The statement “On Embryonic Stem Cell Research” is now public and it has more than a few areas of concern. But don’t take my word for it: Once I provide you with the list of concerns provided by Professor Dianne Irving, who is the expert in the matter, you can visit the document and make your own decision about whether or not the USCCB has done a thorough job of setting forth moral principles that can be used to defend the human embryo.
Following is a numbered list provided to me by Professor Irving. I share it with you to give you some food for thought:
- No use of the term “person”
- Uses the phrase “direct killing” three times; therefore, “indirect” killing is not covered.
- Uses the phrase “deliberate killing” one time; thus non-intentional direct killing is not covered.
- Uses the term “conception” two times, thus leaving out all asexually reproduced human embryos/beings.
- Does not even mention that IVF and other ARTs are inherently wrong to begin with.
- Doubt that “assumptions” read into the Declaration of Independence can be sustained historically.
- Fetus Farming Prohibition Act only applies, by its own definitions in the bill, to sexually. reproduced human beings; it does not cover asexually reproduced human embryos/fetuses.
This is only the beginning because Professor Irving also points out that the document “does not acknowledge the dozens of human cloning and other genetic engineering techniques already being used for ‘research’ and for ‘reproduction’. Essentially defines ‘cloning’ only in terms of SCNT; by default even does not acknowledge human cloning using nuclear transfer by means of germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT) – which is even worse, as the genetic changes are passed down through the generations.”
Further, she expresses the same concern each of us should have because the document “maintains the use of the false distinction between ‘therapeutic’ and ‘reproductive’ cloning.
It is inconceivable to me that the bishops could overlook a word as fundamental to this discussion as the word person. The Vatican pointed out this undeniable fact in the document Donum Vitae, in which the following statement is made:
The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person.
Yet the bishops overlooked the word!
We at American Life League have become painfully aware of the problematic nature of the word conception, which has been redefined by the pro-abortion forces, the medical community and scientists in general. As science has moved into the realm of the unthinkable our effort has to be far more precise and our language has to be exact. We realize that the bishops have a lot to think about but surely those who advise them on matters like human embryonic stem cell research are as aware of the deconstruction of the word “conception” as we are so why use it?
While I hate to repeat myself in these commentaries I feel compelled to point out again and again, that it is the Catholic Church that teaches that in vitro fertilization and similar technological manipulations dealing with the creation and commodification of the human being are morally repugnant and must be rejected, yet the bishops did not mention it at all.
And I ask you: If there were no in vitro fertilization, would we have to be so concerned about the dehumanization of the human embryonic child? No, we would not! And if we cannot depend on our moral leaders, the princes of the Catholic Church, to shine the light of truth on the egregious area of scientific madness, who can we depend on?
So I leave you to contemplate the list that Dr. Irving has provided. And I ask you to review the bishop’s document with the list at hand so that you can come to your own conclusions with regard to the flawed nature of what has been prepared.
We look forward to a full analysis of this document by Professor Irving, and I will add that link to this commentary as soon as it becomes available. In the meantime, you know how much I hate to share bad news, but – for heaven’s sake – it would be unethical for me to ignore this travesty!
