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."

[hocndoc]

About the only thing the Bishop does have right in his imprecise language, is that there is a difference between the humanity/life of a gamete and the humanity/life of a zygote. The difference is the right not to be killed, as stated in his statement that the "the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life." However, he's trying to re-organize the discipline of embryology in order to fit his desire that "objections to IVF, genetic testing and stem cell research should fall away." Exactly as Blackmun ignored human embryology to allow the intentional killing of 1st and 2nd, and in fact 3rd, trimester human beings.

The notion that there is not a point in time when science - and practitioners of human medicine and the authors of Law - can say without doubt that a new individual organism has been created from gametes or from SCNT or parthenogenesis is not consistent with the science of human embryology and multiple texts and publications. Both the Bishop and the Justice use incorrect scientific "facts" in order to support bad logic.


If there is no difference between the sperm and the blastocyst other than one being unicellular and the other multicellular and each having vast differences from the functions and appearance of a mature adulte, then which will you protect as having the right not to be intentionally killed or at what point you would have the government intervene to secure that right.

[hocndoc]

After re-reading your #300, I see that you and I are arguing on different points entirely.

The Bishop is not making a statement about (quoting you) "**why** we value humans over other things."

He is making a statement about **when** ""the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life.""

He assumes that humans have rights, but uses false logic about the science of embryology.

[beavus]

The Bishop is not making a statement about (quoting you) "**why** we value humans over other things."

Almost no one in this debate ever does. Too bad, since the "why" is the basis of every aspect of this debate.

He is making a statement about **when** ""the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life.""

He should realize that any attempt to set any precise "when" can only be as principled as setting a height limit at a carnival ride, or setting the legal drinking age at 1 min after midnight on your 18th birthday.

He should also realize that not being able to connect the "when" with the "why" represents a conceptual break that dehumanizes the whole debate. Whether the people involved in this debate have made that fatal break, or simply have no interest in expressing the connection that they maintain in their thoughts, I can't say.

[beavus]

the Bishop does have right in his imprecise language, is that there is a difference between the humanity/life of a gamete and the humanity/life of a zygote. The difference is the right not to be killed, as stated in his statement that the "the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life."

He would need to explain why he thinks they "should be accorded" such status. Such explanation would require a discussion of "rights".

The notion that there is not a point in time when science...can say without doubt that a new individual organism has been created...is not consistent with the science of human embryology...

Properties of any observable phenomenon can be described at any specific point. However, no specific meaningful transition point can be named in any continuum. The life cycle is, of course, a continuum.

which will you protect as having the right not to be intentionally killed or at what point you would have the government intervene to secure that right

An interesting topic for sure, but a distraction from the point at hand.

[MHGinTN]

However, no specific meaningful transition point can be named in any continuum. Nice try at devaluing the conception of a new individual organism in the human family. Take a reading of embryology textbooks and you will discover that the vast majority of embryologist count conception as the beginning of an individual human organism's lifetime continuum. It appears you would prefer to have us look at the continuum of all life on earth and ignore the conception of individual members of our species in particular.

continuum \-ye-wem\ n, pl -ua \-ye-we\ also -uums : something that is the same throughout or consists of a series of variations or of a sequence of things in regular order
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[beavus]

American Heritage Dictionary: con·tin·u·um ( k…n-t¹n“y›-…m) n. pl. con·tin·u·a ( -t¹n“y›-…) or con·tin·u·ums 1. A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division.

Moi: However, no specific meaningful transition point can be named in any continuum.

Lector: Nice try at devaluing the conception of a new individual organism in the human family.

If you wish to redefine words, that's fine, just give me your word which means "a continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division" (which applies to all events surrounding fertilization) and I'll use it in my vain attempts at talking sense to you.

Why continue playing the fool? You are only going to aggravate any intelligent folks who agree with your conclusions but cringe at every attempt you make to defend them.

