Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-07-Speech-4-096"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000907.2.4-096"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-07-Speech-4-0972
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen Kristillinen Liitto (1999-07-20--2001-05-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this morning our group discussed our attitude to paragraph 5 of the motion for a resolution on cloning, which states that there can be no difference made between cloning for reproductive purposes and any other sort. The matter is a controversial one and depends very much on one’s chosen perspective. There are two points of view, with no real great difference between them. In the first place, technically speaking it is a question of the same sort of procedure. Secondly, philosophically speaking, if the action is examined from the point of view of the foetus, there is no difference at all. In either case it is being used as a tool, as something to use, and not as a living being with intrinsic value. Everyone is touchingly unanimous in their opinion that cloning for purposes of reproduction is unethical. My own profound concern relates to what grounds we have for preventing it, and I am someone who has studied philosophy. Are our arguments later to be abandoned on the basis of the fact that we actually already clone anyway, technically speaking? Does our purpose matter in the end, if the deed is the same? I voted against Amendment No 5 today only because, in my opinion, it would have required justification. However, I do not think that there are any grounds for making a distinction from the point of view of technical methods or the foetus. For that reason, discrimination such as this cannot be approved without the proper kind of thorough discussion."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph