[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: A word about that incorrectly worded phrase....

Fri Feb 1 20:30:12 MST 2008

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 1 Feb 2008 AD #3
*

This is an excellent article from last summer that once again brings 
before our eyes the need to use correct terminology when discussing the 
life issues. Just as the abortifacient mifepristone (Mifeprex) is not 
some experimental name "RU 486" from over 20 years ago, so too is the 
phrase "from conception/fertilization through natural death" NOT 
accurate, correct or desirable to be used, and Professor Irving tells us 
why.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_67coloradoinitiative.html

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

copyright August 8, 2007

* *

[Note:  This article is copyrighted and thus must be acknowledged when 
using its original ideas and resources or quoting from it.]

* *

*Problems With the Phrase, "From Conception/Fertilization Through 
Natural Death"*

Although it was understandable when used many years ago, we can no 
longer use the phrase "from conception/fertilization to natural death".  
Why?  *Because as all parties fully know and understand by now, not all 
human beings begin to exist at "fertilization" or "conception" (sexual 
reproduction).*  Many human beings begin to exist a-sexually (without 
the use of sperm or oocyte), through quite a number of different kinds 
of cloning, and different kinds of genetic engineering and other 
artificial reproductive technologies.  /This is not new information or 
science./ 

Examples of those living innocent human beings who begin to exist 
a-sexually include one (or more) of all naturally occurring human 
monozygotic twins (or triplets, quadruplets, etc.) reproduced /IN VIVO/, 
as well as one (or more) of all artificially-produced human monozygotic 
twins (or triplets, quadruplets, etc.) reproduced /IN VITRO/ (as has 
been done in IVF clinics as "infertility treatments for many years now) 
-- and many pro-life attorneys and leaders know this.  It also includes 
all those living innocent human beings reproduced a-sexually by a 
variety of cloning and other genetic engineering techniques /IN VITRO/, 
such as:  somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT);  germ line cell nuclear 
transfer (GLCNT) -- as performed for several years now in Gerhart's 
"fetal tissue" research;  "twinning" (blastomere separation, blastocyst 
splitting, embryo splitting, embryo multiplication) -- as used for 
decades now in IVF as "infertility treatments";  pronuclei transfer 
(which produces human/human chimeras) -- as has been done in order to 
prevent sex-related chromosomal abnormalities in born infants;  
parthenogenesis;  mitochondrial transfer;  hemi-cloning;  the use of 
artificial chromosomes, genes, pronuclei, nuclei and embryos (as already 
sanctioned by law in Canada, Australia and New Zealand).  What about the 
"inherent dignity" of all of these living innocent human beings? 

Additionally, almost all of these artificial reproductive techniques 
have already been used globally as "infertility treatments" -- that is, 
these /experimental/ living human embryos have been implanted into women 
with or without the intention of bringing them to birth.  Often these 
experimental embryos are given oblique and obscure "names" to convince 
the woman that these experimental embryos are simply "reconstructed 
eggs", "balls of cells", or similar deceptive pseudo-scientific jargon.  
How do women really know for sure precisely what is being implanted into 
them?  So much for "informed consent".  What about the "inherent 
dignity" of all these living innocent women?  Worse, certain laws and 
regulations contain false scientific definitions so that "what" the 
woman is carrying is not a human being (at least until birth!), thus any 
anticipated abortions of these experimental embryos (needed for 
researchers' data) would not legally be considered as abortions;  nor 
would the abortionists or the researchers be legally liable for 
performing abortions, or legally liable for any physical harms caused to 
the woman (e.g., tumors, etc.).

*"FROM CONCEPTION/FERTILIZATION": *

(1)  It  would not cover all of these nascent living innocent human 
beings -- those a-sexually reproduced /in vivo/ through natural 
twinning, or those reproduced /in vitro/ through twinning, or 
through all of the other artificial reproductive techniques listed above. 

(2) Even the use of the term "conception" has been formally 
scientifically rejected by Swiss human embryologist Ronan O'Rahilly in 
his world-renown human embryology textbooks because it is often 
erroneously conflated with the term "implantation" (see Ronan O'Rahilly 
and Fabiola Muller, /Human Embryology & Teratology/ (New York:  
Wiley-Liss, 1994), pg. 19). 

(3) Legally, the term "conception" has also /already/ been defined as 
"implantation" in several state laws (see recent law journal article 
describing the "ambiguity" of the term "conception" in law, including 
the accompanying footnotes with specific state laws listed): 

Philip G. Peters, "The Ambiguous Meaning of Human Conception" /Law 
Review: University of California, Davis/,  (2006) Vol. 40 (1):199-228, 
especially pp. 202-203, and footnotes #10, 11, 12, 13; and p. 215, 
footnote #55;  at 
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/articles/Vol40/Issue1/DavisVol40No1_Peters.pdf.

(4) The term "fertilization/conception" also results in total confusion 
to lay prolifers and organizations, and subtly instructs them that those 
human beings NOT reproduced sexually are somehow not human beings OR 
human persons, including naturally occurring monozygotic 
twins/triplets/quadruplets /in vivo/! -- thus incapacitating their 
ability to correctly form their consciences and damage their moral 
decision making abilities. 

(5) Nor could anyone then apply such language to any cloning or stem 
cell debates in the public square (that is, if the stem cells are 
derived from cloned embryos) without abject self-contradiction.  One 
cannot simultaneously claim that all human beings are reproduced through 
"conception/fertilization" and that human cloning, human stem cell 
research (using cloned embryos), human genetic engineering used to 
a-sexually reproduced human embryos is immoral.

