Page 941 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But he conceded that if this science offered treatment or a cure for himself or a loved one of his if they had a serious disease, he could not guarantee that self-preservation or the desire to protect loved ones would not get the better of his principles. Mrs Dunne has stated a different view today here, but I think we are getting some idea of the complexity of the debate.
There are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to life-saving procedures such as blood transfusions, whereas the religious beliefs of some others support damaging procedures such as mutilation. So we cannot take a religious view per se as being justification for a particular practice.
The Greens appreciate and respect that the question of research involving human embryos is a highly emotionally charged and a challenging issue. That is a welcome part of our democratic process. This bill grapples with ethical dilemmas that surround the beginning and end of human life, an issue that provokes a diversity and polarity of views. It is of the utmost importance that we respect the difference in legitimate views that have been expressed in this debate.
As this debate is played out in the community and reflects debates in the community and in the parliament, it is clear in my mind that we all, each of us here, believe human life is inherently valuable and deserving of protection. Each of us is unique and endowed with human rights. Where the waters part, so to speak, is on the inevitable question of when that life begins, when a tiny collection of cells becomes a human being—a human being entitled to human rights and protection.
The Greens respect the fact that different people draw that line in different places for a variety of moral, ethical and spiritual reasons, and scientific reasons too. This multitude of views makes up the democratic fabric.
I believe that basic biology dictates that the embryos in this bill do not constitute life. They are not a human being. The embryos that we are considering in this bill are not fertilised, just as the hens’ eggs we eat are not chickens, just as the eggs in my womb that never turned into zygotes and children I do not believe are alive. They represent the potential for human life and, if fertilised and implanted into a woman’s womb, may develop into a human being.
But as it stands for the purposes of research under this bill embryonic stem cells do not constitute a human being. The embryos in this bill are not made by egg-sperm fertilisation, rather by a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a research method, not a process that facilitates reproduction.
This bill very clearly delineates what is permissible and what is not. Reproducing cell lines is permitted. Reproductive cloning is not permitted. It is unfortunate that some people do not necessarily understand that difference.
Embryonic stem cells can be used to grow cells of a specific type to create disease models and to create stem cell lines that can be used to combat the effects of a specific disease, for example, diabetes, Huntington’s disease or Parkinson’s disease. The use of the embryonic cells potentially will allow doctors to repair a patient’s damaged tissues
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .