Respect for the person and scientific research

(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the
advancement of public health.

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology
are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however
they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their
origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred
from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies.
Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the
human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of
persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is
not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable
risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed
consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate
to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of
generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible
to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.


Alan Keys:  Help Me Stop Tax-Funded "Research" Using Aborted Babies

Bill Clinton last year defied the intent of Congress and tortured the law
to allow Frankenstein-like experiments on aborted babies, and
applications for this "research" have been received by the National Institute for
Health.  BUT THE ACTUAL GRANTS OF MONEY WILL NOT BE MADE UNTIL SOMETIME
IN MARCH!!!  So if you will help me, we can still persuade President Bush
and his new Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to put a STOP
on releasing these funds pending further review -- and eventually
eliminate such grants altogether.

And make no mistake, these grants are evil and unnecessary!  We know that
abortion's destruction of innocent human life is immoral.  It is utterly
unethical for the medical and scientific communities to profit from the
tragic deaths of unborn children.  Not only that, current stem cell
treatments successfully use donated adult cells.  And ethical research
using stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of newborn living infants
is just as promising in curing disease -- if not more so -- than research
using cells from aborted children.  So NO federal funding -- none of your
tax dollars -- should ever go into buying and using aborted babies for
research.

HELP ME STOP FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTED TISSUE RESEARCH BY CLICKING HERE:
http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petition.html?name=keyes_anti_nih=17463

and signing the petition to President Bush and Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson.  IF WE SHOUT LOUDLY RIGHT NOW, WE CAN SHUT DOWN
THIS EVIL AND GRISLY USE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS.  And this in turn greatly
reduces the money available for buying baby parts -- a prime source of
abortionists' income and a driving market force promoting abortion.

Then please do one more thing.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
That way, we hope to get one million petitions to President Bush and
Secretary Thompson before the deadline.  And thank you for taking the
time and having the compassion to add your name to this petition AND
forwarding this email.

God bless you!

Yours for Life,
Alan Keyes

From: "Alan Keyes Network" <ambassador@keyes2000.org>
To: <maggibauer3@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:07:28 -0800
Subject: Help Me Stop Tax-Funded "Research" Using Aborted Babies

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Clinton Rule Attempted to Allow for Research on Unborn Children
By Jason Pierce
CNS Editorial Assistant
March 21, 2001

Washington, DC -- Pro-life organizations are fired up over a pending
federal regulation, devised during the last days of the Clinton
administration, that could, according to critics, redefine the terms
"fetus" and "child" and result in the legal use of newborns for scientific
research.

The regulation, which was cleared by the Clinton administration on January
17, but then postponed by the Bush administration, states that a newborn
is still considered a "fetus" until it is determined the baby will live by
"independently maintaining a heartbeat and respiration." Only when this
determination is made is the baby considered a "child," according to the
rule.

When the Bush Administration took office, it immediately placed a 60-day
moratorium on the implementation of Clinton's rule as well as many others.
The moratorium expired March 19, but last week, a group of pro-life
congressmen managed to convince Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson to extend the moratorium on the rule by another 60 days.

Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ), Chris Smith (R-NJ), James Barcia (D-MI) and
Joseph Pitts (R-PA) now find themselves at the center of the controversy,
following their letter to Thompson.

"If this rule is allowed to proceed, the position of the federal
Department of Health and Human Services with regard to 'human research
subjects' will be that babies born alive are not necessarily children,"
the congressmen wrote. "This cannot and should not be the position of an
agency tasked with defending children and protecting life."

An HHS spokesman declined to comment on the rule saying it is under
review.

Michael Schwartz, Vice President of Concerned Women for America zeroed in
on the regulation's attempt to redefine the terms, fetus and child.

"What really is of concern here are definitions. You don't pass laws
embodying definitions. A law is supposed to be a directive," Schwartz
said. "To try to find a legislative fix to a definitional problem is the
wrong thing to do unless we can connect it to some comprehensive, ...
protective law for human research."

Schwartz added that the fetus regulation was actually proposed in 1997,
"but like so many things, it slipped people's attention until right before
it was supposed to be enacted."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:  Clinton Rule Attempted to Allow for Research on Unborn Children
Source:   Cybercast News Service; March 21, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents

by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

[Moderator's Note:  Dr. Reardon is an author, biomedical ethicist, and  director of the Elliot Institute.]

Destructive experimentation on human embryos, and even well-developed human
fetuses, is now widely practiced in many of the world's most technologically
developed (and spiritually senile) nations.

Until now, most governments have simply turned a blind eye to the deliberate
killing of embryonic human beings.

Until now, the embryonic children created by in vitro fertilization were
created with the intent that at least some would survive to maturity. Each
new life began with at least some chance (about two percent, on average) that
he or she would selected for implantation and survive to birth.  It was only
the "excess" or "defective" who were selected to die for the sake of
advancing scientific knowledge about embryonic human life.

But on December 19, 2000, the world slid down another section of the slippery
slope of our own dehumanization. On that day, at the behest of Prime Minister
Tony Blair, the British Parliament passed legislation to allow the cloning of
human beings under the strict provision that ALL of these cloned human beings
MUST be killed.  

This law moves the British government away from being a passive observer of
the killing of innocent unborn children into being a direct regulator of the
killings.  Under the new law, human lives may be created using cloning
technology only when the creators agree, under threat of the law, to destroy
the embryonic child.

Through this "compromise" legislation, which forbids the carrying to term of
cloned children, the government hopes to clear the path for British
scientists to be at the forefront of research into eugenic human engineering.
In fact, this compromise is a condition that eugenicists gladly embraceâ"at
least for the time being.   

These government ordered killings are being disguised as regulations for
"therapeutic cloning."  But exactly for whom is this scientific research
"therapeutic?"  Not for the cloned human embryo.  Not for the donor of the
genes that are cloned.  Not for anyone. No, the word "therapeutic" is simply
being attached to this dead-end cloning to suggest that this research has
some imminent medical value.  

Furthermore, it is most notable that these experiments will contribute little
or nothing to our understanding of basic biology that could not be learned
equally as well from the use of animal tissues. But, then, experiments in
human cloning are not really about advancing science at all, though they are
being defended under that guise.

The real goal behind the push for human cloning is to further desensitize the
public to the manipulation and destruction of human embryos. This is an
important step in the eugenicists' march toward establishing complete
"quality control" over human procreation.  It is another step, in science and
in the law, toward the annihilation of that old Judeo-Christian ethic which
regards all human life as sacred.

In passing its "therapeutic cloning" law, the British Parliament has clearly
rejected the old ethic and is standing squarely on the side of the
eugenicists' "new ethic."  According to this new ethic, human life is simply
"complex biological matter" that can be manipulatedâ"and discardedâ"at will.  
It is an ethic that inevitably leads to a totalitarian mentality that seeks
to create a utopian "Brave New World" by controlling who is allowed to be
born into the world and how quickly the sick and "unfit" are targeted to
leave the world.

Do not underestimate the historical importance of this event.  In clearing
the path for human cloning, the British government has clearly become an
advocate of the new ethic built on the premise of defining ourselves as
unsacred human animals.

Furthermore, in creating the mandate that all human clones shall be used only
for experimental purposes that must end in their destruction, the British
government has established a new precedent for human segregation.

Under British law, genetically engineered human beings do not have the same
rights and protections as other human beings.  This will be an important
precedent as eugenicists begin to pursue the recommendations of Joseph
Fletcher, among others, regarding the creation of  human-animal hybrids and
brainless organ donors.

G. K. Chesterton, the British wit who was always a thorn in the side of the
early eugenics movement, once quipped: "Morality is like art. Somewhere you
need to draw a line."

Chesterton saw to the heart of the matter.  In the last fifty years, in vitro
fertilization, contraception, abortion, mercy killing, managed  health care,
and genetic engineering have all blurred the boundaries that once defined
society's understanding of procreation and death.  Now, with the acceptance
of "therapeutic cloning," another line defending a sacred view of human life
is being erased.  Soon, nothing will stand in the way of the eugenicists' new
ethic.

But there is still hope.  The old ethic, the view that life is sacred, is
still held by the vast majority of "normal" folk.  It is long past time for
those who believe in the sacredness of life to speak up, to act, and to
vigorously resist the advances of this new ethic.  

May God save us all.  The eugenicists won't; they will only save the "best."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents
Source:   Article by Dr. David Reardon; December 27, 2000

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

British Medial Experts Say Unborn Children Feel Pain During Abortion

London, England -- Thousands of abortions may cause pain to the unborn
child, say doctors preparing to debate the contentious issue of "fetal
awareness."

