embryology and religion

LIFE, DEATH, EMBRYOS and HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

MARCH 22nd 2008
It is appropriate as we approach Easter Day to make yet one more attempt to clarify the thinking about mankind's use of scientific knowledge with regard to the most basic properties of human individuality. The story of the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is fundamental to any understanding of the human condition, whether one be theist or atheist, scientist or spiritualist.

With the emergence of self-conscious humanity Nature developed a new level of autonomy and responsibility. In the Genesis myths of the Hebrews, this is depicted as a rebellion rather than a triumph. The offspring is shown as threatening the progenitor (which has been given the name God in English) and the offspring's independence is punished in a classical manner: "Your are on your own, now; leave the nest and make you own decisions. You have decided to think for yourself, OK then; it's going to be tough".

This is how early man saw his predicament as he assumed that the trouble he was in must be the result of the displeasure of his ancestors, or the Sun-God, or in the case of the Hebrews an all-powerful creator of all things that needed to be worshipped and assuaged and bargained with if the sentence was to be mitigated.

The Christian Church took as its textbook both the Old and the New Testaments, that is to say the history of religous thinking as handed down by the Hebrews and the re-interpretation of this by Jesus in a very unexpected way that even today is understood, evidently, by some but not by others.

"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened" is a pretty clear instruction, so scientific research has flourished since the Reformation(s) and the Enlightenment(s) that have featured in the Christian societies that produced what we call the 'Developed World'. That modern development drew on all the intellectual prowess of the world's nations, without exception, though mainly from the Graeco-Roman, Arabian, Persian and Jewish achievements. A key element in Jesus' teaching is that the travails of human existence are NOT a punishment sent by a vengeful, external God on the subjects of creation. Yet many denominations of the Christian Church teaches that they are.

We now have a widespread, shared perception and use of what we call 'science and technology' alongside a socio-moralistic legal framework which is based on its religious roots. That should be quite rational and compatible. But whereas some religious thinkers have championed the evolution of religion to match the growth of our knowledge of nature, others have fought against any re-interpretation or better understanding of religious truth in a changing world. Reformation is anathema to fundamentalists and any enlightenment beyond the obeyment of established dogma and doctrine is not considered an option.

At this point, let us have a quick look at some statistics on the religious background of humanity:

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

Next, the news AT 11:44 TODAY:

Government 'right' on embryo bill

The government is right to try to push through controversial embryo laws, Health Minister Ben Bradshaw has said.

Legislation would be "to the potential benefit of many people in this country", Mr Bradshaw told the BBC.

But the Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Reverend Peter Smith, said he advised MPs to vote against parts of the bill.

He said MPs have a "moral dilemma" over the bill and has written to the prime minister asking for them to be allowed to vote in line with their conscience.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would allow the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research.

'Sacredness of life'

The archbishop told BBC Radio 4: "Those MPs who have approached me over recent weeks have said: 'Look, I don't think this is right. I accept the teachings of the Church, yet I am a Government minister, or I am a Labour MP. Can I discuss with you the moral dilemma I have got?'.

"This is a matter which is clearly affecting many MPs.

"I have written to the Prime Minister myself asking him that, in view of these very important issues which touch on the sacredness of human life, its meaning and purpose, would he please grant a free vote, because that is what is really required."

We seem to be moving into a sphere where we are actually taking on the role of the creation of life
Stephen Pound MP

Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy is reportedly one of those prepared to quit the Cabinet rather over the bill. Other Catholics in the Cabinet are Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The bill has also been condemned by other leading Catholics.

Catholic Labour MP Joe Benton and Scottish Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien are among those who have called for MPs to have a free vote.

In a sermon to be delivered on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Keith O'Brien described the plans as "monstrous".

He warned Mr Brown against imposing a three-line whip on Labour MPs - which orders them to vote with the party line.

Another Catholic MP, Stephen Pound, has said he will not be voting for the measure.

'Terrible diseases'

He said: "We seem to be moving into a sphere where we are actually taking on the role of the creation of life."

Responding to Cardinal O'Brien's criticism, Mr Bradshaw told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions: "If it was about the things the cardinal referred to, creating babies for spare parts or raiding dead people's tissue, then there would be justification for a free vote.

"But it's not about those things. He was wrong in fact, and I think rather intemperate and emotive in the way that he criticised this legislation.

