Dr David van Gend, the Queensland Secretary for the World Foundation of Doctors who Respect Human Life. The pro-life lobby really has its knickers in a knot over this issue.

Dr. van Gend is not just a Toowoomba GP and I think it maybe time for Graham Young to acknowledge the moral attitudes that the authors of these articles hold

Writing in Pro-Life news in 2002 he urges people to write to Govt. members and stress the following points.

POINTS TO MAKE

• Human life is not a commodity for science to use in experiments or for anyone to use in medical treatments.
• How outrageous that our Parliamentary representatives have chosen to pursue and develop medical treatments that will depend upon the destruction of human life.
• How horrifying as a precedent that our politicians intend to legislate to define some human beings as 'surplus'. Ask your member if he/she knows whether Australia will be the first nation to actually define certain human beings as 'surplus' so that they may be destroyed in experiments for science.
• The incredible achievements in adult stem cell research have been ignored. The use of embryos is unnecessary. I support stem cell research - using stem cells from sources which do not require that embryos are killed.
• Adult stem cell research has potential to provide tissues that are compatible for patients but this is not the case with so-called spare but unrelated embryo sources.
• Express you concern that instead of developing acceptable treatments using adult stem cells, Australia is embarking on a path that will be effective only if patients are cloned so that the clones can be cannabalised for compatible tissues.

I would suggest that the views of:

The Hon John S Lockhart AO QC (Chair)
Professor Peter Schofield (NSW)
Associate Professor Ian Kerridge (NSW
Professor Loane Skene (Vic)
Professor Barry Marshall (WA)
Associate Professor Pamela McCombe (Qld)

Are more valuable than that of yet another pro-life evangelist

My gut feeling is that human life is human life, irrespective, and I support Dr Gend's concerns. Whatever his standing in this field, many scientists with relevant background seem to have questioned what is proposed by the Lockhart Committee, including on the need/potential benefits.

David van Gend seems to take a Catholic view on most things and thats his choice I guess. But as there is no such thing as objective
morality, he does not have the right to try and impose his religious views on the rest of us, who think thats its nonsense.

I feel that my own sense of morality is more thought through then religion. If scientific research can eventually bring knowledge and help to people with lifelong diseases, in wheelchairs etc, then yup it makes perfect sense. I am far more concerned with the suffering of people and other creatures who suffer at our expense, then about organisms.

Most women can create about 400 human organsims in their lifetime, reality and the laws of nature prevail, they cannot all survive.
Every night billions of sperms and ova are flushed down the world's toilets and nobody says boo, which is fair enough.

It is a shame that John Lockhard died today aged 70. He has been much maligned by pro-life groups who have had their opposition to therapeutic cloning well rehearsed for over 6 years. The arguments they raise are identical all over the world and have been repeated for years.

If we have a process in this country for Governments to set up inquiries with eminent members of society as members, then to invite submissions from ALL areas of society surely we can accept the findings of that enquiry.

Are you saying that a former High Court Judge got it so very wrong? No what is happening is that the influential Catholic pro-life evangelists are up to their old tricks. “Get out the cloning script and repeat it everywhere we can”. And if we don’t get our own way attack the messenger. They put their submission to the enquiry and did not get their views accepted, tough luck, accept the rules and get on with life.

How can they equate an unfertilized egg from a woman which is then manipulated to have DNA from another cell implanted into it, and which then grows stem cells to human life? Somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning but why let the facts get in the way.

These religious zealots purposely blur the argument, we are ending life, these embryos deserve to be born etc. But they are not embryos they are 200 cells specifically grown to understand more about human life.

These people do have anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-cloning, anti-gay, anti-contraception views and that is their right. But they are in the minority and should accept the view of the majority. Of course they cannot because they know better than everyone else.

They call themselves pro-life but they really are anti-everything that does not suit them. How many children in this world have been abused by the catholic faiths defenders?

God botherers pretending to be academics make me vomit

YABBY I am unable to respond to you last post on Thread 61 because my computer won't scroll past the start of my own post. This has happened before, so I'll have to get it repaired. No doubt we will cross swords again on another issue.

I once would have agreed with the author that embryonic stem cell research should not be allowed until I found myself involved with seriously disabled children. Now I am convinced that their qualilty of life is far more important than that of a human embryo. If embryonic stem cells were of no advantage over adult stem cells then it would seem unlikely that any scientist would be going to the effort or expense of trying to obtain approval.

I am not certain but thought that cloned embryos do not have the capacity to become human beings as they lack the ability to form a placenta - please feel free to correct me as I can't remember where I heard this.