Amendment 2 and the Beginning of Human Life

From Archbishop Burke:

The heart of the discussion regarding Amendment 2 and the common good centers around the question:

When does human life begin?

Proponents of Amendment 2 argue that it does not involve human cloning and, therefore, human life for one of two reasons.

First of all, some say that the being created through somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning is not human because male sperm is not involved in the process of its generation.

Secondly, some say that the artificially generated human embryo is not a human being until the embryo is implanted in the womb, the endometrium, of a woman.

Clearly, if you hold that human life can be generated only by the fertilization of the egg of a woman by the sperm of a man, the question of the implantation of the artificially generated being becomes irrelevant to answering the question of the human identity of the embryo produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning.

The question, however, remains:

If the cloned embryo is not human, what is it?

. . .At the same time, the proponents claim that those who hold that the artificially generated being is a human embryo and, therefore, a human life are following a religious definition of the beginning of human life and trying to impose upon the general population a particular religious belief.

Former Sen. John Danforth, one of the most prominent proponents of Amendment 2, in his recently published book, "Faith and Politics," declares: "Calling these blastocysts (5-to-7-day-old human embryos generated through cloning) human life can only be understood as a statement of religious doctrine, and advancing legislation to protect them can only be understood as attempting to enforce religion by resorting to the criminal law" (p. 93).
. . .

Mr. Danforth and other proponents of Amendment 2 believe that human life begins with the implantation of the embryo in the womb of a woman, denying the identity of human life to the embryo before implantation. But what is the human embryo before implantation, if not a human being? Implantation adds nothing to the identity of the being, it only provides the natural place for the next stages of its development. The standard textbooks of embryology define the beginning of human life at fertilization or artificial generation by cloning.

Following the logic of Mr. Danforth, I suppose, Amendment 2, which claims to prohibit human cloning, actually prohibits the implantation of the embryo produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning in the womb of woman. Why? The obvious answer is: Because it is a human life which, once implanted in the womb, will simply continue its growth, in accord with the full identity which it already has.

Following up a bit on Archbishop Burke's excellent column, we must not forget that while this amendment prohibits the "implantation of the embryo into a woman's uterus" (known as "Clone and Kill") - there is nothing in the language of the amendment which would prevent implantation of an embryo into an artificial womb later when the scientific research into articial wombs has developed further. As reported earlier, this research has been well under way for at least a decade.

We must pray for the souls of the Danforths and of all those who wish to create a class of human beings subject to the whims and desires of the powerful - in essence, a new form of slavery. Those wanting to enslave the vulnerable and innocent human beings for their eventually abuse, murder and destruction are in most need of conversion. Say a prayer right now that their hearts might be changed and their minds might be enlightened and that they may reject the false promises of the father of lies. May God have mercy on them for what they want to do.

Archbishop Burke's complete column can be found here.