<% ballot="189132" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

If unborn children are valuable enough to science as an experimentation, maybe we should look at the whole issue of abortion itself and admit that unborn children are in fact people worthy of protection.
H Hughes, Canada

There's a frightening similarity in attitude to the 'doctors' who experimented on Jews in the death camps. Nobody saw the "their going to die anyway ..." kind of logic as justification for those experiments. And interestingly enough, the Nazis didn't really think of a Jew as a person either. Do we now believe that the ends DO justify the means?
Paul Jungwirth, Canada

It's better to experiment on foetuses than already born individuals.
Michael, USA

If one experiment on an unborn saves the lives of thousands, or even millions from disease, and physical problems, then yes it should be done. The good of the many outweighs the good of the one. And the advancement and preservation of the human species is top priority.
Ryan Masters, USA

By reducing the human being that is the foetus to nothing more than experimental tissue, we open ourselves up to ignoring the sanctity of life and all its attributes. No one is created the same and we do not control all things. The sooner the modern world accepts its limitations the sooner they can become all that God wants them to be. We are NOT, I repeat, NOT, the controllers of all things and we NEVER will be. You may believe I am narrow minded and believe that I never will be as "advanced" or "sophisticated" as "MODERN" society, but I know that I am much further advanced than I could ever hope to be if I were to depend on strictly "human" intelligence.
Patty Lutter, United States

Oh dear. It seems a ridiculously large number of people have totally declined to read the introduction, before spouting a load of pious rubbish about the suffering of foetuses, the evils of abortion and Dr Frankenstein scientists.
I would refer them to Paul Jones' comments about balancing the arguments, knee jerk responses etc. It is, frankly, a very poor argument to say that this research would be wrong because it would inflict suffering on foetuses. I'm certain that the foetuses in question would be anaesthetised during the research.
The whole point of this research is to find a cure for babies with SCID who currently die, no doubt in great pain, after being brought to term by mothers who no doubt love them dearly.
Having an abortion is a stressful and upsetting procedure for most women and usually their relations and friends too. However, I suspect that it is nowhere near as upsetting as losing a dearly wanted baby after it has been born.
Richard Galloway, UK

The foetus is a living human being and should be treated as such. Would you want someone experimenting on you in your mother's womb? All life, at all stages of development, should be protected and treated with dignity.
Thomas D Adams, USA

Not only do I feel it is unethical to experiment on babies this way, I feel that if this practise became established, it would be even more difficult to pass laws protecting the foetus. As it is, it has only recently been recognised that foetuses being aborted after approximately 22 weeks suffer excruciating pain from the procedure. The more we learn about foetal development, the more we realise we have no right to tamper with the life of the foetus.
Cheryl Ferguson, Canada

This whole idea of experimentation on the unborn has an element of deja vu to it. History has already judged previous human experimentation as barbaric. Today's attempts will be judged similarly when the book is written this generation.
John Hof, Canada

I begin a priori with the knowledge that unborn human life is human, not just a sanitised 'foetus.' The 'foetus' or rather, the unborn child, deserves the utmost respect, especially since that life is innocent and totally dependent on the good will of other people. Experimenting on an unborn child is extremely difficult to accept, especially since that child has no say in the matter and is completely defenceless. How would you feel if today you were crippled for life because a doctor experimented on you whilst in the womb? This scenario is reminiscent of the medical experiments conducted by Nazi doctors in WWII concentration camps. I say NO to experimenting on unborn children. If we can do this to them while in the womb, why not after they have passed through the birth canal?
Domenic Nicassio, Canada

After looking at others' comments, I'm glad to see that so many other people know what's right. Would those who favor experimentation on the unborn child allow themselves to be given up for the advancement of humanity? Too many people just don't care enough unless a situation directly affects them.
Stephen Huey, USA

Even in the first few replies there has been many comments on the lack of humanity of such work. Surely it is inhumane to allow another human to suffer without doing everything reasonable to prevent that suffereing. Providing this work is carried out on embyos which are both too young to survive naturally and have a fatal genetic condition anyway, then it would be inhumane NOT to attempt such work. It's very easy to have black and white, knee jerk response about work such as this. However there is a need to balance the possible suffering of the foetus against the very real suffereing of SCID patients.
Paul Jones, England

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Scientists are full of the arrogance of their own cleverness and self-perceived benefit to mankind.
K W Garland, UK

