Pope Condemns genetecists "who play at being God"

[Paul Whitaker]

These are the points at each station of the cross

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2134140,00.html

[Bruce Carriker]

This is something that has always troubled me, and I struggle to put things in their proper perspective. Where is the line between "playing God" (a bad thing) and "using the intelligence God has given us to improve life" (a good thing)? I struggle to know where that line is at.

One thing I have noticed, particularly among evangelicals: Such things as therapeutic abortions (I do believe there are such things, in rare and limited situations), the right to die, embryonic stem cell research, are almost universally condemned as "playing God".
Yet I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that the extreme measures many doctors go to to save lives "just because they can" is an equally onerous form of "playing God".

For the last five years I have been in almost daily contact with severely...I mean REALLY SEVERELY...handicapped children who quite simply would not have survived twenty, fifteen, or even ten years ago. These are children who will never have a coherent thought. They will never swallow on their own. They will never be able to feed or bathe themselves, and will be in diapers all their lives. Some of them are in constant pain, when not medicated. Others are a danger to themselves if they are not medicated to the point of being maintained in what can only be described as a near comatose state.

If "playing God" is wrong, is it only wrong when we take life that God might have intended to survive? Or is it also wrong when we preserve and extend life that God did NOT intend to survive? Why isn't it wrong when we artificially impregnate a woman who cannot otherwise conceive? Where do we draw the lines? Why isn't it wrong when we remove a failing kidney and replace it with a kidney from another person? Where are the lines?

I really don't know. But I am convinced that we almost NEVER ask these questions in cases where life is artificially prolonged.

[Ann Smith]

Oh wow! You really pushed my buttons there. I have worked many years with severely and profoundly retarded individuals, many just like you described. While I believe in doing what we can to care for them, I often wonder why such efforts were made with some of them to keep them alive when they were born. I worked in Newborn Intensive Care Units where babies were born at 22 weeks of gestation and thousands of dollars of care was invested in trying to keep them alive. Many who were kept alive were kept alive artificially the rest of their lives. I believe that is playing God.
Ann

[Hans Deventer]

Bruce, I think the latest Manual has a good section here.

C. Sanctity of Human Life
36. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the sanctity of human life and strives to protect against abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the withholding of reasonable medical care to handicapped or elderly.
Induced Abortion. The Church of the Nazarene affirms the sanctity of human life as established by God the Creator and believes that such sanctity extends to the child not yet born. Life is a gift from God. All human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in His image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported, and protected. From the moment of
conception, a child is a human being with all of the developing characteristics of human life, and this life is dependent on the mother for its continued development. Therefore, we believe that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception. We oppose induced
abortion by any means, when used for either personal convenience or population control. We oppose laws that allow abortion. Realizing that there are rare, but real medical conditions wherein the mother or the unborn child, or both, could not survive the pregnancy, termination of the pregnancy should only be made after sound medical and Christian counseling.
Responsible opposition to abortion requires our commitment to the initiation and support of programs designed to provide care for mothers and children. The crisis of an unwanted pregnancy calls for the community of believers (represented only by those for whom knowledge of the crisis is
appropriate) to provide a context of love, prayer, and counsel. In such instances, support can take the form of counseling centers, homes for expectant mothers, and the creation or utilization of Christian adoption services.
The Church of the Nazarene recognizes that consideration of abortion as a means of ending an unwanted pregnancy often occurs because Christian standards of sexual responsibility have been ignored. Therefore the church calls for persons to practice the ethic of the New Testament as it bears upon human sexuality and to deal with the issue of abortion by placing it within the larger framework of biblical principles that provide guidance for moral decision making.
(Genesis 2:7, 9:6; Exodus 20:13; 21:12-16, 22-25; Leviticus 18:21; Job 31:15; Psalms 22:9; 139:3-16; Isaiah 44:2, 24; 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15, 23-25, 36-45; Acts 17:25; Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:1ff.; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6)
The Church of the Nazarene also recognizes that many have been affected by the tragedy of abortion. Each local congregation and individual believer is urged to offer the message of forgiveness by God for each person who has experienced abortion. Our local congregations are to be communities of redemption and hope to all who suffer physical, emotional, and spiritual pain
as a result of the willful termination of a pregnancy.
(Romans 3:22-24; Galatians 6:1)
Genetic Engineering and Gene Therapy. The Church of the Nazarene supports the use of genetic engineering to achieve gene therapy. We recognize that gene therapy can lead to preventing and curing disease, and preventing and curing anatomical and mental disorders. We oppose any use of genetic engineering that promotes social injustice, disregards the dignity of
persons, or that attempts to achieve racial, intellectual, or social superiority over others (Eugenics). We oppose initiation of DNA studies whose results might encourage or support human abortion as an alternative to term live birth. In all cases, humility, a respect for the inviolable dignity of human life, human equality before God, and a commitment to mercy and justice should govern genetic engineering and gene therapy.
(Micah 6:8)
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Other Medical/Scientific Endeavors that Destroy Human Life after Conception. The Church of the Nazarene strongly encourages the scientific community to aggressively pursue advances in stem cell technology obtained from sources such as adult human tissues, placenta, umbilical cord blood, animal sources, and other
nonhuman embryonic sources. This has the righteous end of attempting to bring healing to many, without violating the sanctity of human life. Our stand on human embryonic stem cell research flows from our affirmation that the human embryo is a person made in the image of God. Therefore, we oppose the use of stem cells produced from human embryos for research,
therapeutic interventions, or any other purpose. As future scientific advances make new technologies available, we strongly support this research when it does not violate the sanctity of human life or other moral, biblical laws.
However, we oppose the destruction of human embryos for any purpose and any type of research that takes the life of a human after conception. Consistent with this view, we oppose the use, for any purpose, of tissue derived from aborted human fetuses.
Human Cloning. We oppose the cloning of an individual human being. Humankind is valued by God, who created us in His image, and the cloning of an individual human being treats that being as an object, thus denying the personal dignity and worth bestowed on us by our Creator.
(Genesis 1:27)
Euthanasia (Including Physician Assisted Suicide). We believe that euthanasia (intentionally ending the life of a terminally ill person, or one who has a debilitating and incurable disease that is not immediately life-threatening, for the purpose of ending suffering) is incompatible with the Christian faith. This applies when euthanasia is requested or consented to
by the terminally ill person (voluntary euthanasia) and when the terminally ill person is not mentally competent to give consent (involuntary euthanasia). We believe that the historic rejection of euthanasia by the Christian church is confirmed by Christian convictions that derive from the Bible and that are central to the Church’s confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. Euthanasia violates Christian confidence in God as the sovereign Lord of life by claiming
sovereignty for oneself; it violates our role as stewards before God; it contributes to an erosion of the value the Bible places on human life and community; it attaches too much importance to the cessation of suffering; and it reflects a human arrogance before a graciously sovereign God. We urge our people to oppose all efforts to legalize euthanasia.
Allowing to Die. When human death is imminent, we believe that either withdrawing or not originating artificial life-support systems is permissible within the range of Christian faith and practice. This position applies to persons who are in a persistent vegetative state and to those for whom the application of extraordinary means for prolonging life provide no reasonable hope for a return to health. We believe that when death is imminent, nothing in the Christian faith requires that the process of dying be artificially postponed. As Christians we trust in God’s faithfulness and have the hope of eternal life. This makes it possible for Christians to accept death as an
expression of faith in Christ who overcame death on our behalf and robbed it of its victory.

[Bruce Carriker]

Hans, I understand all those things. I think there is still a lot of "grey area" in some of the statements we've made. And I think we may find ourselves, in some cases, in some self-contradictions.

I don't know what I really believe here. I'm just throwing this out for discussion. But, which is the greater evil...destroying the "excess" or unwanted embryos, or using them for embryonic stem cell research that might save other lives in the future?

We say we believe that embryos are human beings. Does it follow then, that every embryo should be implanted? What about the ones that are frozen? What about the ones that reach their "expiration dates" and are destroyed by the fertilization clinics? What about the couple that goes through in-vitro, but only wants one child? Are they murdering all their other children by not implanting the embroyos and carrying them to term?

What constitutes "extraordinary measures"? I'm sure that there can be numerous positions on that definition, all of them defensible to one degree or another.

We say we recognize that there are rare instances where an abortion may be medically necessary, but we oppose ALL use of stem cells from aborted fetuses. Why? If we can harvest organs from someone who has died, why can we not harvest stem cells from a fetus that was aborted for legitimate medical reasons? How are these two different?

[Paul Whitaker]

A man who is very special to me is 91 years of age. He can no longer drive, has macular degeneration, has extremely low blood counts which require shots almost weekly, and other problems. He says he's tired and he wants to go Home (being Heaven).

He mentioned that we put our pets to sleep to take them out of their misery. If the pet is extremely sick, has a severely bad case of arthritis, etc - we think nothing of taking them to the vet and have the vet 'take my pet' out of misery.

If we do that for the pets who we love why do we make our loved ones suffer as they come to the twilight of life.

I would not want to be the one to make a decision like that but I can see where my friend is coming from.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I understand all those things. I think there is still a lot of "grey area" in some of the statements we've made.

Heaven forbid there would not be any grey areas! If we make up rules that won't allow us to think, something has gone terribly wrong.

To me, these statements are meant to (1) give some direction and (2) make you think. They serve that purpuse well, as you illustrate.

[Hans Deventer]

If we do that for the pets who we love why do we make our loved ones suffer as they come to the twilight of life.

Because we don't have a problem killing people in a war, nor for criminal activities, but when we would help one who is suffering, we suddenly say we don't want to "play God".

Don't ask me to explain it. Seems the only way to receive mercy, would be to become a criminal and kill someone and be sent to the chair.

Bruce is right, we still have a lot of inconsistencies to work out.

Having said that, I do understand that the avoiding of suffering cannot be the sole focus of a Christian, a follower of Jesus.

[Bruce Carriker]

Heaven forbid there would not be any grey areas! If we make up rules that won't allow us to think, something has gone terribly wrong.

To me, these statements are meant to (1) give some direction and (2) make you think. They serve that purpuse well, as you illustrate.

Hans,

I wasn't suggesting that we not think. Quite the opposite. In fact, you're the one who brought the Manual into the discussion, as though it somehow settled the issues.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

I wasn't suggesting that we not think. Quite the opposite. In fact, you're the one who brought the Manual into the discussion, as though it somehow settled the issues.

No, not as though it would settle the discussion. But it does give some princples.