Late last month, I engaged in a public conversation with Princeton Professor Robert George and former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon on exploring common ground on life issues with the Obama administration. During our discussion, held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., I suggested that pro-life Catholics might find a level of agreement with the White House by, among other things:
Honestly recognizing that science does not give an answer to the legal personhood question of the un-implanted embryo created in a laboratory for non-reproductive research purpose. President Obama has decided to forego this therapeutic embryonic stem cell research for now, I suspect out of respect for our faith claims, but the pursuit of common ground asks us to be cautious about overstating the science. While I fully accept the Catholic teaching, and the desire by our bishops for others as well to come to share the belief that we should treat even an embryo created in a petri dish never intended for implantation as a person, we need to acknowledge that reason here may not—yet—be on the same path as faith.
Following our conversation, it was my pleasure to receive a thoughtful note from Professor George who wrote to confirm that he shared my understanding that “science does not give an answer to the legal personhood question.” Writes Professor George: “Science cannot tell us whether unborn human beings are persons or whether it is right or wrong to kill them. By the same token, of course, science cannot tell us whether any human being is a person and whether killing of any type is right or wrong…. Science cannot answer these questions, and scientists as such (whatever their personal philosophical and ethical opinions) do not propose answers to them.”
I agree, but I still wonder whether our understanding of the matter is in line with the public statements of the church. To be sure, the Catechism makes no claim from science whatsoever, but rather relies upon revelation. Reference is made to the Didache’s explicit instruction that “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." The church proclaims that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception" by relying upon the statement in Jeremiah that “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
Matters become a bit more tangled, however, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) document, Donum Vitae, where science is given a confirmatory role:
This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. The teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable. (DV, I, 1).
The scientific suggestion reappeared this past summer in response to comments made by now-Vice President Joe Biden on the question of when life begins. In “A Statement in Response to Senator Biden” (Sept. 11, 2008), the pro-life office statement seems to rely on a claimed support from science to a far greater extent than the revelation-based Catechism:
The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.
The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? ….While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception. (citation omitted). The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.
The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. . . .Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral value and those who do not, and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. . . .
While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.
Read in conjunction with the Catechism, the statement of the pro-life office is apt to leave those seeking to understand church instruction understandably confused. And the confusion has real consequence for stem cell research, especially as the pro-life office statement asserts that the burden of proof for any differing positions rests on others.
Life’s Beginning
Scientists and ethicists challenge the pro-life office’s proposition that the personhood line cannot be drawn better elsewhere. Many non-Catholics propose the point at which an embryo is implanted in the womb as one that can be easily demarcated scientifically. From a Catholic perspective, the proffered line might be argued to better coincide with Jeremiah’s reference to God’s knowledge of us “in the womb,” and even the statement of the pro-life office itself. After all, the pro-life office recognizes that the capacity of the embryo to mature depends upon being placed in a nurturing environment—i.e., the womb. In the end, however, the significance of the womb inexplicably falls away, with Donum Vitae simply announcing: “it is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.” (DV, I, 5; also cited in the Catechism 2275).
The separation of Catholic teaching from modern science has consequences for both science and the church. For science, it may mean that it is wrongly ordered. As the CDF observes, “science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.” (DV, I, 2) For the church, the absence of a scientific grounding for its instruction on human personhood means that its teaching will be seen by non-believers as particularistic, rather than universal.
In this context, is it fitting for the church to impose upon the scientist the burden of justifying any practice of which the church alone disapproves? Will the larger community accept such an imposition without the confirmatory or auxiliary support of reason? After all, it should not be assumed that the non-believer who puts these questions in this context is a moral renegade like the late Dr. George Tiller. No, the consequences of sin in the world present more moral ambiguity than that—that which is sinful often appears good, but the devil should not be thought incapable of also making good appear evil.
The Womb and Respect for Life
For this reason, a non-Catholic, be he president or the man on the street, who with respect and civility expresses skepticism over the church’s position of protecting embryos regardless of an intended and actual relationship with a nurturing environment ought not be too readily demonized. Many scientists and non-Catholics generally see the embryo outside the womb as different. Do they have a point? In both theological and practical terms, might there not be an essential difference between the blessedness of the womb and the disinterested calculations of the laboratory with its neutral protocols and scientific methods?
When the Angel Gabriel appeared to Our Lady, the request was for admission to the womb, with Mary’s answer a model for us all: “let it be done unto me.” The magnificence of the Annunciation is echoed by the poor, single woman in modern time agreeing to carry a child to term even as she may be without insurance or even sufficient shelter. The love—and faith—of Mary and her successor mothers far outdistance anything comparable in the research lab where the embryo results from the admixture of materials in a petri dish.
