drat01 Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Despite the ravings of the frankly ludicrous Edward Leigh, the vote went in favour tonight on the Hybrid Embryo Research BBC report So what do people think about this, good or bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity-Tom Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Not really sure. I think there is great potential with this but it is certainly a risky thing to dabble in and will therefore need extremely tight control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexo Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Where will this stuff take us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 For research really, though I was in danger of taking a position de facto of simply opposing the religious argument on 'ethics'. When the church used emotionally driven gibberish to make their case, I felt compelled to support the motion. However, it's not the most likely source of a cure. That currently could stem ( AHA ) from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_Pluripotent_Stem I'm slightly cautious overall as to its' benefits, but have to totally disagree with the fear merchants who've been watching too many sci fi horrors to actually posit a reasonable defence of the banning of these hybrids. Liberal Democrat Evan Harris criticised those who argued hybrid embryos were too human. "If it's ethically acceptable to use up and destroy fully human embryos with all the potential they have, how is it right to provide for hybrid embryos, with less potential of viability, greater protection?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 evan Harris is a top bloke and as usual spot on, anything that can help im my view to cure the worse diseas an humann can get - Parkinsons/senile demensia is going to get my suport the ranting of the religous right in this country which seems to be within the Tory party anfd getting stronger only makes my belief it is right stronger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 anything that can help im my view to cure the worse diseas an humann can get - Parkinsons/senile demensia is going to get my suport Anything? Absolutely anything? To quote from The Meaning of Life: Can we have your liver? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 should be banned ...ethically wrong i'm not religious so it does somewhat weaken your sterotype as to which people are agaisnt it .. I'm sorry people have dieases such as Parkinson but this isn't the way to go about trying to get a cure the ranting of the religous right in this country which seems to be within the Tory party assume though that means you want the immediate sacking of Des Browne (Defence Secretary) Ruth Kelly (Transport Secretary) Paul Murphy (Wales Secretary) who voted agaisnt it interesting that Cameron voted FOR the use of hybrid embryos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 20, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2008 100% for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 like the fact that it is a "free "vote does this mean in otherwords MP's can vote as they wish and not how the whip threatens them into voting if they value their career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 like the fact that it is a "free "vote does this mean in otherwords MP's can vote as they wish and not how the whip threatens them into voting if they value their career It's not actually a free vote, though. As was indicated on this other thread, members of the labour party were given permission to vote against the government's proposals with respect to three measures (abortion is by convention a free vote for all) as long as they did not endanger the progress of the bill itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 well the 24 limit was backed by a decent majority ad yes snowy a few in labour are religous including of course a member of opus dei but all these measures were brought by Tories, were they not, legimate to vote on but there is evidence out there especially in the SE of a few of the local parties being infiltrated by the relgious right just take the abortion time limit, there is no medical evidence that shows anything has changed since they last voted yet it was forced by teh tories, now without getting into the abortion debate I do wonder at the motivations of some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 now without getting into the abortion debate I do wonder at the motivations of some I wonder that too - especially if you'd seen the dispatches program on last night on C4. Nadine Dorries' association with Andrea Williams and the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is not the best of alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 well she is clearly very motivated by this, heard her on R5 and she was caught out lying and seemed not to understand why (basically she claimed more babies survived at 24 weeks which was clearly shown to be wrong). shame I missed that programme but she is one of the people I read about who was this RR looking for more influence and as a member of the cornerstone group of which the nutter Edward Leigh is a member and seems to be the equilvant of Militant within Labour. alan Duncan is certainly not a fan. (one of the few Tories I like) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 No issue with it, none at all... an embryo is not a life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 now without getting into the abortion debate I do wonder at the motivations of some I wonder that too - especially if you'd seen the dispatches program on last night on C4. Nadine Dorries' association with Andrea Williams and the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is not the best of alliances. I watched that too, acting as a mouthpiece for the evangelicals in parliament, which is disturbing enough. That said, I was watching BBC Parliament last night ( I lead an exciting life me ) and on the keenly contested abortion debate she called herself pro choice, and pro stem cell research which was confusing. She was actually more articulate intelligent than I'd have thought after having seen that programme too. Still wouldn't trust her mind. But further to this debate, it is very easy to take the science position as a simple "bugger off religious people" angle, but from readings elsewhere the opinion of some in the research community that whilst no line of research should be closed off, but the iPSC's ( see my post above ) will eventually make the use of embryo's redundant, and they won't have to deal with all the opposition, however ill founded it may be, and will be able to work on it hassle free. Still glad it wasn't banned, but enthusiasm for embryo research will drop if the other research turns out as expected. on the abortion thing, mind literally so disturbing how many par liamentarians actually refused to take into account the viability of the foetus' based on current evidence. Also a ridiculous level of emotive arguments using single cases of a rare survival and using it as a stick to beat the 24 limit with, personalising politics on this just awfully irresponsible imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts