Over the next two days, the Government looks set to vote through (unless there's a rebellion, which could well happen), some shocking things as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - many things that would be unthinkable in most other countries.
Let's look briefly at the four main proposals.
Human and animal hybrid embryos. Scientists want to mix human and animal tissues to create mixed embryos for research. They claim there aren't enough embryos available at the moment, and that this work is vital to find cures for many diseases. The government is claiming that these embryos will be 99.9% human and .1% animal. The trouble is that the bill also allows for 'true' hybrids, meaning it will be legal to create 50/50 mixtures as well (human eggs fertilized with animal sperm and vice versa).
Sometime things in life are just wrong. This is one such occasion. Not only is it unethical, but the evidence does not back up the claims - there have been no miracle cures so far, in fact no cures at all from embryonic stem cell research; and there are ethical alternatives. Adult stem cells, which have produced over 80 treatments so far, with hundreds more therapies being worked on, is where the investment should go.
Saviour Siblings - This is where embryos are screened and a match for an older sibling chosen, implanted, born, and then blood, tissues and even part organs can be taken from that child and used to 'save' an older child. Not only could dozens of embryos be destroyed as a result, but the damage, physically and psychologically to the 'saviour' child, who becomes a donor without giving consent would take years to establish.
End of the 'need for a Father'. At present if a child is created in an IVF clinic, that clinic has a legal responsibility to consider that childs' 'need for a father'. That will end. This is apparently to make the law consistent with recent civil partnership legislation.
The trouble is that, not only does it send a dreadful message out to society that Fathers are not necessary in the creation of a child (an impossibility, at least at the moment), it also discriminates against the children, who will be denied knowledge of a father for their entire childhood.
There are no known examples since the civil partnership legislation of lesbian couples, or single women being denied IVF treatment, and given that legislation, it's unlikely there would be - so the law isn't broken, and doesn't need fixing. What is important is the interests of the child, which should always come first.
And then there's the subject of abortion. Many people's views are polarised on this, so it's very difficult to have a rational debate on the subject. However, whatever one's views, most people agree that it is an outrage that only three hours (yes, just three hours) in 18 years of parliamentary time have been devoted to discussing this subject. Compare that to literally hundreds of hours discussing other issues, (such as fox hunting), it's an absolute disgrace.
So why is Gordon Brown pushing this? Does he need the controversy? Hardly!
I wish I knew the answer. All this can only add to the bloody nose he's likely to get at the by election in Crewe and Nantwich on Thursday, and I have no sympathy for him at all. Anyone who can destroy his moral compass as quickly as he claimed he had one can't be considered a conviction politician.
...
Ten grand a night for losing!
So Ken Livingstone is getting £10K per after dinner speech!
I was once at a dinner where he spoke, and frankly if it happened again, I think I'd organise a whip round to make sure he DIDN'T speak!
Have a good week!