From a religious point of view, it seems right that we should use God-given powers of science
Evan Harris MP

"This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country. The government has taken a view that this is a good thing."

Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, a member of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee, said he felt ethically obliged to allow scientists to carry out the research.

"From a religious point of view, it seems right that we should use God-given powers of science to create short-term entities that are microscopic that might be a way of showing us how to develop stem cells from embryos that might be used to treat people with terrible diseases," he said.

Controversial aspects

Downing Street said a decision on a free vote would be taken "in due course".

Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders plan to allow their MPs to have a free vote on the more controversial aspects of the bill.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for fertility treatment and embryo research in line with scientific advances.

The main thing to notice in the statements above is that the objectors to the Government's position....
1. Say they "accept the teachings of the church"
2. Say they are making a decision on a 'matter of conscience'.
3. Say "We seem to be moving into a sphere where we are actually taking on the role of the creation of life."

In my opinion, 1 and 2 above are mutually incompatible. You can either hand over responsiblity for this decision to others by accepting the teaching of the 'Church' (meaning here by a branch of Christianity that has been spectacularly, demonstrably and damagingly wrong on every controversial issue it has fought since its foundation, thereby bringing Christianity itself into disrepute), or you can decide on a matter of conscience. This you can do either way, for or against, but I suggest you do it on the evidence.

As for 3 above, the creation of life has always been our business because it is the business of this planet. We humans are key part of life on this planet and we can use our individual life and that of our collective societies wisely by learning from past mistakes, and by making new ones to learn from.

I have no doubt that the new technology, while possibly overcoming some important past and current problems and limitations, will give us some new ones that will ensure that we do not have an unlimited number of people released from all ills and wants. That will ensure we continue on the road to learning just why our world is like it is and not the way we, in our very limited perception, would want it to be - without us ever having to find out why, let alone how we could approach it.

I have been a Christian all my life and I am perfectly certain that Catholic theology as understood by most Catholics is a load of twaddle, even if its protagonists are 100% genuine in their beliefs. Every single element of doctrine and dogma will eventually be abandoned or seen in a completely new light. That enlightenment will be what Christians will then understand as the 'Second Coming' of Christ which, just as the first, will be not at all like what they were expecting.

Here is an example of the confusion and the desperate preachings of those who cannot accept either a humanism that understands Christianity or a Christianity that sees Jesus as the first humanist of the European/Middle-Eastern world. http://www.tldm.org/News6/SecularHumanism.htm

The exclusive champions of both humanism and catholicism are incapable of perceiving a reality that includes more than their rigidly defined positions; a reality that cannot be confined in rules and principles that absolve us from moral responsibility, a reality that has been revealed to great religious teachers only to have been rigidly codified by their followers with some unfortunate and disastrous results.

The application of science has. as we well know, potential for benefit and disbenefit. Great dangers lie in wait. There is also the possibility of self-indulgent abuse of science. Many see in-vitro fertilization (IVF) as a boon for infertile couple or gays. I am personally against any use of IVF under any circumstances and against sperm donation whether traceable or anonymous, but society must be allowed to make its own mistakes. I regret that this latest advance in the production of stem cells may make IVF easier and more common, but good may also come from other uses and the arguments against allowing the technology to be developed as put by the Catholic Church are based on unsubstantiated dogma and doctrine without authority other than the arbitrary declaration of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

AFTER JUST ONE HOUR THE BBC'S WEB PAGE SHOWN ABOVE HAS BEEN ALTERED TO THE VERY DIFFERENT VERSION SHOWN BELOW.
THE AUTHORITARIAN CATHOLIC CLERICS OR THE CATHOLICS WITHIN HAVE CLEARLY BEEN INTIMIDATING THE CORPORATION'S NEWS EDITORS.
IT IS WHAT WE HAVE COME TO EXPECT. NEVERMIND, LET THE CATHOLICS DIG THEMSELVES THE USUAL HOLE.
IT COULD EVEN BE BETTER THAT WAY.
EVEN IF THE BILL WERE NOT PASSED, THAT WOULD NOT ALTER HISTORY OR FUTURE REALITY OVERALL IN ANY SIGNIFICANT MANNER, THOUGH IT MAY IN THE SHORT TERM AFFECT MANY INDIVIDUALS.
IN THE BBC's VIDEO (see link below: Archbishop's Views) THE MOST REVEREND PETER SMITH GOES ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT 'CONSCIENCE' AND HOW ONE MUST VOTE ACCORDING TO IT. BUT THEN HE SAYS A CATHOLIC'S CONSCIENCE IS WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS IT IS, SO A CATHOLIC'S DUTY IS TO VOTE AGAINST THE BILL. HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT A PRIME MINISTER AND LEADER OF HIS PARTY SAYS WHAT AN MP'S CONSCIENCE AND DUTY IS, HE DOES NOT VENTURE TO EXPLAIN.

Pressure mounts over embryo bill

Hybrids are made using an animal egg mixed with human genes
Archbishop's views

The government faces mounting dissent over controversial embryo laws after the Archbishop of Cardiff joined calls for a free vote on the legislation.

The Most Reverend Peter Smith has advised MPs to vote against a bill which allows the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research.

He joins other leading Catholics and Catholic MPs demanding to be allowed to vote in line with their conscience.

But Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said it was right to push through the law.

Mr Bradshaw told the BBC the legislation would be "to the potential benefit of many people in this country".

'Sacredness of life'

But the archbishop said many MPs had a "moral dilemma" over the bill.

He said he had written to the prime minister asking for Labour MPs to be released from the three-line whip that would force them to vote for the legislation - ministers who did not support a whipped vote would be expected to resign.

We seem to be moving into a sphere where we are actually taking on the role of the creation of life
Stephen Pound MP

"This is a matter which is clearly affecting many MPs.

"I have written to the prime minister myself asking him that, in view of these very important issues which touch on the sacredness of human life, its meaning and purpose, would he please grant a free vote, because that is what is really required."

Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy is reportedly one of those prepared to quit the Cabinet rather than vote for the bill. Other Catholics in the Cabinet are Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The bill has also been condemned by other leading Catholics.

Catholic Labour MP Joe Benton and Scottish Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien are among those who have called for MPs to have a free vote.

In a sermon to be delivered on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Keith O'Brien described the plans as "monstrous".

He warned Mr Brown against imposing a three-line whip on Labour MPs - which orders them to vote with the party line.

Another Catholic MP, Stephen Pound, has said he will not be voting for the measure.

He said: "We seem to be moving into a sphere where we are actually taking on the role of the creation of life."

'Terrible diseases'

"But it's not about those things. He was wrong in fact, and I think rather intemperate and emotive in the way that he criticised this legislation.

From a religious point of view, it seems right that we should use God-given powers of science
Evan Harris MP

"This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country. The government has taken a view that this is a good thing."

Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, a member of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee, said he felt ethically obliged to allow scientists to carry out the research.

'God-given powers'

Downing Street said a decision on a free vote would be taken "in due course".

Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders plan to allow their MPs to have a free vote on the more controversial aspects of the bill.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for fertility treatment and embryo research in line with scientific advances.

MARCH 23rd 2008 - EASTER DAY
I am just back from Church. This morning on BB Radio 4 I heard Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor deny he was telling MP's how to vote. They must vote according to their conscience, he said. But then he said "They must vote according to their Catholic convictions". Now what the hell does that mean?

The 'embryo' we are discussing is the size of a pin-head. It is a collection of artificially produced cells, grown by putting some human DNA into a cow's egg if I remember rightly. It is not an animal, it is some living cells.

If the scientists who are responsible already for the overpopulation of the planet, the over nourishment of part of its inhabitants and the undernourishment of the rest, the chemical wreckage of many through the pollution of our water and food, the keeping alive of many who for the global or even local good of society would be better off dead, if our scientists wish to find ways to mitigate the new mess and suffering with which they have replaced the old mess and suffering, what right has the Catholic Church, which has invented all their rules about what constitutes human life (previously defined as a successful live human birth), to interfere with them?

The answer is none at all. It is not possible to vote according to ones own conscience and at the same time according to the convictions of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church unless they happen to coincide. They may do, or they may not. But to insist that all Roman Catholics vote 'according to their Catholic Convictions' is to reveal the mess that Murphy-O'Connor has in what passes for a brain. The PM, being a kindly, soul, will compromise so long as he gets his legislation passed. As I say so often in these files, we should not mock the afflicted, but we should discourage them from confusing the rest. The Catholic Church has no authority in this matter from what we call Scripture; they have no authority from what we call Science. They make things up as a they go along and it would make some sense if they studied the facts.

Here is the latest attempt by the BBC to report this stuff.

