Wired Writer Gets Points For Trying

Unfortunately, I can't give him full marks, because while he's trying to think through the stem cell problem in a careful way that is open to the perspective of faith, he makes some wrong turns as he weaves his way through the issue.

First,

GET THE STORY.

It concerns whether stem cells generated from unfertilized ova would have souls.

The short answer is: It depends on whether the technique involved produces a human being. A human being is a living human organism.

It's clear that the embryos are living (and growing), so that criterion is met.

Are the embryos in this case human? Well, they have at least half of a human genetic code. It wasn't clear to me from the scientific paper the author linked whether the embryos the researchers produced were the result of fusing two ova or if they were produced from single ova. If the former then they have a full human genetic code and are undeniably human, so let's assume the latter case--that they somehow stimulated a single ovum into becoming an embryo--which is the harder case since the embryo would have only half a human genetic code. How much of a human genetic code you need to qualify as a human isn't yet clear, so it isn't clear if the human criteria is fulfilled, meaning the Deerhunter Principle is involved (see below).

Are they organisms? If they develop into blastocysts--as the ones in this case do--then yes, they're organisms. They're not just a mass of cells but groups of cells that shows the developmental organization that the cells of an organism do.

So we've got a living organism that may or may not qualify as a human, given its limited genetic code.

Thus the Deerhunter Principle applies.

What's that?

If you're out hunting deer and you see something in the woods that might be a deer but might be a human you are not allowed to shoot it.

You can only shoot it if you are certain it is not a human being.

Same principle applies whenever you have something that you're not sure if it's a human.

So the stem cell procedure must be presumed to be objectively immoral and thus impermissible until such time (if ever) that we know more about how much human DNA something needs to qualify as human.

That addresses the central question of the piece. Now let's look at how the author (Brandon Keim) wrestles through it:

[Fr. Tad] Pacholczyk, of course, doesn't speak for all Catholics, but the essence of his argument is doctrinaire: life begins at the moment of conception. That the conception didn't involve fusion with another cell is irrelevant, as the potential for full life is there: so-called parthenogetic or virgin births have been observed in nature, most recently in sharks (and wouldn't it be a kicker if it happened, say, at one other highly fortuitous moment in Middle Eastern history?)

The label "doctrinaire" is pejorative, but perhaps the author merely used the wrong word and meant something like "based on doctrine" or "doctrinal."

BTW, Fr. Pacholczyk nailed the issue in the story.

The bit about Jesus having a naturally parthenogenic birth is offensive to pious sensibilities and also is a non-starter, because a naturally parthenogenic birth will not produce a Y chromosome, which we must presume Jesus (as a man) had (quibbles on this point notwithstanding).

The question, then, resolves around the meaning of life, of Pacholczyk's "human being." The blastocyst -- the scientific term for the group of  cells descended from a fertilized egg at four to five days of age -- contains about one hundred cells. It has nothing resembling a brain; but even if this is not considered a privileged locus of personhood, neither does the blastocyst have anything resembling ... well, anything. The basis of its moral value, in Christian eyes, must reside in the cells and their potential to become a sentient being.

No. It is the fact that the organism is a member of a species that, under normal conditions, acquires sentience as part of its natural development. It is not the case that each member of that species must have this potential. A person with a genetic defect that will cause them to be significantly retarded is not thereby deprived of the status of a person who must be treated with respect and compassion and whose right to life must be honored.

And what is this basis? It must be the soul.

More properly, the basis of human dignity is the rational soul. Other types of organisms have non-rational souls, but we need not be further detained by this on the understanding that wherever the author says "soul" he means "rational soul."

Belief in the soul is, of course, an article of faith, and not an easily shaken one. Nor, perhaps, should it be; wrongs have been committed under a perversion of Christian values, but acts of courage and kindness have also been inspired by a system of beliefs that treats life as sacred. How these wrongs and rights balance is another question altogether, but faith in the soul would surely be a sorely felt price to pay for stem cell therapies -- and not, perhaps, a reasonable one.

Here the author gets points for trying.

My only comment would be that it is not necessary to believe in the soul to believe that killing human beings is morally impermissible. You are more likely to believe that killing human beings is morally impermissible if you believe in a soul, but this belief is not required. Many soul-disbelievers are also murder-opposers, though not quite as many (which is why the great atheistic dictatorships of the 20th century killed so many of their own subjects).

But even granting the soul -- does harvesting stem cells really destroy it?

