I was wondering if people who object on religious grounds to using embryos for any purposes that result in their destruction give the same status to embryos that are produced by fertilization and to those that result from nuclear-transfer.

Considering the prevalence of the family structure in religious hierarchy and particularly the importance of the father figure – does it make a difference to religious people that a nuclear-transfer embryo has no father? The religious often cite a ‘letting nature take its course’ argument but nuclear-transfer embryos result from a completely unnatural process. Many religious people may even regard creating a child without a father as an 'abomination’. This view might be 'supported' by the fact that any nuclear-transfer embryo that goes full-term is almost bound to have profound birth defects.

Nuclear-transfer embryos can go full term. Dolly the sheep was one such. While I am sure we all remember the headlines when Dolly was born, we also remember the headlines, ‘Dolly Born Middle-Aged’ etc.
A nuclear-transfer baby is likely to suffer such things as juvenile forms of arthritis and diabetes. They are likely to suffer high incidences of malformed internal organs and similar types of genetic problems including such things as extremely high incidence of tumours. This may or may not be an issue for the religious although it would certainly be an issue for any children that were born with such profound disabilities.

My point of view is that the law should differentiate between embryos that result from fertilizations and those that result from nuclear-transfer. Procedurally there is no grey area between them. There are very distinct and very different specific processes involved in producing the 2 types of embryos and the law should follow that distinction. In fact I would go so far as to say that the law should specify that embryos that result from nuclear-transfer MUST be destroyed before a certain stage of development, that is, it would be a crime to allow such an embryo to develop full-term or even develop beyond a certain stage

Rob said "This view might be 'supported' by the fact that any nuclear-transfer embryo that goes full-term is almost bound to have profound birth defects."

which pretty much says it all.

The fact that we have accumulated enough scientific and biological information to enable us to do this, does not make it ethical or morally right.

Clearly the potential for life resides in the female egg/cell, and finding ways to bypass the male aspect is simply a biological step, taking advantage of known processes.

Personally, I regard such interference in the reproductive sphere as morally an abomination.... not to mention dangerous for what I hope are obvious reasons.

My position is based on a faith foundation, so don't expect me to justify it with science, as I can't.
To me it's as simple as 'egg+sperm=new person'... muck around with this, and we are treading on very dodgy ground.

Boazy.
I respect your moral values, but they may differ from others. Morals are different for different people. Ethics of course is the science of morals. Hence nothing can be ethically right or wrong.

If a scientist takes one of my cells and using nuclear transfer grows cells that are in fact part me, then returns those cells to me. Is that wrong?

If instead of a human egg, the egg of a rabbit is used. My cells are then grown and returned to me. Is that wrong?

Is the creation of embryos for IVF wrong? Is the discarding of these embryos as medical waste wrong?

The argument is of course purely academic, these technologies are legal and are being studied in many parts of the world. Even the US allows it, just the Govt. will not fund it.

Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 3 November 2006 1:44:20 PM
Personally, I regard such interference in the reproductive sphere as morally an abomination.... To me it's as simple as 'egg+sperm=new person'... muck around with this, and we are treading on very dodgy ground.

I am not sure what position this stance implies. If they are 'abominations' surely it would be at least ok for us to destroy them and in fact we may even be duty-bound to destroy them.

I think these types of issues are interesting because they call into question what it really means to be human, for instance, if such a NT embryo did go full term and result in a live birth I don’t think either of us would deny that individual ‘human’ status despite the fact that I am calling on the legislation to include mandatory destruction of NT embryos and you are calling them abominations. This would be a particularly compelling argument if the individual, against all odds, was born completely healthy.

I don’t think it circumvents the faith argument – spirit can still be in spirit – it just means that physical things are not particularly relevant to spiritual things and perhaps should be kept separate.

(values)
noun: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

(ethics)
noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules;

(morals)
noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong .

(immoral)
adjective: violating principles of right and wrong

Steve, I agree with your posts on 'Our Daily Bread' but i have to disagree with your current statements.
'Ethics of course is the science of morals. Hence nothing can be ethically right or wrong.'

Ethics is a 'study' it is hardly worthy of the term 'science'. Since it's the study of what we believe through our society's morals and values regarding what we 'believe' to be right and wrong, it is clear that arguments can be made for the rightness or wrongness of a thing 'ethically'. Stating something is absolutely right or wrong is frought with danger - in that sense only are you correct here.

As for Rob's question: Christian Religious Activists can have no disagreement here. God and God alone creates human life. Stem Cell Nucleonic Transfer research is purely a man made 'creation' having nothing in common with human reproduction.

Human reproduction, requires the fertilisation of a male sex cell containing one set of 23 chromosomes with a female sex cell also containing 23 chromosomes to produce progeny with 46 chromosomes (paired male and female - 'In Our Image' male AND female created He them.' Genesis 1:27)

Nuclear transfer involves the destruction of the egg's female chromosomal DNA and replacement with all 46 chromosomes of either a male or female's cell nucleus, thus creating something man-made that is either male OR female not male AND female.

As Christ Himself would say "Render unto Scientists that which is Scientists!" There is nothing belonging to God herein.

So Steve, where that would leave us ethically once such a human experiment resulted in a 'living' human being and what rights it might have should it's 'owner' want to use it for spare parts is currently a 'purely academic argument' - but not for very long I suspect.

BOAZ, clearly you are not faced with the evolutionist's conundrum - Which came first? the Chicken or the Egg? : ) God created a chicken - not an egg - right?

The thus created chicken was able to produce, on a daily basis, an unfertilised egg. There is clearly nothing ethically wrong with destroying such an unfertilised egg - How many have you had for breakfast? I've had thousands.

The ethical problem of what to do with a fertilised egg however is more problematic. While an egg has the POTENTIAL for life, that potential is never naturally, biologically realised until it is fertilised by a male sex cell spermatozoa. It is the male sex cell that completes any 'potential', both in Chickens and in Humans. This is how God designed it. (according to those who believe it).

So man's mucking about with the process and destruction of eggs alone is not ethically 'wrong' any more than eating scrambled eggs for breakfast is (Sorry to all you vegans out there). A woman destroys (voids) an egg once a month throughout her fertile life - meaning God 'allows' roughly 20 billion human eggs to be destroyed naturally every single year.

Is that 'ethical'?