Yes, of course, the church also condemns mixing the ingredients of life in petri dishes, but pointing out to those beyond the fold an earlier arc in the circle of an argument is an ineffective tool of persuasion. No, at least as a matter of tolerance of religious and philosophical difference, Catholics ought to concede more generously that non-Catholic scientists anxious to identify a cure for illnesses such as juvenile diabetes, cancer and Parkinson’s Disease are likely doing so out of the belief that they are honoring life by caring for the well-being of their neighbor. Indeed, if a researcher had non-embryonic human cell material thought capable of reviving a patient from a comatose state, it would not take the unraveling of the lessons of the Terri Schaivo case to know what was required as ethical duty. It is highly conceivable that a non-Catholic researcher would understand the potential and duty represented by the embryo outside the womb in the same way.
Faith and Reason
Recognizing that the pro-life office is still likely to argue that scientists have not met the burden of justification assigned to them, should we deduce that the search for common ground on stem cell research is useless? Of course not, as the pro-life office has stressed, it is possible to utilize adult stem cells without the ethical conundrums associated with the status of embryos. While I get taken to task by a few of my bishop friends whenever I say nice things about the president, at a minimum it is fair to say President Obama understands our different Catholic view in favor of protecting as persons what others would see as research material, and to my mind at least, he has articulated NIH regulations that mitigate the clash.
The president is ever hopeful of building bridges. The clarification from Professor George, an Obama opponent, that the Catholic view of personhood does not claim that it has the support of modern science aligns his understanding with mine, an Obama supporter. An agreement between a couple of erstwhile Catholic academics who may disagree on political matters is not the common ground necessary to move forward in this area, but it is a start. And if these discussions undertaken with good will permit the right hand to newly discover what the left hand is doing, perhaps we will also find a way to apply John Donne’s aphorism that “reason is our soul's left hand. Faith is the right.”
Dr. Dale and Michael Bindner do not want to believe that fertilization is the point at which a new person begins. Dr. Dale wishes to label as conception the point at which the fertilized egg proves itself capable of developing further, while Michael Bindner wishes to call gastrulation the point at which it has been proved that the fertilized egg is a person. Beyond these two opinions, there are also opinions that a person does not exist unless he has a soul, which allows for the extreme possibility that no one is a person until he or she takes his or her first breath. However, it is quite obvious to most people that the moment of fertilization is the moment that a new human being begins, whether or not someone wishes to call that new human being a person and whether or not someone wishes to call that point in time conception. The ethical question is not "what may we do with a fertilized human egg?", but "is one human entitled to profit at the cost of another human's life?".
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Kmiec goes back and forth between hard science and “hard” revelation (biblical literalism) as if these were the only participants in this discussion. Kmiec does not acknowledge the role of philosophy and theology in the Christian tradition and in this discussion.
Science does not give an answer to the legal question simply because it can't provide one. And it can’t provide one in exactly the same way it can't provide an answer to the question about the moral status of the embryo.
As a moral issue this is not a matter that can be decided by empirical science and its narrower approach to observable reality. This is an issue that is to be decided by other rational means of grasping both what is, and what ought to be.
The Catholic tradition has always seen this as a philosophical question, as well as a moral one.
If science cannot decide this issue it can certainly inform aspects of the discussion. Science can provide evidence in support of what is fundamentally a moral claim. The validity of the basic moral claim, however, does not depend on the status of scientific research at any given moment.
Our moral and legal relationship to the earliest stages of our existence as individual human beings cannot depend on the latest theories available, on the power of our current observation equipment, on the funding granted to research institutions, or on the strengths and shortcomings of the moral education of the current generation of scientists.
Human life must be protected from our individual and collective limitations. It is irresponsible to demand a “right” to experiment with human embryos until the day someone manages to persuade us that we are wrong. Individual die hards may have closed their minds to such persuasion but as a society we should know better.
Protecting human life as sacred is the only way of placing it beyond our irresponsibility.
Marie states:" Dr. Dale wishes to label as conception the point at which the fertilized egg proves itself capable of developing further,", sorry Marie but I didn't say thay. My position is that conception begins when a new creation occurs at a later stage after the union of sperm and egg. However, this is NOT at fertilization. At fertilization, in the fallopian tubes, the fertilized egg is combined genetic material, just sperm and egg material, these cells are not different from the mother and father genes. It isn't until the differentiation occurs that you now have a totally new being with it's own genetic material different from the genetic material of the mother and father. Furthermore, most fertilized eggs pass out of the mother and do not implant in the uterus. I am willing to agree that life occurs at differentiation, a few days after fertiliztion which is much, much, much, much earlier than you will ever get many experts to agree to.