(6) If such language were to become law -- and then challenged, and 
successful -- such false science would then become /stare decisis/ (much 
as /Roe/, /Webster/ and /Casey/ have) -- that is, the courts would be 
legally bound to apply such false science to all related cases that came 
before them. 

(7) If that happened, then it would be legally impossible to pass any 
laws or regulations prohibiting any kind of "therapeutic" or 
"reproductive" cloning or genetic engineering techniques, defined in any 
manner, including as listed above, because those a-sexually reproduced 
human beings would legally not even be human beings, much less human 
persons.  And that would, ironically, include one of every two naturally 
occurring human monozygotic twin (etc.) conceived naturally /in vivo/!  
What a monumental boon that would be to those promoting the use of 
cloning and other genetic engineering techniques to produce living human 
embryos for both "research" and for "reproductive" purposes!

(8) To make matters worse, many so-called "prolife" abortion "bans" also 
include the phrase "in the mother's womb".  However, 
"fertilization/conception" never occurs naturally "in the mother's 
womb";  such an early embryo in the womb would not be developmentally 
capable of implanting!  It would simply die and rot.  Fertilization 
usually takes place outside the mother's womb, in the fallopian tubes.  
Such a phrase would apply only during the use of artificial 
reproduction, such as in IVF, where an embryo has been reproduced 
(sexually or a-sexually) and "aged" to the blastocyst stage /in vitro,/ 
and then inserted mechanically into the woman's womb.  Thus, if such 
language were used, it would not cover the living human embryo naturally 
reproduced for 5-7 days as it tries to make its way through the mother's 
fallopian tube to the uterus.  Therefore, the use of abortifacients, 
embryo-flushing (yes, that is still being done!), prenatal genetic 
diagnosis, and early abortions, etc., would not be prohibited -- either 
morally or legally.

(9) Quite unfortunately, many so-called "prolife" "total bans" on 
cloning have been written for many state and national legislatures that 
are fake "bans" -- and those "prolife" politicians know that too.  E.g., 
the Weldon/Brownback "total bans" would ban nothing, because:  (a) the 
term "cloning" is scientifically mis-defined as ONLY the use of somatic 
cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) -- thus legally leaving all the other kinds 
of cloning and genetic engineering techniques out of the bill's 
consideration;  and (b) even SCNT cloning would not be banned, because 
the bills scientifically mis-define the product of SCNT as 
being "virtually genetically identical" to "the donor", or to "an 
existing or previously existing human being."  However, the scientific 
facts are that the immediate product of SCNT is NOT "genetically 
identical" to anyone -- previously existing or otherwise -- because the 
mitochondrial DNA of the donor cell is NOT transferred, and the foreign 
mitochondrial DNA of the enucleated egg used remains in the cloned 
embryo that results.  Such cloned human embryos would thus be 
genetically UNIQUE.  The only thing that would be "banned" is some weird 
fanciful "cloning" technique that doesn't even exist!  Therefore, such 
"bans" ban nothing.  Yet they have served as the template for quite a 
number of U.S. state "total bans" on human cloning, not to mention many 
international human cloning "bans". 

(10) When the "therapeutic" stem cells from these cloned human embryos 
are injected into desperate vulnerable diseased patients -- even 
patients whose own cells had been used to asexually reproduce these 
cloned embryos -- the lack of donor mitochondrial DNA, and the presence 
of foreign oocyte mitochondrial DNA will definitely cause severe immune 
rejection reactions in those very sick patients.  And those "prolife" 
politicians know it, I assure you.  Does no one care about the dignity 
of even these sick human patients?

So why does "prolife" continue to insist on the dangerous phrase, "from 
fertilization/conception"?  Why don't they acknowledge the simple 
science that can be found in any library?  Interesting question.

*"THROUGH NATURAL DEATH":*

The second-half of the mantra is likewise ridiculous and dangerous.  As 
many who have studied these bioethics issues for a while come to 
realize, the issues at the beginning of life are often somehow, sooner 
or later, transferred to the issues at the end of life (and /vice 
versa/) -- both legally and morally.  The classic example is the issue 
of "personhood" (note how the supposed "right to privacy" from Roe was 
used to justify euthanasia in Oregon;  nor do many consider those at the 
end of life as "persons").  So just as the phrase "from 
fertilization/conception" can result in the massive deaths of 
innocent living young human beings and in prolife disasters for the 
various and related beginning of life issues, so too can the rest of the 
phrase, " ... until natural death" result in the massive deaths of 
innocent living older human beings and in prolife disasters for the 
various and related end of life issues.

If, for example, we are directed only to respect human beings "until 
/natural/ death", then what about when human beings undergo "/unnatural/ 
death"?  Are we not supposed to respect them then?  This would include 
living innocent human beings who undergo unnatural deaths due to their 
own suicide, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, organ 
transplantations, "futile care", tragic accidents, murders, drug 
overdoses, etc.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem.  
Prolife needs to ask themselves -- and their "prolife" leaders -- 
precisely why such a ridiculous and dangerous mantra is being so 
irrationally forced upon them? 

Finally, /given/ the fact that the phrase has been used in past 
encyclicals,  most of those encyclicals were written before the science 
of a-sexual human reproduction (both natural and artificial) was 
understood or accomplished.  Further, *the Church's infallibility has 
never extended to matters of science, only to matters of faith and 
morals*.  So if our knowledge of the science has now advanced, so too 
should the Church's use of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org

PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area;  to cease your subscription (although 
we can't
imagine anyone would!) just send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the 
subject area, or
manage your account at: http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership right on our
website at http://www.pfli.org. Click on the "PFLI Store" link on the 
toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 

*

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080201/189c656d/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14952 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080201/189c656d/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080201/189c656d/attachment-0001.gif 