We are all living on a slippery slope. I read that assisted suicide, while still illegal, is gradually becoming acceptable. It will soon be so customary that legislation in its favour will pass through on the nod. The champions of the embryonic stem cell maintain that the potential benefits from this line of research outweigh the ethical problems caused by the production and extermination of embryos. This utilitarian argument pitches the interests of the embryo against the possibility of, say, finding a cure for Parkinson’s disease. Since the embryo is regarded as not yet a human being, and thus has no human rights, it is, in their view, no contest.
Ethics in our society, particularly those concerned with human life, have changed considerably. This is a step-by-step process which enables substantial ethical change to accumulate through a series of what appear at the time to be minor changes. So I was interested in an article in Wired magazine which listed seven experiments which could lead to very valuable information. All these experiments would be regarded today as unethical. But I wonder how many of them will be regarded as common sense in a generation or two’s time. I will only give four examples here, but Secondsightblog.net will give you a link to all seven.
A current method of discerning which human characteristics are attributable to genes is through studies of identical twins. When the twins are, for whatever reason, separated at birth and brought up in different circumstances, good information on the effects of nature over nurture can be made. But this is only approximate since the effects of upbringing are multiple and so liable to confuse results. If only we were able to split pairs of twins with identical genes and bring them both up in strictly controlled environments, our measurements would be much more accurate and yield much more useful information on the effects both of genes and of different types of upbringing.
But babies in the womb have already started the process of growing up, and various features of their environment are known to make a difference. For instance, obese mothers tend to produce obese children and anxious mothers tend to produce anxious children. The mother’s diet can affect the child, and the hazards of smoking and drinking alcohol are broadly known. But again the knowledge is neither complete nor exact. What we require is womb swapping. If we were to take the embryo (fertilised in vitro) from an obese woman and implant it in the womb of a slim woman – and vice versa – we could establish whether obesity in the child is related to the genes or to the diet of the pregnant woman. It might not be easy to persuade women to swap their babies but I am sure that a little silver crossing palms would bring forward volunteers. And think of the benefits to thousands of future children.
A big need in genetic research is to discover precisely how cells work in the brain. Although great advances have been made, we are only at the threshold of understanding. Currently it is possible to turn mouse brain cells off and on by giving them a harmless virus which makes the switching mechanism susceptible to light. By beaming through fibre optic wires, scientists can change the firing rate of specific cells and watch the effects. But that is only mice. The human brain is far more interesting. Might we, for example, track down the phenomenon of self-consciousness? As the effects are reversible no one could possibly object to having their brain cells manipulated by a benign scientist.
So far we have only been playing about with the periphery. We have good genetic evidence that we have interbred with Neanderthals, and it is probable that some human groups have interbred with Denisovans, who are an Asian variety. And fascinating studies on fossils from possible antecedents of man, dating back two million years, have recently been published. But what we really need to do is to experiment by cross-breeding humans with chimpanzees.
We know the main areas of genetic change since our lines split, but to be able to examine a half-human, half-chimpanzee would tell us a great deal about the difference between the two species. And of course that knowledge could well bring invaluable advantages to us in the future.
Other possible experiments, which I do not detail here, cover ground such as far more testing of various chemicals and drugs on human beings. Then there is the possibility of treating one embryo as a scientific experiment, using fluorescent tracking genes to see exactly how stem cells turn into specialist adult cells. And we would be much helped by being able to extract and analyse samples of the brain.
I think it would interesting to think up other possible experiments which could provide benefits. My first suggestion was to develop hermaphrodites – if only to see what hoops that presents for moral theologians to wiggle through. But I am already too late: “Sperm cells have been created from a female human embryo in a remarkable breakthrough that suggests it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological children,” wrote Roger Highfield in the Independent on September 13. You couldn’t make it up, could you?
Link to Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/09/features/extreme-science
Link to Independent article:
http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/scientists-create-sperm-cells-from-female-embroyo-2874338.html
secondsightblogdotnet 
There is a long tradition of medical scientists trying out experimental treatments on themselves.
There is a story of one of the pioneers of Arteriography having to complete an experiment solo when the nurse assisting him fainted.