Uh . . . that would be a no, from a Christian perspective. In no case are souls destroyed. They're immortal. The question is whether they are embodied or not, and the answer to that question vis-a-vis stem cells, is whether so many stem cells have been removed that there is no longer an organism or so many that the organism dies. In that case you've got a dead organism and a separated immortal soul. Causing this condition to come about deliberately on an innocent human being is what constitutes murder.

From the Christian view, a soul comes into being at the moment of conception. A single fertilized egg cell, if it divides into two cells, can be said to have had a soul.

True, though division is not a necessary condition. A one cell human that dies is still a human.

So do the cells that form after.

Yes, if this statement is taken in the sense that the organism composed of the cells--that is to say, the cells as a whole--has a soul.

Soul-ness is thus innate to the process of growth, the sustenance of life. That it isn't yet sentient doesn't matter; and neither does it matter if some cells fail to divide, at five days or fifty years.

I'm not sure what the author means by saying that having a soul is innate to the process of growth. It would be true if he means that souls are the principle of life and thus involved in the process of growth, since life normally involves growth. He's got the fact down, though, that how long it takes before cell division stops occurring is not an indicator of whether a soul was ever present.

If that's the case, then it follows that a stem cell line derived from a few cells plucked out of the blastocyst also has a soul. After all, it's engaged in the process of life through cell division, and is descended in a continuous line from the original fertilized egg. The cells left behind in the process shouldn't be lamented any more than a single cell that stopped dividing or a skin cell flaking from an adult.

The author's reasoning here is notably unclear, but part of what he is saying is clearly false. Life and cell division are not sufficient conditions for the presence of a soul. Remember: A human being is a living human organism. If you've got living human cells that are dividing, that doesn't make them an organism. If they're dividing chaotically, what you've got is a cancer. If you're causing skin cells to divide in a petri dish, what you've got are skin cells, not an organism, and thus not a human being. Thus a human stem cell line would not have a soul (or souls) unless there is a living human organism (or organisms) in it, just as skin cells flaking off an adult do not have souls and are not human beings (nor did they have souls when they were alive, before they flaked off).

As for the continuing life of the stem cells, it's clear that their soul is not equivalent to that of a mature person, or even a baby within the womb.

In terms of the right to life, it is equivalent. Souls can't be ranked by developmental stages in this way. All human beings--regardless of their age or state of development--have the same right to life. You can't murder any of them.

This doesn't necessarily mean that's it's worth less -- merely that it's at a different stage, with different characteristics. Might it be said that, in a hypothetical stem cell therapy, as stem cells mature and replace damaged tissue, the soul of the cells fuses with the soul of their recipient? And that the soul of those cells, their life potential, isn't lost, but instead is preserved?

Stem cells do not have rational souls because they are not organisms. Putting stem cells into a person thus does not cause their soul to merge with somebody elses any more than putting blood cells or bone marrow cells (which, incidentally, contain stem cells) into another person causes their souls to merge.

Think of souls as the equivalent of persons. If you take my blood cells out of my veins, what you have is not a person. Putting my blood cells in your body does not merge a person into your person.

That the immortal essence of a soul can become part of another soul through deliverance in a fragmentary vessel is has a precedent in Catholic tradition. It's the basis of Communion, when bread and wine -- the body and blood of Christ -- are consumed.

Okay, #1, they aren't bread and wine any more. Transubstantiation = Real Presence of Christ + real absence of bread and wine.

#2 Christ's human soul does not merge with ours in Communion. We are united to him in a mystical manner, but our souls remain distinct from his soul, which is why he can be in heaven while we might be in heaven or hell.

Souls do not divide or merge. They are a quantum phenomenon. (Okay, there's one for Tim Powers.)

I don't know whether this line of reasoning would hold up to theological scrutiny, but it's certainly worth trying to figure out how to debate embryos and stem cells without bluntly categorizing them as either inertly utilitarian material or fully human beings.

The author's line of reasoning does not stand up to theological scrutiny, but he deserves credit for trying to think the issue through in the way he does. He's also right that it's worth trying to figure out how to debate embryonic stem cells for those who do not accept the fact that embryos are human beings. They are human beings, an undeniably so from a scientific perspective (keeping the question of souls entirely out of it; they're undeniably living human organisms), but if someone who rejects this fact can be convinced that--even from their position--embryos should not be treated in a utilitarian manner then it'll at least help stop murders.

Comments

[Jarnor23]

Not that I'm sure if the author was going there, but would it be licit if embryonic stem cells were harvested in a way that did not kill the embryonic kid? What if it involved some risk? What level would be considered acceptable? Would there be a point where it was too early to allow this, where it would be morally the same as grabbing one of a set of identical twins and killing for harvesting?

