Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans
The Age (Australia) ^ | November 5, 2003 | Peta Rasdien

Posted on 11/06/2003 2:43:16 PM PST by nickcarraway

Life does not begin when sperm meets egg, but 14 days after, according to the head of the Anglican Church in Australia.

Primate Peter Carnley told the Fertility Society of Australia in Perth yesterday this meant objections to IVF, genetic testing and stem cell research should fall away.

Archbishop Carnley said that until it was implanted in a womb lining, a fertilised egg was not a human life but rather a genetically novel kind of cell.

The fertilised egg must also pass the point that it could split to become an identical twin, which was at about 14 days. After that, the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life.

Dr Carnley's position clearly contradicts that of the Catholic Church, which holds that life begins when an egg is fertilised.

But Dr Carnley said the debate about the beginning of life within the Christian faith did not come to that view until 1869, when Pius IX declared all abortion was wrong from the beginning of conception.

Dr Carnley argued that scientific knowledge had moved forward since then and must be taken into account.

If conception was defined as the meeting of gametes - egg and sperm - then the cloned sheep Dolly was not conceived, because Dolly was the product of cell nuclear transfer, where the ovum nucleus was replaced by DNA from an adult cell.

"I think it is now clear that we must begin to think of conception less as a moment and more in gradual and continuous terms as a process," Dr Carnley said.

He said since 1984 Anglican moral theology had concluded that conception was a 14-day process and this helped shape legislation around the world.

"Given that twinning can occur up to the 14th day of this process, it is not logically possible to talk of the conception of a unique human individual prior to the completion of this process.

"Each of us can say that we came to be in the sense that we were each conceived, as a potential human individual, 14 days after the fertilisation of an ovum, not before." He said the natural 60 per cent wastage of ova during IVF procedures need not be considered the killing of conceived human individuals.

"We do not have some 70,000 frozen people on ice at various places around Australia," he said.

Embryo experimentation and stem cell research were also morally acceptable.

"If there is a utilitarian argument for the possible benefit to mankind of experimentation on embryos, this could be tolerated in a controlled way under licence up until the 14th day in a way that after the 14th day it would not," he said.

"Stem cell research becomes also thinkable, for stem cells are harvested well within the 14th day period."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: andlican; anglicans; australia; catholiclist; life; origins; prolife; religion; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 381-384 next last
To: pgyanke
According to the Anglicans, go ahead as long as you do it within the first 14 days.

What, exactly, leads you to believe that he speaks for "the Anglicans?"

121 posted on 11/07/2003 5:33:13 AM PST by trad_anglican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #122 Removed by Moderator

Comment #123 Removed by Moderator

To: beavus
As I wrote in post 100, the sperm cell is not capable of any more division, differentiation or development. It is not "a life," simply a motile cell.

On the other hand, reproducible observation gives evidence of the fact that healthy human zygotes do divide, the resulting cells are a cohesive unit which differentiate and develop and grow. Each zygote *is* "a life" at fertilization because he or she possesses these qualities -- even when that one life becomes 2, 3, or 4 in his or her development and growth.
124 posted on 11/07/2003 6:29:13 AM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
The AMA hasn't redefined the word, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and many pro-abortion researchers and abortionists have attempted to do so. But, there are obstacles, such as prior literature and common usage.

However, I don't believe that contraceptives were the motive. History will show that the need to justify the ethics of the destruction of embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation manipulation of the embryo led to an attempt to find new uses for old words.

There's no actual evidence that the embryo within a woman who has has ovulated while on exogenous hormones is treated any differently than the embryo of a woman who has not been on contraceptives, except that passage through the fallopian tubes may be slowed with the use of progesterone-only pills. No one has done the experiments to show that oral combination contraceptives cause abortions or that the effect of OCP hormones can over-ride the hormones from the corpus luteum after ovulation.
125 posted on 11/07/2003 6:43:29 AM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969; MHGinTN; hocndoc
That certain human beings at very early stages of their lives can make phenocopies of themselves does not affect their inherent status and dignity as human beings.

Cordially,

126 posted on 11/07/2003 7:03:33 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Following is one of the best answers to this "potential human" garbage that I've ever seen:

"The case in point, is whether the offspring of human parents, at any stage of its existence, could be only a "potential human being"."

POTENTIALITIES (CAPABILITIES) ARE LIMITED TO THE KIND OF THING TO WHICH THEY BELONG. A turnip could never have the capability of reasoning, simply because its parents are never able to bestow such an ability upon their offspring. And they can't bestow it, because they don't possess it themselves. The only abilities possessed by turnips is to do turnip-things. The capability to perform uniquely human actions, such as reasoning, whether at this moment, or only years from now, demands a human subject as its possessor. If the offspring of human parentage, at any time, even in the zygote-stage, possesses the "potentiality to act as a human being," he or she is already a human being. Nothing else could possess that capability. As for the "potentiality to be a human" it would be a contradiction of terms, since the potential and the actual cannot exist simultaneously in anything." [emphasis mine]

From: Link

Cordially,

127 posted on 11/07/2003 7:11:43 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Your offered reasoning does work to dehumanize the earliest ages of the individual human being's life. Why you reason that way is your problem, and I haven't accused you of drinking the Devil's koolaid ... but the Archbissect has and continues to, in my opinion.

I'm curious to know just what you are expecting from God to you that will establish your certain knowledge of how God sees life at conception?

128 posted on 11/07/2003 8:19:37 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
What I'm saying is that the difference between a conceptus---which is arguably worthy of all protection as a full human life---and a stem cell---is purely chemical.

It'll be interesting to see just how chemists apply their knowledge to this question.

The 100 wooden building blocks in a child's toybox can be used to make many different structures.