PM set for embryo bill compromise

The prime minister is prepared to allow Labour MPs who oppose a controversial embryo bill to vote against pieces of the legislation, the BBC has learned.

The votes would be permitted only if they did not threaten the passage of the bill, a government official said.

Some MPs are deeply concerned about letting scientists create embryos which combine human DNA and animal cells.

Prominent Catholic clergy, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, have urged Mr Brown to allow a free vote.

The cardinal, who is the Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales, said Catholic MPs would want to vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill according to their conscience.

Gordon Brown's compromise is not a free vote, but it is a chance for people who feel they cannot support parts of the bill, for religious or ethical reasons, to let the government know.

They would then be given "permission" to vote against the government.

'Feel very strongly'

Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said the bill was an important piece of government business which must be passed, but suggested a compromise was possible.

He told Sky News: "I believe it is possible, if we listen to the arguments and we remove the misunderstandings, to find a way forward so the government can complete its business."

The government says the medical benefits of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes could ease the suffering of millions of people, including those affected by Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Catholics in politics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions, so have other Christians, so have other politicians
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

The embryos are made by combining animal eggs with human nuclei, which can then be grown into stem cells and used by scientists. The bill comes in response to a shortage of available human eggs for research.

But Mr Brown has faced growing dissent over the bill, including from several prominent ministers.

One Catholic Labour MP, Joe Benton, has warned that a "substantial number" of fellow Labour MPs are ready to defy the government if there is no free vote.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Labour MP Stephen Byers - a former cabinet minister under Tony Blair - said the public would "look on in disbelief" if Mr Brown did not offer a free vote.

Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy is reportedly prepared to quit the cabinet rather than vote for the bill. Other Catholics in the cabinet are Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The bill received first reading in the House of Commons in February and while no date has been set for second reading - or approval in principle - it is viewed as a key piece of legislation on the government's agenda.

In an interview for Sky News broadcast on Sunday, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said: "I think Catholics in politics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions, so have other Christians, so have other politicians.

"There are Catholics who feel very strongly about this matter and I am glad that they do.

"Certainly, there are some aspects of this bill on which I believe there ought to be a free vote, because Catholics and others will want to vote according to their conscience. I don't think it should be subject to the party whip."

'Good thing'

Other senior Catholic clergymen including Scottish leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien and the Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, have also called on Mr Brown to allow a free vote.

In his Easter Sunday sermon, Cardinal O'Brien describes plans to allow hybrid human-animal embryos as "monstrous".

This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country
Health minister Ben Bradshaw

But Health Minister Ben Bradshaw has said: "This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country.

"The government has taken a view that this is a good thing."

Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, a member of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee, said it was right to conduct research that "might be used to treat people with terrible diseases".

Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will allow their MPs a free vote.

The bill is designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for fertility treatment and embryo research in line with scientific advances.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7310111.stm

Published: 2008/03/23 11:31:34 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

MARCH 23rd 2008

In his Easter sermon, Cardinal O'Brien described the legislation as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life", adding that it would allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion".

But Lord Winston told The Daily Telegraph: "His statements are lying. They are misleading and I'm afraid that when the Church, for good motives, tells untruths, it brings discredit upon itself."

"I have huge respect for the Catholic Church, which does great good, but it will be destroying its probity with overblown statements of this kind."

I have a question for Lord Winston: "What are the 'good motives' you refer to?" The man must know he is lying, his motive is to maintain the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the same motive as that of the cardinals surrounding Pope Urban VIII, prohibiting the advocacy of scientific fact as valid if it was opposed to the current teaching. Or is he so completely brainwashed by years of pontificating and laying down the law on matters he does not understand that he believes his dogma to be the truth whatever the evidence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7310918.stm

MARCH 25th 2008
Labour MPs are to be allowed to vote according to their conscience on the clauses of the bill that from some reason they think affects their 'morals' or their 'conscience', whatever they think these words mean, but they are in the end asked to support the government on the passage of the bill as a whole. It is not really worth the PM's time to make an issue of this as it is now clear that those who think 'voting according to conscience' means voting according the instructions from the Catholic hierarchy, or voting according to superstitions that have no basis is science or scripture, are so confused that it would be cruel to punish them or expecting them to resign. On the other hand one might give second thoughts as to why such confused people are on the Front Bench anyway.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080325/tuk-mps-get-free-vote-on-ivf-and-embryos-45dbed5.html

nnnn