PLAYING GOD

Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Missouri Catholic Conference Workshop
Jefferson City, Missouri
Copyright October 4, 2003
Playing God by Manipulating Man:  The Facts and Frauds of Human Cloning [1]

“Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself.  Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment ‘You shall not kill,’ the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society.  ...  Only Satan can delight therein:  for through his envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24).  He who is ‘a murderer from the beginning,’ is also ‘a liar and the father of lies’ (Jn 8:44).  By deceiving man he leads him to projects of sin and death, making them appear as goals and fruits of life.”  (Evangelium vitae,  Par. 53)

I. INTRODUCTION:  MANIPULATING THE CLONING DEBATES

            These powerful words from EV encapsulate in effect what I am going to address here today with you – the purposeful and massive manipulation of language, science, ethics, legislation and politicians in order to lead us astray from Truth and Reality.  We are being led into “believing” that what are being manipulated and dissected in petri dishes in laboratories across the world during human cloning experiments are not really innocent living human beings who will be killed in the process.  Rather they are “just a bunch of stem cells”.  Indeed the same cloning and killing of human beings is happening right here, right now, in the honorable State of Missouri.[2]  This is obviously not to say of course that all science and all scientists are deceptive;  nor to deny the enormous good that science has brought mankind.  But it is time to point out, in the spirit of “fraternal love”, that many involved in the pursuit of human cloning pursue that goal deceptively.

            This propensity of man for manipulation, power and abuse is hardly unique to our contemporary scene.  The temptation “to be like unto gods” has been with us since the dawn of time – and is currently flooding our culture, e.g., through multiple New Age[3] cosmologies and intrigues.  Like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the cloning industry tempts us today by assuring us that "Ye shall surely not die...ye shall be as gods" – the classic gnostic exhortation!  Yet while promising us godlike powers to “create”, to “recreate”, or to design our own new humanity and immortality through such technologies as human cloning and human genetic engineering, they lay waste the human people and human culture around them.[4]  It is only the goal that counts to them – their goal.  The means used to reach that goal, as Nietzsche would say, are meaningless.  But are they?

            Josef Pieper, a contemporary Catholic philosopher and theologian, recently wrote an amazing small book concerning the advertising and communications industries, The Abuse of Language – Abuse of Power,[5] that is astonishingly applicable to the rhetoric found in the human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research debates today. Such rhetoric, he notes, is not new.  Plato attributed it to the Sophists whom he described as, “highly paid and popularly applauded experts in the art of twisting words;  able to sweet-talk something bad into something good and to turn white into black.”[6]  The truth itself cannot in all honesty be the decisive concern of those who aim at verbal artistry, he notes.  Rather, as Plato forces Gorgias to admit, “such sophisticated language, disconnected from the roots of truth, in fact pursues some ulterior motives.”  Language is thus invariably turned into an instrument of power.[7]

             And this is indeed what we are experiencing today in these cloning debates – the abuse of language, especially scientific language, in the pursuit of power.  We can no longer afford to shove the issue of human cloning back into the innermost recesses of our consciousnesses, in the drawers labeled “not my problem”.  Nor can we allow ourselves to be so profoundly deceived and confused by the rhetoric of cloning.  Far too much is at stake.

            My challenge here is to try to do a little something about this very sophisticated contemporary sophistic rhetoric by identifying some of the abusive language they have perpetrated in order to sell their products. And all it will take is to present the simple objective scientific truth, the truth that a new unique innocent vulnerable living human being begins to exist immediately at both fertilization and at cloning.  And thus to intentionally kill these innocent human beings is morally illicit and should be legally banned.  Without truth – even scientific truth -- there is eventually no faith or freedom – even scientific freedom.

II. MANIPULATING SCIENTIFIC FACTS OF HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY IN HUMAN SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

            Human beings can be reproduced both sexually (fertilization – both natural, and artificial, e.g., as in IVF) and asexually (cloning, e.g., as in human monozygotic twinning).  There have been a multitude of ways that scientific terms have been falsified and manipulated over the years to make us think (erroneously) that the immediate product of both sexual and a-sexual human reproduction is something other than what it really is – a new living single-cell innocent human being.

            Many of the deceptions now being used in the human cloning debates are really nothing more than the repackaging of the same old deceptions that have already been perpetrated over the last 30 years in the abortion debates -- many of which you are all probably already  familiar with.  So I will start with a brief summary of the accurate, long-known and long-established scientific facts of human sexual reproduction, noting particularly those terms that have been manipulated within the abortion, and now the human cloning, debates.  This will be followed by a similar brief summary of the accurate established facts of a-sexual human reproduction (human cloning), noting again more particular terms that are now being manipulated within the human cloning debates.  We are then in a much better position to evaluate some current legislative attempts to ban human cloning and to do something about it.

            One note before I begin, however.  It would seem that many people do not know that, unlike some other fields, in the field of human embryology these objective scientific facts are ultimately determined by the International Nomina Embryologica Committee,[8] consisting of over 20 of the best and brightest human embryologist from around the world.  After reviewing the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations are published in the Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica, and are professionally required to be used, along with The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development, by all human embryologists in their own work.  The human embryology that I am presenting here is quoted directly from human embryology textbooks using scientific facts determined to be current and accurate by the International Nomina Embryologica Committee.  It is not my “opinion”, nor even that of the authors of these textbooks.

A.  When does a Human Being Begin to Exist?[9]

            The most devastating scientific myth in both the abortion and in the human cloning debates concerns the question, “When does a human being begin to exist”.  Proponents of both abortion and of human cloning want you to think that a human being does not begin immediately at fertilization or at cloning.  Indeed, they want you to think that the claim that a human being begins to exist immediately at fertilization and at cloning is just a religious “belief” or a personal opinion – and after all, in this democratic, pluralistic, multicultural society one person’s or groups “beliefs” or “opinions” may not be imposed on the rest of society.

