Living embryos — why size matters from the start
The Church informs itself on issues such as this by consulting top-class, reputable professionals in the field of biology. It then judges in the light of the moral law transmitted by God in the Ten Commandments, in this case the injunction not to kill.
That human life begins at the union of a sperm with an ovum is a biological fact, as has been known for well over 60 years. As soon as the zygote is formed, the generation of a new, unique human is complete. I emphasise complete because every characteristic of the new person, down to their fingerprints, is encoded in this cell.
What follows immediately is growth and development, a process only ended by death. For development to take place, various factors are crucial to this process, simple and then complex.
At each stage the size of the embryo/baby/child/adult is appropriate to its development. What kind of arrogance now possesses humans who decide on the basis of size alone that they have a right to kill? (“Dancing over cell clusters”, to quote Steven King).
A gullible public continues to swallow the propaganda of those wanting to experiment with embryos by believing cures for various diseases would be found. The push for embryonic cell research is driven by commercial interests, including cosmetic and drug firms. Ten years ago, we were told that cures for Alzheimer’s and other diseases were near. Now the proponents admit any likelihood of these is at least 10 years hence, if at all.
Meanwhile, ethical adult stem cell research has forged ahead with effective interventions in many diseases. How strange that this is given no publicity in the media.
Ethical stem cell research is being treated as if there were a famine in a land with an abundant harvest. Does nobody smell a conspiracy?
Apart from the primary wrong in extinguishing one person’s life for the sake of benefit to another, there are four major disadvantages to embryonic cell research.
Firstly, the cells are difficult to grow; many thousands of human ova would be needed by laboratories. These ova are not to be found under gooseberry bushes.
They can only be obtained by persuading fertile young women to donate their eggs. To do so, it is necessary to interrupt their natural fertility cycle and impose an artificial one to over-stimulate their ovaries.
Harvesting the ova requires an invasive procedure. Whatever care is taken, this may result in pelvic adhesions and future infertility, apart from risk of death from Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. The women will be subject to all the discomforts of excess hormones, as well as demands on their time for scans. No one knows the future risks of cancer from this interference with nature.
Secondly, the cells will not be universally compatible — the same problem exists with matching kidney donors and recipients — and the usefulness of any one cell line would be limited.
Thirdly, taken out of the natural regulatory environment in which they should develop, embryonic cells tend to progress to unregulated growth. This has been demonstrated in animal experiments.
Fourthly, it is inevitable some embryonic cells will contain genetic disorders, given the number of fertilised ova required. No amount of screening of the respective sperm and ova donors will detect a spontaneous mutation. Instead of curing, one may be inserting a new disease.
It is a return to Nazi philosophy to demand the sacrifice of one human life for another’s gain. All that is possible in science is not necessarily permissible. This dictum should be pondered by those who think personal opinion overrides the right of each individual to life.
Mairead E MacConaill
Coryule
Brahalish
Durrus
Co Cork
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
