LANCASTER - 26 May 2008 - 540 words
Statement from Bishop of Lancaster on Embryology Bill
Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue issued the
following statement last night on the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Bill
Listening to the second reading
and debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the
House of Commons, I was saddened beyond measure. It has been said
that the House of Commons is at its best when debating issues
of conscience, but do I detect here a growing intolerance to listening
to religious or ethical considerations? Again and again the justification
given to experimenting on embryonic human beings or killing the
unborn was an appeal to 'science' or 'scientific research' as
if it were the only source of objective, rational knowledge.
It seems that millennia of ethical and religious thought are lightly
dismissed as subjective and discredited.
In contrast to the language of utilitarianism in the parliamentary
debate that sought to justify the exploitation of the unborn for
our economic and medical gain there arises in my heart the words
of Scripture that speak prophetically of the dignity of the unborn
child:
'You created my inmost self,
Knit me together in my mother's womb.
For so many marvels I thank you;
A wonder am I, and all your works are wonders.
...Your eyes could see my embryo.' (Psalm 139:13-14, 16).
Every embryonic human person is a wonder of creation, who possesses the inherent right to realise his or her potential for creativity, love, self-sacrifice, and joy. However, our society has so cheapened and violated human life that it does not hear or understand the language of wonder about the unborn.
A dangerous myth appears to be growing
that the only knowledge that can inform policy- making is scientific
research. Discourse and reason are impoverished when science
is used to exclude other branches of knowledge, such as reasoning
based on natural law.
Not only this, but we witnessed a flawed, selective approach to
science, with the House choosing to ignore the hard scientific
evidence provided by adult and umbilical cord stem cell research,
that proves that unethical research on embryonic human persons
is unnecessary.
What we saw last week in the House of Commons was the misuse of
science to justify the continued exploitation and disposal of
society's most vulnerable members embryonic and foetal human
persons.
As I understand it, there is not a shred of scientific evidence
to support those who promote the benefits of creating human-animal
hybrids. What we witnessed in the vote allowing the creation
of human-animal hybrids was a partisan act of faith that experimentation
on embryos will at some distant time result in cures for Alzheimer's,
MS and other diseases.
We all hope and pray that medical science will find cures for
these diseases that cause such dreadful suffering, but not at
the cost of de-personalising the unborn and treating them as things
to be manipulated and dissected. Compassion cannot result in
the exploitation and destruction of unborn human persons. It is
also a misuse of science to employ medical judgements concerning
the 'viability' of the unborn child's development as the only
consideration that grants the most fundamental of human rights
the right to life.
It's farcical to think that the definition of a human person depends
on being able to exist on one's own. Human life is a series of
inter-related dependencies at all stages of our existence. The
State has no moral right to exclude the most vulnerable stage
of dependency from the legal protection granted to human life.
Any State that accepts the arbitrary use of power over others
is immoral. As I see it, last week's vote in the House of Commons
perpetuated the immoral use of power over the unborn.
How can it be reasonable that a 12 week old foetus is treated
as an unborn child or disposed of as a thing depending on the
choice of the mother? Being a person is not something granted
by the choice of another, but is an inherent right dependent on
the fact of existence. From the moment of conception, the unborn
human being is genetically unique from his or her mother and father.
The unborn child is a completely new and different living being.
The Catholic Church truly cares for the well-being of women, particularly
those agonising over the decision whether to continue with a pregnancy
or to have an abortion. I can only imagine that the trauma of
rape or the anxiety of a mother unable to cope can feel unbearable.
However, I have been told that the grief and distress that many
women suffer following an abortion is also unbearable. Confronted
with this suffering, we must all do more to support the work of
Pro-Life groups that offer counselling and practical support to
women who are considering abortion or are struggling to cope after
an abortion.
In its strong stand against abortion or experimentation on embryonic
human persons, the Church is not saying all who have an abortion
or all those who voted for this legislation are evil. But it
is the Church's duty to constantly remind society that the act
of intentionally killing the unborn embryo or child is always
of itself evil.
I would like to personally thank all those Members of Parliament
who tabled amendments and voted in defence of unborn human life.
I call on all people of faith Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist,
Sikh, and Christian who believe in the sanctity of unborn
human life to join with the Catholic Church in redoubling their
efforts in the continuing campaign for a change in these laws.
During the 19th century, slavers said black people weren't human.
They were wrong. During the 20th century, the Nazis said Jews
weren't human. They
were wrong. Since 1967, the House of Commons has said the unborn
are not human. They, too, are wrong.
+Patrick O'Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster Sunday, 25 May,
2008
© Independent Catholic News 2008
Contact Independent
Catholic News email
Chaplain • Latest news • Archive • Listings • Pictures •