It is true, to some extent, that knowledge and insight can be gained through constructive argumentation and confrontational debate. This is when ideas and beliefs are tested against each other, allowing for reconsideration and change of view where necessary, or consolidation and conviction. However, argumentation and debate can be much more helpful and constructive when the conflicting sides participating know and understand each other's position. Therefore, the first step in any debate should be introductory and informative. Although the bioethical debate regarding the moral status of the human embryo has been going on for at least a decade now, this conference showed that, actually, the opposing sides do not always have their facts right.
We learned from David Jones that the moment of 'ensoulment' is not a key point for the Christian Catholic tradition and that there is no official doctrine about when the soul enters the human body. Anil Bhanot told us that although the Hindu tradition believes that human life denotes the achievement of the 'highest value within the process of reincarnation that could lead to unity with God', nevertheless Hinduism is prepared to accept the 'sacrifice' of a few for the greater good of the many. Peter Harvey informed us that in Buddhist tradition human life starts 'at conception, when the stream of consciousness from a previously deceased being enlivens an egg in the process of being fertilized and that 'the question of when the developing embryos become a person is not really an issue.' Mufti Muhammed Zubair Butt who represented the Islamic tradition said that according to Islam the viability of life begins at the moment of implantation. And Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain pointed out that although Judaism holds that the embryo does not have the same status as a human that is outside the womb, nevertheless the embryo as containing life in potential should be treated with the utmost care and respect.
Regardless of how much value each religion places on the human embryo and how absolute or not this value seems to be, all religions seems to converge on one major point: that is, the importance of recognising and protecting the sanctity of human life.
In a multicultural society where religions appear to be in conflict with each other, such an acknowledgment can be very useful. One of the main objectives in the area of bioethics at the moment is the establishment of a basic moral and legal code that would be accepted by the majority in society. One possibility as a promising and encouraging starting point could be belief in the value of human life, since, as this conference has indicated, this is common to major religions. Till now, most interfaith discussions/debates regarding the moral status of the human embryo have concentrated on the differences between the various religions. Yet, it might prove more fruitful if, instead of trying to bridge the gap between the different interpretations of what constitutes a morally permissible way of treating human embryos, one starts from the point on which all religions seem to agree.
All religions support the view that human life is valuable. Taking this as a starting point, one can analyse the philosophical anthropological theory (that is the way each religion understands and describes the human factor) each religion offers. By critically investigating the points of conversion and diversion one could perhaps more readily construct a moral theory regarding the moral status of the human embryo that would reflect a common anthropological view.