Stem Cell Bill Passes in Australia

nickd writes "Having recently being passed in the Senate by only 2 votes, an Australian bill to overturn the ban on 'theraputic cloning' has now been passed in the House of Representatives by 82-62. The amendment that was seeking to prevent stem cells being extracted from the eggs of aborted late term female fetuses has also been voted down. The changes will allow scientists to create and use embryos up to 14 days old for research."

Comments

Repurcusions for the U.S.?

[Salvance]

If we begin seeing stem cell harvesting/research being allowed in other industrial countries, what are the repurcussions for the U.S.? I don't think we can hold out forever, at some point I'd expect some researches to start moving to more hospitable countries, and pharmaceutical companies in those countries (such as Australia) taking a definitive lead in stem cell therapy and research. As a nation, can we afford to just let the world pass us, even if there are "moral" concerns regarding the technology by our government?

Re:Good

[ArcherB]

Glad some country isn't taking Christian fundamentalist BS.

WOW! I smoke, drink, do drugs and download porn. I had no idea I was a fundamentalist!

What happens when they pass a law that allows for experimentation on people your age?

No..

[The Creator]

the *whoosh* sound was not the toilet.. :)

Once again, people are asking the wrong question.

[Baba Ram Dass]

Don't ban cloning, but don't pay for it with my taxes.

Everyone wins. The fundamentalists don't have to finance something they don't agree with, yet modern science is allowed to continue promising research.

Re:Good

[saforrest]

What is used are frozen results from fertility clinics. When a couple has trouble reproducing, they'll sample some eggs and sperm from the couple, and put them together. They usually end up with a number of results, perhaps a dozen or more. They then try them, one by one.

When the woman gets pregnant, they're done - and there's usually a few left over.


What's most amazing is that, as understand it, when these leftover fertilized eggs are not used for scientific research, then they are simply destroyed. I'm not arguing that we should unscrupulously use any leftover human material from medical procedures for experiments, but to describe destruction of the frozen eggs (instead of experimentation) as a "pro-life" position is pretty galling.

I mean, shouldn't a consistent pro-lifer should favour either:

1) gathering up all the frozen eggs for eventual implantation in women with fertility problems
2) stopping those types of fertility treatments that result in lots of extra fertilized eggs

The reason this doesn't happen, I think, is that fertility clinics are seen as value-neutral or pro-family. So the ethical inconsistency persists.

Re:Societal Degeneration From The Non-Christian Le

[Citizen of Earth]

I think that God's real test is whether you are able to hold absolute beliefs with zero positive evidence and mountains of negative evidence. If you can, then you are labelled a dangerously gullible fool and sent to Hell.

Re:Mistaken premises

[cas2000]

On the contrary, I think the arguments against stem cell research are mostly being pushed by pro-life people, in order to be consistent with their stated basis, where any fertilized ovum is the moral equivalent of a 'human life.' I think the argument is pretty clear;if you accept that a blastocyst is alive and equivalent to a sentient being, then you must oppose stem cell research.

not necessarily. there's a huge difference between a fertilised egg and therapeutic cloning.

the former requires contact between a sperm and an egg cell.

the latter involves removing all DNA from an egg cell, injecting the patient/donor's DNA, and using artificial means (e.g. a tiny electric shock) to trigger cell division and replication.

the former is human reproduction. the latter is cell culturing.

not at all the same thing.