Science without Limits: Reinventing Parenthood

BreakPoint ^ | 21 May 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Recently, two University of Pennsylvania researchers announced findings that, in the words of the Washington Post, "could blur the biological line between fathers and mothers."

Writing in the online journal Science, Hans Schoeler and Karin Huebner described how they turned ordinary mouse embryonic stem cells into eggs capable of being fertilized.

What’s more, the stem cells they used were from males. Thus, if the technique used by the two researchers is applicable to humans, it could be possible for a gay couple to have children "with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes."

That raises a new question: Should the man who contributed the cells for the egg be recognized as the child’s "mother"? If not, what is he?

Scientists are abuzz. John Eppig, a mouse geneticist, told the Washington Post that "the mind boggles with potential wild applications of this stuff." Lee Silver, molecular biologist and bioethicist at Princeton, told the Post that the results "[break] down all the classic barriers in terms of sexual reproduction, with none of the problems of cloning."

But others were less enthusiastic. Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life, for one, called the results a potential big step toward opening "human embryo farms."

Johnson is right. But the even bigger threat comes from the hubris of researchers who feel free to "blur the biological lines between mothers and fathers." Even the risk of fundamentally changing what it means to be human doesn’t seem to deter them.

It should, for even dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists would agree that sexual reproduction involving fathers and mothers must serve some important purpose. They would recognize that the only animal species without distinct roles for the sexes in reproduction are lower species like amoebas and paramecium.

Darwinists like Stephen Pinker of MIT would affirm that the differences between male and female go beyond their roles in reproduction. They are different in many ways—physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Christians, of course, affirm all of this and more. The respective roles and contributions of both sexes are what Genesis is referring to when it says "male and female He created them." The history and destiny of life is inextricably tied up in that phrase. It is sheer madness to tamper with the distinction.

Christians shouldn’t let anyone say that these concerns make us "Luddites" who fear technology. Bill McKibben, a science writer whom no one would call a Luddite, shares the same concerns. In his book, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, he writes that the questions posed by biotechnology threaten to alter what it means to be human and are too important to be left to scientists. He asks, "Must we forever grow in reach and power. . . . Or can we, should we, ever say, ‘Enough’?"

Exactly—which is why BreakPoint keeps focusing on bioethics, which raises the most profound moral questions. Christians ought to sound the alarm now, before science without limits blurs lines that were meant to be distinct and achieves what C. S. Lewis called the "abolition of man."

[Mr. Silverback]

The original article at the link has a bunch of reference links.

The abolition of man, indeed.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint Ping!

If anyone would like on or off my Breakpoint/Chuck Colson ping list, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[RightWhale]

Christians ought to sound the alarm now, before science without limits blurs lines that were meant to be distinct and achieves what C. S. Lewis called the "abolition of man."

Big changes are coming. Will we still be "ourselves" 100 years from now?

Another question: Are we nothing more than our animal bodies to be worrying about what kind of vehicle we inhabit?

[randog]

Should the man who contributed the cells for the egg be recognized as the child’s "mother"?

No, the "mother" would be the one with the fake breasts.

[steve-b]

He asks, "Must we forever grow in reach and power.... Or can we, should we, ever say, 'Enough'?"

There will always be enclaves for people who decide that the natural aging process is better than using biotech, just as there are enclaves for people who think that using electricity is "worldly". You go your way; we'll go ours.

[Mr. Silverback]

LOL! Could give new menaing to "silicone nipples."

[steve-b]

Will we still be "ourselves" 100 years from now?

Of course not, any more than we are like the people living at the turn of the twentieth century. As I said, people who don't like the new world should feel free to find a place to keep it out, without interference (beyond the minimum necessary to insure that they don't fester into another batch of terrorist goblins).

[Mr. Silverback]

It's not so much that I'm worried about the vehicle, as I am at the potential to redefine what is human. We have seen genocides come about in the past because of such redefinitions. Plus, in this case, messing with the structure of the family is lethal for a civilization. Screwing with the nuclear family structure in the name of freedom--any freedom--is the sociological equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

[newgeezer]

Thankfully, the Father will say "Enough" when the hour is come.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm sorry, I don't see why saying, "Humans should be conceived by a man and a woman, not grown in a lab for two gay men" is a rejection of all things biotech. I can use a scalpel to perform life-saving surgery or I can use it to sterilize "undesirable" races so they can't breed. One is a good and the other is an evil. It's the same with the bio-tech revolution. I'm not saying don't do anything with genes, I'm saying let's use the knowledge for healing instead of license. That isn't animosity toward science or modernity.

[RightWhale]

messing with the structure of the family is lethal for a civilization

Oddly, there is evidence to the contrary, and some of it is uniquely American. Shakers and Oneida were not exactly failures. They weren't wildly popular, but they lasted decades and prospered. Shakers, especially.

[RightWhale]

people who don't like the new world should feel free to find a place to keep it out

It's getting tough to do that these days, although you are free to try. 200 years ago you could go into the wilderness and set up your own best community. You can't do that easily anymore. Even the Islamic fundamentalists are doomed to have to merge with the rest of civilization, or with civilization as some might say. Afghanistan is not far enough, civilization will come for you like it or not.

[Old Professer]

civilization will come for you like it or not.

As a child, I used to be fascinated by peeing on blotting paper and watching it spread.

[MHGinTN]

... "the mind boggles with potential wild applications of this stuff." Lee Silver, molecular biologist and bioethicist at Princeton, told the Post that the results "[break] down all the classic barriers in terms of sexual reproduction, with none of the problems of cloning." Where will the stem cells come from? A male embryo ... male embryo, hence even the sex of the individual human being at embryo age is determined. I'd say the crafty liars are trying to slip one over on the uneducated public, as in purposely confusing organ and organism; the CLONED individual male human ORGANISM at embryo age will be 'harvested' for his stem cells, thus killing him for his body parts to use in another experiment. And some think that's okay, just enlightened application of what we can do, as if since we CAN do it we SHOULD do it. It's CANNIBALISM in a stealth mode, that's all.

... they turned ordinary mouse embryonic stem cells into eggs capable of being fertilized. To obtain the stem cells, they harvested an individual ORGANISM for its body parts called stem cells ...

What’s more, the stem cells they used were from males. The sex of the individual ORGANISM was known, so it had a full identity. Thus, if the technique used by the two researchers is applicable to humans, it could be possible for a gay couple to have children "with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes." And to obtain these 'fresh eggs' a clone of the individual will have to be conceived, then the stem cells of that individual human ORGANISM harvested, to be manipulated into 'fresh eggs'. Until the American people can understand the fundamentals, the obfuscation of truth and the lies framed to fit the ethics/moral compass of the scientists wanting to utilize this form of cannibalism will continue ... and amorla ghouls like steve-b will chide the less knowledgible, trying to embarass them into 'agree to disagree' and allow the evil to continue unabated.

It is no accident that such an evil approach to conception would appeal immediately tot he deviant people in our society ... hence the morally bankrupt scientists fashion their appeal to the twisted minds of deviants.

[MHGinTN]

Where are the flourishing Shaker and Oneida communities today, all these years later?

[LiteKeeper]

Science SPOTREP

[RightWhale]

A lot of things are possible. Some are still legal. Doesn't mean we all have to do all these things; just because you can do something doesn't mean it's right. There's been a lot of change in the world since Columbus, but change is still happening and faster than ever; a person could get whiplash trying to watch everythiing. Who knows, Shakers could make a comeback, and that's another whole way of doing things altogether.

[MHGinTN]

It is important to realize that the scientists or journalists touting this 'marvel' "with none of the problems of cloning" have defined 'therapeutic cloning' (the cloning method that sets the prior goal of not allow the newly conceived individual human ORGANISM to grow to full 40 week term and birth) as not the same as reproductive cloning, so this cloning is okay because the 'full human' will not be allowed to emerge. In other words, those wanting society to approve of this cannibalism have applied their version of right and wrong and assumed it for their reasons to obfuscate, dissemble, and lie to the rest of society ... done so to obviate the chance that society might reject the cannibalsim if society knew the truth.

[RightWhale]

Oneida has dropped the socialism and has gone corporate, kind of a reverse Marx procedure. Shakers were around 180 years or so, died out due to lack of popular appeal; times change, people lost interest. They were doing okay, though, economically and seemed happy enough.

[RightWhale]

Interesting how careers in science begin.