News-Record.com

Ah yes, our intrepid and unbiased religion reporter.

Jason, I've sat where Nancy sits, and I don't have a single problem with her comment. Useful perspective:

-- Scientists: Use embryos to prevent and/or ease human suffering.

-- Vatican: Enables dozens, if not hundreds, of priests to molest children in their charge, sometimes for decades, often simply moving the predators from one parish or diocese to another when people got suspicious.

Before the Vatican worries about the mote in the scientists' eyes, let it look to the log in its own.

Would it be OK for a researcher to kill a two year old child to attempt to find a cure for a particular disease?

ECUMAN, do you not see any difference between a frozen embryo that was never even part of a pregnancy and a living child? Talk about comparing apple to oranges!

I think mine was a pretty fair observation of the facts, but I agree it's getting harder to question religion policy/thought without turning the question into a conversation about bias.

ECUMAN, it depends. Is the 2-year-old yours?

Seriously, I draw a very clear distinction between frozen embryos and postborn people. I am not 100% confident of the moral correctness of my position, not having had a personal audience with God of late, but I'm comfortable with that level of consistency, at the least.

Given all we don't know, these are complex moral questions with a lot of shades of gray, and anyone who tries to reduce them to black and white for any reason is probably trying to sell you something.

My question was given to point out the the ONLY relevant question is whether the "researchee" is a living human being or not. All the other arguments about cures, the role of the government, etc. are irrelevant until this question is answered. The real questions are Can I kill this? and "What is this?"

"Before the Vatican worries about the mote in the scientists' eyes, let it look to the log in its own."

A-MEN !!

and might i add.....this is the same church that once said it was sin to eat meat on friday, unless you were catholic you went to hell, that once taught that unbaptised children went to limbo ( childrens hell ! ) to name but a few....the "church" now says it's ok to eat meat on friday and that some others (i.e.non catholics) are permitted to go to heaven and that pre-embryos, embryos, fetuses, and unbaptized babies who die will go directly to heaven (they have caved into the the pressures of their constituents). lets not even mention the crusades and unspeakble horrors the "church" reigned on humanity in God's name.

"My question was given to point out the the ONLY relevant question is whether the "researchee" is a living human being or not."

I understood that, and I agree that it is a vital issue to discuss. Which is why I asked you my question. Do you in fact equate a frozen embryo with a "living human being"?

Eric:

Yes, an living embryo is a living human being. It is human (has human DNA) and has being (exists). Therefore, by definition,it is a living human being. A frozen embryo is a frozen human being.

An egg is a human being by your definition. It has human DNA and exists. Would you protect the existence of all eggs?

I think that your definition is lacking. There are more things that make a human being, IMO. To an egg, you need to add more human DNA, and you need to add the hormonal stimulation that occurs only after implantation. You need to add the time it takes to develop an actual functioning nervous system. Until the basic package has been put together enough, I don't think it's time to call it "a human being."

Eric:

I meant to say the embryo has distinct DNA from the parents. Who gets to decide what kinds of attributes are necessary for "being"? You said you "don't THINK it's time to call it a human being. Even though you don't know for sure, it's OK to kill "it"? If you were in charge of a domolition crew, would you let one of your crew members say "I don't THINK anyone is in the building" before you flip the switch to blow up the building.

As always, I enjoyed the exchange. It won't be able to respond tomorrow, my son and I are going to Baltimore this weekend to see a couple of Orioles-Rangers games. Have a good weekend.

"If you were in charge of a domolition crew, would you let one of your crew members say "I don't THINK anyone is in the building" before you flip the switch to blow up the building."

There you go again, making unwarranted leaps. But your analogy appears apt for the discussion; I'll run with it for a bit. Using your analogy, an embryo that was never part of a pregnancy is like an empty lot with a bunch of building materials neatly stacked in place, ready to start construction. This is why scientists are keen on using those materials... the potential for developing ways to help strengthen and repair "other buildings" is immeasurable.

There is no good reason, based in reality, that we should not use the opportunity afforded us by proper use of science.

"I won't be able to respond tomorrow, my son and I are going to Baltimore this weekend to see a couple of Orioles-Rangers games. Have a good weekend."

Sorry I forgot to add this to my earlier post... hope you guys have a good weekend. Sounds like it'll be a fun outing.

I do think the Catholic Church is well within its defined moral outlines to excommunicate scientific researchers using embryos. As usual, I say each club can define its own rules and abide by them, or exclude members or others who violate them. I do wish the Vatican will, however, continue its current openness to the ideas of science as they arise. If there ever comes a day when embryos are shown with great probability to NOT be persons, I expect the Vatican may concede.

This seems almost an impossibility a this juncture of human knowledge. The question of what constitutes "personhood" appears beyond the current ken of science. But you never know what the future will bring...

Since there is no single "moment of conception" during the process of egg transferral to the uterine wall, outer cellular absorption and sperm penetration to the nucleus, all the way through to brain and other organ development (lasting well into some people's twenties), it seems there is no point in time one could describes as the coming-into-existence of a human being.

Maybe the "being" in "human being" is more verb than noun.