Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-114"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010315.5.4-114"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-15-Speech-4-1152
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Socialistische Partij (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-11-09--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Advocates of the further development and use of biotechnology expect all kinds of benefits. However, they cannot prove that there are no major drawbacks attached. Nor can opponents of a rapid deployment of biotechnology prove that the drawbacks are such that no deployment should ever take place. The truth will only emerge in the long term, perhaps in 30 or 50 years’ time. In the meantime, patience and research are called for. It is precisely that kind of patience that is lacking in Mr Purvis’s proposal. On the contrary, following on from what was discussed here last month in relation to the Bowe report, he wants to make it difficult for Member States to maintain the moratorium independently. His aim is to give scope for rapid commercial use wherever possible. It is remarkable that the parties grouped in the PPE, which call themselves Christian, are here throwing the door wide open to something, while they are still completely unsure as to whether they will have to explain it in retrospect as an improvement on God’s creation or as a further contribution to its progressive destruction. Instead of focusing all criticism on therapeutic cloning and voluntary euthanasia, it would have been more natural for these parties to be more critical on this of all points. I reject the Purvis report even more emphatically than I previously did the Bowe report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph