Sunday, April 27, 2008

Cardinal Keith O’Brien on human/animal hybrids

Amen and amen.

Cranmer can hardly wait for the Arcbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester to engage with this medium: YouTube is an excellent pulpit for reaching a generation inflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.


Anonymous Nothos said...

When one considers how embryonic stem cell research in the US is mostly prohibited, and where allowed quite confusing (An American friend of mine referred to the situation as "A huge political clusterfuck"), it's not surprising that there have been no treatments created using this method.

This isn't me trying to undermine the Bishop's message, but the video is misrepresenting facts.

26 April 2008 at 22:39  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
Attention Deficit Disorder is terrible , it is the symptom of a space created by a mental shortening of time recognition , bit like an addict needing a fix .

no need to ponder the deeper natural language of life , swish the card , get the email , mobile your mates . an endless , beep, swish, pop ring tone , press 2 for ! , on hold for 20 mins life style .

as for the cardinals vid , it was rather comforting , but did little for scientifc objections , namely that they can do most of the stuff with adult stem cells , without going down this route .

it is unfrotunate he chooses an objection based purely on what the pope says , a scientific attack would have been just as powerful .

however perhaps i am fair weather christian , so i cant really say much to a man that would say no at a fundamental level.

the you tube thing is ok , but these on line church services , bah humbug i say

26 April 2008 at 23:34  
Anonymous Homophobic Horse said...

Progressivism logically leads to hideous human/animal miscegenation.

But my 2 penneth:

the embryo and/or the first division of cells in a petri dish (blastocyst) is the equivalent of a human person. This is rooted in a moral-theological doctrine that has no basis in science.

Sometimes the atheists are quite open in their contempt for the human species.. Morality has no scientific basis.. These materialists are held in thrall to lucifer and hell bent on corrupting the human species. God damn them all to the lake of fire where they shall burn for eternity.

27 April 2008 at 00:32  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...


I'm an atheist - and absolutely nothing you said there applies to me.

And there is no lake of fire, no deity of any sort, no necessity for morality to be religion-based. The issue of marility having/not having a scientific base is an open question.

Why the need of god - more specifically your God - for morality? Wasn't socrates moral?

27 April 2008 at 02:02  
Anonymous Asian Colonial Subject said...

Socrates believed in the gods too... After all, his Apologia before the Athenian council was his own defense of his piety to the gods...

Just a side note.

27 April 2008 at 06:16  
Anonymous Cinnamon said...

Your Grace,

feel free to turn down the new developments in medicine that will come from this research when your time comes to need it, and then figure out if suicide out of religious principle is the correct way (can suicide ever be not a sin for Christian believers?)

I personally want to live longer and without pain, and want the same for every fellow creature and I don't really like the idea of religious zealots preventing that and making us all suffer in agony because of their religious sensibilities, and one could also term it mass-murder, because if people like you get their wish, many people will die before their time as a direct result of this.

Another thing that puzzles me is: why do you guys so strain against the bounty that your God gives you? You claim this God is all knowing, seeing, he created all there is(clearly this includes science and stemcells), and then you go on to complain about the things he creates and makes possible and that you don't want them, instead of putting it to good use and ensuring that the uses it's put to stays good.

27 April 2008 at 08:34  
Anonymous Homophobic Horse said...

I don't think you understand, if the embyro does not have the protection of "moral theological doctrine" why should the grown human? Most scientists, as materialists, do not a logical reason for morality, they only have bad faith and exceptionism.

If reality consists only of particles and their interactions (something Socrates didn't believe as an idealist) why shouldn't we perform live vivisection and human animal miscegenation?

27 April 2008 at 11:37  
Anonymous Daniel said...

I see the good Cardinal has no moral objection to the science used to develop pacemakers (Google the History of it, not that pleasant to the wee beasties involved), but is happy to deny the use of medical science to others with life threatening illnesses. The usual standard of hypocrisy from the Catholic Church on matters moral. I do wonder from time-to-time how many people the Catholic Church has killed with it's "No Condoms" policy.

I was particularly taken with the music used in the piece - it was all rather Deepak Chopra if you ask me.

27 April 2008 at 12:50  
Anonymous Daniel said...

@Homophobic Horse

Sometimes the atheists are quite open in their contempt for the human species Eh?

Utterly wrong, Atheists see the beauty and complexity of the physical and biological world just as much as the religious - we just don't need to believe an entity of whatever description created it.

Nor do we require that entity in order to believe the human beings can lead moral, just and charitable lives.

27 April 2008 at 12:56  
Anonymous The recusant said...


You rationalise the lack of any progress in human life Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) to lack of funding in the US (no doubt all Bushes fault) but totally ignore the inconvenient fact that the UK has bee hijacked for the past decade by a dearth of American embryologists working for UK Pharmaceutical companies on huge UK government subsidies chopping away at human embryos like they were mince, and for what? You say it’s the lack of funding that’s to blame, how then has Adult (A)STR which has had a pittance of the research grant that ESTR been so productive, the Cardinal quotes correctly ESTR 0, ASTR 73 medical cures. Let me ask you this if you had to fund either out of you’re own cash and not the tax payers cash who would you place you’re hard earned with. You are not loosing any argument by recognising the hard fact based on published results that ESTR is a non starter, even Lord Winston the BBCs darling of the left recognised such in the House of Lords debate on the subject, but this ideologically hidebound government would rather continue to over tax you to pay for fruitless research into failed science that admit it got things very badly wrong (and they’ve never done that before eh!) and even worse admit that the Christian Church in the UK was right. Pride is harder than diamond for some.

