Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 7th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Cardinal O'Brien attacks embryo research



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2008
THE leader of Scotland's Catholics is to use his Easter sermon to launch a strong attack on latest plans for embryo research.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh and St Andrews, is expected to say: "One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion without many people realising what is going on."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would allow the creation of animal-human embryos – by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs – to be used in medical research and then discarded.





The full article contains 107 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/03/2008 12:23:29
Unelected and unqualified self-confessed irrationalist comments on issues outwith his understanding. Why do we give him the oxygen of publicity?
2

Sgurr,

21/03/2008 14:55:39
Mr O'Brien = voice of ignorance...dressed up like a clown.
3

karolgadge,

Accrington 21/03/2008 17:27:12
Well said Cardinal O'Brien. At last someone has the courage and rational fortitude to confront the fantasists who continue to believe that the farming of humans is ethically acceptable.
4

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/03/2008 18:44:46
#3 What do you mean "at last"? Luddites like him have been harping on about this for decades. What qualifications does he, or any of the other "courageous" anti-science doom-mongers, have in this field? O'Brien is a theologian by trade. He should stick to his day job.
5

karolgadge,

Accrington 21/03/2008 19:19:56
Re: 'Duncan In Edinburgh'

Regarding the need for 'qualifications' - I really don't follow the thread here. What qualifications does one need to be permitted to comment on ethical concerns? There are a number of scientists (not all Catholics by the way) who have expressed concern on the 'farming' of human embryos and the creation of 'human-animal' hybrids.
Science is not a monolithic entity populated only by those who automatically a) approve of utilitarian ethics and b) are prepared to descend to 'ad hominem' attacks. It seems the cardinal's words have hit a raw nerve here.

I prefer to use the term 'Luddites' in its correct historical context by the way: referring to the machine-breakers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth-centuries - and not as an insult hurled at anyone whose moral stance is opposed.
6

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/03/2008 22:19:30
#5 One needs no qualifications to comment. But if one's comment consists of blatant scaremongering which bears absolutely no relation to the facts - the phrase "experiments of Frankenstein proportion" is not only untrue but is deliberately designed to cause fear and anxiety - then one can legitimately be criticised for a lack of understanding of the field.

Honest and informed debate on this subject should indeed be welcomed. It has been going on for decades with sincere argument on all sides. But this sort of intervention, spreading misinformation in the deliberate attempt to promote a false agenda, is not a contribution to the debate, it is an attempt to shout it down.

I make no apology for attacking the man. The man is dangerous, and needs to be energetically opposed.
7

karolgadge,

Accrington 22/03/2008 10:13:55
Re: 'Duncan in Edinburgh'

I'm glad to read that you accept 'qualifications' are not needed to comment. Likewise, thanks for dropping the use of 'Luddism' as a catch-all stick to beat your opponents with.

I think that the cardinal is being underestimated. His statement relating to Frankenstein-style experiments was undoubtedly headline-grabbing. And in that it succeeded as today's news items have shown. He didn't intend to give a detailed bio-ethics lecture for professors to ruminate over. Yet, given a suitable environment, I'm sure he would be more than capable.

The charge that he is 'uneducated' and should 'stick to theology' is a cop-out: he is articulating the deep-seated concerns of many - including MPs and even cabinet ministers if today's newspapers are correct.

As for the charge that he is scaremongering and causing anxiety, perhaps it is as well that some anxiety should be engendered. Consider one aspect of the fertilisation and embryo bill: the possibility of creating so-called 'saviour siblings' ie embryos created whose tissues are used for brothers/sisters with health problems. By extension (and the bill, by virtue of its studied vagueness leaves it open) this may lead to the future 'harvesting' of organs from human embryos created merely for ultimate disposal.

I think the cardinal's terminology can be justified in context. The supporters of the bill had hoped to slip it into the country's legislative framework by stealth.
As for being dangerous - of course he is. And that's why I support him.
8

karolgadge,

Accrington 22/03/2008 10:13:57
Re: 'Duncan in Edinburgh'

I'm glad to read that you accept 'qualifications' are not needed to comment. Likewise, thanks for dropping the use of 'Luddism' as a catch-all stick to beat your opponents with.

I think that the cardinal is being underestimated. His statement relating to Frankenstein-style experiments was undoubtedly headline-grabbing. And in that it succeeded as today's news items have shown. He didn't intend to give a detailed bio-ethics lecture for professors to ruminate over. Yet, given a suitable environment, I'm sure he would be more than capable.

The charge that he is 'uneducated' and should 'stick to theology' is a cop-out: he is articulating the deep-seated concerns of many - including MPs and even cabinet ministers if today's newspapers are correct.

