Let women give birth to human-animals say Catholic bishops

Yes you read that headline right, although I can't quite believe I wrote it. Chimera are moving from the realm of fantasy and fiction into modern-day reality. And now the Catholic Church is actually endorsing the birthing of part-human chimera created in the lab. We reported this here.

This is what the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales is saying today in its submission to the Draft Tissue and Embryo Bill:  'We oppose the exclusion of interspecies embryos from the definition of embryo in the Act. At very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.  In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.  Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.'

More on all this can be read in the Linacre Centre submission on hybrids. Read Simon Caldwell's story on this at Catholic Online.

Comments

[Douglas Chalmers]

It might have a soul - or not. Whichever, it won't look anything like as pleasant as the picture at the top of this blog!

As we humans have already demonstrated that we have no idea of how to treat each other, so how are we going to cope with that???

Repressed as we are, all we are capable of manifesting are various parts of our R-complex animal psyche. These people who advocate this are definitely not leading us on any kind of spiritual path!!!

"Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species...." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

[Tony Francis]

Andreas, it really serves no purpose to speculate in hypotheticals. This is what you are doing: What if? I still believe this is more science fiction than fact. But suppose it did occur: a half human-half ape. We need only to look to Mary Shelley and Frankenstein to get a glimpse of the outrage this would cause. This story has remained front and center for 200 years, while other novels have been forgotten. It hits at something that is a primeval fear in most of humanity. Need I remind you that Mary Shelley and her husband weren't exactly proponents of RCC? Anyway, trying to define a "soul" on the basis of DNA count is a fool's errand, when science can't define a soul. Science can't even define what life is. As for all living things having a soul: many Greek philosophers believed this long before Christianity arrived on the scene.

[andreas]

first off this is a sick idea, yet it all comes down to what exactly makes up a human? is it our physical appeareance, mental capability?
id imagine a half human half ape being able to look humanish with some intense surgical help
As for mental compability which we can really only test by IQ it may be able to score higher than some human with below adverage.

Many will concider being human as someone who has a soul, yet can we truly and scientifically claim we indeed have a soul, or for that matter other animals dont?

If apes are indeed 98percent human, and humans are 99percent the same, can we seriously claim that 1 over our entire existance hadn't changed?

If we did claim a half human half ape as non-human, than couldn't we say that the japanese who have a higher adverage iq, are not superhuman?

[kate brennan]

It seems as though the only faith worth printing is that of anything other than the written word of the Eternal.

Again. I reiterate, without the red herring of other issues which side-track the reader from the description of right and wrong which has kept a people (those who keep to it) as a people whilst other civilisations have come and gone: namely the written Tanach.

In this it states in Genesis 1:23-26 that the plan is like kind being 'let' to mate with like kind; and that people are made in the imagae of G-d, that is why it is wrong to dispose of human life. ALso, life is life at 2 cells old, with ref to Jeremiah 1:5 we are known before being knit in the womb.

The bible is concerned with the human rights of the individual and the family. The erosion of these rights has a negative impact on society.

Is this really too painful to be viewed by other readers? Surely not! This is straight from the sections of the bible which all the major faiths claim as truth.

[Tony Francis]

Dave, your "shared DNA" argument is a little spurious. Humans share 50%-80% of the DNA of mushrooms, depending on who you might read. Does this makes mushrooms 50%-80% human?

[Tony Francis]

Dave, I don't really understand your point. So great apes can understand language. Are you suggesting they be incorporated into human society? I have owned several dogs through the years which understood a large vocabulary. They were able to understand "ball", "food", "time to eat", "let's go for a walk", "go get into the car", among many others. They were also capable of communicating what they wanted by barking in different tones. No doubt they had intelligence. I hope to see them all in an after-life. I have never done anything to degrade/kill/harm/demean a great ape (or any other monkey, for that matter). Personally, I think they should be left alone in their native habitat. But Christian theology has always held that humans are the only fallen creatures, not animals. So what is your point?

[kate brennan]

What happened to faith? In G-d even? I thought things had to mate with its own kind only, read chapter 1 of genesis. I also thought that G-d knew us before we were born, ie we are a real human, body, soul and spirit in G-d's eyes before being a physical reality. In the plan of the almighty the rights of the individual in a family setting is paramount wheterh that individual is 2 cells old or 102 years old. Chimera cells can be used for good, this is academic, it's not in G-d's plan - stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord and amniotic fluid to the same good ends as chimera cells which does not violate Torah.

[Martin]

I agree with earlier posters who point out that the creation of these hybrid embryos in the first place is utterly anathema to the Church. If, once created, they have a preponderance of human genes, then they should not be destroyed at will. But the Church prohibits their creation in the first place. This is a crucially important point which needs to be made plain. I don't think the sensationalist headline and the tone of the reportage helps.

[Dave Bath]

John Penta: The ability of the great apes to communicate through sign language, and understand abstract concepts, is well documented in the literature, and given assessments of their IQ (using the same tests given to deaf children), they come out between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations below the mean, and are therefore better able to understand things than a not-insignificant number of humans given sacraments as adults, or even allowed to vote. (btw. Infant baptism is a sacrament that does not require understanding or respect).

Altruistic behaviour of the great apes is documented, and their understanding of "immoral" deeds is demonstrated when they show great furtiveness (hoping not to be discovered) when performing an act that is considered "wrong" (e.g. stealing). This suggests a capacity to understand at least a few of the 10 commandments, or at least the most important one from the New Testament.

This suggests that they too have "eaten the fruit of knowledge" and would have been "kicked out of the Garden of Eden" with Adam and Eve.

So, the existance non-human beings that understand morality are not science fiction, the "98% human" non-humans who understand basic morality are well-accepted fact.

It is worth noting that only a couple of centuries ago, the possession as slaves, or massacre of negroids or Australoids was sometimes considered acceptable because the victims did not have "proper" souls.

As PeterW1 commented, the RC position is "the resulting hybrid (whether chromosomes, cells, organ or organism) should not be treated as animal material". Well said: and the only reason they are making the distinction in how the material should be treated is because of the attribution of souls to human tissue: otherwise they would not consider it a moral issue, because again, the hybrids envisaged would (in total) have more genetic differences than between homo and pan.

So behaviourally, there is overlap between humans and chimps, while genetically, I doubt the Vatican is prepared to attribute souls (and therefore the desirability of RC beliefs in the subject) to the genes that differ between homo and pan (or between h.sapiens and h.neanderthalensis for that matter), Either way, the RCC have (perhaps inadvertently), by their appeal in this matter to a morality that is spiritual rather than utilitarian, opened up an interesting debate with very wide implications both for doctrine and administration, that will revolve around the meaning of the phrases "all God's creatures" and "all God's children".

To put it another way: If you can converse (albeit in sign language) about right and wrong with a being, is killing it in a painful way an act of murder, an act involving moral issues, in the same way that killing a fly doesn't?

If RCC morality requires special treatment of tissue with DNA that is not 100% human and certainly not self-aware, then what is the status of morally-aware beings with 98% or 99% of the same genes?

[peterNW1]

The Catholic bishops are only saying that if scientists are going to fuse human embryonic genetic material with that of animals (a practice they utterly condemn), then the resulting hybrid (whether chromosomes, cells, organ or organism) should not be treated as animal material. Put simply, it has human rights.

[John Penta]

Dave Bath: Well, first the gorrila, monkey, ape, or chimp in question would have to be able to demonstrate comprehension of the sacrament. Oh, and reverence.

Problem right there: Is the creature to which you refer able to comprehend even basic theological concepts?

Assuming this ape could, how do you know? Is the gorrila grunting in assent to the doctrine, or because the catechist might have food nearby?

[Tony Francis]

Dave, The Document from Linacre doesn't say anything about "granting rights" or "assigning a soul". It notes the ambiguity in this situation, and casts doubt on whether the mixed embryo would be human, at all. But here is one thing I will guarantee you: If woman ever gives birth to a half human, half ape, the RCC won't have to say a word. The rest of society will be completely alarmed. I am reminded of the experience New York State had with surrogate mothers. This involved implanting a fertilzed egg in a surrogate mother who would then turn the baby over to a sterile mother. It seemed like a good idea. After a few years, New York banned it on public policy grounds. The reason: the courts had been filled with lawsuits over the issue of who was the real mother, etc. It had nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with pragmatism. Anyway, check your biology. I think this stuff is still more science fiction, than fact.

