# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S396 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 396 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 3. In 1998 Res. 3-15B the Synod requested that the CTCR prepare “a study document to help the church, on the basis of the Word of God, make informed ethical judgments concerning cloning and attendant issues” (1998 Convention Proceedings, 120; cf. also 1977 Res. 3-26 and Bylaw 3.9.6.2.1.c in the 2004 Handbook of the Synod). The Com- mission’s initial response to this assignment was its 2002 report What Child Is This? Marriage, Family and Human Cloning, which focuses on the issue of reproductive cloning: “Reproductive cloning,” notes the CTCR, “makes use of genetic science in ways that also provoke significant ethical and moral questions concerning research and tech- nology that manipulate cells that give rise to human life. The Com- mission is subjecting such questions to biblically disciplined scrutiny and will address these and other issues:in subsequent studies” (6). The present report, therefore, is offered in response to 1998 Res. 3-15B’s request for scriptural and ethical guidance concerning “cloning and attendant issues.” Some of the “attendant issues” specifically noted in the CTCR’s 2002 report are: “1) How are we to respond to questions surrounding therapeutic (as opposed to reproductive) cloning, includ- ing questions raised by stem cell research? 2) Who will have access to the blessings of genetic knowledge and who will be oppressed by its burdens? 3) Can we expect that society will strive to maximize blessings and minimize banes? 4) How should Christians seek to in- fluence the pursuit and development of genetic science and cloning? 5) What roles can Christian congregations play in helping Christian people seek God’s will in these matters?” (6, fn. 5). 4. The Commission will be defending the position that pre-im- plantation embryos in laboratories are to be accorded protection on the same basis as live-born humans. Many who defend this position use the language of “human personhood” to make the case. The CTCR’s 1984 report Abortion in Perspective explained why the case might best be made without relying too heavily on the language of personhood: “We refer to the child in the womb as a human being but refrain from referring to that child as a person though we have no objection to the use of personal language in that context. We do this simply for the sake of clarity and to avoid unnecessary and futile disputes. In the con- temporary meaning used by some, a person is a being aware of itself as a self-conscious self, capable of relating to other selves and envi- sioning for itself a future. On the basis of such an understanding, some would deny that the life of the unborn child is personal life. The more traditional sense given by Christian theologians to the term “person” would predicate it of any member of the human species, any individ- ual sharing our common nature—whether or not that nature is at any moment developed to its fruition in the life of that individual. Human nature has a capacity to know, love, desire, and relate to others. We share in that human nature even though we do not exercise all the func- tions of which it is capable. Thus, the contemporary understanding adopted by some will designate as a person only one presently exer- cising certain characteristic human capacities; it understands personal life in functional terms. The more traditional understanding of Chris- tian theologians regards personhood as an endowment which comes with our nature, even if at some stages of life we are unable to exer- cise characteristic human capacities. Obviously, some important philosophical disputes—chiefly, the debate between nominalists and realists—are involved here. We bypass these arguments and simply refer to the unborn child as a human being. Whatever we may say of personal qualities, human beings do not come into existence part by part as do the artifacts we make. Human beings come into existence and then gradually unfold what they already are. It is human beings who are made in God’s image and valued by God—and whose inherent dignity ought also to be valued by us” (28, fn. 17). 5. For the full text of this report and additional background materials, see http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/ index.html. 6. See What Child Is This? for a biblical perspective that opposes reproductive cloning. 7. Robert George, “Embryo Ethics: Justice and Nascent Human Life,” Bradley Lecture, Boston College Institute for the Study of Pol- itics and Religion (February 20, 2004), unpublished typescript, 1. 8. This report can be found online at http://www.bioethics.gov/ reports/reproduction and responsibility/index.html. 2007 Convention Workbook 9. Ibid., 245. 10. Ibid., 232. 11. Oliver O'Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 65. 12. Ronald M. Green, “Stem Cell Research: A Target Article Collection, Part I1I—Determining Moral Status,” American Jour- nal of Bioethics 2:1 (Winter, 2002), 23. 13. See the glossary of terms and abbreviations included at the end of this report for this and other technical terms and acronyms used in this document. 14 See Nature 431: 7011 (October 21, 2004), 927, 931 for a dis- cussion of the difficulties involved in determining the precise number of genes in the human genome. A summary report concerning recent estimates can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? id=dn6561 and a popular report at http:/Avww.usatoday.com/tech/ science/genetics/2004- 10-20-fewer-genes-needed_x.htm. 15. For an assessment of this method of procreation, see Chris- tians and Procreative Choices, 21-22. 16. For an assessment of this method of procreation, see Chris- tians and Procreative Choices, 7-20. 17. See news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_135000/135747. stm. 18. See the CTCR’s 2002 report What Child Is This? (see also foot- notes | and 3 above). 19. Some people raise the question of whether the cloned entity is a human embryo. Because the cloned entity could develop into a fully functioning human being, we consider that the ethical questions con- cerning embryos apply also to entities produced by cloning for bio- medical research. 20. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 29 (December 1986), 863. 21. See, e.g., AJ. Wilcox (et al.), “Incidence of early loss of preg- nancy,” New England Journal of Medicine 319: 4 (1988), 189-194; E.R. Norwitz (et al.), “Implantation and the survival of early preg- nancy,” New England Journal of Medicine 345: 19 (2001), 1400-1408. For additional information and references, see on line at http://www. bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/ appendix_a.html#_edn4; also http://www.begce.crbr.ulaval.ca/themes/themesS.htm. 22. Lori B. Andrews, “Embryonic Confusion,” Washington Post (May 2, 1999), B.01, B.04. 23. Jeffrey P. Kahn, ‘Adoption’ of frozen embryos a loaded term,” http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/09/17/ethics.matters/. 24. John Van Regenmorter, “Frozen Out,” Christianity Today 48:7 (July 2004), 32. 25. See “Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions” (June 2001) at http:// stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport and “Stem Cell Basics” (August 2005) at http://stemcells. nih.gov/info/ basics. 26. “Stem Cell Basics,” IV.C. 27. Ibid., 1.A. 28. “Stems Cells,” Chapter 1: The Stem Cell. 29. “Stem Cell Basics,” V. 30. See footnote 19 concerning use of the term “embryo” ap- plied to a cloned human life. 31. “Stem Cell Basics,” VI. 32. Ibid. 33. Further information concerning these terms and descriptions can be derived from a variety of sources readily available on the In- ternet. . 34. See What Child Is This?, 6 (fn. 5). 35. “Are We Killing the Weak to Heal the Sick?: Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Health Matrix: Journal of Law—Medicine 12:2 (Summer 2002), 507. 36. “Three Views of the Preimplantation Embryo,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2: (Spring 2002), 91. 37. Roger A. Willer, “Threads from the Conversation,” in Hu- man Cloning: Papers from a Church Consultation, ed. Roger A. Willer (Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 2001), 86. 38. See, e.g., the essays contained in Adoption of an Opinion on Ethical Aspects of Human Stem Cell Research and Use prepared by The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies