gender as such,” and further claimed that current British law constitutes “discrimination against lesbian couples and single women.”
“Orphans before they were conceived, in summary: impossible for mother nature but not for the law in Great Britain,” Morressi said. “Since there needs to be sperm in the test tube, there must be a biological father, at least in theory, even if he is nothing more than a sperm producer: a number in a sperm bank catalogue, or perhaps in today’s world, a simple bar code,” she stated. Morressi ended her article with two questions: “Why persist in research that is so ethically controversial given all of the doubts from a scientific point of view? Perhaps to show that we can do research with whatever we want?”

8 comments:

bernadette said...

Precisely. It takes an Italian journalist to finally ask the right question. And yet nowhere in the Brtish media have I seen any-one yet ask the obvious: why are we pressing for research of this nature ? There has to be a reason, so let`s find out what that reason is. It certainly isn`t to help people with ALzheimer's, who, along with all the other health charities who`ve signed up to this, are being used as pawns.

V said...

Gordon Brown's son, Fraser (now 2 years old) suffers with cystic fibrosis, a life-threatening inherited disease. Our PM's interest in genetic modification and research is less about altruism for the masses and more about personal relief. Even if a cure for his son is never found, the attempt alleviates Brown's guilt at passing on 'faulty' genes, and makes him a 'saviour father'.

At the cost of the lives of thousands of embryos.

It's King Herod all over again. The massacre of innocents for one.

God help us.

Laurence said...

That doesn't explain why Blair was so keen on it as well though. Behind the Government also is big business chomping at the bit to do this research, get contracts etc, and of course money. When was the last time government said "No" to big business of any kind? As we keep learning, pharmaceutical firms aren't really in their business for our sakes. If they were, AIDS drugs would be more available in Africa. They're in it for the cash and the government buckle under their lobbying.

Henry said...

It's about £££s
Public £££s going to private outfits. That's New Labour. And the Cons would carry on the same.

It does not matter if the research is ultimately useless. Most of Parliament and press commentators are technologically and numerically illiterate and apart from the so-called "heavies" the press is mostly screaming and ranting about the latest thing to come to attention and that is all the British public wants and can be bothered to read about.

bernadette said...

I am becoming convinced there is a deeper agenda here. I am sure £, and soon $, are part of it, but they do not explain the full motive. It is significant that the HFE bill and the move to do something with the Abortion Act were lumped together this week. False hopes were raised (by complete charlatans posing as pro-life advocates) that a pay-off for the HFE bill, might be a reduction in the time limit. It was never going to happen. (looking back, I think it is perhaps a blessing that they did not seek to extend the time limit to say 28 weeks.)

NO, this is about de-humanizing man, the summit of perfection of Gods creation. It is, to me, quite clear.

Abortion has done this quite effectively. Most good decent law-abiding folk now think, 40 years on, abortion is fine, but best not spoken about in polite company, naturally. Just go away and do it quietly.

So what's left ? well now that we have taken away the basic respect for the sanctity of human life, the most obvious thing to do is to shape-shift a litle. See what happens when we mix animal DNA with human DNA. If they accept THAT - well - there'll be no outcry for sure when we start implementing laws and sanctions that will see Christians hauled up for practising their faith and defending the teaching of The Church. Just one final push, and we could set the stage for a perfectly acceptable mass persecution of Christians.

It`s happened before. People forget that Hitler was very successful in what he did because he changed hearts and minds about how people viewed a certain section of the population. He didn`t gas them all single-handedley. He couldn't have done it without the support of good decent people. He also built in a demonic medial experimentation programme on sick and disabled poeple into his campaign. Is it so different from what we are seeing come to fruition today ?

This week, the UK Parliament has successfully engineered something quite extraordinary, helped along by the blind, deaf and dumb British media.

It has helped everyone to see that human life has no value whatsoever. And anyone who dares stand up and say otherwise is looking for smack in the mouth.

If you don`t believe me, read and listen to some of the interviews given on radio and in newspapers this week from the people we thought might have understood the battle. Muted ? I`ll say so.

WhiteStoneNameSeeker said...

I have to agree with Bernadette.
When it comes to Brown's personal agenda I have to admit to being confused. He has lost one child and has another with CF. Surely if he wanted a future cure he would be pushing for more adult stem cell research because that is where the results are. By allowing all this play-science and funding it-even if by some stretch of twisted logic he could see it as ethical-he is diverting funds AWAY from anything that might help his own child. Bizarre.
The muted response-that article I read online in the Telegraph. *sigh* I don't see how to fight a battle without facing the enemy.

Laurence said...

Bernadette has her finger on the pulse. Her comment is alarming but she's quite right. This could be the beginning of a more general persecution of the Faith. The House of Lords also recently rejected a new law which would ban criticism of homsexuality and the practice of it because it would criminalise the teachers of Christianity. But as I am led to believe, the House of Lords can only keep such legislation at bay for so long before House of Commons passes it anyway.

nickbris said...

When I was at school it was bad enough explaining that ones parents were "separated" but I would imagine that having to explain away 2 mothers would create serious problems.

I can see a big job ahead for HSE.

Remember the Johnny Cash song "A Boy named Sue"?