As for the charge that he is scaremongering and causing anxiety, perhaps it is as well that some anxiety should be engendered. Consider one aspect of the fertilisation and embryo bill: the possibility of creating so-called 'saviour siblings' ie embryos created whose tissues are used for brothers/sisters with health problems. By extension (and the bill, by virtue of its studied vagueness leaves it open) this may lead to the future 'harvesting' of organs from human embryos created merely for ultimate disposal.

I think the cardinal's terminology can be justified in context. The supporters of the bill had hoped to slip it into the country's legislative framework by stealth.
As for being dangerous - of course he is. And that's why I support him.
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

22/03/2008 11:30:59
#8 But he lied. He misrepresented the facts, generated fear where none is warranted, and distorted the reality of what is proposed. And you are now repeating his lies, either because you too don't know the facts, or because you similarly wish to misrepresent them.

The last paragraph of the article succinctly describes what the Bill does: "allow the creation of animal-human embryos to be used in medical research and then discarded".

If the bill WAS about creating babies for spare parts, or raiding the tissue of dead people, then O'Brien would at least have been justified in expressing an opinion on it. But it has NOTHING to do with those subjects. The cardinal was factually incorrect in those assertions, and your repetition of them shows how dangerous it is for liars to be given air time.

This research could well save many lives, and ease much suffering. I would have thought that Christians would at least give it a fair hearing, instead of throwing lies and distortions around in order to foment fear and discord.

You are wrong. The cardinal's terminology cannot be "justified in context" - he lied about what the bill is doing, about what it is meant to achieve, and about the effects it will have. Lying used to be a sin. Perhaps teh cardinal needs to go to confession.
10

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 22/03/2008 13:51:39
This idiot should keep his ideas where they belong,in fairy tale books.If the bible is true and people believe this BS(as is their right)why don,t they continue their thinking through-for instance,If O,Brain needed a blood transfusion why does he not bless some wine,and through the magic of transubstantiation and his ordained powers of occult magic,use that instead of blood? sound daft?
Of course it is!It is utterly silly and ridiculous!
What next?Demand a "free" vote on this so Jesus can tell O'Brain what to tell your elected MP's how to vote!
Oh wait,he just has.
BTW
Does anyone know what blood group Jesus is?

11

St. Brendan,

I wish you were here 22/03/2008 14:22:07
# 10: Jesus don't need any transfusion.

Three gospels written in Jesus' own language Aramaic states that Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph. Only Luke states he is son of the Holy Spirit. Luke is written by a Greek. If democracy is applicable to the reading of the Bible, then Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph.

The Cardinal should not claim to be a Christian if he accepts Luke in stead of the three local gospels.
12

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 22/03/2008 14:34:34
Auschwitz comes to mind..
13

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 22/03/2008 16:25:50
#12 I invoke Godwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
(also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
14

karolgadge,

Accrington 22/03/2008 17:42:01
re:9 Duncan in Edinbugh

Strong words and I think, unjustified. I'll ignore the snide patronising tone of your ending and stick to the main points.

You are in turn misrepresenting what I wrote, Nowhere in my post did I use the word 'babies' - I stuck to the more familiar, less emotive word 'embryos'.

I don't feel that a forum of this type is suitable for dissecting each clause of the bill. Even if the final sentence of the article ('succinct' as you put it) were the only issue at stake there would be enough ethical concerns raised to continue this dialogue. To state that somehow this is morally negligible is to distort the whole content of Christian ethics.

Your view that a possible good (ie the cure of debilitating disease and release from suffering) - at some indeterminate future time - is sufficient justification for present research begs many questions. Of course scientists will claim that their research has beneficial ends - what kind of scientist wouldn't? However, given the history of some scientific projects of the last hundred years- carried out by Europeans with impeccable credentials - I hesitate to give scientists per se the benefit of the doubt and automatically tick all their ethical boxes for them

You, in turn, are quite ignorant of the background to the cardinal's homily. Representations, reasoned arguments and comments by ethicists who share common points with the cardinal have been ignored. Those who would legislate the embryo's humanity out of the equation have been silent and Gordon Brown holds individual conscience in such high regard that he contemplates imposing a three-line whip when the bill is debated. Why?

Lastly, you set the cardinal up as a straw man and hurl charges against him, ignoring the fact that there was mounting concern long before his homily was published. Then, suddenly, Christians are brought into the equation and, likewise, pilloried - to the extent of advising censorship ('oxygen of publicity'
15

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/03/2008 04:47:13
#13 Really. You sweetie pie certainly have not heard or read about Joseph Mengele and what he did at Auschwitz. I suppose you can't help being who you are. I pity you
16

alan poganski,

us 24/03/2008 23:34:37
It's sad that priests still are making the world suffer more with their opinions on science that will help the sick.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Roman Catholic church

More Roman Catholic church >>

More Technology

More Technology >>

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.