Stem Cell Research Bill Clears Australian Senate

jaunty writes "A private members bill has passed the Australian senate which paves the way for the cloning of embryos to gather stem cells. While it only passed by a narrow margin it is expected to gain support in the House. From the article: 'The final shape of the bill is now subject to further debate on amendments including measures to toughen penalties for breaches of cloning regulations, and possibly a move to stop the use of animal tissue in the cloning process.'"

Comments

Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th

[pubjames]

These are authorative sources.

Well, I guess if that depends upon whether you think a bunch of celibate men that think an invisible supernatural being is listening to them are "authorative".

I've looked at the bishops document and it contains nothing to do with the science of stem cell research.

Bringing the god botherers into the debate

[Colin Smith]

Simply muddies the issue.

The fact that it's a rabbit's egg is really irrelevant, all of the rabbit DNA is removed (apart from the mitochondrial) so it's basically just a shell. It isn't as if they're going to make an animal which is a cross between a humand and a rabbit, the DNA codes for a human being, that's what you'd get.

I don't see any moral issues here, it isn't a human being, it's a collection of cells without nervous system, the DNA wouldn't even come from a human egg or even something which could possibly have developed into a human.

Re:Bringing the god botherers into the debate

[RsG]

OK, when does it become human? Two cells? 100? Birth?

I suppose you'll tell me it's when it gets a soul?

I'd say a human is a "person" for our purposes when and if they become capable of thought. DNA is irrelevant; my toenail clippings will show up as "100% human" on a DNA test. Moreover, depending on the test, you might have a hard time telling me a chimp isn't also "human", since the DNA is much the same.

The human form (shape and body) is irrelevant, as a human in some other form would still qualify as a person (for example, somebody seriously deformed or crippled). Plus, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that what defines us as human is the shape of our flesh, which is all that the human form and human genome amount to.

What about life you say? Get back to me when we no longer eat other mammals. There is no "sanctity of life" in any society (with a few notable exceptions); there is only sanctity of human life, which gets you right back to the question of what we define as "human". And no, I am not a vegan or vegetarian, but if I personally believed that life itself was sacred in some way, then it would be hypocritical of me to eat meat.

What does that leave? The mind, and little else. There is no trait that is more distinctly human on earth.

So, when does a human mind develop to the point where we consider the human a legal or ethical person? I have no idea. Since newborns clearly have some degree of consciousness, it must be before birth. Presumably he development of a mind would coincide with the development of the higher centers of the brain.

But it would be utterly, utterly moronic to suggest that a few replicating cells have attained consciousness. A fetus in it's third trimester might or might not qualify; a newly fertilized embryo certainly does not.

Of course, this definition is not espoused by any law I know of, but I can think of no other definition of "human life" that is both logical and consistent with our current practices of agriculture, medical care and the like. And I suppose that this definition would be broad enough that we should apply some protection to other species that display intellect, such as dolphins, whales and primates.

Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th

[someone1234]

"the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg. That really is a significant step to be making..." playboy bunnies!!!

Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th

[babbling]

my personal feelings are that the Australian parliament has fallen into the trap of allowing the end to justify the means

No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what the church says. You'd be crying foul if it was Islamists trying to influence the law, so stop pushing for Christian law.

There's a lot of people who could be saved by this research, and if a few frog biological cells (that don't even have brains) have to die in the process, then so be it.