Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Catholic theologian once asked the following question about the ethics of the use of fetal tissue in medical care and research.
Who has the greater right to fetal tissue? An adult human being (certainly with a soul) who needs this material to survive or a pre-embryo resulting from the combination of male and female cells in a petri dish?
The Catholic Church’s position is that in vitro fertilization itself is sinful and the practice of in vitro fertilization is forbidden.
The basic IVF product is a cell (embryo) containing half the genes of the father and half the genes of the mother. When combined, the IVF product is a human being just as a fetus conceived naturally and needs only a uterus, time, and nutrients to develop as an adult.
However, in itself this thinking raises some immediate questions from what we now know from biology.
The tissue cells in all humans contain the same genetic material as those resulting from IVF. In the case of “Dolly the Sheep” implantation resulted in an adult of the same species. (Cloning).
All people produce vast numbers of these body cells with a complete genetic sets similar to embryos. Is each of these to be considered a person with full moral and legal rights?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 02-24-2016 at 09:49 AM..
Reason: typo
A Catholic theologian once asked the following question about the ethics of the use of fetal tissue in medical care and research.
Who has the greater right to fetal tissue? An adult human being (certainly with a soul) who needs this material to survive or a pre-embryo resulting from the combination of male and female cells in a petri dish?
The Catholic Church’s position is that in vitro fertilization itself is sinful and the practice of in vitro fertilization is forbidden.
The basic IVF product is a cell (embryo) containing half the genes of the father and half the genes of the mother. When combined, the IVF product is a human being just as a fetus conceived naturally and needs only a uterus, time, and nutrients to develop as an adult.
However, in itself this thinking raises some immediate questions from what we now know from biology.
The tissue cells in all humans contain the same genetic material as those resulting from IVF. In the case of “Dolly the Sheep” implantation resulted in an adult of the same species. (Cloning).
All people produce vast numbers of these body cells with a complete genetic sets similar to embryos. Is each of these to be considered a person with full moral and legal rights?
Does a skin cell become a human being if allowed to develop naturally? Obviously, the answer is "no". Yet, a fertilized egg does become a viable human being if allowed to develop naturally. There's your difference, and it's why a fetus has a right to life.
The morality is that people do not want to play around in Dr, Frankenstein`s laboratory , were people can be born with deformities , and who is to blame ...... Still this science is not complete , as only the creation from God for life is complete , where science here plays from around with different conception
Does a skin cell become a human being if allowed to develop naturally? Obviously, the answer is "no". Yet, a fertilized egg does become a viable human being if allowed to develop naturally. There's your difference, and it's why a fetus has a right to life.
There is NO basis (other than religious teachings that came about in the 1970s) that a fetus is a VIABLE person.
There is NO basis (other than religious teachings that came about in the 1970s) that a fetus is a VIABLE person.
You mean other than the fact that a human fetus is always and only born a human being? This seems a pretty strong basis.
What's more interesting to me is the question, 'What's the basis for arriving at the conclusion that a human embryo is merely non-human tissue?' What inner forces and content go into creating this sort of judgment?
You mean other than the fact that a human fetus is always and only born a human being? This seems a pretty strong basis.
What's more interesting to me is the question, 'What's the basis for arriving at the conclusion that a human embryo is merely non-human tissue?' What inner forces and content go into creating this sort of judgment?
Except for the miscarriages--God's way of saying what? Whoops, he made a mistake??
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
