Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans

The Age (Australia) ^ | November 5, 2003 | Peta Rasdien

[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."

[mcg1969]

Because, as they are, those cells would not grow into an individual, even if they were kept alive.

OK, good answer. So let's flesh this scenario out further. I know we're getting into hypotheticals now, but please indulge me nonetheless: what happens if researchers figure out how to perfect cloning to the extent that any stem cell (such as can be isolated from bone marrow or cord blood) can be induced to develop into a zygote? Does that change our medical ethics for bone marrow biopsy? Because then, of course, any of those cells has the potential to become an individual if kept alive.

[Revel]

These are the same establishment that are bringing us Gay Bishops and the sort. The leadership of the Anglican Church is evil and this is more of there evil.

[syriacus]

I know we're getting into hypotheticals now, but please indulge me nonetheless: what happens if researchers figure out how to perfect cloning to the extent that any stem cell (such as can be isolated from bone marrow or cord blood) can be induced to develop into a zygote? Because then, of course, any of those cells has the potential to become an individual if kept alive.

I like hypotheticals. I don't mind following thoughts down their logical paths.

I'm not sure what method of cloning you are talking about.

If the cells have been tampered with, in such a way that they become zygote-like and they would develop into a new individual if they were allowed to continue development, then they are a new individual.

Don't you find it supremely ironic that the very same people who are so interested in developing a human from a single cell, are often the same folks who laugh at the idea of the virgin birth?

[ahadams2]

heretical Australian Primate demonstrates his ignorance publicly Ping.

[secret garden]

Obviously he did not earn his PhD in physiology.

[nmh]

Life starts when the egg is fertilized. NOT 14 days later. What dim wits!

[Joe Republc]

You know, IF humans were designed to go through a pregnancy stage where the mother's body was changing, preparing the womb, perhaps storing up extra fat, and THEN the sperm and the egg unit to form a unique human being, we'd have a different story. I wouldn't get upset if that process was 'aborted' before the sperm and egg unite. Once the sperm and egg unite, you have a unique, living being. The DNA of one cell is more complicated than any mechanism we've built.

So what if we all start out with a body that's the size of a pixel on a computer screen? How big do you think we all are ANYWAY in the scheme of things? If you were to look at just our galaxy, our solar system is just a speck. How do you think God feels about your size?

We can't discriminate on size, location, age, intelligence, gender, sexuality, handicap, race, religion, when it comes to which humans are people and which are not. We can't cross that line without all moral sense eventually falling away. Like it or not, God linked sex and procreation together tightly. We are supposed to procreate, take care of our women, and raise our kids. It's not complicated.

Rant off,
-- Joe

[beavus]

In this instance, I consider "playing God" as determining what is alive and what isn't.

I know what you mean. My high school biology teacher tried to tell me that bacteria were alive and rocks were not. He was playing God. People shouldn't be so judgemental. You're right, animists do have a point.

[beavus]

Eggs and sperm are cells. When they combine, however, they form a human being that, over time, develops from one cell into abortion activists.

Cute, but my quandary isn't solved. I'm told by biologists that sperm are alive. Human sperm, being from a human, is human. Therefore, a sperm is a human life. And yet, I'm told by primates that a sperm is not a human life. Who is right?

[MHGinTN]

You offered, as a means to defend your effort to dehuamnize the earliest ages along an individual's lifetime continuum for whatever reason you may hold to, "... but so would a zygote forcibly removed from implantation ..." The zygote is the first cell formed at fusion of the chromosomes of male and female (in traditional reproduction); as soon as mitosis occurs, within hours there is a morula of sixteen cells and that is no longer a zygote; implantation doesn't happen until days later and several levels of stem cell cascade, and the embryo is - by the implantation age of twelve to fourteen days - already grown to a hundred or more cells moving along the methylation pathways that make the placental organ and the main body of the individual to be used upon exiting the womb.

As to the Aussie Arch, I stand by my characterization of him because his effort to dehumanize the earliest age of individual human beings so that he can lend credibility to the exploitation of human life for cannibalization is disgusting service to the great ghoul known as the father of lies, a murderer from the start. I'll choose how to view that man based on his words and actions, thank you.

[MontanaBeth]

The female ovum is also alive, but it doesn't become life until fertilized.

[Held_to_Ransom]

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

Bad luck for cojoined siamese twins.

[mcg1969]

Yes, I do find it ironic :)

The reason this is hypothetical is that this method of cloning I suggested is not yet possible. But it is conceivable that, someday, it would be relatively straightforward to produce a full human being out of a set of 46 chromosomes taken from an otherwise "benign" cell like a bone marrow cell.

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. Now of course, that's the only physical difference. Qualitatively, the difference is much larger: one has the potential to become a fully grown human, one does not.

But if that day comes when such cloning is possible, that qualitative difference largely vanishes, does it not?

[Held_to_Ransom]

Sperms better not be life or all males are either cannibals or mass murderers. Same for eggs. The magic happens when they meet. There are living, but neither by itself will ever amount to a human being.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Sperms better not be life or all males are either cannibals or mass murderers. Same for eggs. The magic happens when they meet. There are living, but neither by itself will ever amount to a human being.

[realpatriot71]

It's actually not that bad a place to draw a line. Without implantation the blastocyst will not continue development into a fetus.

[AD from SpringBay]

Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans

It's ok for a man to put his penis in another man, say Anglicans

[MHGinTN]

Actually, you're in over your head ... you don't know what you're talking about. You offered, The reason this is hypothetical is that this method of cloning I suggested is not yet possible. But it is conceivable that, someday, it would be relatively straightforward to produce a full human being out of a set of 46 chromosomes taken from an otherwise "benign" cell like a bone marrow cell. For your educationa update, in Feb 2002 Taxas A&M University finally succeeded in cloning a tabby housecat. They removed the nuclear material from a somatic cell (your bone marrow cell is a somatic cell) and injected it into a cat ovum that had had its nuclear material removed, then stimulated the new combination and got mitosis then a born kitten. There have been numerous mammals born from cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. If you were trying to infer a method of cloning where a somatic cell is stimulated somehow to back up along the very long cascade of methylations until it reaches the zugotic age from whence it derived, that is a completely different matter. Basing a scientific discussion, even a quasi scientific discussion, upon what you can 'imagine' happening in the far distant future is a bit of a reach.

[battousai]

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.

Ah yes, but the sheep cloned or not doesn't have an immortal soul now does it Dr. Carnley, that wee little point missed ya I guess. Our faith teaches us that the soul is created by god at conception, and so whatever "genetically novel kind of cell" it may be it is also human life. I guess he's just another liberal in reverends clothing, ala the Rev Jackson.

[narses]

Ping.