The Truth

Labour MPs finally allowed to Vote with their Conscience? - More Lies & Doublethink.........

by Stewart Cowan, 26/3/08

Just when I was thinking that the Government was trying to make acting according to one's conscience illegal (consider for example, adoption agencies banned from considering only man and wife as suitable parents), Gordon Brown reluctantly gives in and allows his MPs to vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as dictated by their instincts and feelings.

Brown's MPs will be allowed a free vote only on three aspects of the Bill: human/animal hybrid embryos; IVF treatment allowed in cases that would deny the potential child or children their right to a father; creation of so-called 'saviour siblings'.

They will not be allowed a free vote on the screening of embryos to identify genetic diseases or on both members of lesbian couples being able to register as parents on birth certificates.

No free vote in reality

With or without amendments to any of the proposals, all Labour MPs will be ordered to support the Bill in the final vote at the end of the third reading and any minister who votes against the Bill at that stage would be expected to resign.

Ministers and other MPs who still have serious concerns might be allowed to abstain from the final vote, but only if the passage of the Bill is not threatened.

More than 200 charities, including Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Parkinson's Disease Society have written to MPs urging them to support new laws that would allow the creation of part-human, part-animal embryos. If you are against the idea and give money to any of these charities, you might want to find out if your favourite is gunning for the production of Frankenstein foetuses and families created to be deliberately without fathers.

Why are these various ideas contained in the same Bill anyway? Is the lesbian issue included to try and gain more acceptance for the rest of the Bill by making MPs fearful of appearing to be discriminatory?

According to the Christian Institute, "after a decade of embryonic stem cell research no medical treatments have been developed. By contrast, over 70 treatments have come from research using adult stem cells."

Not religion vs science

The debate is not religious versus scientific as many boffins would have us believe; some scientists are also concerned. Last year Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, told a parliamentary committee set up to evaluate the legislation:

"On the question of full-blown hybrids being created between animal gametes and human gametes, there was a degree of repugnance, even among scientists...It was felt - and I think is still felt - that this would be something where there was no clear scientific benefit and, secondly, a feeling that this would be a step too far as far as the public is concerned."

It is constantly suggested to us that we live in a 'democracy', but if an MP is outraged by this Bill and the majority of his or her constituents are opposed to it as well, towards the end of the Parliamentary process, the MP is still expected to betray constituents and sell his soul to the Party.

I call that fascism, not democracy.

This whole debacle sheds a fair bit of light on how modern politics operates, on the illusion of our 'democracy' and on how people with vested interests, including many charities, would rather devalue humanity with human/animal hybrids and deprive children of fathers and in some cases, life itself, by supporting this Bill, than by looking at the viable alternatives such as adult stem cell research which has already brought benefits without these new moral dilemmas.

Dilemmas for some, clear-cut moral boundaries for others.