How far for “hope for the cure”?
According to the Washington Times today, religious and pro-life Brits are furious with Parliament’s May 19 decision to allow creations of human-animal hybrids as well as “savior siblings”. Both are perfectly legal in the US, btw:
Religious leaders and pro-life campaigners have angrily attacked the British government for its refusal to ban the creation of animal-human embryos and so-called “savior siblings” – research described by one Roman Catholic cardinal as a form of “Frankenstein” science….
By a vote of 342-163, Parliament crushed one key amendment to Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Human Embryology and Fertilization Bill that was aimed at stopping the use of “hybrid” human-animal embryos in stem-cell research.
The Brown administration has accepted claims by many leading scientists that such “human admixed embryos” are vital to the quest for cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, which the prime minister considers a key element of his embryo legislation.…
Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, denounced Mr. Brown’s stance with fury….
Cardinal O’Brien and other British religious stalwarts and pro-lifers also were dismayed that Parliament defeated, also by a 342-163 vote, an amendment to the embryology bill that aimed to ban “savior siblings” – children created as close genetic matches that could be used to treat an ailing sister or brother.
This hasn’t been a good week on the UK’s pro-life front. Parliament also rejected an attempt to lower the legal gestational age a baby could be aborted: According to Reuters:
Parliament voted on Tuesday to keep the upper legal limit on abortion at 24 weeks, disappointing campaigners who argue survival rates have improved.
The vote blocked attempts to lower the legal limit to 22, 20, 16 or 12 weeks in parliament’s first look at abortion laws in almost two decades.
The upper limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990. Britain legalised abortion in 1968.
LifeSiteNews.com is reporting pro-life gaffes may have contributed to this defeat.
Current UK law is still superior to US law, which allows abortion throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy.
[Photo of embryo courtesy of the New York Times; photo of protester courtesy of Reuters]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Is a ban on abortions after 24 weeks a good compromise to this issue?
Is it good for you? Even if it infringes on some’s so-called right to choose?
I’m not sure, I think I could live with it if it ended the debate (and if exceptions were made for real and serious health risks to the mother)
Want an abortion? Get it early. Don’t get around to it in time? have the baby.
I’d want to hear more arguments for and against, but I’m open to the idea.
Carder.
If there was actually a demand for abortions after 24 weeks we would be hearing about it. Clearly the citizens of the UK are happy with the way things are. Those that would limit abortion sooner will self limit their abortions to an earlier time frame.
Hal,
Me too. Except abortion clinics should at least be available and abortions affordable.
It’s not fair to set a cut-off point and then make attaining the abortion by that date impossible.
Edyt. Agreed. Looks like we solved the problem.
Hey everybody, read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com//wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571.html?hpid=opinionsbox1?hpid=opinionsbox1
I don’t know how anyone can be opposed to savior siblings. What’s more pro-life than creating one life to save another? The parents get both children they wanted, and the children both get to live. It’s a win-win-win.
If you people can advocate forcing teenage girls to carry pregnancies they never wanted and aren’t prepared to raise, how can you object to people having wanted babies to save wanted babies?
Reality –
The problem lies in the fact that they create many new lives and then take only the one the most similar genetically and discard the rest.
Is that a picture of a baby? Wouldn’t you consider an embryo a baby? I just can’t call it that because it really isn’t in that stage of development. I wouldn’t call a toddler an adult so they could vote : / It’s human. It has human DNA. It’s a person. I couldn’t call it a baby though.
BTW, my friend at work had her baby. It was a boy. Her older son was sad it wasn’t the bunny he was hoping for : )
BTW, my friend at work had her baby. It was a boy. Her older son was sad it wasn’t the bunny he was hoping for : )
Posted by: Jess at May 21, 2008 5:18 PM
………………………………
Perhaps a stuffed bunny toy is in order? You could call him George….
Its not right to “create life” to save life. That’s going too far.
Usually, a “Savior” sibling doesn’t get to live. These “siblings” are created (in a laboratory) for harvesting organs or other body parts in some instances.
SoMG-
seems that writer may have seen some discussions on facebook. That idea has been tossed around on the Obama facebook wall for weeks now, lol
Hal,
On second thought, while you might be happy with a 24 week limit, Big Abortion will have none of that. THEY’RE the ones you would need to convince.
Carder, you might be right. On the other hand, I can’t imagine U.S. pro life organizations accepting that compromise either. So, the fight would go on over 20, 22, or 24 weeks, and what constitutes a valid medical reason after the cut off.
Although I haven’t studied the situation in Europe, I think it’s essentially working over there.
Liz- an entire human being isn’t created for the purpose of harvesting organs. They can individually grow organs that are needed.
Growing organs SHOULD be allowed!
When I was tutoring kids in math and science I met this one woman (who is now a close friend) who is working on growing prostate cells so that she can do research on prostate cancer. The more we understand these organs and how they work, the better we can find solutions to diseases, like cancer.