These are just thoughts I had reading this. I believe adult stem cells have a much greater potential for cures from what we've seen so far. However, it would be good to find a non murdering way of embryonic stem cell collection to let those damn ghouls in science play with instead of killing children.

[Karen]

Not that I'm sure if the author was going there, but would it be licit if embryonic stem cells were harvested in a way that did not kill the embryonic kid?

My background in the tech aspect of this is scant, but do you mean in cases where an embryo is artificially created for this purpose? If so, then it'd be moot because the Church is against creating life outside of the marital act in the first place (note the teachings on in-vitro fertilization, for example).

If we're talking about harvesting stem cells from a non-artificially created child, then I'm not all that sure. It wouldn't seem to be a wise (or licit) thing to do, though, to experiment with taking away stem cells from a kid if we can't be certain of whether that might affect the kid's development. Are we certain? My knowledge is lacking here. If we are certain that no harm could come of this, then the procedure would seem to me as ethically equivalent to taking any cell from an adult.

[Karen]

How much of a human genetic code you need to qualify as a human isn't yet clear, so it isn't clear if the human criteria is fulfilled, meaning the

Deerhunter Principle is involved (see below).

Are they organisms? If they develop into blastocysts--as the ones in this case do--then yes, they're organisms. They're not just a mass of cells but groups of cells that shows the developmental organization that the cells of an organism do.

So we've got a living organism that may or may not qualify as a human, given its limited genetic code.

Thus the Deerhunter Principle applies.

I wonder if you'd perceive a similar dilemma in the case of a dermoid cyst. This is a case where it seems the same basic thing has happened--an ovum went on to develop into tissue such as hair and teeth and skin, possibly going through a blastocyst stage (I'm not sure on that). However, as a very pro-life person, every bone in my body tells me that such things are not any more "human" than a tumor. An ovum somehow got stimulated to develop into something we can no longer call an ovum, sure, but all that tells me is that eggs are cells, after all, and are prone to developing into cysts or tumors like any other cell, and the fact that it started out as an ovum does not make such a cyst or tumor "special".

Sure, it's got its own combination of chromosomes (albeit half of a set) which is a different combination to that of the host organism, but the same can be said of a cancerous tumor. And it developed, but so do all cysts and tumors. I think that developing into a blastocyst with a unique cellular combination is necessary but not sufficient criteria to determine "humanness". There simply must be more to it than that--perhaps the fusion of different cells is a necessary criterion to what would be God's definition of human life, then. If all you've got is the genetic makeup of a single egg, then it's really, in essence, just an overgrown egg that's happened to undertake cell division.

I'm not positive, but I thought I read that there's an equivalent of this phenomenon in men as well.

[Karen]

I think that developing into a blastocyst with a unique cellular combination is necessary but not sufficient criteria to determine "humanness".

I misspoke there >_< I certainly wouldn't say that a newly-conceived embryo has to develop into a blastocyst before it qualifies as human at all. I should have worded that differently. The blastocyst stage isn't necessary, obviously.

And maybe that supports what I'm saying as well--i.e. the progression to a blastocyst stage doesn't testify to whether something is human.

[matt]

I think the problem with harvesting cells in a non-destructive manner is that it requires experimenting on a human being who has no capability to consent to the unknown risk that the experiment entails. And that the experimental procedure does not protect the life of that human being.

Now, it's reasonable that a parent can consent to a procedure such as blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant from a child before the age of reason, however, those procedures are not experimental, they have known risks which are incredibly small. We know this because (I'm sure) that those procedures were tested on adults who could understand the risks prior to being applied to children.

These experiments could be performed on animals, but in the end without experimenting on humans, the risks are unknown.

God Bless,

Matt

[Jimmy Akin]

We've talked about that issue (the dermoid cyst kind of case) before. Use the search feature to find the word teratoma or shoggoth to pull up the discussion.

[matt]

Doesn't speak for all Catholics?

Since when is that an important question on doctrine?? It's meaningless, the question is a red-herring, even if he did, so what? The question is does he speak for the Church, are his positions in line with her universal teachings.

God Bless,

Matt

We've talked about that issue (the dermoid cyst kind of case) before. Use the search feature to find the word teratoma or shoggoth to pull up the discussion.

Darn, the search function isn't coming up with anything using those terms. I'll hunt it down when I have time, though--thanks!

[Karen]

^ Apologies--that post was mine

[Inocencio]

Karen,

Here is a link to a post on shoggoths.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Kevin Jones]

They are human beings, an undeniably so from a scientific perspective (keeping the question of souls entirely out of it; they're undeniably living human organisms),

It seems to me that "human being" is a richer concept than "human organism." The former connotes the metaphysical, while the latter can be interpreted materialistically. Though I can't say how fruitful the distinction is, there certainly seems to be a difference that makes the equation of the two difficult.