            Now, if you want to “believe” that the immediate product of fertilization or of cloning is a human being, then please feel free to do so.  But it is also an objective scientific fact that the immediate product of both fertilization and cloning is a new living innocent human being.  And it seems to me that those objective scientific facts should be the starting point for any discussions, debates, or legislation on these issues.  Otherwise, as one wise old Doctor of the Church often warned, “A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors at the end.”[10]  Indeed, as we shall see, it is the starting point for the Church’s own teachings on human cloning.

B.  Human Sexual Reproduction -- fertilization (“zipping up”)

1.  Gametogenesis

            There are two basic categories of cells in the human organism:  somatic (“body”) cells, and germ line (“sex”) cells.[11]  During very early human embryonic development, primitive germ line cells are initially totipotent (and thus they can be cloned by “twinning”);  [12] and they are diploid,[13] i.e., they each have “46” chromosomes (and thus they can be cloned by nuclear transfer).  So before fertilization can take place, the number of chromosomes in each germ line cell must be cut in half through the process known as gametogenesis – which can ultimately take decades to accomplish.  The final effect of gametogenesis is the production of haploid “sex gametes”, the sperm and the oocyte (“egg”), which have only “23” chromosomes in each cell.[14]  Once gametogenesis has taken place, then fertilization is at least scientifically possible.  During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte fuse, and each ceases to exist as such.  Rather, a new single-cell human being is produced.

***  SUM OF FALSE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS ABOUT GERM LINE CELLS USED IN THE CLONING DEBATES:

1. Somatic cells vs. germ line cells:  “There are only diploid somatic cells” (thus opening the door for diploid germ line cells to be cloned by nuclear transfer, for “therapeutic” or for “reproductive” purposes);

2.  Totipotent vs. pluripotent:  “Primitive germ line cells are pluripotent” (thus because they are really totipotent, this opens the door for them to be cloned by “twinning”, for “therapeutic” or for “reproductive” purposes);

3.  Haploid vs. diploid:  “Oocytes used in cloning or parthenogenesis are haploid” (thus because they are really diploid, this opens the door for them to be cloned by nuclear transfer, for “therapeutic” or for “reproductive” purposes).

2.  Fertilization

            Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization.  We have known empirically for over a hundred years[15] that fertilization is the beginning of many things:  the human embryo, the human being, the human organism, the human individual, the genetic sex of the embryo,  the “embryonic period”, and normal pregnancy [which begins at fertilization in the fallopian tube (or ovaduct) of the mother, not at implantation in her womb].  All of these facts and terms are manipulated in both the abortion and in the human cloning debates.  But read the objective scientific facts – in concert with the international nomenclature for human embryology -- for yourself:

O’Rahilly and Muller (2001); ... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote.  The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle.  It is a unicellular embryo. (p. 19)

Moore and Persaud (1998):  Zygote:  This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm.  A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).  The expression “fertilized ovum” refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm;  when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote. (p. 2)

Larsen (1997):  ... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. (p. 1)

O’Rahilly and Muller (2001):  Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.  (p. 31)

Moore and Persaud (1998): ...  The embryo's chromosomes sex is determined at fertilization by the kind of sperm (X or Y) that fertilizes the ovum;  hence it is the father rather than the mother whose gamete determines the sex of the embryo. (p. 37);    Carlson (1999):  The sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon.  (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and an X chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a male.) ...  Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species. (p. 32)

O’Rahilly Muller (1994):  The embryonic period proper ... occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks (i.e., timed from the last ovulation) ... The fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth. (p. 55);    Carlson 1994:  After the eighth week of pregnancy the period of organogenesis (embryonic period) is largely completed and the fetal period begins. (p. 407)

O’Rahilly and Muller (2001):  ... Fertilization takes place normally in the ampulla (lateral end) of the uterine tube. (p. 31);    Moore and Persaud (1998):  The usual site of fertilization is the ampulla of the uterine tube [fallopian tube], its longest and widest part.  If the oocyte is not fertilized here, it slowly passes along the tube to the uterus, where it degenerates and is resorbed.  Although fertilization may occur in other parts of the tube, it does not occur in the uterus.  ...  Human development begins when a oocyte is fertilized. (p. 34);    Carlson (1999):  "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, but a great deal of preparation [recedes this event.  First both male and female sex cells must pass through a long series of changes (gametogenesis) that convert them genetically and phenotypically into mature gametes, which are capable of participating in the process of fertilization.  Next, the gametes must be released from the gonads and make their way to the upper part of the uterine tube, where fertilization normally takes place. ...  Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus ... .". (p. 2); ...  Fertilization age:  dates the age of the embryo from the time of fertilization.  (p. 23)  ...  In the female, sperm transport begins in the upper vagina and ends in the ampulla of the uterine tube [fallopian tube] where the spermatozoa make contact with the ovulated egg. (p. 27);    Larsen (1997):   In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ...  Fertilization takes place in the oviduct [not the uterus]... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. (p. 1);   "These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote.  This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.  (p. 17)

            This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes[16] (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development.  (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother, but rather by the embryo.)[17]  The human embryo begins to divide and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period.  Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a free blastocyst (about 4-5 days), an implanting blastocyst (about 5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3 layer) embryo (during the third week).  But it is the very same human embryo who is progressing throughout all of these various stages of growth and development.[18]

3. The myth of the “pre-embryo” and its substitutes

            There has probably been no greater manipulation of scientific terms over the last 30 years, nor one that has done more violence to human dignity, than the creation and propagation of the scientifically false term “pre-embryo”.[19]  The purpose of the term is to make you think that there is really no human being or human embryo there yet; in fact, it might mean that there is really no “person” there yet.  Therefore, this “pre-embryo” has a “reduced moral status” -- which justifies the use and destruction of these early human embryos for any purpose.

