The Island of Dr. Moreau

Proposed Law Muddles 'What It Means to Be Human'
By Kevin McCandless
CNSNews.com Correspondent
January 16, 2008

London (CNSNews.com) - A heated vote in the House of Lords has cleared the way for the creation of mixed human-animal embryos, a move that strikes at the heart of human dignity, opponents say.

Under the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, which is now moving through Parliament, scientists would be allowed to combine genetic material from human and animal cells for research purposes.

Supporters of the bill say that human DNA would be transplanted into animal egg cells, after which stem cells would be harvested for research.

The law would allow interspecies embryos to live only for fourteen days, and licensed researchers would be strictly prohibited from implanting them in human wombs.

On Tuesday, echoing scientists from across Britain, peers in favor of the bill said that it was needed to advance vital research into areas such as spinal injuries, because human eggs are in relatively short supply.

However, opponents in the House of Lords argued that the law tampered with what it fundamentally means to be human.

"It crosses the line between human and animal," Lord David Alton said. "It's disturbing what it means to be human."

Though scientists say there is no intention to create true hybrids (embryos that are half human and half animal), a spokesman for the Christian Medical Fellowship said Wednesday that the bill gave researchers carte blanche to do whatever they wanted.

Spokesman Andrew Fergusson said that while many supporters of the bill genuinely wanted to help humanity, he said a minority had simply lost their moral bearings. "They want to do this because it's there," he said. "There is no God and there are no moral standards."

Ultimately, the lords voted 268 to 96 to defeat an amendment that would have prohibited the creation of animal-human embryos.

Several peers also complained that they were confused by the scientific basis behind much of the bill, which led Lord Chris Patten to worry about how much the general public understands the issue.

"If the average peer in the street can't understand what's going on, what chance does the average person in the street have?" he asked.

Late on Tuesday, the lords also voted down an amendment to the bill prohibiting the creation of so-called "savior siblings" in Britain -- genetically designed babies that have been specifically created to provide bone marrow or tissue donations for sick older brothers or sisters.

Though the act specifically prohibits savior siblings from donating body organs, opponents said this would in effect be creating babies to act as "medicine cabinets."

The House of Lords is scheduled to finish debating the bill on Monday, at which time it is expected to consider allowing in-vitro fertilization to lesbian couples in situations where no man would be present to help raise any future child.

Activists say this would allow same-sex couples to enjoy the full fruits of family life, but advocates for traditional families charge this would undermine the very concept of fatherhood.

At the same time, the House of Lords reportedly will consider rolling back the right of mothers to abort babies with disabilities.

Under current British law, babies that would be born severely handicapped can be aborted right up to the point of birth. The proposed amendment would reduce this to the 24th week of pregnancy, which is the current limit for most abortions.

Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, a non-profit group, said Wednesday that the fight over abortion will become central once the bill moves to the House of Commons next month.

Before the act officially becomes law, observers predict that both sides will try to amend it, to either relax abortion regulations or to push back the time limit for most legal terminations to 20 weeks.

I thought ESCR had it's ethical issues, but this is downright scary. I'm sorry. I simply don't trust people enough to be let alone with this sort of . . . power. I can only lead to bad things before it lead to good. Not to mention that like ESCR there's little hope of this actually working, which makes me wonder, why pursue it at all?

The who;e "Savior baby" issue is equally appalling. I can't imagine such a disregard for individual life that anyone would consider doing this. Amazing.