|
THE BURNING BUSH
Volume 9 Number 1, January
2003
BIOETHICS: WHO SHOULD PLAY GOD?
Charles Seet
Text: Psalm 139:13-18
Questions on bioethics and biomedical
research will be asked more frequently in the months to come, since the
world is now waiting for the arrival of the first cloned human. The
Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) has recently announced its
recommendations after 10 months of consultation with various religious and
professional groups. A few months ago plans were unveiled for the building
of a complex called Biopolis at Buona Vista to build a thriving biomedical
R & D hub here in Singapore. We cannot ignore these momentous
changes, as they will affect us.
Nowhere is the danger of playing God
more evident, than in the area of biomedical science. Almost all the
leading research scientists in the genetic field are either atheists or
agnostics who look only within themselves for ethical guidance. They
reject the idea of a sovereign God who created us, and to Whom we are
accountable. To them, humans are only a product of blind, mindless
evolution, and they are helping man to make further and faster progress in
evolution. For this reason, we need scriptural principles to deal with
these bioethical issues instead of being led blindly into a "Brave New
World."
Human Life is Designed and Made by
God, Not Man
The Bible tells us that man is the
highest of all God’s creatures, being made on the sixth day of creation in
His own image, as the grand climax of all creation! King David said in Ps
139:14, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." If you
could see the millions of intricate little events that must happen in
exact and precise co-ordination and in proper sequence when a new person
is developing from a single cell into a newborn child, you would truly
marvel at how awesome God’s creative power is! There are so many things
that can go wrong in the formation of a new human being and if just one
small little detail fails, there would be disastrous results!
Can any man ever claim credit for
this? Should any man ever attempt to determine what a new individual will
look like, and what attributes or personality he will have? Not at all.
These are prerogatives that belong to God alone, and He is greatly
glorified in them. But some are already talking about the day when man can
design himself. On June 26, 2000, researchers moved a step closer to
realising this when they announced the completion of a "working draft"
reference DNA sequence of the human genome. One day soon, prospective
parents may be able to walk into a medical store called "Genes R Us" and
choose whatever physical and mental features they would like their child
to have. Imagine what will happen when the child that is born grows up and
reads Ps 139:14, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and
wonderfully made." How will he praise God for what he is? What if he
is not happy with the way that his parents designed him? What if there is
a flaw in their design? Can he sue them in court for it?
Using genetic technology to heal the
sick is fine. But using it to breed and evolve stronger, more intelligent
kinds of human beings is playing God. History has shown that whenever some
new development in technology opens up new possibilities for enhancing
human life, there will always be a demand for it. This is due to the idea
that man has evolved from lower beings, and is still evolving and
progressing into a higher being. It is the same sinful desire as that of
wanting to be as gods that Satan tempted Eve to commit (Gen 3:5), and that
Satan himself had, "I will be like the most high" (Isa 14:14). The
desire to be like God and to play God is part of the rebellious sinful
nature of fallen man.
This is the motivation behind the
present race to produce the first human clone. Cloning of humans oversteps
the boundaries set by God, and should be absolutely forbidden because man
is created in God’s image. And what is disturbing about the BAC’s
recommendations is that though they do not condone the cloning of human
beings, they allow for therapeutic cloning of human embryos. Scientists
believe that cloning is a great way to perpetuate genius, that it can
provide soldier and servant classes of people, and provide spare body
parts. But these reasons are utilitarian and man-centred. They do not
bring any glory to God. No consideration is made at all, of how the clones
themselves will feel about being products of biomedical technology, made
just to fulfill these utilitarian purposes.
Human Life Should Only Be Taken by
God, Not Man
Since God is the originator of human
life, He alone has the right to decide when a person’s life is to end. One
moral issue that scientists handling human life have to deal with, is what
to do with experiments that have gone wrong. Today, the sixth Commandment
"Thou shalt not kill" (Exod 20:13) is being violated by scientists who
treat human fetuses as nothing more than a mass of tissue that can be
destroyed at any time. Because of the public outcry against this by
various groups, some have attempted to establish a limit within which
experiments can be done on prenatal human life. The BAC recommends that
human embryos that are 1-13 days old can be used freely for experiments or
for harvesting embryonic stem cells for medical purposes. It even approves
the creation of new embryos in the lab using donated sex cells, just for
these purposes.
It is alleged that only at the 14 th
day the primitive streak in the embryo that later becomes the nervous
system, appears. So before this streak appears, the embryo has no
sensation of pain, and is therefore not a person. This is pure conjecture,
not science. As long as there is the slightest doubt that a newly
fertilised egg or embryo is not a person yet, liberties should not be
taken with them. There are some who say that as long as many people stand
to benefit from the research, it does not matter if some human embryos
have to be sacrificed. But taking such liberties with human embryos is
playing God. The scriptures are clear that life begins at the moment of
conception:
(1) The Bible consistently refers to
conception when speaking of the beginning of a person’s history.
Conception is mentioned 64 times in the Bible, and often as the beginning
of a person’s life. See Job 3:3 and Ps 51:5. (2) According to Luke 1:42-44
John the Baptist, then only a six-month old fetus (v36) and already filled
with the Holy Spirit, leaps for joy in his mother’s womb at the arrival of
his cousin Jesus in Mary’s womb. The unborn Jesus was probably only a
zygote or an embryo at this time, because this meeting took place shortly
after Mary received the announcement that she was going to conceive Jesus
soon. (3) Passages like Jeremiah 1:5 show that God calls some people into
fulltime service even during their fetal life.
We must take these as God’s final word
on the question, "When does human life begin?" It begins right at
the time of conception. These principles need to be known and applied by
all Christians, especially those who are in the field of biomedical
research, or who are contemplating on being involved in it. Don’t get
yourself into any career that will cause you to overstep the scriptural
boundaries and to play God, no matter how good the prospects may be. There
is still a lot of research that can be done in the life sciences that do
not violate biblical principles, e.g. with plants and animals. It is good
that the BAC recommends that the consent of parties is needed for those
who are going to be involved in biomedical research. This means that no
one can be compelled to take part in any research if he has strong views
against it. We hope that this recommendation will be strictly implemented
when the time comes. Let us always maintain a sense of reverence for what
God has ordained – the miracle of human life, that God has specially made
in His own image, in His own likeness.
Rev Charles Seet is an assistant pastor of Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church and a lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College. The
above was a message delivered to Life Church at the 10.30 am service, July
7, 2000.
Top
/ Back
|