Comments on: Makings of a Pro-life Rift? http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/ Now This Is The Real World! Where Theology and Real Life Meet. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:10:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » When is it a Human Life? http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-978 COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » When is it a Human Life? Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:19:57 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-978 [...] A couple of months back we posted on a debate among pro-life theologians, scientists and ethicists involving an attempt to produce stem cells as from an embryo, but without creating an embryo. The technique is called ANT/OAR for Altered Nuclear Transfer/Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming. You can visit the above link for more background but in essence this method would use a variation of the technique used in cloning in which the nucleus is removed from an egg (oocyte) and replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell. [...] [...] A couple of months back we posted on a debate among pro-life theologians, scientists and ethicists involving an attempt to produce stem cells as from an embryo, but without creating an embryo. The technique is called ANT/OAR for Altered Nuclear Transfer/Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming. You can visit the above link for more background but in essence this method would use a variation of the technique used in cloning in which the nucleus is removed from an egg (oocyte) and replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell. [...]

]]> By: COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » ANT/OAR: Response to Criticisms http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-141 COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » ANT/OAR: Response to Criticisms Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:19:57 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-141 [...] From what I have heard from several of the signatories to the statement described in my first post, it is clear that some of them have no patience for the criticisms I summarized in my last post. In general, some of these proponents appear to believe that the answer is obvious and the case closed. However, others, while fairly sure of their position, recognize the criticisms as an important step in a dialogue which must take place as the moral liceity of this proposed procedure is investigated and hopefully, a consensus is reached. Here is how some of the latter appear to be headed in addressing the current concerns. [...] [...] From what I have heard from several of the signatories to the statement described in my first post, it is clear that some of them have no patience for the criticisms I summarized in my last post. In general, some of these proponents appear to believe that the answer is obvious and the case closed. However, others, while fairly sure of their position, recognize the criticisms as an important step in a dialogue which must take place as the moral liceity of this proposed procedure is investigated and hopefully, a consensus is reached. Here is how some of the latter appear to be headed in addressing the current concerns. [...]

]]> By: COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » A Summary of the ANT/OAR Critique http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-133 COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » A Summary of the ANT/OAR Critique Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:54:56 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-133 [...] The first four come from Schindler (however, the first argument is also put forth by the other two articles as well). The first argument is the assertion that the proponents are being, mechanistic in presuming that the epigenetic state defines the being, or ontology, of a cell, as I mentioned in my previous post. The contention is that the status of the entity created by the insertion of the reprogrammed somatic nucleus into the oocyte may very well be a deformed embryo rather than simply a pluripotent stem cell. In other words, the ontological status of this entity, which comes about by a process which mimics conception, cannot be determined by the empirical evidence which would result from any experimentation. This procedure would then be no different from other ANT proposals which simply limit the ability of the embryo to develop. A second argument prescinds from the first but focuses on the fact that OAR presupposes that we can exhaust the knowledge of the beginnings of human life through scientific inquiry and thus by using this knowledge OAR supposes that it can control life’s origins. However, the mystery of the human person cannot be exhausted in this manner. We do not and cannot exhaustively know or control the beginning of human life, thus OAR is fundamentally unjustifiable. The third issue is formulated primarily in a question that should be answered. One big difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells for stem cell research is that the former have reached their finality naturally while the latter is an attempt to artificially force the cells into a particular finality in vitro. The question is does the complete failure of progress in workable treatments with embryonic stem cells suggest a fundamental but unobservable difference between them that is perhaps unreachable through empirical means. Schindler stresses that this is not an appeal to ignorance but rather an admonition to caution. Finally, he asks whether the apparent tacit capitulation to the use of the oocyte as a tool for production and harvesting of parts is consistent with the Church’s theology of the body because the oocyte is bound so intimately to the body and its reproductive organs. Given these issues which have not seemingly been addressed, Schindler asks if the proponents have not been too hasty in publicly advocating this proposal by appearing to short-circuit the discussion. [...] [...] The first four come from Schindler (however, the first argument is also put forth by the other two articles as well). The first argument is the assertion that the proponents are being, mechanistic in presuming that the epigenetic state defines the being, or ontology, of a cell, as I mentioned in my previous post. The contention is that the status of the entity created by the insertion of the reprogrammed somatic nucleus into the oocyte may very well be a deformed embryo rather than simply a pluripotent stem cell. In other words, the ontological status of this entity, which comes about by a process which mimics conception, cannot be determined by the empirical evidence which would result from any experimentation. This procedure would then be no different from other ANT proposals which simply limit the ability of the embryo to develop. A second argument prescinds from the first but focuses on the fact that OAR presupposes that we can exhaust the knowledge of the beginnings of human life through scientific inquiry and thus by using this knowledge OAR supposes that it can control life’s origins. However, the mystery of the human person cannot be exhausted in this manner. We do not and cannot exhaustively know or control the beginning of human life, thus OAR is fundamentally unjustifiable. The third issue is formulated primarily in a question that should be answered. One big difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells for stem cell research is that the former have reached their finality naturally while the latter is an attempt to artificially force the cells into a particular finality in vitro. The question is does the complete failure of progress in workable treatments with embryonic stem cells suggest a fundamental but unobservable difference between them that is perhaps unreachable through empirical means. Schindler stresses that this is not an appeal to ignorance but rather an admonition to caution. Finally, he asks whether the apparent tacit capitulation to the use of the oocyte as a tool for production and harvesting of parts is consistent with the Church’s theology of the body because the oocyte is bound so intimately to the body and its reproductive organs. Given these issues which have not seemingly been addressed, Schindler asks if the proponents have not been too hasty in publicly advocating this proposal by appearing to short-circuit the discussion. [...]

]]> By: wondertwin http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-132 wondertwin Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:01:14 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-132 David, this is similar to a point I made waaaay back concerning this issue. Basically I asked what if adult stem cells could be <i>"de-differentiated"</i> back into pluripotent cells. This is the same principle (basically) that you outlined well above. I think I know where I would lie on this one, but I'd like to see the philosophical points of the issue first. David, this is similar to a point I made waaaay back concerning this issue. Basically I asked what if adult stem cells could be “de-differentiated” back into pluripotent cells. This is the same principle (basically) that you outlined well above.

I think I know where I would lie on this one, but I’d like to see the philosophical points of the issue first.

]]> By: monica http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-128 monica Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:26:16 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-128 Thanks for posting this - I now believe I understand what my position on this should be, whereas before reading the communio article, "A Response to the Joint Statement ..." ...I really wasn't sure. Very helpful! Thanks for posting this – I now believe I understand what my position on this should be, whereas before reading the communio article, “A Response to the Joint Statement …” …I really wasn’t sure. Very helpful!

]]> By: American Papist http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/01/16/makings-of-a-pro-life-rift/comment-page-1/#comment-127 American Papist Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:07:28 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/?p=114#comment-127 Wow, I look forward to reading through the Communio links after this fine introduction to the debate. Thanks! Wow, I look forward to reading through the Communio links after this fine introduction to the debate. Thanks!

]]>