Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care, Ottawa, 1993.
3.
Bill C-47, The House of Commons of Canada, 1996-97.
4.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, Ottawa, August, 1998.
5.
Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Vatican Polyglot Press, 1995.
6.
Report, p. 632.
7.
Report, p. 632.
8.
Report, p. 632–3.
9.
Report, p. 633.
10.
Report, p. 633.
11.
Report, p. 636.
12.
Report, p. 636.
13.
Report, p. 636.
14.
Report, p. 53.
15.
Bill C-47. Preamble.
16.
Bill C-47., Section 7(3).
17.
This Council consists of the Medical Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
18.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section A.
19.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section B.
20.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section B.
21.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section B.
22.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section C.
23.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section 9, Research Involving Human Gametes, Embryos or Foetuses.
24.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Section 9, Research Involving Human Gametes, Embryos or Foetuses.
25.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Part B, Article 9.4.
26.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Part B, Article 9.4.
27.
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Context of an Ethics Framework, Part B, Article 9.4.
SchnurrD. Msgr., U.S. Catholic Conference, “Harvesting Embryonic Stem Cells for Research: Response to NIH Draft Guidelines”, Origins, vol. 29, No. 35, Feb. 17, 566–571.
33.
21 Nature Genetics115–9 (1998); 96 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 126-31 (July 6, 1999).
34.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, Footnote 19, Nov. 18, 1974.
35.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation), Mar. 10, 1987.
36.
For theological opinions denying or questioning the personal status of the embryo, see Norman M. Ford, When Did I Begin? Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: Thomas A. Shannon and Alan B. Wolter, OFM, “Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo”, Theological Studies 51 (1990) 603-626. For theologians supporting the personal status of the embryo, see John Gallagher, “Is the Human Embryo a Person?”, Toronto: Human Life Research Institute, No. 4, 1985. This, to our mind, is unsurpassed for clarity of argumentation; Mark Johnston, “Delayed Hominization: reflections on some Recent Catholic Claims for Delayed Hominization”, Theological Studies 56 (1995) 743-763.
37.
This continues to be the case. See Wm. WildesKevin in “The Stem Cell Report”, America174 (October 16, 1999) 12–14.
38.
McCormickRichard A., “Who or What is the Pre-Embryo?”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 1 (1991) 1–15, at 11.
39.
Sowle CahillLisa, “The Embryo and the Fetus: New Moral Contexts”, Theological Studies54 (1993) 124–142, at 131.
40.
Sowle CahillLisa, “Abortion, Autonomy, and Community”, Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate, Beattie JungPatricia, and ShannonThomas (Eds.), New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998, pp. 85–97.
41.
It could be noted here that Cahill is simply presenting the views of others with respect to remote possibility. The way that the views are presented without mention of the other side makes it perfectly clear where her thinking lies.
42.
Cahill is on much firmer ground when she says, “My intention here is not to settle the question of personhood, but simply to display a few of the reasons why people can differ in good faith”. See America, vol. 168, (May 22, 1993) 6–11, at 8.
43.
TauerCarol A., “The Tradition of Probabilism and the Moral Status of the Early Embryo”, Theological Studies45 (1984) 3–33.