            However, we know empirically that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo".[20]  The term is admittedly arbitrary,[21]  a complete scientific myth, pure propaganda created for political purposes only, and usually grounded in several other “scientific” myths, e.g., that ‘twinning can’t take place after 14-days”.  But twinning can take place after 14-days![22] Indeed, the always dubious and arbitrary terms "pre-embryo" and “individualization” have recently been specifically and formally rejected as scientifically ill-defined, inaccurate, unjustified, equivocal, and politically motivated by the International Nomina Embryologica Committee:

O’Rahilly and Muller, 2001:  "The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons:  (1)  it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation;  (2)  it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc;  (3)  it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks;  (4)  it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization;  and (5)  it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers)."  ...  Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." (p. 88)  ...  "Undesirable terms in Human Embryology":  "Pre-embryo";  ill-defined and inaccurate;   use "embryo". ( p. 12)

            Especially because the term “pre-embryo” has now been internationally scientifically discredited, a whole series of what I would call “pre-embryo substitutes” have flooded the market place – all of them having the same goal of reducing the “moral status” of these early vulnerable living human beings.  Such an example is used typically by Michael Kinsley[23] in several of his promotions for human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.  Kinsley drags up the old long-discredited scientific myth of the “biogenetic law” which essentially claims that the early developing human embryo and human fetus is not really a human being yet, but rather just an “embryo-like thing” that first has to “relive” the historical evolution of all of the species that preceded the emergence of the human species before it evolves (in utero!) into a member of the human species.  Here the embryo is rather like what some theologians refer to as “a-seed-on-the-way”, “a-being-on-the-way”, indeed, “a human-being-on-the-way”.  That is, the human being isn’t there yet!  But empirically we know that the human being is already there immediately at fertilization or at cloning.

            If you think about it, the “biogenetics law” is just another kind of “pre-embryo substitute” – until the evolution  in utero of the human species, “whatever” is there has a “reduced moral status”.  But like the term “pre-embryo”, the old “biogenetic law” too has been long refuted and discarded by science:

(O'Rahilly and Muller 2001):  Recapitulation, the So-Called Biogenetic Law.  The theory that successive stages of individual development (ontogeny) correspond with ("recapitulate") successive adult ancestors in the line of evolutionary descent (phylogeny) became popular in the nineteenth century as the so-called biogenetic law.  This theory of recapitulation, however, has had a "regrettable influence on the progress of embryology" (G. de Beer).  ... According to the "laws" of von Baer, general characters (e.g., brain, notochord) appear in development earlier than special characters (e.g., limbs, hair).  Furthermore, during its development an animal departs more and more from the form of other animals.  Indeed, the early stages in the development of an animal are not like the adult stages of other forms but resemble only the early stages of those animals.  The pharyngeal clefts of vertebrate embryos, for example, are neither gills nor slits.  Although a fish elaborates this region into gill slits, in reptiles, birds, and mammals it is converted into such structures as the tonsils and the thymus. (p. 16)

            An easy thing to remember is that almost all of these false scientific claims, such as the immediate product of fertilization is “just a bunch of stem cells”, “just a blob of the mothers tissues”, “just an embryo-like thing”, “just a thing evolving into a human being”, etc., are really nothing more than “pre-embryo substitutes”, and are used for precisely the same purpose:  to “scientifically” devalue the moral status of these early human beings so that they can “justifiably” be used one way or another by other human beings.

***  SUM OF FALSE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS ABOUT FERTILIZATION USED IN THE CLONING DEBATES:

1.  Fertilization vs. implantation:  “The human embryo, human being, human individual, and the human organism does not begin to exist until implantation.  Until implantation (or sometimes 14-days) there is only “a bunch of stem cells”, just “a blob of the mother’s tissues”, just “a ‘pre-embryo’, just a “pre-embryo-like ‘thing’”, or just an “embryo still recapitulating the evolution of the species”.

            (a)  this leaves the door open for the use of genetic pre-selection, the use of             abortifacients, early abortions, and all forms of laboratory and clinical             “reprogenetics”[24];

            (b)  it also leaves the door open for early human embryos to be used in destructive             experimental research, as well as in both “therapeutic” and “reproductive”             cloning             using all cloning techniques, etc.

2.  “Twinning can’t take place after 14-days” (thus rendering the embryo before 14-days a “non-person” with a “reduced moral status”, and thus mere “biological material” for all types of destructive experimental research, etc.);

3.  Totipotent vs. pluripotent:  “The cells (blastomeres) of the early embryo are pluripotent, not totipotent” (thus leaving the door open for the cloning of new embryos by the “twinning”of these totipotent cells, or by nuclear transfer of these diploid cells, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

4. Totipotent vs. pluripotent: “The cells of the inner cell mass of the early blastocyst are pluripotent”, not totipotent (thus leaving the door open for the cloning of new embryos by the “twinning” of these totipotent cells”, or by nuclear transfer of these diploid cells, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes).

III. MANIPULATING SCIENTIFIC FACTS OF HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY IN HUMAN ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION

A. Human Asexual Reproduction -- cloning (“zipping down”)

            Human beings can also be reproduced a-sexually, without the use of sperm or oocytes -- as we know empirically happens in human cloning by means of nuclear transfer.

            There are two (among several) biological processes that can help people understand what happens during human cloning:  methylation, and regulation:

1.  Methylation:[25]

            Briefly, following sexual reproduction the early human embryo grows and develops by means of methylating and demethylating the DNA in each of the embryo's or fetus's cells.  That is, the DNA in each cell is "allowed to speak", or is "silenced", by adding or removing these methylation bars -- depending on what products the embryo needs to grow and develop.  These products then "cascade"[26] throughout growth and development.  The more specialized, or differentiated, a cell, the more methylated its DNA becomes.  I will refer to this process during growth and development following sexual human reproduction as a sort of "zipping up" – the “programming” of the DNA of a cell.  By adulthood, the DNA in many of the cells of the human being has been almost completely "silenced" by the insertion of methylation bars -- such as in human skin cells.

            In a-sexual reproduction or cloning,[27] many of these processes operate in reverse.  For example, in using the somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning technique, one begins with a highly specialized or differentiated cell – such as a skin cell -- in which some or even most of the DNA in that cell has been "silenced" (i.e., the methylation bars on that DNA are incrementally removed) -- eventually resulting in a new, single-cell zygote, an organism, a single-cell embryo or human being.  That is, you begin with just a “cell”, but end up with an “organism”, an embryo, a human being!  This is what I will call the "zipping down" – or the de-programming -- of the DNA in a cell, and roughly what happened with the production of Dolly the sheep.  Quoting Strachan and Read:

Nuclear transfer technology was first employed in embryo cloning, in which the donor cell is derived from an early embryo, and has been long established in the case of amphibians. ... Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an adult sheep [“Dolly”]. For the first time, an adult nucleus had been reprogrammed to become totipotent once more, just like the genetic material in the fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had ultimately developed. ... Successful cloning of adult animals has forced us to accept that genome modifications once considered irreversible can be reversed and that the genomes of adult cells can be reprogrammed by factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent once again.[28]

            That is, any differentiated diploid cell – a cell who’s DNA has been “zipped up” – can have its nuclear DNA “zipped down” during the process of cloning – reverting that cell back to a totipotent zygote – a new cloned single-cell embryo.  Similarly, the immediate product of human a-sexual reproduction (cloning) is a new human embryo, a new totipotent single-cell human zygote – just as is the immediate product of human sexual reproduction (fertilization).  There is no doubt that normal embryos resulting from such a cloning process would be new cloned human beings.  Even the proponents of human cloning admit this.[29]  Expressing disbelief that some deny that human cloning produces an embryo, Van Blerkom, human embryologist at the University of Colorado quipped: "If it's not an embryo, what is it?", and added that researchers' efforts to avoid the word "embryo" in this context are "self-serving."[30]

            It is important to note, however, that in cloning by means of nuclear transfer, the cloned human embryo reproduced would not be “virtually genetically identical to the donor cell”.  That is, the cloned human embryo would have a different genome[31] due to the presence in the embryo of foreign mitochondrial DNA, and the lack of the mitochondrial DNA from the donor cell:

Strachan and Read (1999):  Animal clones occur naturally as a result of sexual reproduction. For example, genetically identical twins are clones who happened to have received exactly the same set of genetic instructions from two donor individuals, a mother and a father. A form of animal cloning can also occur as a result of artificial manipulation to bring about a type of asexual reproduction. The genetic manipulation in this case uses nuclear transfer technology: a nucleus is removed from a donor cell then transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has previously been removed. The resulting 'renucleated' oocyte can give rise to an individual who will carry the nuclear genome of only one donor individual, unlike genetically identical twins. The individual providing the donor nucleus and the individual that develops from the 'renucleated' oocyte are usually described as "clones", but it should be noted that they share only the same nuclear DNA; they do not share the same mitochondrial DNA, unlike genetically identical twins. (pp.  508-509)

This objective scientific fact, as we will see, has serious consequences in evaluating many of the current human cloning “bans”.

2.  Regulation:[32]

            In addition to cloning by means of nuclear transfer, one may also clone by means of “twinning”, e.g., as we know happens in natural monozygotic twinning[33] (a common, and the most exact form of, cloning,[34] because the mitochondria are the same).  Understanding the natural biological process of regulation can help us understand better what is taking place during human twinning.

            Regulation is operative in both "zipping up" and "zipping down".  In "zipping up", as in sexual reproduction (fertilization), regulation concerns various processes of differentiation;  but it also becomes involved when an injury has occurred to the organism.  Here, regulation is the ability of an embryo or an organ primordium to "heal" a normal structure if parts have been removed or added.[35]  In "zipping down", as in a-sexual reproduction such as twinning, regulation could possibly revert separated totipotent embryonic cells back to new living human embryos, i.e., new living human beings.  Indeed, this is what happens with human monozygotic twinning in vivo.[36]

            Of course the question always arises, when do each of the twins begin to exist as individuals – one of the enduring questions raised in the “pre-embryo” myth?  Well, please consider twinning from the standpoint of regulation.  A normal human embryo is produced sexually via fertilization (in vivo or in vitro).  Scientifically we know that this embryo produced at fertilization has already been determined to be an individual -- both "genetically" and "developmentally".  He or she is a new human being.  The embryo grows developmentally in total continuity with itself, and is composed initially of totipotent cells.  If  these totipotent cells of the embryo are damaged, the embryo could die, or regulation could set in to "heal" the embryo and restore it to wholeness.  On the other hand, if these totipotent cells of the embryo are actually separated from the whole embryo, then these separated cells too could just die, or regulation could possibly set in and revert these totipotent cells to new human embryos.

            So the first twin is the original human embryo produced sexually and begins to exist as an individual at fertilization.  The second twin is the new human embryo produced a-sexually and begins to exist as an individual when regulation is completed.  Thus there is not only a "genetic" continuum involved between twins, but also a "developmental" continuum, from fertilization on.

            The same considerations can be applied to questions about the fusion of two early human embryos to form a single chimera from the standpoint of regulation.[37]  If two human embryos fuse together to make one organism, that organism is not a human being.  It would have 92 chromosomes -- whatever kind of animal that makes it!  Both original embryos have died.  If this chimeric organism undergoes regulation, ejects all excess chromosomes, and reduces the number and proper mixture (male and female) of chromosomes to "46", then it could theoretically result in the formation of a new human embryo.  But that embryo would not be the same individual as either of the original embryos that fused.  However, assuming that this process would even be possible in humans, there would still be both a "genetic" and a "developmental" continuum in this new human chimera from fertilization on.

3.  Many other kinds of human cloning techniques

            Also, there are many different kinds of human cloning techniques possible,[38] e.g., twinning (blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting)[39] -- a cloning technique highly promoted these days by IVF clinics for their patients.[40]  Needless to say, these same clinics could also perform twinning for the purpose of providing an unlimited supply of new human embryos for research purposes only.  One can also clone human beings by using other cloning techniques, e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT),[41] germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT),[42] pronuclei transfer,[43] “artificially constructed” sperm, oocytes and embryos,[44] etc.

4.  “Therapeutic” and “reproductive” human cloning

            Finally, in all such cloning techniques, the immediate product would be a new living innocent human being.  That is why the current framing of the cloning debates only in terms of “therapeutic” and “reproductive” is so deceptive and purposefully leads people to disregard the existence of, and thus the consideration of, all other human cloning techniques.  The real issue is that regardless of the cloning technique used, all cloning is “reproductive” – i.e., results in the immediate reproduction of new living human beings.  The terms “therapeutic” and “reproductive” refer merely to the purpose or reason why human beings are cloned.  Some ingenious researchers, like those mentioned earlier in Missouri, are now even trying to reframe the debates again by claiming that “therapeutic” cloning is not cloning at all – since the immediate product is only a bunch of stem cells!  Sound like a familiar tactic (like a “pre-embryo substitute”)?  Rather, they claim, only “reproductive” cloning is cloning![45]

            But fortunately most people have not fallen for this false distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” human cloning – as the Vatican’s Mission to the United Nations has made clear:

Every process involving human cloning is in itself a reproductive process in that it generates a human being at the very beginning of his or her development, i.e., a human embryo. The Holy See regards the distinction between "reproductive" and "therapeutic" (or "experimental") cloning as unacceptable by principle since it is devoid of any ethical and legal ground. This false distinction masks the reality of the creation of a human being for the purpose of destroying him or her to produce embryonic stem cell lines or to conduct other experimentation. Therefore, human cloning should be prohibited in all cases regardless of the aims that are pursued.   ...  Based on the biological and anthropological status of the human embryo and on the fundamental moral and civil rule that it is illicit to kill an innocent human being even to bring about a good for society, the Holy See regards the conceptual distinction between "reproductive" and "therapeutic" (or "experimental") human cloning as devoid of any ethical and legal ground.[46]

***  SUM OF FALSE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS ABOUT ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION USED IN THE CLONING DEBATES:

1.  “The immediate product of human cloning is not a human being” (thus opening the door to the destructive use of these earliest human embryos in all research, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes, using all cloning techniques);

2.  “The product of the SCNT cloning technique is “virtually genetically identical to the donor cell” (thus by-passing the definition of the real SCNT cloning technique which would then be allowed, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

3.  “Cloning is defined only in terms of the SCNT cloning technique” (thus leaving out of consideration all of the other kinds of cloning techniques for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

4.  “Cloning is defined only in terms of “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning (thus leaving out of consideration all cloning techniques other than SCNT for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

5.  “Only ‘reproductive’ cloning is cloning;  ‘therapeutic’ cloning is only stem cell research” (thus leaving out of consideration the cloning of human embryos for all destructive research purposes, using any and all cloning techniques, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

6.  “The twinning and fusing of some early human embryos means that they are not human beings or human persons yet” (thus opening the door to the destructive use of these earliest human embryos in all destructive research, using allcloning techniques, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes);

7.  “There is no such thing as ‘regulation’” (an actual statement by a leading scientist who is a proponent of human cloning, attempting to deny the reality of cloning by means of twinning, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes).

Scientifically, then, empirically -- according to 100% of the expert specialists in the field of human embryology worldwide -- there is no question or confusion whatsoever that the immediate product of both human fertilization and of human cloning -- and all continuous, contiguous, growth and developmental stages thereafter through adulthood -- is an already fully existing unique living human being.  The massive corruption of these scientific facts in both the abortion and in the cloning debates, however, should give us great pause as to just how profoundly science itself has been so grossly manipulated – thus manipulating us all.  As the Church has duly noted:

[EV III.58]:  [W]e need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.  ...  Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as 'interruption of pregnancy,' which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion.  Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience.  But no word has the power to change the reality of things:  procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.[47]

Dear XXX: sorry for the confusion.  Our website is constantly being updated of late, and as it is such a broad and long established website, there is much apparent inconsistency over terminology.  However, to answer your question directly: the term "pre-embryo" has been proposed as the appropriate term to refer to an undifferentiated entity that has not even established whether it will be one or two individuals (twinning?), and in a sense (up till day 3 of development) has not even kicked in its own embryonic genetic gameplan.  Hence, the term "pre-embryo", being an entity preceding an "actual" embryo.  All glorious semantics really - and frankly it is what it is, and this oddity is still used especially by many in the IVF world who have "graduated" from The Jones Institute in Norfolk, VA.   Therefore shd you wish to attempt a "fix" on this term, refer to Howard & Georgeanna Jones.  As to "human embryologists" this simply defines them as embryologists working with human embryos as opposed to any other species.  Nothing more.  You cd semantically take exception to this terminology also, as most "human embryologists" are nothing more than clinical early stage embryo jockeys, with little true appreciation of classical embryology as a discipline within biology - this wd probably include me, who, past day 7 of development has only an amateurish grasp of subsequent embryological development.  The question to ask yourself really is: was this really worth worrying abt?
sincerely,  XXXX[48]

And these are the “experts” on whom we all depend for their “expertise” in these matters?  It all reminds me, as Pieper might say, of Humpty Dumpty in Through the looking Glass: "When_I_ use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.  ...  The question is, which is to be master -- that's all!"  The next time someone challenges you about the accurate scientific facts of human embryology, ask them what their academic credentials are in human embryology, and insist that they show you, prove to you, how “right” they are by sending you the xerox copies from the human embryology textbooks from which they get their information!  It’s a real conversation stopper.

IV.  MANIPULATING THE LEGISLATION

            But the manipulations go on, especially as all of this gobbleguk is moved through the halls of legislatures that are trying to deal with these complex human cloning issues.  Legislators, politicians and lobbyists – on both sides of the debate – seem oblivious to the fact that they are in the process of concretizing into legislation bills that are loaded with much of the false science and other linguistic loopholes discussed above, bills that essentially define millions of living human beings out of existence.  By what authority, civil or moral, do they presume to do so?  As Evangelium vitae questions:

EV 66  The height of arbitrariness and injustice is reached when certain people, such as physicians or legislators, arrogate to themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die.  ...  Thus the life of the person who is weak is put into the hands of the one who is strong;  in society the sense of justice is lost, and mutual trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal relationship, is undermined at its root.[49]

Legislators too have a civic as well as a moral duty to be certain that the “information” used upon which they draft their bills is solid and accurate, and proven to be so using the relevant academic resources before accepting it  – especially given the deadly consequences in these human cloning issues.

            Many countries[50] and individual states here have passed or have pending legislation to “ban” human cloning, e.g., Arkansas[51], California[52], Florida[53], Louisiana[54], Massachusetts[55], Michigan[56], Nebraska[57], New Jersey[58], New York[59], North Dakota[60], South Carolina[61], and Wisconsin.[52]  But just how well do these “total cloning bans” prohibit the cloning of human beings?  Before considering a typical “total cloning ban”, some general points about legislation might be helpful.

A.  General Legal Considerations

(1)  What the bill specifically defines

            Most cloning bills state that unless something is specifically addressed in the bill, the bill does not cover it – i.e., it would thus be allowed.  For example most cloning bills have the following or similar restriction:

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'"

Therefore, any human cloning techniques that are not specifically articulated in the bill would not be covered by the bill – and therefore would be allowed.  Most of these cloning bills identify only one human cloning technique – i.e., the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique.  Therefore, all other human cloning techniques would not be covered by the bills – and thus they would be allowed.

(2)  The “intent” of the bill

            When erroneous scientific terms are used in a bill, it is often argued that because the intent of the bill was to ban such cloning the courts would defer to that intent.  However, this is not necessarily true.  Perhaps in civil law cases the courts might allow an intent to override erroneous definitions in the law by deferring to correct definitions in legal precedent.  However, in criminal law cases – i.e., cases in which there are imprisonments or financial penalties such as in these cloning bills – the intent of the bill would most likely not be favored, and the courts would defer to the precise definition used in the bill.  Therefore, as we will see below, the bill would only cover a cloning technique (“SCNT”) that doesn’t really exist, and would not cover (and would thus allow) such a cloning technique that really does exist.

(3)  When “intent” is clear

            The issue of intent is also especially relevant here, because the drafters of such cloning bills are on public record for years as knowing beforehand that the definitions used in the bills are erroneous.[63]  Thus they must have intended to use such erroneous definitions in the bills.

(4)  Stare decisis:  Going incrementally backwards

            Consider that once this erroneous science gets passed into law, it ceases to be “science”.  It is then simply reduced to stare decisis -- legal precedent.[64]  The Courts have no legal duty to correct such erroneous science.  Indeed, they would then only have a legal duty to apply this erroneous science to any and all further related research legislation – as happened in the application of Roe vs. Wade to Webster, Carhart, etc.  To allow such erroneous science to become embedded in the law as stare decisis simply takes us backwards – incrementally.

(5)  So they’ll “fix it” later?

            These scientific flaws may never be revisited for correction, especially given the political and fiscal currency already depleted, and the rapid addition and accumulation of further legal precedent set in these related research issues.

B.  Human Cloning Bills Ban No Human Cloning

The following is typical legislative language found in most “total bans” on human cloning:

Sec. 301. Definitions

`In this chapter:[65]

(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term `human cloning' means human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.

(2) ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION- The term `asexual reproduction' means reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.

(3) SOMATIC CELL- The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage of development.[66]

Because the Bill uses erroneous scientific definitions, and because the Bill does not specifically address certain kinds of cloning techniques and/or human cloning materials, the Bill is not even a “partial” ban.  Indeed, the Bill bans no human cloning at all.  None. Be sure to take this list and the references with you when you visit your local politicians to discuss your concerns about the Missouri human cloning bills:

1.  “human asexual reproduction”:  Note that this would apply to all kinds of human cloning techniques, not just the SCNT cloning technique.  Note too that the cell(s), or even subcellular materials, used to initiate “human asexual reproduction” could be derived from a normal sexually reproduced IVF human embryo, from a previously cloned (asexually reproduced) human embryo, from human/non-human chimeras, or from genetic materials that are artificially constructed de novo.[67]  Finally, note that if such materials were genetically altered before use, or if materials are artificially constructed de novo, they would therefore not be derived from any “existing or previously existing” human embryo or human cell.  All of these kinds of cloning techniques and the use of such human genetic materials would be allowed by the Bill – for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.

2.  ”by introducing nuclear material”:  This refers to genetic material (DNA) found only inside the nucleus of the cell.  Therefore, the Bill would allow the use of human genetic materials (DNA) found outside the nucleus in the cytoplasm of a cell for human cloning purposes, e.g., those found in mitochondria.

3.  “human somatic cells”:  The Bill is defining “cloning” only in terms of the somatic cell nuclear transplant (SCNT) cloning technique.  Therefore this bill would allow the cloning of human beings by means of all other kinds of cloning techniques, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes, e.g.:  germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLSNT); “twinning” (blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting);  pronuclei transfer;  mitochondria transfer;  embryos cloned by means of  artificially constructed sperm and/or oocytes;  parthenogenesis;  production of human/human chimeras and human/non-human chimeras, etc.

4.  “into a fertilized ... oocyte”:  A “fertilized oocyte” is already a new human embryo – a single-cell human zygote, a human being.  Therefore the Bill would allow the cloning of a new human embryo by using an already existing human embryo who would be profoundly genetically damaged or killed in the process.

5.  “to produce a living organism ... that is genetically virtually identical”:  The Bill is defining SCNT erroneously;  therefore the real SCNT cloning technique would still be allowed.  Even as publicly acknowledged and published by many of the drafters of such bills, since only the "nuclear" genetic material (DNA) is removed from the donor cell, the mitochondrial DNA of the donor is NOT transferred to the cloned product (embryo).  Furthermore, the mitochondrial DNA of the recipient oocyte is retained in the cloned product (embryo).  The cloned embryo would NOT contain the mitochondrial DNA of the donor cell, and it WOULD contain the "foreign" mitochondrial DNA of the recipient oocyte cell. Therefore, in the real world, the product (embryo) cloned using somatic cell nuclear transfer is NOT "genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism" being.[68]  Therefore, the Bill would NOT prohibit human cloning using the SCNT human cloning technique for either “therapeutic” or “reproductive” purposes. 

            Additionally, since the cloned human embryo is NOT really “genetically identical to the donor”, if cloned from a patient for the purposes of using his/her own "human embryonic stem cells" in "therapy", these stem cells would still evoke a rejection reaction from that patient because of the presence in them of "foreign" DNA as well as because of the "missing donor" mitochondrial DNA.  Finally, many scientists have grave concerns about the use of germ line cells in sexual or in a-sexual human reproduction for eugenic purposes.[69] 

6.  “to an existing or previously existing human organism”:  Note that human embryos cloned using several other human cloning techniques – e.g., pronuclei transfer, the use of artificially constructed sperm, oocytes, embryos, etc. – would NOT be “genetically similar” to an “existing or previously existing human organism”.  They would be completely genetically unique, having never existed genetically as such before.  Therefore the Bill would allow the cloning of such genetically unique human embryos for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.

7.  “’somatic cell’ means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes)”:  By defining only a "somatic cell" as "a diploid cell", it blurs any distinction between diploid somatic cells and diploid germ line cells.  There are two basic categories (or subsets) of diploid cells in the human organism, both of which have a complete set of chromosomes – somatic cells and germ line cells.[70]  Since both kinds of cells are diploid, both kinds of cells can be used to clone human embryos using the nuclear transfer cloning technique.  The Bill does not refer specifically to the use of diploid germ line cells.  Therefore it would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of the germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT) technique for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.  Additionally, since primitive germ line cells are also totipotent,[71] the Bill would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of the “twinning” cloning technique for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.

8.  “obtained or derived from a living or deceased human body”:  Because germ line cells are not specifically addressed, the Bill would allow the cloning of human embryos by using diploid germ line cells in a nuclear transfer (GLCNT) cloning technique, and by the “twinning” of totipotent primitive germ line cells, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes, obtained or derived from any living or deceased body.  Because the use of artificially constructed gametes or embryos that never existed before are not specifically addressed, the Bill would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of all cloning techniques using these cloning “materials” for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.

These are just some of the problems with the definitions used (or omitted) in the Bill.  But there is more.  Before, I mentioned a restriction (above) that most bills include, usually in the section on “prohibitions”:

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'"

At least here the Bill acknowledges that there are “other cloning techniques”.  But, again, the use of specific language in the prohibition would still allow some human cloning.  For example:

1.  “molecules, DNA”:  Some cloning of human embryos is accomplished by means of pronuclei transfer.  For example, the male pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of one human embryo, and the female pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of another human embryo can be removed by micromanipulation and placed together in an enucleated oocyte, which is then stimulated, and a new cloned human embryo would be reproduced.  In fact, such embryos would be human/human chimeras.  Human pronuclei are not whole cells, nor whole nuclei, but only parts of nuclei – just molecules, and they are molecules of DNA.  Therefore the prohibition in the Bill would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of pronuclei transfer for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.  The same problem exists with the use of artificially constructed sperm, oocytes and/or embryos.

2.  “cells other than human embryos”:  would not cover the cloning of a single cell -- such as the single-cell human zygote – using all cloning techniques for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes.  Nor would it cover -- depending on when during the fertilization process a new human being begins to exist -- the use of pronuclei transfer for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes, since pronuclei are only parts of a single cell.

3.  “tissues”:  many researchers use the phrase "human tissues" to refer to what are in reality totipotent diploid human primordial germ line cells.  Thus the cloning of new human beings by means of twinning these totipotent cells, or cloning them by means of nuclear transfer, for both “therapeutic” and “reproductive” purposes, would not be covered if the researchers' deceptive definition of "tissues" is accepted.

V.  MANIPULATING THE ANTHROPOLOGY (“PERSONHOOD”)

            Now, while it is clear scientifically that the immediate product of both sexual and asexual human reproduction is a new living human being, the inevitable philosophical question is posed:  “Is it a human person?”  And the answer, again, is “yes”.[72]  What is clearly at stake, as the Church keeps constantly trying to tell us, is the corruption of the very concept of “man” – the anthropology, the “person”.  And the devastating consequences that would flow from that would fall on all of us, regardless of how many cells we have in our bodies.

            I will address the philosophical issue of “personhood” briefly in a moment.  But I think it is critical to point out first that in both the abortion and in the cloning debates, the arguments about “personhood” are essentially irrelevant.  What is relevant is if we know there is a human being present and when. As succinctly stated by the Pontifical Academy for Life:

[Pontifical Academy for Life]:  From the juridical point of view, the core of the debate on the protection of the human embryo does not involve identifying earlier or later indices of "humanity" which appear after insemination, but consists rather in the recognition of fundamental human rights by virtue of the presence of a human being. Above all, the right to life and to physical integrity from the first moment of existence, in keeping with the principle of equality, must be respected.  ...  In this great challenge of defending the life and dignity of the human embryo, special commitment is needed on the part of families, and particularly parents, as well as that of the scientific community.[73]

It is the clear and consistent teaching of the Church that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being – regardless of any “theories” on “personhood”.  Still, the judgment that whenever there is a human being present there is always simultaneously a human person present is strongly supported by the Church’s teachings.  The extensive considerations in the Church’s documents regarding abortion and cloning make this crystal clear:

[EV 60]:  Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life.  But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother;  it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth.  It would never be made human if it were not human already.  This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation.  It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of ...:  a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined.  Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins,  and each of its capacities requires time -- a rather lengthy time -- to find its place and to be in a position to act."  Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life:  how could a human individual not be a human person?   Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.  Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit:  "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception;  and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

[EV61]:   Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth.  All human beings ...  belong to God.  ...  Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors.  Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.

[EV 63]:  This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos.  This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries.  Although "one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but rather are directed to its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival," it must nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person.  ...  This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses -- sometimes specifically "produced" for this purpose by in vitro fertilization -- either to be used as biological material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases.  The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.[74]

[Pontifical Academy for Life]:  “Judgment - as an act of the human mind - on the personal nature of the human embryo springs necessarily from the evidence of the biological datum which implies the recognition of the presence of a human being with an intrinsic active capacity for development, and not a mere possibility of life.  ...  The ethical exigency of respect and care for the life and integrity of the embryo, demanded by the presence of a human being is motivated by a unitary conception of man ("Corpore et anima unus"), whose personal dignity must be recognized from the beginning of his physical existence.  ...  The theological perspective, beginning with the light which revelation sheds on the meaning of a human life and on the dignity of the person, supports and sustains human reason in regard to these conclusions, without in any way diminishing the validity of contributions based on rational evidence. Therefore the duty of respecting the human embryo as a human person derives from the reality of the matter and from the force of rational argumentation, and not exclusively from a position of faith.  ...  From the juridical point of view, the core of the debate on the protection of the human embryo does not involve identifying earlier or later indices of "humanity" which appear after insemination, but consists rather in the recognition of fundamental human rights by virtue of the presence of a human being. Above all, the right to life and to physical integrity from the first moment of existence, in keeping with the principle of equality, must be respected.[75]

And so, even on the secular basis of the equality of all human beings, the right to life of these tiniest of human beings must be respected.

            Yet how, one might be curious to ask, has this barrage of pro-abortion, pro-cloning “delayed personhood” arguments flooded these debates?  There are several causes, I am sure, but it is important to point to one of the major sources for this conceptual contortion and confusion:  bioethics – which is quite different from the Church’s ethics.[76]  You see, if you change the “anthropology” – i.e., the concept of “person” -- then you automatically change the ethics which are derived from that anthropology.  If you change the ethics, then you change the medical or bioethics that flows necessarily from those ethics.  Despite claims to the contrary, this is precisely what bioethics has been doing over the last 30 years, especially in the academy.  How is it, you might have asked yourself, that state, federal and even private sector entities justify determining what is “ethical” for the rest of us on the basis of “bioethics”?

VI.  MANIUPLATING THE ETHICS

A.  Short history of “bioethics”[77]

            Bioethics was formally "born" in the 1978 Belmont Report of the National Commission -- mandated by the U.S. Congress in its 1974 National Research Act.[78]  This commission identified and quite oddly defined the three bioethical principles of "autonomy", "justice", and "beneficence", referred to as "principlism", or "the Georgetown mantra".  But bioethics is not "ethics-per-se";  it is only one of a dozen different ethical theories developed through the centuries -- and a very recent one at that.  Nor is bioethics "neutral"; it defines itself as "normative"[79] -- i.e., it takes a stand on what is right or wrong.  Thus how can any one justify forcing that normative ethical theory on the rest of us through legislation in this democratic, multicultural, pluralistic society?[80]

            Furthermore, bioethics is fraught with so many theoretical and practical problems that even many of the Founders of bioethics themselves have admitted that it can't and doesn't work.[81]  The bioethics literature is full of hot and turbulent on-going debates on whether or not bioethics is a valid ethical theory at all.[82]  And as one of the original scholars of the Hastings Center wisely expressed when observing the creation of bioethics by the National Commission, "What one fears", he said, "is that the [National] Commission may become the mechanism whereby the speculations of the ethicists become the law of the land.  It is already far too easy for abstract notions of right and wrong to emerge as deontological rules which begin their public life as 'guidelines' but culminate in the force of law."[83] Indeed, this is precisely what has transpired since 1978, and it ought to give pause to decision makers on all levels to understand that to base any "ethical" decisions on bioethics theory or bioethics definitions of terms is dubious at best, and basically indefensible.  Indeed, many of the dubious scientific myths discussed here originated with bioethics.[84]

A.  Bioethics and “Personhood”:  Human Embryos Don’t Have It

            To claim that these innocent and vulnerable living human beings can be used and destroyed in order to help other human beings -- especially when there are viable alternatives, such as the use of umbilical cord and adult stem cells -- is to legislatively create a subcategory of human beings who may be exploited and killed as a mere commodity for the use of other human beings -- and we've been there before.  The argument is that some human beings are not "persons", and other human beings are "persons", and is based on a theory about active "functionality", rather than on the empirical facts about a thing's nature.

            Such is the position of many of those in bioethics, e.g., Peter Singer, Director of Human Values at Princeton University (Princeton, New Jersey).  Singer opines that "personhood" is defined only by the active exercising of "rational attributes" (e.g., willing, choosing, knowing, relating to the world around one, etc.) or "sentience" (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)[85] -- a philosophical claim inherently based on passé 17th and 18th century Cartesian, rationalist, and empiricist philosophical systems.[86]  Time does not permit a further philosophical analysis, but suffice it to say here that these philosophical systems are fraught with inherent contradictions, are academically and realistically indefensible, and were literally laughed out of the academy by the late 1800's.  They were recently revived, however, by contemporary bioethics.  One reason for their indefensibility is simply that if there are two separate and different things, such as a "mind" or "soul" thing, and a "body" thing, there is no possible way to explain any interaction between these two different and separated things.  In philosophical parlance, this is known as the myth of the "mind/body" split -- or chorismos.

  &