LETTERS UnChristian Act
Sir: Next week the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill returns to the House of Lords for further consideration. Is it too much to hope that even at this late stage the Government may have second thoughts and withdraw this detestable Bill?
During the course of its passage through Parliament attention has been primarily concentrated on the amendment which authorised experiments to be carried out on live human embryos and the amend- ments which altered the Abortion Act. In a way this has been unfortunate as it has given the impression that the evil lies only in the amendments, whereas in reality it lies in the original Bill. The amendments have just made an horrific Bill even worse.
Among many outrageous features, this Bill would authorise the bringing into being of human embryos with no other intention than that, if judged surplus to requirements, they should be deliberately left to die (whether or not experimented upon first). Furthermore, the death is to be not merely permissive but mandatory. By clause 14(1)(c) it is stipulated that a condi- tion of every licence authorising the stor- age of embryos shall be
that no . . . embryos shall be kept in storage for longer than the statutory storage period and, if stored at the end of the period, shall be allowed to perish . . .
The words `allowed to perish' are, of course, simply a mealy-mouthed modern euphemism for 'killed'.
This amounts to nothing less than com- pulsory capital punishment for human beings acknowledged on all sides to be wholly innocent. It is difficult to under- stand how honourable members and peers can allow their names to be associated with such iniquity.
Is it any wonder that earlier this year Cardinal Hume felt obliged to doubt open- ly whether England could any longer be regarded as a Christian country?
C. R. Fradd
5A Whitefield Road, New Milton, Hampshire
Previous page