If we are going to use chemical building blocks to determine humanness, we've got a much larger number of building blocks to consider. (It's true that some of the blocks will be duplicates, but their placement will be just as important as their content.)

There are chemical similarities and differences among all cells, even among cells of the same species or the same individual.

Chemistry may hold a key to recognizing humanness, but it seems to me that scientists can already recognize cells that are capable of developing the same way as humans ordinarily develop.

129 posted on 11/07/2003 8:25:01 AM PST by syriacus (Casual comments about tubes, made after watching a 3 handkerchief movie, do not justify euthanasia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
No one has done the experiments to show that oral combination contraceptives cause abortions

It's my understanding that "the pill" thins the uterine lining which in some cases serves to prevent implantation, thus causing an abortion.

130 posted on 11/07/2003 8:30:56 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"... but FWIU the cells that develop prior to implantation ultimately become the amniotic sac and do not form part of the actual baby that will develop." I think you are mistaken because the cells of the blastomere are stem cells that will cascade into many lines of cells as the individual embryo continues to live through its lifetime, developing.

In simplified terms, when the blastocele (the inner chamber within the morula) forms, as new cells form within that chamber, they flatten out at the perimeter and some collect in two layers as a mass at one end (to become the yolk sac and embryo body). The blastomeres on the inner surface of the amniotic chamber will combine in tasking with some of the trophoblasts outside the blastocele to generate the exchanges of nutrients and gases. Also, the blastomeres helping to form the inner chamber will be involve in development of the gut and skin of the embryo body developing inside the amniotic chamber. The trophoblasts outside the blastocele chamber are tasked with protection and 'foraging', but they are linked with the inner balstomeres in a way that allows the blood cells formed by the embryoblasts to exchange gases and nutrients for the inner embryo body and yolk sac.

131 posted on 11/07/2003 8:36:12 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: beavus
Just what kind of life is it to be a sperm? I think you have watched too much Woody Allen to not understand the difference between being alive and being a living creature. A sperm is not a living creature, it is merely the half of what is required to make a living creature. It is alive but not a creature. So are fish eggs, and other than Roe v Wade, we don't make many laws in reference to them.

If you are going to make a law to protect every sperm, you will have to have only women and eunuchs as guards.
132 posted on 11/07/2003 8:41:10 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I will grant Dr. Cannibal one thing - he at least has come up with a scientific point in time with a testable distinction between the before and the after. That is a new one for me.

On the other hand, his statement that it is not a person until it is implanted smacks of discrimination based on location. Since the uterine lining isn't part of the being, how can becoming attached to that lining create a change in the being from non-person to person? That's like saying you're not a person if you live in a slum, but once you move into your own house you become a person.

The one about twinning is interesting and deserves very careful scientific analysis - of the sort lacking in this short article. I have heard that when a zygote is at the 2 cell stage you can replace one of the two cells with a cell from another individual and the zygote will continue to grow. But if you try the same trick with one cell of a 3 cell zygote it will die. I would suggest it's that 3 cell stage that makes the zygote a person. But if someone can prove that any zygote can twin up to 14 days, not just specially formed ones, that might change the equation.

I have no idea when G-d infuses the embryo with a soul. Until there is scientific reason to go with another point, I'll stick with sperm injection or at the 3 cell stage.

Shalom.

133 posted on 11/07/2003 8:43:01 AM PST by ArGee (Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beavus
You asked, "First, wouldn't culturing of an animal cell be sufficient to demonstrate that the cell is 'an individual form of life'?" Is the cell as it exists naturally an organism or a sub-unit of an organ of an organism? For your direction of argument to make sense, each human organism would have to be considered as a sub-unit of an 'individual' called human race. I'm not interested in going down that obfuscational road.
134 posted on 11/07/2003 8:53:55 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Selah!
135 posted on 11/07/2003 8:55:22 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
The cells of these people are coveted by researchers who desire to use the toti- and pleuri-potency of the cells that make up the human body at this stage of development

Do you happen to know if the "manufacture" of Epogen or Procrit depends on fetal stem cells?

136 posted on 11/07/2003 9:27:06 AM PST by syriacus (Casual comments about tubes, made after watching a 3 handkerchief movie, do not justify euthanasia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: beavus
You're right, animists do have a point.

Idiots rarely do.

Shalom.

137 posted on 11/07/2003 9:30:40 AM PST by ArGee (Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: beavus
You said earlier that a sperm is not a life. Now you say that a sperm is alive. Make up your mind, please. a·live ( …-lºv“) adj. 1. Having life.

"Having life" does not equal "having a life".

Music please....

What a difference an "a" makes.

138 posted on 11/07/2003 9:35:49 AM PST by syriacus (Casual comments about tubes, made after watching a 3 handkerchief movie, do not justify euthanasia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I'm curious to know just what you are expecting from God to you that will establish your certain knowledge of how God sees life at conception?

I am not expecting Him ever to make it certain, MHGinTN. Had he chosen to make everything certain, He could have directed the authors of His Word to do so, but He did not. Indeed it seems to me that Scripture even muddies the pro-life waters somewhat (e.g., Ex. 21:22), but not insurmountably.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that he expects us to treat human life with appropriate dignity even without that complete knowledge. The last time I checked, God did not say we could obey Him only if we fully understood why first.

139 posted on 11/07/2003 9:41:19 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Your offered reasoning does work to dehumanize the earliest ages of the individual human being's life.

Not if it serves to correct the anthropomorphism of the zygote/blastocyst, it doesn't. In other words I can't dehumanize something if it is not human.

And since we don't know God's opinion on the issue, I repeat again I would expect a bit more respect from a fellow pro-lifer.

140 posted on 11/07/2003 9:51:52 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 381-384 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson