The source of this article is here...
Once upon a time Christian theologians argued about the sex of angels. Nowadays they argue about the soul of the human embryo in a debate that concerns creatures of flesh and blood and spills way beyond Christianity.
“Although religious practice may be declining,” says French geneticist and Member of Parliament Jean-François Mattei, “the metaphysical issue is still at the core of the questions raised about genetic engineering, either by tradition, culture or duty.”
Should a person have recourse to prenatal screening and consider having an abortion if a serious genetic defect is discovered? Should research on embryos, gene therapy and cloning be allowed?
All the “religions of the Book” (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) believe that the answers to these questions largely depend on the status of the embryo. The frontier between “good” and “bad” genetic engineering depends on whether or not the embryo is considered to be “animate”.
An “opposition front”
“If the embryo has a soul, then it is endowed with a human as well as a biological life and any attack on its integrity is seen as a crime,” says French geneticist René Frydman. “If it is inanimate, the prohibition remains—God-given life should be respected—but the offence is less serious.”
The Catholic Church is in many respects a special case. For a start, it has a single “magisterium” or teaching authority, whereas other religions have a more familiar approach, such as discussions with a rabbi (Jews), priest (Orthodox Christians) or master (Buddhists). Other religions also have various branches (reformed and orthodox Jews, many broad streams of Buddhism) or schools of jurisprudence (Malikite, Hanafite, Shafi’ite and Hanbalite among Sunni Muslims, for example). Most important of all, while all the major religions generally believe human life and dignity should be respected, the Church of Rome is the only religion that considers the embryo “as a human being from the moment of conception”, and it sticks firmly to this doctrine.
Pope John Paul II has repeated it several times, notably in the encyclicals Veritatis Splendor (1993) and Evangelium Vitae (1995). These have resulted in a number of prohibitions: “no” to prenatal screening if it it is done with the thought of a possible abortion and “no” to most research and therapy on embryos. The Vatican is also against both reproductive and therapeutic cloning on the grounds that it violates the “unified totality” of the human person and the sacred link between sexuality and procreation.
The positions of Orthodox Christians are very close to those of the Vatican. But the “opposition front” to genetic technologies is limited to these two groups. For Islam and Judaism, the important principles are the moment when the embryo acquires a life of its own and respect for descendance. The Koran says in Surat 23: “And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, Then we made the seed a clot, then we made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation.”
But some Muslims believe it is 40 days before the soul (ruh) enters the embryo, while others believe it is 120. At the same time, while prenatal screening is accepted, there is argument over abortion. H’mida Ennaifer, of the Higher Institute of Theology in Tunis, says “Islamic jurists all condemn abortion after the foetus has received the breath of life. Some Malekites condemn it even when the child is less than 40 days old while other schools of thought allow it during the first four months of pregnancy.”
Islam also allows gene therapy on the human body, but in general it proscribes the modification of germ-cells and bans anything which denies the notion of divine creation, starting with cloning. However, a minority of jurists regard cloning as sometimes preferable to “genetic adultery” because it respects the line of descent by avoiding a situation where a sterile couple uses sperm or eggs from a donor in artificial insemination.
Jews cite the Bible and the Talmud. When the Talmud reports that during the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites (Exodus, chapter 15), even the unborn children in their mothers’ wombs praised God, it comments that “if they could praise the glory of God, it means they have a soul and a conscience.” This comes about after the 40th day, the Talmud says. Until then, the embryo is “only water”. So to obey the halakha (Jewish Law), it is preferable to carry out prenatal screening before the 40th day. After that, abortion is not allowed unless the mother’s life is in danger. In practice, it all depends on what the rabbis say. Some hold that if the mother has a nervous breakdown when she learns she is carrying a child with an incurable condition, abortion is permissible, even after the 40-day limit. Other rabbis are a lot stricter.
Jews allow experiments with embryos, especially if they have no chance of surviving. Judaism also does not rule out cloning, says French theologian and jurist Raphaël Braï. “If cloning is done for therapeutic reasons, the matter has to be discussed with other people. Several religious notions clash at this point. For example, the oneness of the human person and the duty to heal oneself.” But cloning for reproductive reasons is not allowed, with few exceptions.
Protestant Christians are generally even more open to advances in genetics. They stress free will and regard each case on its merits, leaving a decision to the couple involved. “Some allow prenatal screening followed by an abortion if the woman so decides,” says Carlos de Sola, head of the bioethics unit of the Council of Europe, which has arranged discussions between religious authorities. “Some people even endorse choosing the sex of a future child through sperm selection, so as to create a family containing both boys and girls.” Protestants approve of research using embryos as long as it is strictly supervised. They do not rule out cloning either, though they reject cloning for profit or for eugenic reasons.
Buddhists are even less dogmatic because they believe all truth is relative. A French expert in Buddhism, Raphaël Liogier, notes that “the only ethical limit is suffering, for Buddha is primarily a healer.” The Dalai Lama, leader of Tibet’s Buddhists, says what mainly has to be taken into account are “the good effects and bad effects of genetic engineering.” He agrees that it can be used to “improve the human body—the brain, for example.”
“The body is only a vehicle for karma [the ethical consequences of a person’s actions that determine their destiny in their next incarnation],” says Liogier. “If the body has been genetically altered or cloned, it’s really not very important. Abortion however is frowned on because it damages karma.”
But again, everything is relative and the main concern is to avoid pain. The Dalai Lama says “abortion is allowed when a pregnant woman might die if she gave birth or bear a severely handicapped child.”
The range of answers religions give to bioethical questions is very varied and constantly changing, except for the rigid doctrine of the Vatican and the inflexibility of fundamentalists in all religions. Faced with problems which go to the origin and meaning of life itself, says Frydman, “religious opinions are probably a big help because they recall humanity’s root values without trying to impose them and are a forum for discussion, not a body of dogma.”
No comments:
Post a Comment