Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-29-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011129.1.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to join in the congratulations being expressed: our colleague, Mr Fiori, has done a tremendous job which has led to a mature and sound outcome. We Christian Democrats have taken a reserved attitude to the creation of human embryos for cloning, for therapeutic as well as reproductive purposes. On the other hand, we do not oppose the development of genetic technology; rather, we say ‘yes’ to research. But we are anxious for this to take place in a way which respects human dignity. A human life is of value in itself, right from its commencement, and therefore its dignity must be consciously protected.
During this past year, I have often heard it said that we cannot shackle science or call a halt to development. This is an irritatingly inaccurate and careless statement. We are all unanimous in agreeing that a certain type of development must be halted; after all, nobody in this room wishes to permit reproductive cloning. Here, at least, we remember the appalling lessons of history. But it would seem that some have forgotten that the racial hygienists at the beginning of the century were, in their day, leading scientists, not demons. They wished to help humanity within the framework of their own world of values, just like many people do today. For this reason it is essential that politicians now take the ethical responsibility which properly belongs to them. We must focus our attention on what kind of values are to form the direction in which we shall advance.
When discussing the ethics of genetic technology, people often raise the ogre of the threat of the superhuman; however the true danger lies not in the idea of creating the superhuman, but in the control of the ‘subhuman’. This takes concrete form in the shape of social hygiene, in which the aim is to isolate ‘wrong’ forms of life from the more favoured, and to destroy the unfit. A reminder of this has also been provided by the representatives of the disabled groups which have visited our committee: we must not create the type of society in which only the healthy are welcome.
In two senses at least, therapeutic and reproductive cloning are no different from one another. In the technical sense, these involve the same procedure; and if we look at the case from the point of view of the embryo, in both cases this becomes a utility for someone or something other than its own, unique purpose. How can we ensure that a subsequent step will not be towards human cloning, simply on the grounds that, technically speaking, we have already done this? There needs to be serious discussion of this now, so that we are aware of what we are really deciding."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples