Human/Animal Embryos
So the controversy about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill rages on, and the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland has launched a scathing attack on the idea of producing hybrid human/animal embryos.
I'm afraid I must admit that I agree with Cardinal O'Brien overall. You might say that this is unsurprising, since I am a Catholic. However, regular readers will know that I don't believe that Church doctrine, or the doctrine of any religion, should be unthinkingly transposed into law unless it complies with a liberal principle, most importantly the harm principle.
My objection to the Bill is as follows: modern liberal society is founded on ideas of human rights, human dignity and the sanctity of human life. We therefore run into difficulties if we lose the ability to define what is human, or start creating things that are "sort of" human. By creating these embryos, I believe that we are intrinsically harming potential humans, and indeed potential citizens of a liberal state.
I am aware that there are serious issues with regard to human dignity on the other side of this debate, since the creation of these hybrid embryos apparently has the potential to cure some terrible diseases. All I am saying is that the interests of the embryos and the interests of the potential beneficiaries should be genuinely weighed, if not equated. The state, I would argue, has a duty to protect these potential citizens, even if that duty is not as strong as that owed to those who are already full citizens.
I am fully aware that this line of reasoning has implications for the laws on abortion and assisted reproduction. I am comfortable with that, though many will not be, and I don't propose to discuss those implications here.
I have no doubt that I will be accused of impeding scientific progress and advised that my protests are futile. I must concede that the creation of these embryos will be legalised at some point, such is the unstoppable force of said progress. The real danger with all of this is that some scientists seem to equate "progress" with "doing things that we couldn't do before, because we now can". I'm just not sure they've done enough to prove that this method of creating stem cells will be significantly more effective than any other, and that should be taken into account when carrying out the weighing exercise mentioned above.
At the very least, I think the government should indeed allow a free vote on the Bill. Aside from the embryos issue, it contains provisions on important moral issues such as the time limits for abortion and gay parenthood.
I'm afraid I must admit that I agree with Cardinal O'Brien overall. You might say that this is unsurprising, since I am a Catholic. However, regular readers will know that I don't believe that Church doctrine, or the doctrine of any religion, should be unthinkingly transposed into law unless it complies with a liberal principle, most importantly the harm principle.
My objection to the Bill is as follows: modern liberal society is founded on ideas of human rights, human dignity and the sanctity of human life. We therefore run into difficulties if we lose the ability to define what is human, or start creating things that are "sort of" human. By creating these embryos, I believe that we are intrinsically harming potential humans, and indeed potential citizens of a liberal state.
I am aware that there are serious issues with regard to human dignity on the other side of this debate, since the creation of these hybrid embryos apparently has the potential to cure some terrible diseases. All I am saying is that the interests of the embryos and the interests of the potential beneficiaries should be genuinely weighed, if not equated. The state, I would argue, has a duty to protect these potential citizens, even if that duty is not as strong as that owed to those who are already full citizens.
I am fully aware that this line of reasoning has implications for the laws on abortion and assisted reproduction. I am comfortable with that, though many will not be, and I don't propose to discuss those implications here.
I have no doubt that I will be accused of impeding scientific progress and advised that my protests are futile. I must concede that the creation of these embryos will be legalised at some point, such is the unstoppable force of said progress. The real danger with all of this is that some scientists seem to equate "progress" with "doing things that we couldn't do before, because we now can". I'm just not sure they've done enough to prove that this method of creating stem cells will be significantly more effective than any other, and that should be taken into account when carrying out the weighing exercise mentioned above.
At the very least, I think the government should indeed allow a free vote on the Bill. Aside from the embryos issue, it contains provisions on important moral issues such as the time limits for abortion and gay parenthood.