Here’s a prediction for you and you’re American friend, Bush will loose the election to that Clinton woman, she will fund all the STR (and abortion) you can handle and still no real advances will be made, but some spurious advance will be made and it will be championed from the rooftops with a big I told you so. Supporters will grab onto this with the desperation of a drowning man in order to vindicate the embarrassment of years of failure but still they will not acknowledge the many hundreds of thousands of embryonic human life’s that have been killed.

27 April 2008 at 15:20  
Anonymous the recusant said...


Such a fine name, you’re meant to calm the lion not be one, never mind. Did you not watch video, do you not understand the churches position on Human vs Animal life, the history of pacemaker research is immaterial to the argument of Human/Animal Hybrids and lest you think the cardinal just an ignorant priest, he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh followed by his teacher training certificate where he was employed by Fife County Council as a teacher of maths and science for five years. I dare say he understand the Science better that you or I.
No as for that tired old calumny about condoms here’s a challenge, look at the AIDS/HIV infection figures for sub Saharan countries and tell us all here on His Graces blog which countries have the lowest infection rates, and compare them with those that freely distribute you precious bits of rubber or those whose governments have implemented the (however imperfect) ABc policies. Educate your self a bit more before spreading your falsehoods and slander, you’re propaganda could kill some one.
“But it seems a brief examination of the HIV/AIDS rates of those African countries with a large Catholic population shows that the Church’s accusers have not done their homework, or are deliberately misreporting the facts. Available statistics show that countries with large Catholic populations have significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS infections than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.”
“Just from 2003 statistics(World Factbook/‘CIA’), a new world opens. Burundi(62% Catholic) had a 6% AIDS infection rate, Angola(38% Catholic) had a 3.9% rate, Ghana(some regions 33% Catholic) had a 3.1% rate, Nigeria(Muslim and Christian) had a 5.4% rate, and Uganda(33% Catholic) had a rate of 4.1%. Countries with low Catholic populations, such as Botswana(5% Catholic), had a 37.3% AIDS rate, and Swaziland(20% Catholic) had a 38.8% rate. And so it goes on”
And finally Daniel who do you think provides by far the largest aid package to Sub Saharan Africa in terms of Hospitals, Nurses/Doctors and care for the dying, the EU, the UN the USA or the Roman Catholic Church, well who’s have thought it eh, will you have the character to champion that, go figure!

27 April 2008 at 15:46  
Anonymous Daniel said...

@the recusant.

Given the ABc's batchelors degree (in Chemistry!), I am, in fact, more qualified to discuss the science in these matters than he.

As far as I'm concerned a Batchelor's isn't enough to lick my boots in understanding the theoretical, practical and ethical issues surrounding the creation of these hybrids. Ignorant Priest? Damn right - he's spreading untruths based on unproven 2000 year old superstitious claptrap - I am a man of Science and evidence and the truth.

In fact, I'd welcome a discussion on the Science with the church, something it repeatedly fails to understand and then trots out lies based on dogma, much the same as in the abortion debate.

He is deliberately scaremongering using inflammatory language to further the political cause of the RCC, so I'll take no lecture from him (or you) in these matters either.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we - your 'tired old calumny' as you put it, is killing people - thousands of people each year - and not just in Sub-saharan Africa, but right across the world. Not my estimation, but that of the UN and pretty much every NGO (non-religoius) working in this area. Google yields vast amounts of peer-reviewed work in this area.

My propoganda could kill someone - pray, do tell? I'm fascinated to know how? I think you'll find its the right-wing(nuttery) of the church in these matters doing, by far, the most damage - it hates knowledge and it hates progress, since all are seen as a threat to the received wisdom of those on high in the RCC who fear more for their own way of life than they care about providing others with the tools to live theirs, free from disease, ignorance and the venegeful spite of your "loving" God.

27 April 2008 at 18:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The Roman Church doesn't just preach that the use of condoms isn't acceptable. It also preaches that sex outside marriage isn't acceptable. The reason that HIV/AIDS is spreading is that people are having unprotected sex outside marriage too much. But in doing so, they're picking and choosing which rule to follow. I'm afraid that this isn't the fault of the Roman Church, it's the fault of (oh dear, and I'm not a feminist, but here goes) men. They're happy to ignore the Church's teaching on sex outside marriage, but just as happy to use the teaching on condoms as an excuse not to be 'inconvenienced'. There. I've said it. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

And you clearly didn't listen to or watch the video clip, since you haven't yet answered the question. What proof have you that you are right about life not beginning until some arbitrary point (about which scientists don't agree) and we're wrong that it doesn't begin at the beginning?