[Dave Bath]

There seems to be a contradiction with the attitude of the RCC to be granting rights (or perhaps a soul) to hybrid concepti, while fighting against granting quasi-human rights to great apes (e.g. they cannot be property), even though they are probably closer to the human genome than some of the hybrids the RCC mentions). I wonder how the RCC would view other species in genus homo - or even Jared Diamond's idea that we are just another chimp.

What would really worry the RCC is what to do if a (marginally possible) live birth resulted from a human/chimp hybridization in the lab, and the mother or father was RC. Would they baptize the infant?

What would the attitudes of different demoninations or faiths be if any of the unmodified chimps or gorillas with sign-language (and an IQ of between 70 and 80 - higher than some humans who vote), went to a priest and requested a sacrament or instruction? If they (taking a Christian example) are "asking for forgiveness" with sincerity and understanding, are there any reasons to deny them?

See also: Telegraph.co.uk 2006 article on Spains move to grant quasi-human rights to chimps, gorillas, etc.

[Tony Francis]

Ruth, the issue of re-implanting embryos seems to come up every so often in certain Catholic literature. I read a book on Catholic ethics a few years ago, written by a priest who recommended that ectopic pregnancies be re-implanted. As a Catholic and a doctor, this seems totally unrealisitic in most situations. (Ectopia present with the woman very ill, and the last thing she wants is a re-implatation, or even a discussion of it. There is also a question whether the ectopic could even be re-implanted.) I have never seen any official Catholic doctrine suggesting that re-implantation should occur. Maybe it is there, but I have never seen it. Their official position always seems to be that any manipulation outside the normal realm morally wrong. Maybe these bishops were "off the reservation". This happens, occassionally.

[Peter]

"In principle this is similar to transplanting animal organs into humans. That by no means stops them being human. Nor does injection of a few animal cells"

Are we sure it is no different? And are we sure that the injection of a few animal cells might not have very great consequences? I think that it is hubris on our part to think we have any idea what this means and as has been said it bears witness to what a sick society we live in. Sick, not in the sense of Disgusted of Tunbidge Wells, but sick in the sense of dying.

[Huw Richardson]

Given that the UK Gov't is suggesting such reasearch, the the Linacre document makes a lot of sense: The bishops even allow for the grey area of not-knowing if this is a human or not. Since we don't know, to kill the creature may be as grave as abortion. The RCC has an overarching Pro-life stance. This document seems logical extension of that teaching.

To boil it down to too-fine a point: We oppose all research using human embryos, but if gov't is going to allow for this horrid thing, don't compound the sin by killing the possibly-human creatures created.

[Tony Francis]

If I am reading the Linacre Center Document correctly, there is no mention of "re-implantation" of a chimera embryo. The message is more to the point: that any partial human-animal embryo will have questionable human status, and shouldn't be produced in the first place. It seems there has been some erroneous reporting here. The Catholic view if: Once the embryo and seman have been tampered with outside of the normal realm, it is a violation of natural moral law. Anything beyond that is in very murky ethical territory. This is what the Linacre Document appears to be saying. Like it or leave it, that is their view.

(rg writes: tony, the paragraph on which I base this is not from the Linacre document, it is from a separate document produced by the catholic bishops. this is not an erroneous report. ruth)

[Peter Kirk]

It seems to me that more clarity is needed on exactly what is meant by a chimera as proposed for legalisation and acceptance by Catholics. No one is talking about creating mythological type beings with human heads and animal bodies or anything like that. The idea is apparently to add a small amount of animal material to a fully human embryo. In principle this is similar to transplanting animal organs into humans. That by no means stops them being human. Nor does injection of a few animal cells.

[Simon Icke]

The whole idea is absolutely sick and yet more evidence of how our society has fallen the fact its even being considered!