Monday, May 26, 2008

Playing God while Frankenstein saves lives

OK, dear reader, I have left the last bit of news from my smörgåsbord for last. This deserves to be an entry on its own account, and so it shall be:
It really seems as if every horrible aspect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill can't receive enough enthusiastic backing from our lawmakers.
Ministers in the House of Commons voted in favour of animal-human hybrid embroys, of "savior siblings," declaring fathers obsolete, and retaining the 24-week limit on abortion.
I have grown very tired of hearing those in favor of this squalid embryo and stem-cell research say, "but it's going to save lives!" At what price are we going to "save lives?" What type of monster will be born while we're saving lives? This is an area of science where we dare not tread, a vindication of the maxim which states that because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should do it. But of course, going to bed with the scientific community, which all governments do on a too-regular basis, meant that it was inevitable that this research would be given a thumbs-up.
With regard to "savior siblings": Can you imagine the pain and the anguish you'd feel if you found out that the only reason you were born—the only reason you were allowed to exist—was to provide spare parts for your diseased brother or sister? There are going to be a lot of tortured souls in the future. We are in deep trouble when we stoop to the point where a person is looked at primarily as "spare parts."
Until recently, a woman seeking fertilization treatment would have to provide proof of a father's role in her child's upbringing. The law has now been changed to "supportive parenting." Which I guess means that if you can afford to buy the kid an Xbox and a copy of "Grand Theft Auto," and simply pat him or her on the head every now and then, then you're good to go. Once again, in formally announcing their belief that fathers are not necessary, our lawmakers betray us and show that they have absolutely no insight as to the causes of social breakdown and disorder.
Finally, can anyone tell me why the hell it is so necessary for the limit on abortions to be 24-weeks, when premature babies are perfectly viable at 20 weeks and when the limit in most European countries is 12 weeks? As far as I can tell, the freedom to commit infanticide is still high on the feminist agenda. If you can tear a child of 24 weeks apart in the womb, what exactly is the difference in tearing a newborn baby limb-from-limb? They would both feel the most agonizing pain, but you can't hear the former scream.
This Embryology and Fertilization Bill has to be the biggest blow to human respect and dignity since the Nazi's Third Reich (an appropriate comparison, methinks). And yet, sadly, it comes as very little surprise that every controversial aspect of it has passed. Our politicians prove once again that they are only too glad to sell their souls—and ours along with them—for profit and short-term gain with very long-term consequences.


kristen said...

Many of these abortion-rights people are the anti-war type....which I don't get. So, you're willing to kill an unborn child but don't want our brave military to protect our country (because oh my gosh someone could die in the name of freedom). Mind boggling.

I oppose abortion (of course) and am not a fan of stem-cell research--because like you said, it's a moral issue; one that we ought not to mess with.

Tusk said...

Most kids born in the UK are unwanted anyway, but to find out you're sole point of existence is to act as a treasure chest for someone else, who your parents *actually* love...
I hate the way things are going.