Myself and colleagues tried taking anti-epileptic drugs (I am talking 40+ years ago) partly to experience the subjective effects and partly to assess the effects on the Electroencephalogram in ‘normal’ (well almost !) subjects.
I even had a psychiatrist colleague who had himself given ECT for much the same reasons!
Almost all the ‘experiments’ brought forward by Quentin, however, involve the manipulation of embryos or at very least using human beings purely as ‘experimental animals’ – and indeed recall experiments carried out in concentration camps in the early 1940’s. This is an altogether different kettle of fish. It is surely here that we must ‘draw the line’.
But what then of experiments on consenting adults – or indeed voluntary euthanasia? This is perhaps a more divisive moral problem even than contraception.
This might sound like a harsh comment,but I have always thought that if someone wishes to end their own life, surely they can do it without anyone else doing it for them. Do they just want someone to take away their guilt
Experimenting on consenting adults-If one wishes to do that on themselves it is up to them,I dont think doctors have a right to do that,when they take an oath to save life,not in exchange for others.
Babies in the womb dont have a choice-which is sad especially for Christians!.
What about the Stem Cell research on the umbilical cord, I dont know much about,but maybe Horace will know how far it is advanced.
Jesus did not cure everyone in His travels-I wonder why He didn’t do that?
Good point – there are ways of killing oneself within the reach of all but the most severely disabled (I do not detail any here in case someone is encouraged to try one). I think what people want is a) to minimise their suffering in the process b) to feel justified.
I am not an expert on this subject but as I understand it “Stem cell research” involves “cells that have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell”.
It is clearly morally wrong to obtain stem cells for research by killing a human embryo, however there are other cells which may have this property to a greater or less degree that can, for example, be obtained from umbilical cord blood.
Research on such cells should be morally acceptable.
Thank you Horace for your reply.
I think I read somewhere that is is acceptable with the taching of the Church.
Maybe someone can say if this is so?
We are well on the way to a kind of ‘moral free for all’ that would have horrified most people not too many years ago but with the careful (subliminal) use of language, as in the novel 1984, everything is reduced to personal satisfaction as a justification for just about anything that was once immoral.
Hence we have ‘choice’ to justify abortion (while still recognising it is wrong by keeping time limits on when they can be permitted.)
‘In a Loving relationship’ is a passport to same sex marriage but having re-defined marriage all the previous barriers can now be challenged on the basis of ‘loving relationships.’ I read somewhere that Switzerland is considering the removal of the crime of incest providing it is bewteen consenting adults. Why then can a Mother not marry her own son? Or indeed a man marry his pet dog. (And so bestiality can be justified.)
There are strong moves to legalise multi- partnership ‘marriages’ and one might ask ‘why not?’ as the trend has already been established in other areas of marriage re-definition.
Strangely though what is a kind of freedom for one excess is a constraint on another group. Already the political languauge has changed to ‘freedom of worship’ from, ‘freedom, of religion.’ Hence freedom of religion means we can still go to Mass but does not extend to conscience exemptions for nursing staff. Nor will it exempt Catholic Churches from hosting same sex marriages.
Should have written : ‘freedom of worship’ means we can still go to Mass etc. ( but we don’t have freedom of religion.)
In a secular culture you cannot expect theologically based arguments to have much influence on legislation relating to bio-ethics.
True – so we must find other valid and persuasive arguments – if we can.
There is a film based on a true story, Julie Walters plays the lead role of Anne Turner in it, the woman who went to Switzerland to end her life. Well, Anne and her husband Jack both used to put themselves foreward for testing chemicals in a clinic at Salisbury Plain while they were younger.
She was a nurse her husband was a doctor; our family one in fact.
It seems a little odd that they both developed an unusual and disabling disease in their sixties/seventies. They had a totally different one from the other but both lead to nervous system breakdown, which Anne could not bear to suffer after she had watched her husband die of it.
Anne was not patient with Jack during his illness and could not feel Christian compassion towards him in his frailties. She had the same opinion towards herself with her oncoming disabilities and did not want anyone to see her in a position of need (Pride?) so against her childrens wishes she arranged her own demise.
Interestingly, her role as a nurse was to pioneer contraception access to school children and teenagers.
Several schools of thought here; the body is a temple and should not be put forward for experiments.
Nobody should experiment on others (we have the Nazi example to dissuade us; good does not come from an evil act)
God is love, we have a mystery within us each time the flow of love comes from our actions, even when they are against the odds but when we reject the fundamentals of Christianity it is a Pandora’s Box.
So Anne lost the LOVE ability. You do not love young people when you ply them with drugs which, even the company manufacturing them say they should not be given to under sixteens, and the local GUM clinic has a three week waiting list of under 21’s.
Anne lost the hope that others could love her even when she was at her feeblest.
And she dispaired in God and His existence.
Before the film came out I knew the story as her friends were also mine or were her professional collegues who were at my parish.
Trivial observation – we don’t talk about ‘slippery slopes’ any more (perhaps because Lady Warnock has stated authoritatively that they don’t exist) but ‘incremental creep’ or ‘the incremental agenda’.
While the experiments described appear to major on treating humans as a means to an end rather than end of themselves, I am not so sure about Quentin’s later remarks. Let’s just suppose that a safe way of turning female cells into sperm is found – thus enabling a lesbian couple to have their own genetic children, why would this be wrong? I would like to see the arguments.
By the way, what has happened to our old friend Advocatus Diaboli? Has he become a Catholic after reading all our sagacious answers?
Vincent says:
“While the experiments described appear to major on treating humans as a means to an end rather than end of themselves, I am not so sure about Quentin’s later remarks. Let’s just suppose that a safe way of turning female cells into sperm is found – thus enabling a lesbian couple to have their own genetic children, why would this be wrong? I would like to see the arguments.”
Because we have the blueprint of how we must conduct ourselves through Scripture and the teachings of the Holy Mother Church. “God made us male and female.” “Go forth and multiply”
We DO know that the best place for children is with a father and a mother and the sacrificial element in a good marriage is fruit bearing whereas the lust filled and perverted unions are a faze we are having to go through with children being the victims because of it.
Last week we read in the papers about a same sex union with two women who dressed their adopted boy in girls clothing!!
There is an African saying. ” If you come upon a fence do not take it down until you find out what it keeps out.”
We need to hold on to Gods blueprints (fences).
If that’s an “argument” then I’m Pope Benedict……
Rahner
I don’t think that you need go that far – you have already made the point above.
Momangelica’s comment IS an ‘argument’, but it is clearly theologically based.
Besides I rather like the African saying:- “If you come upon a fence do not take it down until you find out what it keeps out.”
Rahner, how long have you been having these delusions?
Quentins article by the way reminds me of Jonathan Swift writing that the best way to help the Irish potato famine was to eat their children…is it just me or is there perhaps a touch of satire in the “Slopes to slip down” offering?
Mike, For many years.
Horace, “but it is clearly theologically based”. I somehow doubt if many Catholic moral theologians would find this “argument” convincing.
I don’t think that Momangelica’s reply to my query is only theological. She appeals to experience in saying that we know that a child needs father and mother etc. I can accept this as the norm, but I would not say that two female (or male for that matter) parents are always less suitable than a married couple. But are we obliged by the norm, or can we take particular circumstances into account? I would still like to know of any intrinsic reasons why producing a conception through this means would be wrong.
Related to this is the matter of adoption by homosexual couples. I have absolutely no doubt – no doubt whatsoever – that a homosexual couple of deep commitment would be a very much better parents than leaving a child in a children’s home.
Mother Teresa Said ‘The country that kills its own babies in the womb are the poorest in the world.
When doctors do that, nothing surprises me.
I think we have to ask ourselves why we want children in the first place.
Children are not here to satisfy our own pleasures, but when we fall in love we want to have a child with that person , to see our love for each other pro-created in that new life we have brought into the world co-operating with Gods Will. Children are on loan to us .Otherwise it is pleasure without truly understanding our relationship with God in the Trinity.