Professor Vivette Glover, of London, is calling for all abortions between
17 and 24 weeks to be performed under anaesthetic. Although 90 percent of
abortions in England take place before 13 weeks concern has resurfaced
about those carried out during the next 11 weeks. At present, some
abortions during the period of 13 to 24 weeks are carried out without
anaesthesia.

Prof Glover, of Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, who is to chair a
conference on the issue at the Royal Institution in November, said
yesterday that many questions remained about when the fetus became
sentient. She said: "Between 17 and 26 it is increasingly possible that it
starts to feel something and that abortions done in that period ought to
use anaesthesia."

Other experts disagreed. One scientist in the United States told the
Pro-Life Infonet she knows of numerous medical and scientific experts in
the field from all over the world who believe that embroys (the embryonic
period is from fertilization to the end of the 8th week - beginning of the
9th week) can feel pain by at least the 8th week of pregnancy.

Kevin Male, spokesperson for the British pro-life organization Life, said,
"This is more evidence that human life exists from the moment of
conception. We have known it all along, and I suspect that everybody else
knows it subconsciously, but will not admit it."

Prof Glover acknowledged that by raising the matter she could be providing
fodder for pro-life advocates. She said: "I am pro-choice, but one should
not muddle the two. One should think about how one is doing [the abortion]
in the most pain-free way."

According to one study, aborted children have been heard to cry from 21
weeks and some doctors believe that distress can be felt as early as 13
weeks.

A study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that
it was not easy to define or evaluate fetal awareness, in particular
awareness of pain. It concluded that the unborn child was not "aware"
before 26 weeks.

Dr Gillian Penney, of the Aberdeen Maternity Hospital and chairman of the
Royal College's induced abortion guideline group, said "The fetus would
not be capable of experiencing what we would perceive as pain." The
evidence that underpinned the Royal College's conclusion focused on nerve
connections between two crucial areas of the developing brain, the cortex
and the thalamus. Until they develop after 26 weeks, sensations of pain
cannot be experienced, Penney said.

Professor Peter Hepper, of the fetal behaviour research center at Queen's
University, Belfast, said there was not enough evidence to say that the
unborn child experienced pain before 26 weeks. But he believed it was
"better to be safe than sorry".

The Women and Children's Welfare Fund charity says that the unborn child
is less well protected from pain in Britain than animals. There was no
legislation to protect the unborn child, the group said.

Steven Ertelt / Sally Winn <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   British Medial Experts Say Unborn Children Feel Pain During Abortion
Source:   London Telegraph, British Broadcasting Corporation; August 28, 2000

*     *     *     *     *     *

HEALTH CANADA SET TO APPROVE HUMAN EMBRYO EXPERIMENTATION

OTTAWA, Jan. 25, 2001 (LSN.ca) - The situation in Canada regarding
the vast moral minefield of new reproductive technologies (NRT) is
admittedly a disaster with no formal law in place banning
experimentation on unborn babies. With experimentation in the field
involving human embryo cloning, animal-human hybrids and the like,
Canada's voluntary moratorium on such practices is laughable.

A report in today's National Post reveals that Health Minister Allan
Rock is set to release a national policy on NRT which would ban the
most grotesque experiments (such as growing embryos in artificial
wombs), but give government sanction, and allow funding for
destructive experimentation on live human embryos up to 14 days
development. As these considerations are still under review there is
an urgent need to present objections to the Health Minister.

The arguments to allow destruction of and experimentation on human
embryos center around stem cells and the potential they may hold for
eventually finding cures to deadly diseases. However such stem cells
can be procured from the umbilical cords and placentas of live born
babies and can also be extracted from adult human cells.

Concerns may be expressed to:

The Hon. Allan Rock, Minister of Health
minister@www.hc-sc.gc.ca
Minister's Office - Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Bldg., Tunney's Pasture
P.L. 0913C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9
Fax: 613-952-1154

*     *     *     *     *     *
Hubert Hueppe, vice-president of the German
parliament's bioethics commission, described so-called therapeutic cloning
as "far worse" than reproductive cloning because "humans would be created
with the sole purpose of being killed." Many scientists, politicians and
church leaders, both Catholic and protestant, have spoken out against
embryo research in Germany. Joerg-Dietrich Hoppe, head of country's
association of medical doctors, suggested that his British counterparts
were putting profit before morality. [National Post online, 23 August]