{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015270935960591134, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003940886699507389, 'mean_word_length': 5.509615384615385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Religious Traditions and Embryo Science

The surprisingly divergent ethical perspectives that emanate from Roman Catholicism and Judaism stem in large part from the extent to which they allow (and indeed welcome) scientific input. The greater openness of Judaism, as described by the authors (Zivotofsky and Jotkowitz 2009), allows an openness to contemporary scientific understanding of the embryo. However, a significant number of Roman Catholic ethicists also diverge from Dignitas Personae at this point, as do many Protestant ethicists. We suggest that this divergence stems less from the religious tradition within which theologians and theological ethicists are functioning, and more from the context within which the Bible is being interpreted and in particular on their dependence upon extra-biblical input, whether scientific input or Church tradition. Few problems will be encountered if there is consonance between the religious tradition in question and contemporary scientific viewpoints. This is not to argue that one or the other should occupy a dominant position in the relationship, rather that neither should ignore the contributions of the other. The issues outlined by Zivotofsky and Jotkowitz (2009) revolve around the dynamics of this relationship from the perspective of different religious traditions, with their varying emphases upon the earliest stages of embryonic life. This, in turn, raises the question of the extent to which these and other religious traditions make explicit their dependence upon scientific input, whether the latest insights of contemporary science or the outdated notions of premodern science. Underlying this statement lies a presupposition, namely, that it is impossible for religious traditions to ignore completely scientific notions when they wish to have input into any of the detailed facets of the ethical debate surrounding the reproductive technologies. There is no way in which a religious teacher like Jesus could have discussed the treatment of pre-implantation em-