But then and only then a BIG but. Everyone is not a christian-in as much as believing in what it teaches us how to live our lives by that message.
I am not so naive to think that those who are not christians dont feel the same as that,but however, sometimes their motives will be confused with Love.
This is where things are in the extreme.We want a child so we must have one regardless.
I am a widow now and for one moment I dont feel like this -it is only an example . ‘But ‘however
again. I miss my husband a lot, it is more than just the sexual relationship-but the closeness we feel with our partners. When one dies we have only our memories and that is most important.
‘But’ again if I met somebody (and I havent) but if I did I would not want to get married again-but decided we can live together ,but no sexual relationship between us.
Where is the slippery slope then.
It is there within our conscience as a Christian and our life in Christ-and with the Grace of God we can overcome all these desires if we truly believe in Him,because as Christians our real happiness is not of this world!
Theres a problem with that though St Joseph.
I once knew a young ‘converted’ homosexual man who worked for the Courage Trust which was an evangelical organisation devoted to caring for young men and women ‘coming out’ from being homosexual. He married and had children but would freely admit that he only ever had his sexuality in precarious balance and it was a very difficult issue . The Courage Trust later was riven with discord when its workers found that they could produce no convincing evidence that it was possible to divert or change sexual orientation-it just didnt seem to work.
Speaking for myself as usual and 100% anecdotally I find that there are times when I seem to succeed with battling unwanted desires of a wide variety-and times when I seem not to be able to do battle quite as well as I would ‘ve liked!
I understand what you are saying Mike , We all meet challenges in this life.Homosexuality is no different and I feel sympathy with the way they are made.
That is a quirk of nature, but that doesn.t say that we can go against the nature of marriage between one man and one woman.
I know plenty of homosexuals who are living a celibate life and we ought not to assume that they are having a sexual relationship, that is between their selves and the Lord and their conscience.
But to change the natural law legally other than the way God made it, I feel we are then on a slippery slope.
Our Charity begins by not assuming what they do in private-the same as if I choose to live with a man now.But obviously that would cause scandal. So I dont expect the Church to change the rule for widows and widowers. After all priests do have housekeepers and I dont suspect they are living in sin.
Anyway I have lived my married life and do feel sorry for homosexuals if they are born like that, but people are born with a lot of inflictions. No one said it is going to be easy, we all walk the road to Calvary-only some dont shout about it!
The secular world will aways be different. We as Christians should not go along with it.
We dont need to judge unless it is damaging others, but the danger is that people can be influenced.
Related to this is the matter of adoption by homosexual couples. I have absolutely no doubt – no doubt whatsoever – that a homosexual couple of deep commitment would be a very much better parents than leaving a child in a children’s home.”
For children to have to go to a Children’s Home is a product of human failure.
If we had obeyed the Command ” To love God with all our hearts, minds and soul’s and to love our neighbour as ourselves” so many problems we try to solve, which in fact poses even more ethical problems, just would not be there. We are constantly closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
A few years ago, two same sex men adopted a boy and later it was found that they were abusing him. What a Guniea Pig he became just to satisfy the pressure of a minority group by a liberal state.
“A few years ago, two same sex men adopted a boy and later it was found that they were abusing him. What a Guniea Pig he became just to satisfy the pressure of a minority group by a liberal state.” (Momangelica)
Unfortunately the sexual abuse of young people is by no means confined to homosexuals and has, though I can hardly credit this, actually been found among the CLERGY! (In fact the current professional opinion is that clerical abuse is not homosexually based; rather it is opportunity based — and lads are more likely to provide the opportunity.
I do not have chapter and verse for my strongly held view that loving homosexual parents are better than a children’s home but I know which I personally would prefer. Incidentally I would also prefer to have had loving homosexual parents than unloving parents of mixed gender, Wouldn’t you?
(And I don’t mean that those who run children’s homes are unloving; it’s just that nothing, I think, can beat the care, attention, and security of the family unit. Of course the best is to have a loving mother and father, as I did. But sadly this is not available to all. )
Vincent, I didn’t have a very ‘catholic father’ only in name only, but I can thank the Lord that I had a very holy catholic mother, who brought me up to believe in the church and that she was not a lesbian.That is what I thank the Lord for.
Wether convincing or not Momangelica’s arguments are at least to some extent “theologically based”. However the illustrative examples are essentially anecdotal.
Does anyone know if there are any proper scientific studies of the question of LGBT adoption?
Such studies would have to compare children with:-
a) a conventional – mother and father – upbringing
b) raised in a Children’s home
c) raised by same-sex parents
Wikipedia lists 94 references but as far as I can see none of these are scientifically based comparative studies.
I am not aware of any relevant studies – of course it may be that any such studies, if they exist, don’t in fact give clear answers. (And although I don’t wish to keep repeating the same point I think it is clear that at a time when Christianity is under fire from secularism, issues in bio-ethics etc cannot be addressed by anecdotal evidence OR pious speculation!)
Rahner I am still waiting for a reply from you of the inadequaties of Humanae Vitae that you say, so dont accuse the teachings of the Church of pious speculation, unless you can give the reasons for why you said it!
Come off it Rahner,
The fate of children born to or raised by same sex parents is the subject of heated debate across the country. There are arguments about it in the press, in the Church, in the Pub in fact pretty much everywhere someone has an opinion on the issue-perfectly legitimately actually as with any other parenting issue.
And who cares if ‘Christianity is under fire from seccularism’.??..it has been so and far more literally for thousands of years and is bound to remain so to an increasing extent, that comes with the turf. As for pious speculation methinks you do protest too much here also…isn’t sniffily citing ‘moral theologians’ without specifying either author or argument just a teensy weeny bit pious?
Horace,
I’ve been interested in that too. There have been recently in the broadsheet press mention of ‘research’ but none that is rigourous I don’t think. Not sure if it would be possible, by the criteria you lay out, to do-I guess one would have to establish a scale of happy/well balanced and then apply it to the various groups?
While you are on this thread Horace I wonder to what extent do you think the’ capacity’ as it were for ‘doubt’ could be termed to have a neurological/ genetic base? I was thinking along the line of strong and weak links in cognitive processes- and wondering if my line of thought made any sense!!
I don’t really understand the question.
” . . to what extent do you think the’ capacity’ as it were for ‘doubt’ could be termed to have a neurological/ genetic base?”
In one sense the answer is obviously “Yes” but I suspect that you are thinking about the fact that some people are more likely to be plagued by ‘doubts’ than others.
In this case environment is probably a major factor – upbringing and education – and, of course, this is inevitably reflected in “strong and weak links in cognitive processes”.
Yes, thats what I was getting towards-we had a brisk debate on the subject last thread and it set me wondering as to what ‘doubt’ really was and how much of it had a biochemical base in a similar manner perhaps to depression and moods more generally.
I also have tried, and failed, to find any research evidence as to the upbringing of children by same-sex couples in a man-and-wife type relationship, compared to their upbringing by an actual male-and-female husband-and-wife.
Another thing I’ve unsuccessfully searched for evidence of, is long-term health of children conceived by IVF as opposed to natural conception. You’d think someone would be looking at this, wouldn’t you?
Tim – I hadn’t realised “slippery slopes” had been replaced by “incremental agendas”. They are not at all the same thing. A slippery slope is something you get onto by mistake, without having wanted to or anticipated that you might; you make a move that seems like a good idea, and find yourself sliding in a direction you don’t want to go and can’t stop. Whereas an “incremental agenda” sounds like something planned from the beginning, – take a small step in the direction you want to go, and hope no-one notices or raises any objection so then you can take a further small step… and so on.
Momangelica, that sounds like a very interesting film. Could you tell me its name?
Hi Iona,
The film about Anne Turner is called “A Short Stay in Switzerland”.
I have heard it said of IVF that the procedure is not as delicate as Mother Nature’s and the “handling” of the embryo has had adverse effects which may or may not be obvious until later. Logical really! Again, an experiment where people and children are guinea pigs to satisfy the ” I will not be denied” mentality.
St Joe, “I am still waiting for a reply from you of the inadequacies of Humanae Vitae…”
I would refer you to the writings of Charles Curran and Richard McCormick.
Rahner I would rather believe what Pope Paul V1 said than those two who you quote. Or can you not do that.
Oh and by the way, I took the name of St Joseph on this blog,mainly because I respected him being the foster father of Jesus and Our Blessed Lady’s husband.
I think he is due the respect of spelling his name right!
And another thing-so you believe in abortfaciants, and women endangering their lives.
The proof in the pudding is in the eating!
So you have actually read them?
Mike, What I have in mind are evidence based arguments presented concerning proposed legislation.
As far as I am aware, the laws in the UK dealing with bio-ethics etc are not made in pubs by in Parliament or perhaps,in some cases, the Scottish Assembly. But of course I defer to your knowledge of our constitution and legal system…..
And as regards the challenge of secularism, well the Holy Father clearly thinks we should respond to this intellectual challenge in an appropriate manner and not simply ignore it – but no doubt my intellect is clouded by modernism.
Yes Rahner the intellectual challenge needs to be responded to -as per todays Catholic Herald,.. with confidence not with craven fear lest we say something out of place. As to uk laws etc etc -we are talking here on this website Rahner as ordinary folk discussing ordinary issues as best we can and not as advisory panels to Law makers… this is a blog ..!!!
Well, if Christians wish to engage in the evangelisation of a secular culture on issues concerning bio-ethics and the relationship between law and morality I think they will have to be something more than “ordinary folk discussing ordinary issues as best we can”!
Rahner, The laity have a large role to play in the Catholic Church, that was I believe one of the issues of Vatican 2. In line of course with the Churches teachings!
To go out into the market place and express the Word of God. Do not be afraid!
Our duty n fact!
Rahner, have read Humanae Vitae???
Yes, several times.
Rahner, so then what is ‘your ‘opinion, or are you just relying on Charles Curran and Richard McCormick??.
Rahner, the word is to Evangelize.
I have just come across rather nice ‘slippery slope’ reference :-
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/video-police-ban-bible-from-christian-cafe/
Thank you Horace.A good example.
I often wondered when Bibles would be banned from Hotel bedrooms!
My husband and I always had a Bible in our Guests rooms.
Its amazing,especially when we swear an oath on the Bible. Or do they still do that.
We could say it is offensive to Catholics to see condom machines in public toilets, or contraception pills that cause early abortions., or the morning after pill sold in Chemists.
So right St Joseph. I couldn’t believe it when the word Condom was bandied about some years ago during breakfast time on radio 4. and any time of the day while children were likely to hear it. It is a word about personal things for adults and had no rights in the lives of children. It was just at the start of the C card and E card distributions in schools, part of the plan to bombard and desensitize people to the new Sex Ed mostly prepared by Channel 4 and Stonewall, the latter being the governments sexual advisers. Couldn’t make it up really.
Momangelica,did you know that that parents of primary school children in England have condemned a government statement which they say is introducing compulsory sex education by the back door.
Nick Gibb, the schools minister, has told Parliament that schools can teach children about sex, including in primary school, in compulsory science lessons from which parents have no right to withdraw their children.
This may be the programme by Channel 4 you speak about.
Yes, it is unbelievable!
I think we as Christians need to do a bit more protesting and try to put a halt on the ‘slippery slope’.
Momangelica, thank you for the film reference. I’ll try and track it down.
As for the reference provided by Horace… I had to stop and check that it wasn’t April 1st.
The world moves so fast today that a slowcoach like me finds it hard to keep up. Having just written about possible experiments which are currently held to be unethical, I now find a serious suggestion of the following three, from a Cambridge professor specialising in medical genetics:
1. The substitution of an animal’s brain cells with human cells, to a degree that might lead to human-like cognitive capacity in the animal;
2. Research involving human-derived reproductive cells, especially where there is a possibility of fertilization in the animal; and
3. The creation of animals that, in some way, resemble humans in their outward appearance or characteristics.
You may find this hard to believe, so take a look at
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/6809-the-future-of-animal-human-hybrids
The placing of children with same sex couples is experimnental as well.
Yes I think it is.