# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S385
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 385

Twinning: A process by which a morula, blastocyst, or embryo
divides in half to produce twins with identical genetic makeup.
This normally happens at some time up to the 14th day after
fertilization, before the “primitive streak” appears. Twinning
does rarely happen later than 14 days and produces conjoined
twins; these are popularly called “Siamese twins.”

Part Two: Pre-implantation Human Life—
Contrasting Lines of Reasoning

The Main Question Currently in Controversy

Ethicists and theologians widely agree that the most important
question raised by contemporary in vitro practice and genetic tech-
nology concerns the moral status of pre-implantation human life.
This report concentrates on this main question, but we should not
forget other questions that also deserve attention by Christian peo-
ple. For example:

« Apart from questions about the moral status of pre-implantation
human life, is this sort of research appropriate?

¢ Who will have access to the blessings of genetic knowledge and
who will be oppressed by its burdens? Can we expect that soci-
ety will strive to maximize blessings and minimize banes?

¢ How should citizens, and particularly Christians, seek to influ-
ence the pursuit and development of genetic science and cloning?

¢ What roles can Christian congregations and other civic organi-
zations play in helping our society make responsible decisions in
these matters?**

The main question posed above, however, continues to be re-
garded as the most important question. In the Summer 2002 issue
of Health Matrix: Journal of Law—Medicine, for example, Alo Kon-
sen (a JD candidate at Case Western Reserve University School of
Law) writes that “we must answer just one question: what is the pre-
born?” Michacl Panicola, writing in the National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly, observes that “the question of the moral status
of the preimplantation embryo is one of the most controversial eth-
ical and policy issues of the modern day. In a report published in
2001 by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
called Human Cloning: Papers from a Church Consultation we
read that “the primary moral question of stem cell research is the
moral status of the pre-implantation embryo.”"*”

Comprehensive governmental advisory reports for the European
Union and for Canada concur that the most central issue concerns
the moral status of the pre-implantation embryo. These reports also
stress the tie between generally accepted IVF practices and the pro-
posed new possibilities connected with stem cell research.**

Some suggest that given the disagreements among thoughtful
observers concerning this primary question, a moratorium should
be put in place on any research that destroys pre-implantation hu-
man life. A moratorium on such research, however, would not ad-
dress the problems relating to in vitro fertilization clinical practice
that is now widely accepted. We must do our best to examine and
understand the competing arguments concerning the moral/spiritua]
significance of pre-implantation human life.

Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives

In the following paragraphs we survey arguments concerning the
moral status of pre-implantation human life. Often, those who argue
that every embryo should have an opportunity to grow in the womb
employ their arguments in the hopes that they can establish the truth
of a moral continuity between pre-implantation human life and human
life in all the later stages. But those who argue that embryos can be
discarded and/or used for research often employ their arguments in a
more modest hope that they can cast reasonable doubt upon claims of
moral continuity. Persons on this side of the controversy tend to take
for granted that the prospect of developing therapies for live-born hu-
mans provides a moral imperative for research that should not be

turned back if reasonable doubt can be raised about moral continuity
between pre-implantation human life and later stages of human life.
We will return to this very important observation in.our own con-
structive argumentation in the next section.

When the central question concerning the moral status of pre-
implantation human life is addressed from a scientific and/or philo-
sophical perspective, the opposing sides divide over
¢ how to approach questions about the moral/spiritual significance
of pre-implantation human life, and
what conclusions are rightly to be drawn from whatever approach
is considered appropriate.

The approaches divide roughly into
* approaches that look for some inherent indicator of moral/spiri-
tual significance, and i
* approaches that look for some relationalhistorical indicator of
moral/ spiritual significance.

In both approaches the argument often begins with an agreement
that we are asking questions about pre-implantation human life and
that we typically accord full moral/spiritual status to living humans.

Inherent Indicator Approaches

Those who seek inherent indicators argue more or less along the
following lines. Some argue that full moral/spiritual status is shown
by the very words “human life.” No morally relevant distinction can
be made between fertilized eggs as “human life” and live-born hu-
mans. Pre-implantation human life differs in no morally relevant
way from live-born human life. Consequently, all protections owed
to live-born humans are owed also to pre-implantation human life.
In the introduction we noted that Robert George follows this line of
reasoning. Similarly, Alo Konsen writes that “human parents can
only produce human offspring.”*® This line of reasoning is often put
forward by those within the LCMS as they voice support for the
Synod’s pro-life position. For example, Dennis Di Mauro, director
of Lutherans For Life of the Mid-Atlantic States, writes that “hu-
man life is simply too precious to be discarded just because it is no
longer wanted.’”°

Others argue that the moral/spiritual status of pre-implantation
human life is mysteriously ambiguous. For example, the ELCA
consultation notes that

...the ELCA statement on abortion seems to provide ambiguous guid-

ance, or, according to some, inconsistent claims. It seems to make an ab-

solute claim that human life at every stage has inherent value. However,
the statement’s acceptance of abortion, even as a tragic option, suggests

that ‘inherent value’ is not intended as an absolute claim, but rather im-

plies gradations of value.*!

In the ELCA collection of papers Mark J. Hanson writes that the
moral status of the embryo

...1S not an issue that can be settled by science. And even within many

religious and philosophical traditions, a range of positions exists. ...U]-

timately, however, it is an issue destined to remain rooted in mystery.

This entails that any ethical argument that rests on assumptions regard-

ing the status of the embryo will be contested and uncertain.”

Two essays in the report on stem cell research by the European
Group on Ethics* bring home the significance of a controversial
point argued by Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel. According to
Sandel, “The view that the embryo is a person derives support from
the Kantian assumption that everything is either a person worthy of
respect or a thing open to use. It’s an all-or-nothing ethic that con-
signs the rest of existence to utility and turns every moral question
to a debate over the bounds of personhood.” But, says Sandel, peo-
ple’s moral intuitions do not in fact conform to this all-or-nothing
view. He argues that while some people insist that even a 7-day-old
embryo has the same moral status as an adult human being, soci-
ety’s laws and customs do not support this belief.“

What is at stake here is whether (as Sandel argues) there is a
“third” position between those who ascribe complete human per-

2007 Convention Workbook