27 April 2008 at 19:38  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Just to stick my oar into a private war ... This particular atheist has no problem agreeing that life starts with conception.

Then again, depending on circumstances, I've no problem with killing either.

Yeah teah - ok, I'm going.

27 April 2008 at 20:39  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

what if science and reason were unable to detect the presence of god , how does that fit .
2000 yr old clap trap deserves a slightly more astute look at your view of god .

you are a chemist ??
then you will know about the variations in atoms that if even slightly out would mean no universe at all . there is somthing which you call coincidence which i call gods design . Whilst back tracking to the ultimate act of god or chance may not help you , i can only say that my experience of god is beyond the rational.

there is far more to the bible than meets the eye , its not just a string of meaningless barnum statements .

whilst in some respects the embryology bill is splitting hairs for me , the cardinals description of the point of creation of a unique human , is correct. no bsc needed , turning the debate into at what point life is recognisable , is very much an athiests discussion mr henry morgan

27 April 2008 at 22:00  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Hear o Israel

Read what I said - I agree with you on that.

I'm also entirely opposed to human/animal hybrids in any form, as I oppose not only xenotransplantation but also human/human transplantation.

The God stuff I just do not go along with though. That there was a Jesus of Nazareth - sure. God is another matter entirely. Virgin birth - no way: just a very clever young woman who was heading for a stoning if she couldn't make up a story good enough to convince her husband. Try that one in today's day and age...

And if - if - there's anything to the God stuff (I'm always prepared to concede I might be wrong in anything if someone can come up with real evidence (no, the Bible is no more evidence than is the Koran)), then whatever God is it certainly isn't human. So if Mary conceived Jesus with God, then doesn't that make Jesus a human/something-non-human hybrid?

27 April 2008 at 22:33  
Anonymous Homophobic Horse said...

I should have added Daniel, hedonism.

With bigot zeal
he says "I don't believe,
I feel"

"Nor do we require that entity in order to believe the human beings can lead moral, just and charitable lives."

Bad faith.

I also think we should kill parasites, the sick, the disabled, the paedophillic, the murderers.

No one can tell me why. I trolled the Richard Dawkins forum under the name "Anti-Globalism".

Read the Dawkins dip-shits squirm and hand-wring when I tell them we should kill parasites. One of them even tells me I'm not human.

But don't worry, I'll tell you what Daniel, I'll give you a god if you don't already believe in one, your god is man. Man knows good from evil, so powerful is man he can make anything good and anything evil. Man is the achiever and the creator, by his every whim do we find a way to serve. You would never align yourself against humanity by becoming a Nazi striving to create the superman.

27 April 2008 at 23:23  
Blogger Murray said...

"other churches" in Scotland, your grace? I thought that we were only "ecclesial communities" or some other joke.

28 April 2008 at 16:53  
Anonymous asian colonial subject said...

I would not presume to speak for His Grace,

But I believe His Grace is the leader of the Church of England, not the Church of Rome, thus, it is not him which endorses the declaration of protestant churches as "ecclesial communities"

30 April 2008 at 06:23  
Anonymous Simon Icke said...

Comments and observations by Simon Icke,Bucks.

Firstly On the Human/ Animal Hybrid Experiments:

There is not one shred of evidence that human /animal hybrid experiments will help one single person suffering from a degenerative disease. It seems the end, might justify the means? A Massive if! This is a completely false and emotive reason to experiment with nature and justify in playing God. That so many naive politicians state with such arrogance 'well just think of the millions it might help' they cry. When the truth is, this ethical experimentation at playing God with nature in such an unethical manner is likely to help no one!

But doesn't it sound so good to win popularity!

Secondly on Abortion:

It is a measure of how far our nation has fallen, that the sanctity of human life, no longer has any value with so many of our 'trendy liberal thinking MPs'. Listening to some of them speak in the House of Commons on Monday, at the second reading of the Human Embryo and Fertilisation Bill, was truly sickening.

As a nation we are only as civilised as we treat the most vulnerable amongst us. No one is more vulnerable and more undervalued in our society than the life of the unborn human child. Have we become so selfish, so callous that we just don't care anymore? Over 97% of the 200,000 plus abortions carried out every year in the UK are for social reasons only. How very sad.

It's about time the public were made aware of the reality of what really happens in our abortion clinics every day, rather than continuing to believe the myths and misinformation fed to them by the pro-abortionist. Often by people who have a vested interest the continuing success of this vile business. No wonder they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds lobbying MPs to protect their interest. All under the guise of women's rights, which it seems no MP dare question. (Well It's not PC is it).

Next time you meet a poor child from a poor neighbourhood, or a physically or mentally disabled person, or a person who has a cleft lip or club foot, or perhaps someone from an ethnic minority where males are more valued than females but were unfortunate to be born female instead of a wanted male....ask them as simple question, are you glad to be alive or do you wish your mother had exercised her right to choose; to abort you?

19 May 2008 at 00:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older