Stem-cell debate

Recently in Australia there has been some debate about the ethics of stem-cell cloning. At the moment, Steve Bracks (Premier of the Australian state of Victoria) is planning to introduce a bill to allow the therapeutic cloning of human embryos. As usual, the Catholic church is very vocal in its opposition to stem-cell research, with Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart leading the church's opposition to the bill. Hart says that embryonic cloning is "'always unethical' and there was 'total opposition' from the Catholic Church". Moreover, Steve Bracks is reportedly facing a backlash from his own party over this proposed bill. Although Australia is not known as a religious country, the Catholic church wields considerable political power; some of Australia's highest profile politicians are devout Catholics, and their beliefs inevitably (and, in my opinion, unfortunately) influences their policies.
Stem-cell research is already practised in India, Britain, Sweden, the US, Japan, and China, and is aimed at helping in the fight against conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries, so the importance of such research is not in question. However, the ethics are in question and, since there appears to be disagreements in the community, debate is needed. Given that the stakes are high, I hope that the debate will not be stifled by the the church's political power, and that all the issues - particularly the scientific issues - can be understood and considered. I think it's simply not good enough for the church (and Christian politicians) to say things like "Stem-cell research amounts to the murder of babies" and "Catholic values are not negotiable". Some of the scientific issues that I would like to see openly debated are:

* IVF (In-vitro fertilisation) is already accepted in our society. In IVF, women are artificially induced to produce surplus eggs which are fertilised outside the body. Up to 10-12 zygotes might be produced, of which only a couple may be viable and implanted in the uterus. It is expected that only 1 or 2 will survive, so IVF involves the "murder" of embryos, yet it is already accepted in society. Why not stem-cell research?
* Placenta is an exact clone of the baby it nourishes - yes, an exact clone - yet, according to the church, the placenta is a discarded organ after delivery so there is no ethical problem with the use of stem-cells derived from the placenta. Is this logical?
* Microscopic conceptuses are regularly miscarried; these "babies" are spontaneously aborted and die for no apparent reason. Should the full force of medical science be brought to bear on this problem of spontaneous miscarriages of microscopic conceptuses at the expense of cancer research? After all, according to the church, they are humans.
* In 1951, Henrietta Lacks died from cervical cancer. After her death, and without Ms. Lacks' express permission, cervical cancer cells were taken from her and commercialised. This cell line (known as HeLa) survives to this day, and is used for cancer research. The church has no ethical problem with using adult stem-cells - they presumably have no problem with the use of the HeLa cell line for medical research - but have a problem with embryonic stem-cell. Let's discuss!

Throughout the ages, religion has shown itself to be inflexible and self-serving (not the kind of behaviour that is conducive to open debate) but, with the passage of time and the rise of scientific knowledge, religious influence and credibility has been steadily declining. Maybe there is some hope for humanity after all.‎