Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

Was Jesus ever a single-cell embryo?

Can the Incarnation help with difficult decisions about stem cells, embryo research and therapeutic cloning?

This Christmas, the reading 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth' will inspire us anew, but the Incarnation may also have an important contribution to make to a vital ethical debate.

Stem cells

The dilemma begins with the recent discovery of the treatment potential of 'stem cells', primitive cells which can turn into specific types. They are found in any embryo and are a key part of the development that leads to the birth of a baby. They can also be obtained from umbilical cord blood after birth, or from certain adult tissues such as bone marrow, blood and brain.

Stem cells can be persuaded artificially to develop into different types of tissues for repair of damaged organs - there is, for example, real potential to treat stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis patients with neural cells; to treat cases of hepatitis or cirrhosis with liver cells; to replace skin lost in burns and wounds; and so on.
And there is another new opportunity. A problem with transplanting tissues from another is that the recipient rejects the invader, so there has to be powerful immunosuppression, with side-effects. Wouldn't it be good to grow the tissues you need from stem cells that were genetically 'you'? That way, you would have a supply of tissue and no rejection problems either.

This introduces another controversy. Dolly the sheep was born as a result of cell nuclear replacement, an application of cloning technology. The nucleus was removed from a sheep egg cell, the space replaced with genetic material from another adult sheep, and the resulting cell stimulated so that it behaved as if the egg had been fertilised. The 'embryo' developed as usual. It was placed into a sheep's womb and Dolly was born, a 'carbon copy' of the donor adult sheep.

It is now proposed to use this technology in humans. Take a human egg, remove the nucleus, replace with genetic material from the person needing new tissue, let this clone develop, extract stem cells, tweak them to produce the tissue needed, and then transplant that tissue into the patient without rejection. It seems ideal and various patient groups are campaigning for the green light for research in humans.

The Chief Medical Officer's report

Government approval was expected in 1999, but instead they announced an Expert Committee under the Chief Medical Officer to review the science and the ethics of these proposals. The Donaldson Report was published this August and its first recommendation is: 'Research using embryos (whether created by in vitro fertilisation or cell nuclear replacement) to increase understanding about human disease and disorders and their cell-based treatments should be permitted, subject to the controls in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.'

The 1990 HFE Act permitted research licensed by the Authority on human embryos up to 14 days after fertilisation but only for five specific purposes related to reproduction. This recommendation, which has received full support from the government, is to extend these purposes to include exploring stem cell technology for treating human diseases. Both Houses of Parliament will vote after only 90 minutes on a straight 'yes' or 'no' to this recommendation.

Ethical issues: 1
The status of the embryo

Given that in 1990 Parliament approved research on human embryos up to 14 days, there seems little likelihood of much debate now about the status of the embryo. But what are the arguments?

The biological arguments

Those who argue for the unique status of the single cell embryo say the moment of fusion of sperm and egg is the only moment of discontinuity in what uninterrupted is otherwise a process of continuous development. In other words, it's the only moment something unique happens and that makes the single cell embryo special, and worthy of respect and protection.

Those against point out that much tissue from that single cell becomes support tissue in the placenta and is clearly not of unique value, that between 30-60% of embryos fail to implant in the womb and unknown to the woman are lost in the menstrual blood flow, and that some of those embryos will divide naturally to produce identical twins, so there cannot have been one unique individual there in the beginning.

The theological arguments

Scriptures often quoted include Psalm 51.5: 'Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me'; Psalm 139.13-16 which begins 'For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb'; and Jeremiah 1.5: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you'. There are also the Scriptures relating to Christ's birth.

However, we need to acknowledge difficulties with black-and-white interpretations. The verses were written with - perhaps - different understandings of the word 'conceived' (and today Christians argue whether conception is the moment of fertilisation or a process of fertilisation plus successful implantation in the womb). They were written by people without microscopes who knew not the wonders of embryology we know today.

Dealing with doubt

My own view is that because of the questions raised above, biology does not give a black-and-white answer. Nor do I think a literalistic interpretation in black-and-white terms of the verses quoted gives a sufficiently certain answer. However, I am persuaded by the balance of probabilities of fertilisation being the only unique event, and also by the argument that Psalm 139 is expressing a principle of continuity (no matter how far back I go, God will always know me). And we have not looked at the Christmas verses yet.

Does the incarnation help?

It is doctor Luke who details the pregnancies of Elizabeth with John the Baptist (Luke 1.5-25) and Mary with Jesus (Luke 1.26ff). Again it is not a black-and-white conclusion, but baby John leaping in Elizabeth's womb and Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1.39-45) occur close in time to the angel Gabriel's prophecy about Mary's pregnancy. The Luke 1.39 'at that time' of the NIV suggests spiritual significance for the presence of the Lord Jesus at a very early stage in the miraculous pregnancy. But how early is very early?

Hebrews 2 talks about Jesus identifying with his brothers. Verse 14 tells us 'Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity' and verse 17 tells us even more specifically 'he had to be made like his brothers in every way'. Does 'in every way' confirm that Jesus began life as a single cell embryo? If so, that embryo was produced by a miraculous incarnation on which we can only speculate, and we should remember it is unsafe to argue from the particular to the general. But even so, this is a powerful consideration.

The incarnation was unique and remains unique, but reflection on the Christmas message adds to the conclusion that the single cell embryo should be given the benefit of any doubt and treated as a human being worthy of respect and protection.

Ethical issues: 2
Therapeutic cloning

The same considerations may help Christians evaluate the dilemma we are in danger of ignoring in the euphoria about new treatments. The vote will be on 'using embryos . . . created by . . . cell nuclear replacement'. A Parliamentary 'yes' to these proposals is therefore a 'yes' to cloning.

Much is made of there being two types of cloning - 'therapeutic cloning' which is exactly what is proposed, and 'reproductive cloning' which involves replacing a cloned embryo in a womb and letting pregnancy go to term. In fact, there are not two types of cloning but two different uses of the same technology. The Donaldson Report is clear that reproductive cloning should never be allowed, but legalising therapeutic cloning would be a significant step towards this.

Some would be very tempted to put the new technology learned to further use, either in the UK if rules were relaxed later or in a more liberal legislation elsewhere. And just using the technology, using more people as more means to more ends, would change our culture and make us more likely later to agree reproductive cloning. A survey in The Independent on August 30 revealed that 'many of Britain's most eminent medical scientists believe the birth of a cloned baby is inevitable despite society's current aversion to the idea'.

The European Parliament has strongly urged Britain to think again, and there is an ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells - using adult stem cells, with which there are already encouraging results.

Conclusion

Whether the Lord did choose to ennoble the single cell human embryo by becoming one or not, we should still be revisiting the debate about the status of the embryo and the embryo should be given the benefit of any doubt. Parliament should not add to the tens of thousands experimented on every year.

Cloning makes carbon copy human beings in the image of the donor. A Christmas reflection on the Incarnation should further remind us man and woman are created 'in the image of God'. Parliament must reject cloning entirely.

Dr. Andrew Fergusson is Head of Policy at the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy.