<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IVF and Cloning Part 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frantonios.org.au/2010/07/19/ivf-and-cloning-part-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frantonios.org.au/2010/07/19/ivf-and-cloning-part-1/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:52:13 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.frantonios.org.au/2010/07/19/ivf-and-cloning-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-542</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frantonios.org.au/?p=241#comment-542</guid>
		<description>Permit me to add my two cents...

I&#039;ll start with the cloning issue because that&#039;s an easy one. Let&#039;s just say that a human being is cloned and has the same genetic make-up as another. Correct me if I&#039;m wrong, but the cloned human being will have his own distinct soul separate from his source, so they are not the same person. Identical twins are genetically the same and yet they are two separate people with two separate souls. So that is not a dilemma in itself, we are not creating the same human being who will be subject to the same judgements as his source, because he is a distinct human who will be accountable for his own actions. 
So it just comes down to the &#039;playing God&#039; issue. But are we really &#039;playing God&#039;, or are we exercising the gift of knowledge and the gift of technology that God has freely given? Human life begins from two separate cells which are not alive in themselves, so what is the difference if through God-given technology we are able to re-create this using different cells that are neither sperm nor ova? I understand that through natural reproduction an individual&#039;s genetic make-up is from two sources, but what is the issue if an individual&#039;s genetic make-up is taken from only one individual? It is not parenthood which determines final judgement, your genetic make-up has no bearing, so technically it shouldn&#039;t matter.

Don&#039;t get me wrong, I am not condoning human cloning, I think it&#039;s a path that should not be taken if for nothing more than the moral and ethical dilemma it causes. That being said however, cloning is technically not wrong (I think?), but to what end are we pursuing it? Give me a valid reason that has potential to better human life and I may change my mind.

The same can be said about embryonic stem-cell research. Which of us can truly say that we would condemn the science if it had the potential to treat or cure one of our children or loved ones who had some disease which can be treated by it? Ask yourselves that question honestly.

Which brings me to the issue of the killing of embryos. We know, or believe that life begins at conception, so any embryo created in a petri dish for IVF already has human life. The practice of IVF is such that many embryos are created and frozen for potential future use. Correct me if I&#039;m wrong, but you can only freeze your embryos for a period of 12 years, so what to do after that if a woman does not wish them implanted? If they are going to be destroyed anyway, if they are going to die anyway, then isn&#039;t it a good thing to use them for stem-cell research rather than have them discarded and die in vain? I am all against creating embryos for the sole purpose of this science, but unwanted embryos should be able to be used. At least the embryos will not have died in vain and have the potential to help another human being. If we cannot accept this, then we should also be condemning the IVF science, at least until such time that it is developed so that no excess embyros are created and frozen.

Interestingly, the Jewish faith holds the belief that an embryo or foetus is not a human being until it takes its first breath outside the womb. So they do not condemn abortion. The Christian faith moved away from this due to the belief in the Incarnation, that the foetus in the Virgin was already the God-Man even before his birth and from the instant he was conceived. So it also follows that any embyro has life from the moment of conception.

Surrocacy is a touchy subject. But let&#039;s move away from the psychological issues it may cause, after all, the Church seems to focus on the technicalities of these issues when deciding upon them, rather than the psycological. A surrogate is not genetically attached to the foetus in her womb, so she is not its mother. She is merely providing it with nutrients until it is born. If the practice of cross-breast feeding is allowed then I do not see why surrogacy should be an issue of contention, because it is essentially the same thing.


Anyway, that&#039;s enough from me I think....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Permit me to add my two cents&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll start with the cloning issue because that&#8217;s an easy one. Let&#8217;s just say that a human being is cloned and has the same genetic make-up as another. Correct me if I&#8217;m wrong, but the cloned human being will have his own distinct soul separate from his source, so they are not the same person. Identical twins are genetically the same and yet they are two separate people with two separate souls. So that is not a dilemma in itself, we are not creating the same human being who will be subject to the same judgements as his source, because he is a distinct human who will be accountable for his own actions.<br />
So it just comes down to the &#8216;playing God&#8217; issue. But are we really &#8216;playing God&#8217;, or are we exercising the gift of knowledge and the gift of technology that God has freely given? Human life begins from two separate cells which are not alive in themselves, so what is the difference if through God-given technology we are able to re-create this using different cells that are neither sperm nor ova? I understand that through natural reproduction an individual&#8217;s genetic make-up is from two sources, but what is the issue if an individual&#8217;s genetic make-up is taken from only one individual? It is not parenthood which determines final judgement, your genetic make-up has no bearing, so technically it shouldn&#8217;t matter.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I am not condoning human cloning, I think it&#8217;s a path that should not be taken if for nothing more than the moral and ethical dilemma it causes. That being said however, cloning is technically not wrong (I think?), but to what end are we pursuing it? Give me a valid reason that has potential to better human life and I may change my mind.</p>
<p>The same can be said about embryonic stem-cell research. Which of us can truly say that we would condemn the science if it had the potential to treat or cure one of our children or loved ones who had some disease which can be treated by it? Ask yourselves that question honestly.</p>
<p>Which brings me to the issue of the killing of embryos. We know, or believe that life begins at conception, so any embryo created in a petri dish for IVF already has human life. The practice of IVF is such that many embryos are created and frozen for potential future use. Correct me if I&#8217;m wrong, but you can only freeze your embryos for a period of 12 years, so what to do after that if a woman does not wish them implanted? If they are going to be destroyed anyway, if they are going to die anyway, then isn&#8217;t it a good thing to use them for stem-cell research rather than have them discarded and die in vain? I am all against creating embryos for the sole purpose of this science, but unwanted embryos should be able to be used. At least the embryos will not have died in vain and have the potential to help another human being. If we cannot accept this, then we should also be condemning the IVF science, at least until such time that it is developed so that no excess embyros are created and frozen.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the Jewish faith holds the belief that an embryo or foetus is not a human being until it takes its first breath outside the womb. So they do not condemn abortion. The Christian faith moved away from this due to the belief in the Incarnation, that the foetus in the Virgin was already the God-Man even before his birth and from the instant he was conceived. So it also follows that any embyro has life from the moment of conception.</p>
<p>Surrocacy is a touchy subject. But let&#8217;s move away from the psychological issues it may cause, after all, the Church seems to focus on the technicalities of these issues when deciding upon them, rather than the psycological. A surrogate is not genetically attached to the foetus in her womb, so she is not its mother. She is merely providing it with nutrients until it is born. If the practice of cross-breast feeding is allowed then I do not see why surrogacy should be an issue of contention, because it is essentially the same thing.</p>
<p>Anyway, that&#8217;s enough from me I think&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ant</title>
		<link>http://www.frantonios.org.au/2010/07/19/ivf-and-cloning-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-539</link>
		<dc:creator>ant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frantonios.org.au/?p=241#comment-539</guid>
		<description>Were not the concumbines of patriarchs in the OT &quot;surrogates&quot;? 

And Abouna, that old Egyptian tradition- I thought that was an Arab teaching. Apparently, and forgive me for any offence, but in Islamic tradition (haddith) there is a teaching that if you are breast-fed by a woman, even an adult, they become family (Book 008, Number 3425), and the woman does not have to dress the hajib (don&#039;t have a reference for this).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Were not the concumbines of patriarchs in the OT &#8220;surrogates&#8221;? </p>
<p>And Abouna, that old Egyptian tradition- I thought that was an Arab teaching. Apparently, and forgive me for any offence, but in Islamic tradition (haddith) there is a teaching that if you are breast-fed by a woman, even an adult, they become family (Book 008, Number 3425), and the woman does not have to dress the hajib (don&#8217;t have a reference for this).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

