Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> The question is some people have the view that human life begins only after the first
neural connection takes place. What we think of this view?
Of course there are a variety of views about when human life begins. I think that biologically
and scientifically it is quite clear that human life begins at the time of fertilization,
that's when the unique human life begins. The key question is what value we apportion
that human life. And I believe that scripture tells us that all human life is precious,
made in the image of God and that we should not be discriminating against any human beings
on the basis of any biological characteristic, be it race, gender, degree of disability,
or age. And that therefore, we should be treating even the human embryo with the utmost respect,
wonder, empathy, and also protection.
>> Thank you. Another question.
>> Thank you very much for your explanation. I have kind of two questions. One is beside
the biblical world view, the ethics that implies the issues that you present, do you have any
practical case in the western state let's say in the U.K. or the U.S. that you are putting
in practice beyond the biblical world-view, let's say training in biblical world-view,
systematic theology, and all this, ethics and world-view. And my second question is
how you can as a western society help to build the gaps between the third world country,
let's say, Latin America, Africa, because I think we as in Latin America and Africa,
we are most exposed to this kind of problems, let's say, biotechnological issues, let’s
say in AIDS, for instance, in Africa, and I think it's a big, big issue, that I want
to know what can we do together and I think my sisters and brothers in Africa and Latin
America want to know in biotechnology, in terms of water and all these things. What
is your perspective about that?
>> The first question was about the, what practical difference is it making. I think
in -- there have been a number of examples where Christian people have been able to initiate
practical engagement which is really making a difference outside the Christian community.
So, the work of the crisis pregnancy centers has, started as a Christian initiative is
making a huge difference. They make their services available to everybody in the community,
from whatever religious background or from none, and there's no doubt that that demonstration
of practical Christian compassion and of showing dignity and respect for both for the unwanted
baby, but also for the woman who is often being abused or maltreated, that that is changing
the whole atmosphere in the country. So, I think that we -- we can, as a Christian community,
have an influence which is much wider than just within the churches themselves.
The second question was about the gulf between the poorer countries and the rich countries
and how the richer countries maybe can help poorer countries in these areas. Of course,
I understand that many of these issues have not yet penetrated to poor countries, and
yet because of globalization, it is remarkable how this kind of technology is spreading across
the world, and even in some of the poorest countries there is now reproductive technology
clinics, there is *** donation going on. There is a phrase now we use which is called
reproductive tourism, where rich westerners go to poor countries in order to get egg donation
or *** donation or a surrogate womb, and to pay money.
So, I think these issues are affecting us all because we are a globalized community
and the real challenge for us, therefore, as a global Christian community is how we
can help one another in the worldwide body of Christ as these new challenges come to
find practical solutions, and we are just starting. I think this multiplex maybe is
just an initiator. I hope it will, out of this meeting would come further initiatives
of ways in which we can help one another to tackle these issues, and particularly to find
practical solutions. Do you want to add anything?
>> Yes. Not much to add, just that globalization and particularly media technology, television,
radio and all the new media, mean that nothing that happens in a corner of the world won't
be broadcast everywhere. And there is pressure in all the countries in which we live, either
not now or will be shortly, to change the law to embrace laws which we believe are unjust
and ungodly. So we are all fighting the same battles, we need to think through them personally.
We need to think how we are going to respond practically as a church and finding the compassionate
third way that we have talked about. And also in being advocates for the weak and vulnerable
and seeking to ensure that laws which are just and fair stay or get onto the statute
books in the countries in which God's placed us.
>> Ok. Thanks very much. Another question, please.
>> Peter, wonder if we could ask you to talk a little bit about cloning, which is a subject
which regularly hits the headlines. Will do more in January when a new film comes out
about it. And you mentioned about therapeutic and reproductive cloning doesn't work in humans.
I wonder if you could just highlight the difference between those and ask the question, is it
that it doesn't work and it never will work or it doesn't work yet, and if it does work,
what would be a distinctively biblical Christian response to it? Sorry, a little cluster of
questions there for you, Peter.
>> Indeed. The question was to talk about reproductive and therapeutic cloning from
a Christian perspective, and of course in a 20-minute talk it was difficult to do justice
to that, along with everything else. Cloning is time lapse twinning, if you like. It’s
producing an individual identical to another existing individual by using technology. And
the way it's done is by a process called cell nuclear replacement, which involves taking
the nucleus of a cell of an existing individual and putting it into an egg from which the
nucleus has been removed, and electric current then causes the elements to fuse and you get
a new being, which is identical genetically to the one from which the D.N.A. came.
Reproductive cloning is when you do that in order to produce an adult individual. It works
well in frogs, it works not particularly well in mammals. It's been done in monkeys but
no one has managed to do it in humans and it does seems like it's quite possibly technically
impossible because they will all die. The,therapeutic cloning is where you do the same thing, but
-- you take the embryo, pull it apart, harvest the stem cells and then use that to treat
diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and so on. It also seems that
that's fraught with all sorts of problems, and even if it did work, it couldn't be done
on a big scale because of the limited availability of human eggs, which is why they tried animal
eggs to produce animal human hybrids but that's now largely been abandoned. So, I think it's
unlikely to provide any therapies in the future.
I think the whole process is, of course, unethical because it's crossing a Rubicon into creating
life in a very different way than God did it, but also the process involves the destruction
and cannibalization of that life and the end does not justify the means.
>> I do understand that there is a great deal of fear, and I think we need to have an appropriate
caution and we need to act with wisdom and sometimes that means we need to have eyes
to see what the future will hold. But the aim is not to live lives of fear. The aim
is to be able to understand how the hope of Christ, the hope of the new heaven and the
new earth can be lived out now, how we can -- I love the statement that says ‘hope
is to hear the melody of the future, and faith is to dance in it in the present.’ So that's
what we are called to do, to hear the melody of the future, and to dance in it to the present.
>> My question is about emerging technologies, about kibernetics and about robotics. We know
now, we now know that there is artificial heart, that there are some artificial hands,
legs, which can be re-attached to the human body, and my question is from your Christian
medical perspective, where is the final, like infinite border between the human and machine?
For example, when the individual will stop being a human, is it related only to brains,
or what would be your opinion?
>> The question is when can we know if technology is right and when does it go beyond what God
would have us do. I think a very useful model here is one that John uses in his book. If
we think of human beings as masterpieces that are flawed, flawed masterpieces, then there
is a difference between doing art restoration to bring the masterpiece back to what it was
on the one hand, and recreating the masterpiece in the other. And I think that the kind of
technology that helps us to restore lost function, lost anatomy or whatever, I'm using technology
here to read, the glasses, artificial heart transplants and so on, these sorts of things
are much more in the field of restoration. But, when we cross a boundary and try to make
human beings something new that they are not, then we are moving beyond what we should be
doing as good stewards of God's creation.