Currently available methods of GE have been described as a blind shooting of foreign genetic material into the hosts DNA. Not only are the methods not perfected, but the long term results of playing with genes, even in food industy, have not been researched and are still unknown. Experimenting on fetuses in such a way is disrespectful of the deepest laws of nature, the laws that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. I say we don't play with it just yet.
Mate Marusic, Croatia

There are some things we should generally recognise as the boundaries of science. One of them is that we do not experiment on humans without their consent. This is when society should check the scientific community, when it seems that their zeal for discovery has undermined their good judgement. Abortion is a necessary evil of our society, experimenting on these sad lives is just evil.
Dan Cutts, USA

Could an unborn child feel physical pain? Could an unwanted fetus feel unloved, if not consciously, subliminally? Why add to his pain then?
Joy Alcala, Philippines

Finding a cure for many diseases such as the ones mentioned would be very beneficial for other foetuses suffering the same medical condition. If I had terminal cancer, I would volunteer to undergo some of the tests that would eventually prove to be beneficial in finding the cure of some of these diseases that are destroying lives. I also agree that these techniques could be used to "design" the human race. This might sound like tampering with nature but it really is not. These techniques will only catalyze the process of evolution. We just want to make life easier and if we can do that by providing the next generation with more "fit" genes then so be it. I think that life would be infinitely better if we can get rid of all the hereditary diseases that we now know to be hereditary. Imagine a life without having to deal with heart disease, diabetes, schizophrenia, etc.
Jerry Perez, USA

I fail to understand why anyone would want to commit such acts. Surely to consider doing those things would be to draw ourselves parallel to Adolf Hitler in the quest for perfect children?
Thomas Gallini, UK

I am not a religious person but I think such an experiment will wound the dignity of human life or whatever is left of it.
Ahmet Cavusoglu, Turkey

I think this is far too complex an issue for most people here to fully understand, myself included. Whilst I do not object to abortion, the thought of experimenting on the unborn is unattractive. However, one has to consider how many lives could be saved in the future as a result of the research. I voted in support of the experimentation for this survey, but would be unwilling to commit fully to either side of this issue until I was in possession of all the facts.
L Taylor, UK

I think that we should at least give it a shot. Who knows what great medical techniques could come of it. I say that the risk is very much worth the reward.
Todd Graham, USA

Although there will be some benefit from experimentation on the pre-born, I find it horrid to think that we have now delegated the most innocent of the human race to become disposable at our whim. We have to draw a line somewhere and I think this is it.
Doris Darvasi, Canada D.

Abortion is fundamentally wrong. Any attempts to say that good is coming out of abortion is like saying that good can come out of murder because there is one less mouth to feed.
P. Redman, UK

Since it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception, then humans should not be allowed to be murdered by abortion or treated like guinea pigs by experimentation.
Hal Adam, Canada

Why foetuses.......not needed. The world's jails are full of low lifes that can be experimented on. Yes child molesters, violent criminals. Let them pay their debt to society by using their bodies to experiment on. The advantage is clear They could tell the scientists just how much it hurts. Leave the babies alone...we have enough useless adults around to use.
Dave, Singapore

A foetus cannot defend itself and protest, just as animals can't in experiments.
Alex Kent, UK

We should not experiment on the unborn destined for abortion. But we should view the mattter consistently. Either the unborn are nothing more than hospital rubbish, which is where they end up when aborted, or they deserve protection.
Robert Hunter, USA

For those who object, whether it be on religious grounds or moral grounds, ought to consider where we would be in the present world without experimentation, regardless of what field it might be in. I call it progress, and I fully support the intelligent scientists who have gained the knowledge to be able to further our development in the world that we live in.
Michael Nicholson, USA

I say no, but if it could be proved that the unborn child is actually just a collection of cells rather than alive with consciousness then yes, as it would just be the same as experimenting on cells in a petri dish. However, we cannot prove this and thus ethically should not experiment on a defenceless life, whether it be child or animal.
Paul Wales, UK

The mother must give consent. If this procedure is successful, then the unborn will have contributed to the well-being of future generations and save lives.
John Atkins, Malaysia

This issue reminds me of the cloning issue. When will this wish of man's to cure all and be the all stop? Man should not be experimenting with a life, despite what anyone says the aborted one is still a life. Is man trying to justify abortions in that, o.k. the baby isn't needed now, let's not waste the parts we could use. If this is the stage we have reached then keep right on cloning and clone things to experiment on, man will still face those issues he runs from, the deciding of what happens (this is willful) should not be made by scientist whatever their good intentions. Even those who don't belive in god know there is a greater something out there.
Ms. Foster, Trinidad

I don't think anyone who agrees with abortion can disagree with experimenting on a foetus; either a foetus is an unborn child or a piece of dead meat. I believe the former.
Richard Smith, UK

The unborn child is also a life form which has a right to live normally. If the experiments conducted do not succeed and leave the child in the state of a vegetable, it is not ethically fair to that living being. What about the parents of that child? Don't doctors have a moral obligation to society?
Sumitha Subrayan, USA

To me, this issue is the same as abortion. The issue is whether or not the foetus is classified as a human being with full rights, or not. Currently we allow abortion on foetus' up until 24 weeks, and therefore to me the issue appears to have already been decided. The issue of the rights of the foetus is a larger issue than this, and may merit further discussion as a result of this technology, but I do not believe decisions about experimentation can be taken as a separate issue - the Nazi's did that in the concentration camps. That might seem a hysterical analogy, it isn't meant to be, just thought provoking.
A Legge, UK

It's very hard to give a black and white answer. My gut reaction is NO! But I am sure that a logical case can be made for saying yes. The older I get, the more I am convinced that circumstances can justify something that seems abhorrent at the outset. One thing for sure, no matter what public opinion espouses, somebody, somewhere in the world will take the first step down this road.
John Vincent, UK

Anyone who asks for an abortion has already quite explicitly rejected having any responsibility for the foetus. Having just asked to kill it, they can hardly expect to be taken seriously when they want to "protect its rights". After that, the foetus is in the same category as any human body that is useful to science and medicine. And we should not use the word "experiment" as a scare word, as though Frankenstein monsters were the issue. Every treatment and every disection is in some sense an experiment, and that is all that is involved here.
Jon Livesey, USA

Experiments on human life should never be an option for us. These experiments are a strict violation to the sanctity of human life.
Gabriele Ickler, USA

Abortion is grotesque enough without the additional steps the medical industry seems to be taking. A few years ago the American Medical Association came out in favor of killing severely retarded infants (who had been born alive) and harvesting their organs for transplant. Other doctors have advocated using the tissues of aborted fetuses for research or for therapeutic uses. Now this lot want to perform vivisection on living fetuses before killing them. Where will all this end? Is Hitler back?
James Castro, USA

I don't agree with termination unless and only if it is to save the life of the mother. I feel that if such experimentation were allowed we would then be on a very slippery slope. I am all for science finding new cures and new ways to treat people but the unborn child should not be toyed with. As a nurse I am all too aware that abortion is too often used because the child is not wanted rather than when the health of the mother is at serious risk or the fetus has major health problems. Already healthy fetus' are terminated because incorrect in vitro diagnosis has shown Downes Syndrome, only at post mortem to be found in some cases that the fetus was healthy. I think that mentioning the possibility of experimentation for the greater good may put extra pressure on a couple facing an already difficult decision.
Audrey Holloway, USA

As a member of the medical community, I believe that we are going down a slippery slope from which we may not be able to climb up, by making fuzzy the distinction between what is life and what isn't. We tread in dangerous waters when we act as a god by declaring a potential child (however fatally diseased) worthy of medical experimentation. A reminder from the Nazi death camps in the past...where camp doctors performed unspeakable experiments on condemmed prisonors in the name of science. This also brings to mind, the mindless experiments that some countries performed with radiation exposer to unsuspecting jail hospital inmates. Where has the value of life gone? Should we be asking this question when we accept late term partial birth abortions, experiments on prison inmates, or in this case of a helpless unborn child... however condemmed to an early death? Who can say even a brief life is of no value? We all are terminal - we will all die someday of something!
Ron Kemper, USA

If it benefits mankind - why not?
Jasmine Guha, UK

No for all reasons. In addition science will never perfect anything - in light of the human being, even if a human being was perfected do you think he/she will live forever?
Zahir Mughal, UK

I think we should strongly back these scientists as foetal medicine can bring many changes. This is because the period in the womb is a special time, never like at any stage of life. Immune systems are undifferentiated, neural cells are multiplying, events which would not take place in the adult or even child's body.
Danny Lim, UK

How low can we take the standard of truth and what is right, because of our selfishness. We call it a Fetus, therefore it is an "it", not a person. Hitler used these tricks to justify the death of the Jews, and then many others justified experiments on them for the common good. What's next? I am very glad that God's Word is a standard that never bends to human desire and manipulation, whether by someone in the Church or outside, whether by a President or someone poor. We will all be judged by his Word. Yet, the world does not care because it conflicts with their own personal desires and selfishness, and the cycle continues downward in corruption. Peter wrote in the Bible that there is an opportunity to "escape the corruption that is in the world through lust". Through Jesus Christ only there is HOPE and stability as we live according to the standard he has established.
Dan McMillen, USA

Each step in this direction strips us of a little bit of our humanity. This is not a "Brave New World" where human beings are just resources, and regardless of your opinion of abortion, a foetus is still human, albeit not complete. The philosopher Martin Heidegger had well defined views on using people as raw resources- what's the end result of that philosophy? I am frightened to imagine. How far is this procedure from harvesting unwanted foetuses and then growing them into full-term babies in a lab for the purposes of experimentation? I shudder to think
Izaak Bozof, USA

No. It would take an extreme benefit to society to justify the taking of a life for scientific research. And even then, it should only be on a case by case basis. Though having said this, I cannot imagine what situation could be so dire as to require stretching our ethics so far. As to the arguments put forth in the affirmative I must say, not proven.
William Peak, Texas

The foetus is not actually aware of what is happening. It does not have any feelings or emotions. So it is probably in the best interest of the humanity to let this research go ahead because it will save lives in the long run if used properly.
Tariq Mahmood, United Kingdom

Absolutely yes but only so we can build better and healthy nations. It would be foolish to let such an opportunity go away without even trying. If our generation do this it will be great step forward.
Ints Valcis, Latvia

No I do not think these kind of experiments should be carried out, but having said that I would much rather have these experiments on unborn children, than unwilling animals which have no say what so ever. At least we are experimenting on our own kind. I can think of one or two people in the not to distance past that would be proud of us. Makes you wonder why we called their activities at the time war crimes.
John Foster, England

I have beta thalassaemia minor. This has affected my life somewhat, I used to have periods of quite profound tiredness when I was a teenager without any idea why. But I still don't like the idea of this kind of activity. There are so many, many things to do which are obvious, simple, and generous for those who are alive! Why do so many stupid things in the sphere of the ordinary world, and then extend the stupidity to the quiet and (hopefully) private world of unborn babies? Where is the common sense here? Do I have to argue from a Christian point of view to say something so self-evidently true? Has it come to that so quickly?
Mark Grindell, Australia (Perth)

Absolutely not. Just because we can is no reason why we should. It is very much the thin end of the wedge ... after the unborn and elderly are eliminated, scientists will be coming after YOU. Say no now.
Fiona, UK

Playing God with unborn children is like a man who looks at a bird flap his wings and fly and then proceeds to jump off a building with his new found knowledge. My belief is not one of Christian origin but simply of taking a stance in favour of evolution and time. Technology and medicine have happened in leaps and bounds in the past 50 years, and it is my understanding that such genetic altering will lead to megalomaniac doctors dictating what the future of mankind is to be. No one wants to see death or suffrage in the world, but the harsh truth of it all is that these serve as harsh mechanisms to rising population and overcrowding Everyone in the world is unique and genetic tampering in unborn children will become the stepping stone for a worldwide stereotype. These people are the new Hitlers, he wanted to eliminate the Jews for what they were, and create a race of idyllic strong 6ft blue-eyed blonde men, now they tell us that they are going to tamper with our genes to make us taller, change characteristics, and one day make us smarter. It is my belief that the world is genetically sound, and the time, effort and money injected into genetic research could be better spent the world over.
Glen McGuire, Northern Irish in Scotland

I think people should first, consider what exactly they believe in, then decide accordingly. If they believe that life evolved by blind chance from elemental atoms and simple molecules to more complex replicating molecules, then there can be no ethical dilemma, surely? If people believe there is a prime mover that set off the whole chain of events it should lead to the idea of moral right or wrong and the evaluation of all ones values, not just those most sensational or seemingly outrageous. Then, and only then, persuade your representatives to put forward your views in parliament. If life is just an accident or byproduct of molecular evolution then the only ethics to consider are those conforming to the prevailing majority, so only a random polling is necessary to determine the majority viewpoint.
Tom Bowshall, Australia

If it can provide positive benefits to mankind, then it seems foolish to rule it out, if the foetus is going to be aborted anyway.
C Bellamy

It is wrong to experiment on anybody that has no say or control. The next thing, we will need to kill old people for the bed space in hospitals, or experiment on them because they are going to die anyway. No one person or group of people should ever have that God-like power to manipulate others lives for their own gain, specially, if the victim was never given a choice. Feel free to experiment on yourselves, and others that have given consent.
Steve Greenwood, USA

Is nothing sacred? A line has to be drawn somewhere, or it will be open season on anyone the way it was in the German and Japanese prison camps in World War Two.
Hugh Jones, Canada

Hitler's spirit is still alive and well in the world. Seems we forget the lessons of history or attempt to justify our actions to better mankind. Mankind always attacks the helpless. The blood of the unborn cry for vengeance. Soon God will avenge the death of the innocent.
Larry Bryant, USA

I don't agree with termination unless and only if it is to save the life of the mother. I feel that if such experimentation were allowed we would then be on a very slippery slope. I am all for science finding new cures and new ways to treat people but the unborn child should not be toyed with. As a nurse I am all too aware that abortion is too often used because the child is not wanted rather than following the government guidelines that it should only be done when the health of the mother is at serious risk or the foetus would have major health problems . Already healthy foetuses are terminated because incorrect in vitro diagnosis has shown downs syndrome only at post mortem to be found in some cases that the foetus was healthy. I think that mentioning the possibility of experimentation for the greater good may put extra pressure on a couple facing an already difficult decision .
Audrey Holloway, USA

It's very hard to give a black and white answer. My gut reaction is NO! But I am sure that a logical case can be made for saying yes. The older I get, the more I am convinced that circumstances can justify something that seems absolutely abhorrent at the outset. One thing for sure, no matter what public opinion espouses, somebody, somewhere in the world will take the first step down this road.
John Vincent, UK

If the foetus is to be aborted it will soon be dead tissue anyway. I can't see the difference between this and the use of a dead person's kidney for transplant or research. Ultimately an aborted foetus is just a lump of dead cells and if these can be put to good use why not? There is no reason why healthy foetuses which are going to be terminated cannot be used in the same way. However we have to make sure that this could never result in some form of foetus trade. There should never be a payment for them.
Andy Guilbert, UK

Most of your respondents feel passionately about how pointless it is to do this kind of experimentation and degrading to the human race and the sanctity of life. I think however a lot of these arguments would fall by the wayside if the human race was threatened by a virus which this kind of research could cure and we had no choice. Would experimentation on tens of foetuses not be better than the death of billions ? This being the case, it suggests that there is grey in this issue and not just black and white (yes/no). I personally don't want this research to take place today (and certainly think it shouldn't be used for genetic disorders in family groups) but can see that one day we'll have no choice. I say no today but expect I would say yes in the end.
Terry Robinson, United Kingdom

Although I'm a Christian, I am upset about this type of thing for reasons which are quite secular. I have four kids. They mean a great deal to me, and I am aware of that simple fact making a rather large divide between me and many other people. I work in the electronics industry. I don't like this - I would rather work with people than machines, but I'm stuck there. I noticed long ago that having four kids (and a wife who is the mother of all of them) makes you a very small minority. Having feelings of love and affection (as opposed to feelings about stocks and shares, which is the norm) makes you quite vulnerable to feelings of shock and dismay when news about experiments on unborns is discussed. And the reason has no foundation in my theology, or knowledge of biochemistry (which is fairly good, I am quite smart at that as well as electronics). It's just an instinctive thing. I can't construct much reason around it. But I suspect that my defective condition (having decided against the odds to love four kids) might have something to do with it. My Gosh, I am an outsider, aren't I?

Mark Grindell, Australia

I wonder how many people in this forum who are outraged by the very suggestion of testing on unborn humans, consider medical experiments on animals, which have a much higher level of awareness and deeper sensitivity to pain and stress than a foetus, to be justified. Foetal testing would also give much more reliable results than animal testing meaning less trial and error, less destruction of life and less risk to the human testers who take the medication for the first time. If you think testing on a foetus is wrong then fair enough. I'm not defending or condemning it; just consider the animal experiment question at the same time - can one be justified but not the other?
Simon, UK

From the moment of conception a child is a child. It has the same DNA as the adult it eventually grows into. This child has a spirit and a soul even from the moment of conception. To use the term foetus is to deny the child its humanity. To deprive such a child the right to live condones murder in the same way as occurs in Kosova. The child has the same DNA as the adult it becomes therefore it should be allowed the same rights and privileges of a fully developed human being.
Andy Sharp Scotland

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©