A fertilized egg is no different than a combination of genetic material from the mother and father, nothing new or different until differentiation. You also state: "However, it is quite obvious to most people that the moment of fertilization is the moment that a new human being begins" It's obvious? I don't know who you are talking to, possibly those who agree with your position but most people wouldn't agree and scientific experts wouldn't agree. Furthermore, just because it might seem obvious from a philosophical point to some people it doesn't mean it's scientifically correct. The horizon looks flat to me and it may seem obvious to me that the earth is flat but we know scientifically it isn't. I am not trying to solve the frozen embryo problem, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. But we all need to talk the same language to solve this problem and we need to know the facts to make an informed decision. Otherwise, it's tower of Babel time. I think Marie and I agree when life begins but by only a few days.
Dr. Dale and I do apparently differ only slightly as to the beginning of life. However, this distinction is huge in terms of deciding whether what a scientist has put together in a laboratory is just one cell within another or an individual.
Dr. Dale's position on the matter seems to involve something similar to proofing yeast. His position extrapolated to the issue of baking would seem to be that until the "yeast" is observably alive, it is not alive. However, most of us tend to believe that if "yeast" shows itself to be alive, then it was alive while it was still in its package.
Most likely, Dr. Dale will take issue with my analogy, arguing that all cells are alive, but that they are not human beings, while my response to that would be that the fertilized human egg is the special case. Two cells (living, of course) join their genetic material within one cell, thereby creating a genetically unique cell even before it begins doing what all cells naturally do, which is to multiply their genetic material and split.
If there is confusion let me, a simple minded person, try to clear it up. You can't kill embryos. This is the teaching of the church. That wasn't so difficult was it?
The opinion of the masses is not important. What is important is sound philosophical reasoning backed by the science. This is not a position of either of opinion or faith, but of reason. We can't necessarily prove when a soul is implanted by science - although the ontology of an embryo after gastrulation seems to indicate that something unique is going on that did not happen prior to it. What we can prove, using science and philosophical reasoning, is when a soul CANNOT be present. If the underlying organism can be a hybrid, yet will still grow, we can safely assume that a soul cannot be present. If you can "crack the egg" by removing the Chorion and it doesn't die, you can safely assume that it was not alive - since you didn't really "kill it." If taking off the Chorion does kill the remaining cells, as would happen after gastrulation, you can assume ensoulment has taken place.
Writing off this analysis as simple "opinion" does not wash. I have stated facts and none of them are in dispute. The only refuge against them is the application of authority - however that applciation says more about the fallibility of the authority than the soundness of the argument.
Exactly right Michael. Everybody wants to protect life. The question is when does life start? Unless we all get our semantics correct some will be talking about apples whereas others oranges. It is one thing for the church to want to protect life, we all do, but it is another thing when the church wants a seat at the table to discuss how to protect life. Then the church is no longer preaching to the choir (us) but attempting to add it's voice (as it has the right) and affect change on a national level with (others) scientists and national leaders who may not always agree with the church's opinion. If we want to affect national change then we have to talk the same language as everybody else. We might wish that life begins at fertilization but it doesn't make it so unless you make a convincing sound moral AND scientific argument. Furthermore, if the Church comes to the table and says this is what we believe, this is it and you have to make changes to the laws and regulations on a national or global level because of our authority (based mainly on non scientist religious leaders) then we will be laughed out of the room. We won't be anymore effective at initiating change than Jehovah Witnesses trying to change laws to prohibit blood transfusions for everybody based on what they perceive is morally correct. Also, what concerns me is this argument that our development begins at fertilization and a polaroid image is used as an example. It's a pretty philosophical argument but scientifically bankrupt. If conception occurs at fertilization when the zygote is just sperm and egg material and gametes, then using the "development" argument, our development actually begins when the sperm and egg individually develop the gametes that come together at fertilization. Therefore should we be protecting sperm and egg at oogenesis? If so then monthly menstruation is an interruption in the development of that child. That would be a very difficult stand to take indeed.
Marie, stop putting words in my mouth. I respect your position but you don't mine. You stated: "Dr. Dale's position on the matter seems to involve something similar to proofing yeast. His position extrapolated to the issue of baking would seem to be that until the "yeast" is observably alive, it is not alive." PROOFING YEAST??? OBSERVABLY ALIVE??? I have stated twice, and will do so again, these are the FACTS: the fertilized egg is NO different genetically from the parents. Even energy and ADP/ATP is derived from the sperm head. It isn't until differentiation that it CHANGES, its cells are now GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from its parents. It is at this time a NEW creation, with cells and gametes completely different from the parents. This is a FACT, it is OBSERVABLY DIFFERENT and MEASURABLE DIFFERENT from the contribution of the parentS. That is why we look different from our parents. This is when conception occurs, when someone NEW COMES INTO BEING. Until then it is just sperm and egg material. That is why we look different from our parents. This is different from your "observably alive" statement. Your position is not based on any scientific fact, only circular thinking and comparisons using yeast and polaroid pictures. Your position is untenable. If you want to believe that conception occurs at fertilization then fine. However, if you are trying to have a voice at the table and effect national and global legislation and regulations with those types of arguments then we Catholics will look foolish. I can't imagine what the directors of NIH would say. And then who do you think will determine those regulations nationally and globally? We need to agree when conception occurs scientifically then apply moral, philosophical and legal protections to protect these new persons. We DON'T need to use moral, philosophical and legal arguements alone to determine when conception occurs. Late term abortions are permitted because of legal arguments "the baby isn't alive until fully born". However, it wasn't until medical, scientific studies and sonograms that we began to change our view that indeed the baby was alive and Late Term Abortions are considered infanticide. Until the medical scientific community weighed in, legal, philosophical and moral arguments against late term abortions didn't sway opinion very much.
Leonard, The infallible teaching of the church is that you can't kill if it is possible that the blastocyst is more than potential human life. (You can't call a blastocyst an organism, because it is unorganized - which should be a clue). If one can argue from reason and biology, as I have, that the Church has the science wrong, then the interpretation of the teaching is wrong, even though the underlying principle (which is sourced from Thomistic and Aristotelean ethics rather than scripture). Considering that the Church relied on a cardiologist for its scientific input, it is not at all surprising that it got the science wrong - especially when that Cardiologist was writing to affirm the biases of the Pope he was writing for, rather than providing an objective summary of current scientific thought on the start of life.
I do not hold with authoritarian pronouncements being the end of any matter. In fact, the more authoritarian pronouncements are, the more likely they are to be wrong. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say, "You can't kill embryos".
Obviously, embryos can be killed, but even if we were to say "You may not kill embryos", the amount of natural embryo death would have anyone asking "Why not?". Therefore, there is immense room for debate, which, if we engage in it, is probably very, very good for the fate of our immortal souls.
After all, we do not earn our place in heaven by being obedient to the letter of the law, but rather we contribute to our salvation by embracing the spirit of it in that then we are thinking with God in a way that presages our ultimate union with God.
"I do not hold with authoritarian pronouncements being the end of any matter. "
So you'd rather follow the "authority" of always tentative and shifting scientific reasonings to decide matters of life and death?
You'd rather follow the latest hypotheses available to you (which is more than likely to be overly dependent on the power of our current observation equipment, on the funding granted to research institutions, or on the strengths and shortcomings of the moral education of the current generation of scientists)?
To me that's irrational, for it doesn't take into full consideration what's truly at stake here.
Hence, the rational approach is to go with the Magisterium's authority, for, unlike science and the followers of scientism, it truly makes of human DIGNITY its central concern.
With regard to the points Dr. Dale and Michael Bindner are making about the degree of reverence due to a fertilized human egg, I would like to add that it is obvious that the egg that has developed past the point of fertilization is to be held in more esteem than the egg that has just been fertllized when it comes to developing public policies as to what may be done to or with them. However, the starting point for our reverence and esteem must be the starting point of the individual, which is when his or her first cell came into existence. Therefore, if we have competing interests to consider, the interest of the person who may be harmed by a fertlized human egg would take precedence over the interests of the fertilized human egg. However, if we have a fertilized human egg that is the target of commercial interests that would prevent its natural development, our obligation is to protect that fertilized human egg. If we adhere to such a heirarchy in decision-making, we are not required to consider sperm and unfertilized human eggs as anything more than biological material.
The Church has always taught that it is possession of an immortal soul which differentiates us from other creation. The teaching on when God infuses this soul has varied.. If God infuses thIs soul at conception, what happens if twinning occurs six days later?
Though the question seems rhetorical, I would like to respond to Robert E. McNulty by stating that if twinning occurs six days after conception, it is a sign that God infused two souls into the embryo.