2 of 2

The signatories reminded the lawmakers that caution should be "the order of the day", and argued: "These complex questions deserve to be examined in far greater detail than a brief parliamentary debate on an unamendable order would permit."

Dr Carey, who has a seat in the House of Lords, did not vote in the debate. Although before the vote the result was expected to be close, only two of the 26 Church of England bishops and archbishops with seats in the Lords voted.

Another Anglican bishop, Richard Harries, of Oxford, said he deeply respected the position of the Catholic Church, which held that human life must be protected from the moment of conception and that, from the first moment of existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person. However, he pointed out, that position had only been firmed up in the 19th century. Earlier Christian thought had indicated "an awareness of a developing reality, with developing rights as we would put it."

Abortion was always regarded as gravely sinful. But there was a distinction in the gravity of the offence depending on whether it occurred before or after the fetus was "formed". All this began to change in the 19th century when advances in medicine made abortion more possible and safer for women, said Bishop Harries. As a result, the incidence of abortion rose, which was seen as a moral threat calling for dramatic and drastic remedies. Pope Pius IX, therefore, in his Bull of 1869, declared excommunicate all who procured abortion, without any distinction as to whether the fetus was formed, animate or inanimate.

Bishop Harries did not vote on the cloning measure.

Another Anglican who contributed to the debate, Lord Hapgood, former Archbishop of York, said that stem cell research promised medical benefits, but the government's measure was framed too widely and was potentially open to abuse. He voted against allowing human embryo cloning.

After the debate, Donald Bruce, director of the Church of Scotland's Society, Religion and Technology Project, told ENI that the British parliament's decision was "the thin end of the wedge" in the sense that the same technology could be used "illegally and criminally" to clone a human being.

The [Presbyterian] Church of Scotland, in whose heartland the Roslin Institute is located, has built up special expertise in genetic technology, starting even before Dolly the sheep was announced to the world in 1997. Dr Bruce said that in practice attempts to clone human beings would face immense difficulties.

"Animal work has run into welfare problems, and that would be more so with human beings. Nobody in their senses is going to run the risk of producing deformed offspring. The chances of [producing] deformed offspring are greater than of healthy offspring."

He did not think the British parliament's decision was "a very significant change". He explained: "It's one more step, but the situation was already there once Dolly had happened."

Copyright © 2001 ENI

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Britain Debates Cloning of Human Embryos | Scientists want steady stream of stem cells for "therapeutic" purposes. (Nov. 22, 2000)

Tissue of Lies? | Latest stem-cell research shows no urgent need to destroy human embryos for the cause of science. (Sept. 28, 2000)

Beyond the Impasse to What? | Stem-cell research may not need human embryos after all. But why are we researching in the first place? (Aug. 18, 2000)

Thus Spoke Superman | Troubling language frames the stem-cell debate. (June 13, 2000)

New Stem-Cell Research Guidelines Criticized | NIH guidelines skirt ethical issues about embryo destruction, charge bioethicists. (Jan. 28, 2000)

Human Embryo Research Resisted (August 9, 1999)

The Biotech Temptation | Research on human embryos holds great promise, but at what price? (July 12, 1999)

Embryo Research Contested (May 24, 1999)

Other media coverage of Britain's support of cloning includes:

Doctors Call For Embryo Research—Skynews (Jan. 26, 2001)

'Science in crisis' warns Labour peer—BBC News (Jan. 25, 2001)

Britain, U.S. take less restrictive approach to cloning—The National Post (Jan. 25, 2001)

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

March 5 2001, Vol. 45, No. 4