Also the whole concept of organism isn't fleshed out. While "organism" has a holistic sense, the tendency for the biological sciences today is to treat the organism not as an object worthy of study in itself, but rather as a convenient label for collections of discrete specialized cells working together.

[matt]

Kevin,
"They are human beings, an undeniably so from a scientific perspective (keeping the question of souls entirely out of it; they're undeniably living human organisms),"

It seems to me that "human being" is a richer concept than "human organism." The former connotes the metaphysical, while the latter can be interpreted materialistically. Though I can't say how fruitful the distinction is, there certainly seems to be a difference that makes the equation of the two difficult.

Also the whole concept of organism isn't fleshed out. While "organism" has a holistic sense, the tendency for the biological sciences today is to treat the organism not as an object worthy of study in itself, but rather as a convenient label for collections of discrete specialized cells working together.

Fundamentally every human being is a human organism, a living member of the species "homo sapiens". The problem is that as Catholics (and many other religions) we consider every member of the spicies to be a "person" in the language of the constitution, endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights. Seculars may or may not subscribe to this idea, and may attempt to define certain members of this species to be not-persons, they can't deny their membership in the species, because is it is simply scientific fact.

Science has for many years defined the nature of an individual organism:
"organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction".

Now, there are some organisms that are difficult to classify this way, but humans are certainly not among them.

[Different]

Kevin,

There probably is a popular distinction between human being and human organism, but I would think that there should not be a difference. Any human organism that is alive, is by definition, body and soul. So, it contains the metaphysical aspect as well.

How does the deerhunter principle work if one is 90% sure that it is not a human being? How sure must one be before acting?

Another question...(maybe I missed this before) are there not enough embryonic stem cell lines to produce enough cells for experimentation? I was told by a doctor that lines can be reproduced virtually forever.

[JoAnna]

The "Deerhunter Principle" reminds me of Peter Kreeft's "Apple Argument Against Abortion."

[matt]

Different,
How does the deerhunter principle work if one is 90% sure that it is not a human being? How sure must one be before acting?

I don't think it could be quantified, but something like, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty sounds right...90% is well short of that.

Another question...(maybe I missed this before) are there not enough embryonic stem cell lines to produce enough cells for experimentation? I was told by a doctor that lines can be reproduced virtually forever.

Whether even using existing embryonic stem cell lines is licit or not is certainly a question, I would not say it is (George Bush's position on this notwithstanding). I believe that a larger diversity of lines is what scientists are needing to make more progress.

God Bless,

Matt

[Martin Tohill]

The saddest part of this question is that we are working under the gun. Scientists are already doing and testing now. If we lived in a truly moral society the biologists involved would be more interested in backing off and giving theologians the time to think this through first.

It is sometimes NOT better to ask for forgiveness rather than asking for permission.

[Different]

Matt,

There are a number of prominent faithful theologians (Janet Smith is one)who have stated that using cells that have been derived from stem cell lines is not immoral. Obviously, one must oppose the destruction of any life. But using cells that originally came from an aborted fetus is not participating in the evil act of abortion.

[Jim Cole]

The biologists out there should correct me if I have this wrong, but my research last year as part of developing pro-life arguments against cloning revealed a detail about egg cells that no one ever taught me in biology class.

Apparently, the egg cell in humans does not complete "meiosis" until just after the onset of fertilization. "Meiosis" is the process of division that begins with a cell containing the full set of 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 chromosomes in all, a "diploid" cell) and ends up with at least one cell with a single set of 23 chromosomes (a "haploid" cell), ready to combine with another cell with 23 chromosomes in fertilization. Meiosis requires two divisions, and only in the second division are the pairs of chromosomes split and the total number of chromosomes reduced by half. In human egg cells, the second division remains on hold until fertilization occurs. An unfertilized egg cell still has the full set of 46 chromosomes (23 pairs).

Upon penetration of the egg's outer membrane by the sperm, before the sperm's (pro-)nucleus holding its chromosomes reach the egg's (pro-)nucleus holding the female chromosomes, the last step of meiosis is triggered. The joined pairs of chromosomes in the egg are separated into single chromosomes. One set of single chromosomes remains in the egg's nucleus to join with the sperm chromosomes; the other set is put into a "polar body" and expelled from the egg cell. The sperm's 23 chromosomes work their way to the center of the egg cell and combine with the remaining 23 chromosomes there to become a new human being.

