Stem Cells
Doonesbury makes an interesting point here.
Nevertheless, this argument doesn't address the issue of therapeutic cloning, which recently became legal in NSW. Personally, it seems a little inappropriate to be calling it "cloning" when it's not really making an identical person, only part of one. Bob Carr summed it up quite well:
...within five years it will be possible with nuclear transfer medicine to take an egg from her ovary surrounded by its nurturing cumulus cells. The nucleus from one of these cells is transferred into the egg, its own nucleus removed. The stem cells developed are injected back into the sufferer's bloodstream.In some ways this seems more acceptable than using the surplus IVF embryos if you think that making a new person is worse than just making new parts of the same person. (Not that I'm saying that IVF zygotes are people, when they don't even have brains, let alone consciousness.)
That's therapeutic cloning. No sperm. No fertilised egg. Nothing returned to the womb. No human reproduction.
posted by Nick @ 4:07 pm
2 comments
2 Comments:
I was disgusted by the threats to excommunicate MPs who voted in favour of the bill.
Ok, we're a little late in discussing this but here goes:
I was also worried when Pell weighed in on the debate but only because I thought that that sort of strong rhetoric might sway all the rank and file Catholics out there, not because I thought it would change the result of the vote. The thing is, I'm not too surprised; what surprises me is that high profile Catholics don't get excommunicated more often. See, groups can either be tight-knit or broad-churches, depending on how they are united as a group.
Let me illustrate with a political example. The Liberal party claims to champion all sorts of liberties (just not for refugees). Because of this, their MPs are allowed to follow their conscience on any issue and vote as they feel they must. The ALP, on the other hand, enforces the party line. If the party leader hasn't declared a conscience vote, crossing the floor means automatic expulsion from the party.
Churches are similar. The Protestant churches were founded on the principle of laymen reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves. (Even if in some churches this means "You can interpret it however you like, so long as it's literally.") In the Catholic church only the clergy can do that, laymen have to believe what the priest tells them to (that's why everything was in Latin until the 60s). And that's a sensible rule if the priest heard it from his bishop, who heard it from a cardinal, who heard it from the pope, who's infallible! But if you don't believe that the pope's infallible (and most of the people who call themselves Catholic don't!) then the system fails and you don't belong in that Church. The Catholic church is right to excommunicate dissenters.
That being said, I still support Lee Rhiannon's inquiry so see if his threats constituted Contempt of Parliament. Not only because I love it when minor parties pull political stunts. I want people to see that there is a difference between pollies voting with their consciences and voting with their religions - religious views are far less flexible and are not grounded in the real world. Tony Abbot's the worst case in Australia but I'm sure there's plenty of subtle forms.
I'm very glad to see that it got up, I didn't think it would and I'm still sure nothing significant will come of it. But if it hadn't been a Catholic archbishop, if it had been Sheik Hilaly or a Scientologist leader, then the major parties would also be baying for blood. It's just so disappointing that Catholicism's numbers are enough to allow their archbishop to interfere in the secular parliament of NSW.
Post a Comment
<< Home