Take a reading of embryology textbooks

You are a perfect example that there is a world of difference between someone who reads, and someone who reads and understands.

Others for Language all their Care express,
And value Books, as Women Men, for Dress

Just think, people like you were hurling tomatos at the thoughtful at least as far back as 300 years ago. And one short essay appears to have described everything you say.

[MHGinTN]

Your childish effort to be insulting aside, the individual human lifetime has a beginning. The entire lifetime is often characterized as a continuum; calling an individual's lifetime a continuum doesn't remove the reality of that continuum having a beginning.

[Republic]

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.

Golly, has he told God about this yet?

[ChicagoHebrew]

Quite frankly, this isn't a bad thing. If everyone believed that life started at 14 days post-conception, basically 100% of abortions would be outlawed. Hell, 14 days past conception, most women don't even know they are pregnant.

[beavus]

calling an individual's lifetime a continuum doesn't remove the reality of that continuum having a beginning

Tell me then, oh most polite and wise gentleman, what is that beginning?

[MHGinTN]

Sadly, that's not the case. The people defending the indefensible are well aware that what is being 'treated' by the hired serial killer IS an alive individual human being. They believe a woman or couple has every right to hire that individual killed if she / they choose for some reason they may offer in conjunction with a certified physician.

I offer for your consideration the following excerpt of a judge's ruling in 1991, after the judge had taken testimony from experts such as the renowned Dr. Jerome Lejeune, in the trial of Alexander Loce:

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man's efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: "…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe v. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being." (Municipal Court of New Jersey -- Law division, Morris County criminal action docket no. C1771, et seq. State of New Jersey v. Alexander Loce, et als., Defendants, April 29, 1991, Honorable Michael J. Noonan).[http://groups.msn.com/catholicandprolife/belieforfactaboutabortion.msnw ]

[beavus]

Turns out the smartest thing is not what you've said on this thread, but rather what you haven't said.

When is the beginning? Answer: There isn't one, of course. Nature doesn't work that way.

Perhaps you've finally been cured of your poofishness.

[MHGinTN]

Would you recognize the testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, in order to answer your query? ... I wouldn't offer my own since you obsess in such juvenile ways in response to my words. How about the sworn testimony of one of the World's greatest geneticists? [Incidentally, would you like to cite expert sources for your assertion that there is no beginning for an individual's lifetime?]

[beavus]

Would you recognize the testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, in order to answer your query?

Since you understand Dr. Lejeune's apparent defense of poofing, I'm sure you can answer clearly and concisely and in your own words, 'When is the beginning?', without having to appeal to authority. If you WILL give a time, then I will show you why you are wrong.

Incidentally, would you like to cite expert sources for your assertion that there is no beginning for an individual's lifetime?

You want expert sources for the time continuum of nature? That's like asking for expert sources that massive objects on earth are heavy. All anyone has ever observed above quantum scales is a continuum. If you have evidence of something as unusual and counterintuitive as poofing, which defies all experience, then the impetus is on you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

BTW, I can't imagine ANY geneticist, let alone "one of the World's greatest" issuing proclaimations that rock the foundations of physics. But then some people will say anything, no matter how far out of their league. Take you, for instance.

[MHGinTN]

Do you know who Dr. Lejeune was?

[MHGinTN]

Thought you might want to read this raving bustard's insult to Dr. Lejeune.

[Palladin]

Who cares what Anglicans say about this sort of thing?

They are the ones who allow men to marry men in their church, and reward them with a Bishopric for doing so.

The Anglican Church is FUBAR.

[MHGinTN]

You asseret, If you WILL give a time, then I will show you why you are wrong. You will assert your opinion, or you will give scientific evidence of why the fusion of the parent chromosomes then mitosis is not evidence of a new individual in the species living its unique instruction for growth and development?

[Held_to_Ransom]

I seriously doubt that sperm can survive for 14 days in the lower intestine, let alone begin life there.