Science v Religion... Science wins?

[Rollo]

I'm surprised this hasn't been commented on before now... For those of you outside the UK, this week the UK government voted on a number of critical issues regarding embryology and abortion laws. Following impassioned debate from both sides, the vote eventually went completely in favour of the science side of the debate - and redefined the definition of a family in the process. In no particular order:

MPs reject cut in abortion limit. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm)
The current upper time limit on abortion in the UK stands at 24 weeks, as supported by the scientific community, but has been criticised for seemingly not allowing for the prospects of survival of a foetus at periods under that. A lot of the opposition to this was from hardcore Christian lobbyists (see last Monday's Dispatches on C4 for more on this), but I was vaguely surprised that even the slightly lower limits were rejected as well - a few less weeks doesn't sound like a tremendous difference to me.

Hybrid embryo research backed by MPs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm)

This refers to the process of implanting human DNA within an animal cell to produce an imitation 'egg' cell, which can then be grown for 14 days as an embryo to provide stem cell lines. The advantage this process has over using human eggs is down to the numbers that an be produced; obviously, human eggs are hard to get in large numbers. The slippery slope argument raised its head here for obvious reasons, but biologically it's unlikely that these embryos would be viable to begin with, but even if they were they wouldn't be substantially different to human eggs.

MPs reject 'saviour sibling' ban. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409264.stm)
I.e., the selection of genetic material to produce a child that could provide stem cell material in the umbilical cord that could save the life of an older child. The moral implications this could have are fairly clear, but to be honest there have been plenty of cases before now where a saviour child has been valued as much as their sibling, and similarly plenty of cases where children are just commodities without being specifically selected for that purpose.

MPs reject need for father in IVF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7410934.stm)
This one was pretty interesting. Basically, the presence of a male figure is no longer needed for IVF treatment to go ahead - so lesbians and single mothers are now able to claim IVF treatment more easily (previously applicants would have to prove they had been in a heterosexual relationship for at least two years). This apparently will also mean a child could have two women on the birth certificate, with one taking the place of the 'father' (possibly reported in the Telegraph).

It's been interesting seeing the press response to these decisions - the right wing papers in particular have been practically apoplectic, after devoting so many inches to supporting the other side of the argument. What has been good about the whole thing though is how much it's brought the debate to the forefront of politics, something that's been simmering away for years.

What have other people's views on these votes been? For those outside of the UK, what are your views on the issues and how they've been debated here?

Secondly how can the Queen as "Defender Of The Faith" and as head of the Church of England possibly give Royal Assent to something which strikes against her faith? Remember, a bill doesn't actually become law until it is signed off on, by the Queen herself.

[Hawkmoon]

Not being a religious person I don't consider religion when thinking about topics such as these. To be perfectly honest, I don't see what it has to do with religion at all, in a lot of cases. To me, the question is simply one of whether we should be doing something. A question of right or wrong, if you like.

As to the sepcific topics:

I have no philosophical objection to abortion. I do believe that there needs to be a limit on when it can be done and the earlier the better. I don't know the science behind the 24 week limit but lowering that limit by a few weeks doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

The genetic tinkering going on with "hybrid" embryos is a concern to me. I find the science behind gene manipulation absolutely mind-boggling but there's definently a "Do Not Cross" line here. The use of stem cells for medical research is something I don't have a problem with so this debate sees me rather torn between the two camps. On the one hand the idea that horrible diseases could be a thing of the past is very encouraging but the lengths to which we may have to go leaves me a little concerned on the other. I don't know if the end will justify the means.

As a father of 3 healthy children I have great empathy and sympathy for those whose children are sick. I see no problem with peple having another child in an effort to help their existing sick child. But again, can we ensure that the genetic tinkering that enables the new child to help the existing sick child will only be used for that purpose and not to create "designer babies"?

The issue of IVF is one that I have a definite opinion on and I believe IVF should be restricted to a heterosexual couple who otherwise cannot have children. My belief is that children need a mother and a father. Not just a mother. I believe that it is all too apparent what effect a good or bad father has on the upbringing of children nor do I belieive that "male role model" is an adequate substitute for a father. Women shouldn't be able to eliminate the father from the equation simply because they choose to.

As to the Queen, does she still have the power to veto a law or is her signing off just a formality these days? I'm pretty sure the Govenor-General signs off all of our laws but I don't think he has the power veto a law that has passed both Houses of Parliment.

[Rollo]

As to the Queen, does she still have the power to veto a law or is her signing off just a formality these days? I'm pretty sure the Govenor-General signs off all of our laws but I don't think he has the power veto a law that has passed both Houses of Parliment.

Yes. Both the Queen and the Govenor-General have the powers to deny assent to an act. Both of them have what's technically known as reserve powers. Although...

In practice the Queen's reserve power doesn't get exercised very often, the only recent example I can think of was the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975 which resulted in a double dissolution of parliament and the only time I can remember from Law 101 (back in uni 10 years ago) was Queen Anne who refused to give assent to the Scottish Militia Bill of 1708 for fear of creating a rouge army.

Does Billy 4's actions in the Reform Act of 1832 count? I have no idea on this one.

[leopard]

Those are under medical treatment, doctors give them diagnosis, prescribe with the closest approach based on their knowledge scientifically they learned at school, their experience in handling various patients that might have similarity to the said cases.

At the end they have to say let us do our utmost taking care the patient with medical treatment, and to the family can help us with praying. Between science and religion there is not the loser or winner. imo.

[gadjo_dilo]

You all think like.....men. :laugh: :laugh:

[Dave B]

Science v Religion... Science wins?
The standard response from the nutcas... sorry, religious types, is "thank God for giving us science" :p

[cosmicpanda]

I think it is sheer bloodymindedness not to allow research on embryos and stem cells, especially those embryos left over from IVF.

But I think that any research which leads towards combining human genes with animal genes should be avoided - because how do we classify the resulting creature? Does it have the same rights as a human? Even if it does not resemble a human would it still have a sense of self? etc etc etc, tricky questions. Of course, this doesn't apply so much to things like human insulin production (I think it is, anyway) from microbes.