If no fertilization occurs, egg cells still have all 46 human chromosomes. Nature does not provide that such cells develop into new humans. How they can be stimulated artifically ("parthenogenesis") to act like new zygotes (humans from the one-cell stage until they become blastocysts of 150-200 cells in a week) is not clear from the Wired article or from the scientific article it depends on.

Be that as it may, it is plausible to conclude that the scientists here are creating new humans from single egg cells, based on the diploid nature of unfertilized egg cells (that is, they still have 46 chromosomes consisting of 23 chromosome pairs). As soon as an egg cell, stimulated by whatever means, starts acting like a new human life, that is, doing the things needed to divide and remain self-organized as a separate organism, then it would appear that there is a new human being in existence. As a result, it sure sounds to me like there are human souls being created in this process.

It also appears that human lives are being destroyed as a result.

A more technical description of how meiosis is complted in reproduction may be found at
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html.

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Jim Cole
Missouri Right to Life

[Kevin from Ohio in Virginia]

I didn't do so hot in biology, so without getting technical I think I'll just stick to my standard policy of NOT KILLING BABIES.

That is all.

[Foxfier]

*likes Kevin's theory, even though it's not much of an argument* ;^)

[matt]

Different,
There are a number of prominent faithful theologians (Janet Smith is one)who have stated that using cells that have been derived from stem cell lines is not immoral. Obviously, one must oppose the destruction of any life. But using cells that originally came from an aborted fetus is not participating in the evil act of abortion.

Is what Janet Smith says about using existing cell lines the same thing as the second sentence? It seems that according to the second sentence, one could continue to develop new lines morally by simply harvesting them from the aborted babies. I think there's a contradiction there, perhaps you'd cite her. I don't necessariliy disagree that it's automatically immoral to use these existing lines, but I don't think it's moral to take advantage of abortion to secure new ones. That's almost like following a murderer around so that you can harvest the organs of the victims, you're not actually killing people, but... I wonder, does the abortion clinic just let any scientist come in and harvest, or is there some sort of fee involved ... more moral sticky points.

Jim,
Apparently, the egg cell in humans does not complete "meiosis" until just after the onset of fertilization...

Perhaps you can clarify a question I ran into earlier. I had always understood the moment of conception and fertilization to be the same, the presumed point when a new life is created and ensoulment occurs. Someone on another blog suggested that medically conception is at implantation, and we should speak of life beginning at fertilization to avoid the allowance of abortion by preventing implantation.

God Bless,

Matt

[Elijah]

According to my anatomy and physiology book (Human Anatomy and Phyisiology, 6th. ed. by Elaine N. Marieb, R.N., Ph.D. Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco 2004), fertilization and conception are nearly synonymous terms: "The term pregnancy refers to events that occur from the time of fertilization (conception) until the infant is born." There may be an attempt by pro-deathers to redefine it though, of course. For Catholics it's a bit of a mute point though, because preventing pregnancy is also sinful, but I can see that we should protect the definition of conception in order to keep the support of those who oppose abortion but not birth control.

What I'm personally curious about with regard to 'ensoulment' and biology is identical twins, who begin life as one zygote that later splits. If God is said to infuse the soul at the moment of conception, then when does the second soul become involved? It's been pointed out that souls don't divide, so is there one soul until the split and then God makes another one for the twin? Or does he put two in the original zygote, knowing that they will later split? Or does any of this need to be determined and placed within space-time at all?

[matt]

Elijah,

"The term pregnancy refers to events that occur from the time of fertilization (conception) until the infant is born."

That's definitely what's going on, they're trying to say that pregnancy begins at implantation, so that means abortifacients can prevent implantation without being called abortifacients. This is a red herring of course, because the immorality of abortion has nothing to do with the terminating pregnancy side of the equation.

If God is said to infuse the soul at the moment of conception, then when does the second soul become involved? It's been pointed out that souls don't divide, so is there one soul until the split and then God makes another one for the twin? Or does he put two in the original zygote, knowing that they will later split? Or does any of this need to be determined and placed within space-time at all?

It seems to me this was discussed a long time ago. At the end of the day, we won't know until we die, so it's probably not that important, but an interesting theological discussion nonetheless. Some key parameters:

1. soul is indivisible
2. a single person has one and only one soul at every point in it's life.
3. souls can not be destroyed (or reincarnated)

My understanding is:
a single zygote has one soul, if it splits, the one soul remains and another soul is created for the second zygote, or theoretically, the fission causes the death of the first zygote, and two new zygotes, thus one soul goes to limbo, or heaven, or wherever, and two begin earthly life.

There are also cases, not sure the medical term, where two zygotes fuse. In this case, there are two persons, two souls, either one dies it's soul departing the body, and the other survives, or perhaps the fusion causes both to die, and a new soul is created for the fused body.

Some propose that a zygote destined to fuse, or die some other natural way may not be ensouled. I don't think that's possible. The soul is the life essence of an organism, all organisms have them human or not, the distinction being the rational and immortal souls of humans, and the non-rational, mortal souls of all other organisms. Zygote meets our understanding of a living organism, therefore it possesses a soul, it can't be anything other than a human being, therefore it must have a human soul.

Theoretically, God's definition of an organism could be different from ours, but since He is pure reason, and the reasoning behind our understanding of the soul, and biology are pretty solid, it's likely that we have figured out (at least at this level) what God has done here.

God Bless,

Matt

[Leo]

The possibility of a single embryo splitting into two identical twin embryos has been used as a moral justification for destructive prodedures on human embryos before 14 days. At this time the 'primitive streak' forms and embryo splitting/identical twinning tends not to occur.

This time limit forms the legal philosophical basis in the UK, following philosopher Mary Warnock's Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology in 1984. Warnock asked the question, When did I begin?. She argued that 'individuation' cannot be said to exist when that 'individual' can split into two individuals. Thus her answer is, we begin as individuals at 14 days.

To argue that because an organism can split into two organisms means that the original organism is not an individual is flawed. Each of us could, in principle, be split into two individuals. Although the methods are currently in the realm of science fiction.

1. Brain bisection.
the human brain has a left and right hemisphere, some individuals have survived the loss of one of their hemispheres. Suppose that my brain hemispheres were split and one or more hemispheres connected to another (decerebrated) body. We would say there are now two individuals.

2. Start Trek Transporters
Many episodes of Star Trek have twins created.

There are fascinating philosophical puzzles about identity, the soul and death connected with splitting a human organism, whether at the embryonic stage or later, but they are red herrings with regard to the licitness or otherwise of destroying a potentially fissile human.

Further reading.
Christian Medical Fellowship argument 8 addresses embryo fission.

The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics "exists to help Catholics and others to explore the Church's position on bioethical issues. Its perspective is informed by Catholic moral teaching, but in defending such teaching it seeks also to enable dialogue with those of no religious faith."

[Jim Cole]

Matt:

On your question about the difference between "conception" and "fertilization": my usage was not precise enough; there is no difference. I was trying to describe, without looking up or using the technical wording, the point at which the (pro)nucleus of the sperm with its chromosomes finally gets to the (pro)nucleus at the center of the egg with its chromosomes. Penetration of the egg's outer membrane precedes that; after penetration of the outer membrane, then there is some amount of time (I'd have to look up how much, but the exact amount is irrelevant here) until the chromosomes get together. That was all I was saying.

The scientific literature rejects the claim that a human being does not begin until implantation. A great review of both the philosophical and the scientific arguments was published by Linacre Quarterly in the 1990's. A version updated by the author is found at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/
irv/irv_04person1.html

Jim Cole

[matt]

Jim,

your post was quite clear, I just wanted make sure that the idea of conception not occurring until implantation was erroneous.

Thanks for all your work!

God Bless,

Matt

[Elijah]

"She argued that 'individuation' cannot be said to exist when that 'individual' can split into two individuals."

Yes, as Leo points out, this is a red herring. It also seems unreasonable. Though humans can only reproduce asexually during the first 14 days *or so* other animals do so as adults. To say that these asexually reproducing animals aren't individuals would be (in technical jargon) silly. That would mean that there was no such thing as an individual of that species! I also emphasize the words 'or so' because so many pro-abort arguments are based on approximations or complete mental constructs such as the 'trimester', which may be a useful way of looking at fetal development but expresses no objective reality.

[Different]

Matt,

No scientist can promote or be a part of harming any person at any stage in life. What Janet Smith and others say is moral is the scientific use of existing stem cell lines that were originally derived through an immoral act. Since you can't create a stem cell line without destroying life, it is immoral to create new stem cell lines. Doing some good with the existing stem cell lines are a way to bring some good out of evil.

Hope that helps.

[Brian Walden]

Doing some good with the existing stem cell lines are a way to bring some good out of evil.

Different, Isn't it always wrong to use immoral means to reach a just goal? The stem cell lines were the result of gravely immoral acts, doesn't it then make it wrong to use the fruits of those acts?

It's like if a bank robber wanted to donate half the money he stole to his parish. If the pastor somehow knew that money was stolen he couldn't accept it, even for the sake of bringing some good out of evil.

