The UK's debate over, well, almost everything
The UK has been involved in a rather intense political discussion about making changes to the country's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority bill. Stem cells, chimeras, cloning and more all fall under this law. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced this week that there would be a "free" vote on the bill in May (MPs would be allowed to vote against the direction of their party). Looking ahead to that vote, the Guardian's Aida Edemariam has put together a comprehensive breakdown of the issues and where various interests stand on them. Here's a clip:
The human fertilisation and embryos bill is among the most emotive and divisive bills to have come to parliament since its decision to enter the Iraq war. Cabinet ministers - until Gordon Brown allowed, this week, a free vote - indicated they might have to resign rather than vote for it. Rationalists may claim that the bill is simply catching up with the scientific developments of the past few years, but where the very tissues of human life are concerned, nothing is that simple. The science involved is so advanced that, like it or not, the nitty-gritty of the bill rubs up against some of the most fundamental philosophical questions there are: at what point can life be said to exist? What choices can be exercised at that point, and who gets to exercise them? Should we go to infinite lengths to cure illness, or is it sometimes more ethical to accept defeat? What does it mean to be a parent? What if there is only one parent? What if there are three? What does it mean to be a child? What does it mean to be human?
-Greg Dahlmann
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
Greg - Except for the first one, the questions at the end of your piece are on the mark. But that first one, about the point at which life can be said to exist, is very wide of the mark. What is at issue is not whether an organism at a very early stage in it's development is alive or not. The question is what sort of moral status, if any, attaches to that life.
- by bob koepp on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21 AM | link
Hi Bob. Just to clarify, the questions posed are a block quote from Edemariam's Guardian piece.
- by Greg on Mar 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM | link
And what about the questions regarding "female sperm" and "male eggs"? They are debating allowing men to use "replacement sperm" derived from their stem cells, and women to derive "replacement eggs", but there is much more demand for people that have perfectly good sperm and eggs having the other created so that they can conceive with a same-sex partner.
The US allows people to use "female sperm" and also genetically modified gametes, but currently England doesn't, I don't think. We need a "child protection" law immediately, so that all kids have a natural parentage of a mother and father, and all people have to pair with someone of the other sex in order to reproduce.
- by John Howard on Mar 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM | link