I thank my hon. Friend for illustrating the point far better than I could. Who would have thought only a few years ago that attempts would be made in an underground tunnel in Switzerland to re-create the big bang? That is happening today, but we would have thought it ridiculous a few years ago—that it would not be possible. However, as I said, the Department of Health is arguing that the insemination of animals with human sperm could never lead to a viable foetus, and that therefore there is no need to legislate. It is just not an issue, the Department says. I think that it is a huge issue, as do many people.
The hon. Member for Southport asked what our constituents will think of us when we shuffle through the Lobby today to vote for some of the Bill's provisions. I would find it very difficult to justify to my constituents why I had voted to allow human sperm to be inseminated into an animal. If a constituent asked me, ““Why did you do that?””, I would find it very difficult to explain my motives. When a Bill purporting, as we heard the Minister say today, to set global standards of regulatory efficiency fails to mark out such a fundamental ethical boundary, that is a very serious matter indeed. Moreover, it is a sinister matter.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Nadine Dorries
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 22 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
481 c356 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:28:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506438
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506438
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506438