[Mary]

they're trying to say that pregnancy begins at implantation,

They are saying it. They have said it for many years.

[Ed Peters]

Jimmy is, as usual, kinder than I am. I don't beleive in giving adults "points for trying" and I haven't beleived in it since I was in about 4th grade, when I last recevied a separate grade for 'effort' (and I never knew even then how a teacher could assess how much I was trying).

The Lord, at the end of time, gives points for trying, I know. But this world does not, and cannot. Adults either do their job competently, or they do a disservice to the rest of us.

[matt]

Different,

Matt,

No scientist can promote or be a part of harming any person at any stage in life. What Janet Smith and others say is moral is the scientific use of existing stem cell lines that were originally derived through an immoral act. Since you can't create a stem cell line without destroying life, it is immoral to create new stem cell lines. Doing some good with the existing stem cell lines are a way to bring some good out of evil.

Hope that helps.

You didn't address my problem, what about using new stem cell lines created from newly aborted babies? As long as they are dieing anyway, why not bring some good from it?

I think there is an issue of the remoteness from the original evil. I do know it would be immoral to stand beside the abortionist while he commits murder in order to harvest the stem cells from the dead baby, how remote that connection needs to be in order for it to be licit is the question. The Holy See issued guidance on the use of vaccines derived from aborted babies, it could serve as a guide to the morality in this issue. It would seem that using the ultimate fruits of these stem cell lines may be licit, but participating in their development and production seems less likely to be so.

Vatican Letter

As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, within the chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have different moral responsibilities.

However, there is another aspect to be considered, and that is the form of passive material cooperation which would be carried out by the producers of these vaccines, if they do not denounce and reject publicly the original immoral act (the voluntary abortion), and if they do not dedicate themselves together to research and promote alternative ways, exempt from moral evil, for the production of vaccines for the same infections. Such passive material cooperation, if it should occur, is equally illicit.
...
-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

- as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's

own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;

- the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);

- such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

[Different]

Matt,

I don't think you can harvest stem cells from aborted babies. I believe the child has to be alive when the stem cells are taken. What Janet Smith and other theologians are talking about is existing stem cell lines. So there are cultures of cells that exist that originally came through an immoral act. THOSE are permissible to use. Obviously, anything that would otherwise encourage the destruction of human life would be wrong.

The example Dr. Smith uses is this:

A man murders another man in order to make use of his kidney as a transplant. Certainly the murderer has no right to use that kidney. Now, must the kidney be destroyed or could it be used to help an innocent person who had nothing to do with the original immoral act of murder? Of course, using that kidney for someone who needs it is completely moral and a good example of how God can bring good out of the most the most evil acts.

To the person who hinted that this is a proportionalist argument: it is not. the scientist who makes use of an existing stem cell culture would not be doing anything intrinsically evil...the object, experimenting on stem cell cultures is morally indifferent. Since the scientist had NO involvement with the act of murder that started the stem cell line, he is not in any way cooperating with the evil act.

I'd link you to the article that describes Dr. Smith's and other's positions but it's on www.ncregister.com and you need a password to access it. If you have one, just go there and search for it and you can read the article.

[matt]

Different,

I don't see how the situation of stem cells is any different the the situation of vaccines... I wish we could see Dr. Smith (who I deeply respect) respond to the letter of the Holy See.

Frankly I don't think Dr. Smith's analogy is very sound, the people that harvested the stem cells caused the death of the baby, what is their connection to the scientist now using them? Does the scientist pay the organization that the murderer was acting as an agent thereof? Does the scientist, "hold his nose: as it were while using those stem cells and speak actively to oppose the murder that placed them in his hands? Also, in the kidney example, that organ can be used immediately to save a life, which is not the case in the stem cell research.

God Bless,

Matt

[Tim J.]

"they're trying to say that pregnancy begins at implantation..."

Well, technically, a PREGNANCY might begin at implantation, but that has nothing to do with whether the zygote is a living human being or when that life begins. Up to the moment of implantation, the zygote could be removed and implanted in another woman's uterus, and then SHE would be the one experiencing the pregnancy.

Implantation turns out to be a big red herring in terms of the humanity of the zygote or whether life begins at conception. It is just another arbitrary line drawn to suit the ends of those doing the drawing.

It does, however, give the lie to the old saw "my body, my choice". The fetus is not in any way part of the mother's body. The fetus is another person and another body, with a unique genetic code and it's own bodily systems. It has it's own blood supply, and - like as not - a difeerent blood type than the mother. A zygote is demonstrably not part of the mother's body, as it can be removed for gestation in ANOTHER woman's body at any point up to implantation.

There are, from the moment of conception, TWO bodies to consider - not just one.

In any case, implantation has exactly nothing to do with questions of whether the zygote is really "alive" or is really "human".

[Susanne]

I know that this issue is not easily broken down into a simple one sentence argument, but it seems to me that if we wished to use the Sacred Scripture as a guideline, we could recall God's wrath with Onan and apply it to the destruction of ovum. Women have a finite amount of them. They are precious cargo. Tampering with them could only come from the one who cannot create anything himself.

[Different]

Matt,

We are talking about stem cell lines that may have first been developed 20 years ago. So, a doctor created the stem cell lines immorally. The lines now exist. I would think that no money is being paid to the company or doctor who started the line. Certainly, paying them would be immoral. I believe there are cultures of cells that are available for research through the federal government. These were the stem cell lines that Bush allowed to continue while he banned the production of any new lines.

Dr. Smith is clearly applying the same principles in the vaccine teaching to this situation. Her analysis is solid.

You can find some of her treatment here...

http://www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/SHMS/Faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/Newspaper/MoreDeliberations.pdf

[Jarnor23]

If you really look at that Vatican document, you can see they're NOT thrilled with vaccines being made out of abortions. What were, by the way, ACTIVELY SOUGHT ones, as they wanted infants infected in the womb so they could have a very good sample AND give the mother the excuse that the child would probably be deformed anyway so it was a "mercy" to kill.

While the degree of separation may be great enough that people aren't damned to hell for ignorantly choosing to benefit from murder, it IS still co-operation with a serious evil at some level.

Let me tell you this, if it's a grave sin for them to make and promote these vaccines (especially in light of alternatives being available), why are we buying them? Convenience. God never said your kids will never get sick and they may never die. He sure never said ANYTHING is moral and justifiable to save a cute widdle baby. Frankly, while the Vatican look was improvement over what was out before on this matter, it still has a long ways to go.

And IF we are buying them, they'll keep on making them, AND new ones like that chickenpox one. Which, now since natural chickenpox is becoming more rare, actually has INCREASED the risk for non-immunized children. We are ENABLING these killers to profit wildly from immoral activity. If the members of the Church with children don't at least register their disapproval, then what hope is there really to stop such an abhorrent practice? While I can understand blind ignorance, what burns me is people who KNOW that we are participating in a serious evil, even remotely, and don't care as long as they get what they want out of it. It seems to me that knowing and not caring raises your moral culpability in the act, the same way it would between the priest who received money from a bank robbery if instead of not knowing, he knew and said "oh, what the hell, it's going to a good cause".

[matt]

Jarnor23,

precisely!

Susanne,

I know that this issue is not easily broken down into a simple one sentence argument, but it seems to me that if we wished to use the Sacred Scripture as a guideline, we could recall God's wrath with Onan and apply it to the destruction of ovum. Women have a finite amount of them. They are precious cargo. Tampering with them could only come from the one who cannot create anything himself.

I agree that there is something wrong with tampering in this way, especially without a serious reason, but I don't think that the analogy with Onan holds, it was not that what he spilled that was so precious, it was the act being contraceptive that was the problem. There's no basis for the little spoof in Life of Brian where the Catholic children sing 'every sperm is sacred' (hope it's ok to post that).

Different,

Thanks for posting that link I'll look into it. I would be very cautious though in making any connection between morality and George Bush's stem cell position on this issue, as he does not believe in protecting all innocent human life. If he did, he would push for a ban on any act which intentionally results in the death of an innocent human being be it abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc. etc. Thank God he at least doesn't want us to be forced to fund it.

God Bless,

Matt

[Different]

Matt,

Janet Smith's position was specifically on George Bush and his decision to allow continued experimentation on existing stem cell lines but ban funding on new stem lines that would involve the destruction of humna life. You'll see that in the article. And if you can read the National Catholic Register, she has an article there articulating this position.

[JamesD]

Regarding the "Deer hunter principle"; It occurs to me that this argument might be extended to refute the argument that since we don't know if a fetus is a person it's left up to the individual to make that determination.
As Matt indicated above the there would be a legal criteria like resonable doubt in the Deer Hunter case. But, it would not be the hunter's doubts. Rather, it would be a jury's reasonable doubt base on the circumstances.

It seems to me that most people would agree that it would be acceptable to have the rightness or wrongness of the hunters actions determined by others, both the jury and the legislative body determining rules for when a reasonable doubt has been eliminated.

God Bless,
Jim