by JivinJ
This party has the temerity to pretend it is inclusive and wants to reduce abortions yet bans any dissent on the issue! It doesn’t even want pro-life people in the party – unless they stay in the closet.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“The Detroit News features a story on the battle over an attempt to legalize the killing of human embryos for research.”
And are the anti-choicers considering this a homer, or a ground-rule double?
Why does David Limbaugh assume that the pro-life democrats are all Obama supporters?
He seems to excessively critical of the work they’re doing, especially since he really wouldn’t know all the behind the scenes work that could possibly be getting done. I don’t suppose their role in the movement is any easier than his.
In David Limbaugh’s article, there’s an answer to Jeff who claims to be a Christina for Obama:
“Why reduce abortion if it is not immoral, Rev. Wallis? Well, read on because he answers that very question. “Taking abortion seriously as a moral issue would help Democrats a great deal with a constituency that is already leaning in their direction on poverty and the environment. There are literally millions of votes at stake.”
Aha. So it’s about votes, not about protecting the innocent unborn. As if thinking people would have concluded otherwise.
But how can we reasonably expect a party, whose platform is supposed to mirror the agenda of its presidential candidate, to adopt anything but a “strong and unequivocal” statement promoting abortion when that candidate, in a moment of spontaneous candor, said that if his daughters made a “mistake,” he wouldn’t “want them punished with a baby”?
Are pro-life Obama supporters so selfishly hooked on a feeling — the euphoric state of Obamamania — that they’ll back Obama and his party in the most immoral crusade since slavery? It appears so.”
Actually, Phylo, 8:35 it is neither a home run nor a ground rule double for the anti-choicers. More like the other team has the winning run on second (to continue your baseball analogy).
I ran down the story that should have been linked above (rather than the Detroit Tigers baseball game), and it appears an initiative for expansion of stem cell research will will be on the ballot for the decisive 7th game in Nov.
ok, serious question on stem cells. Is the pro life position that we should stop IVF? If not, what is the pro life position on what to do with “excess” fertilized eggs?
Hey there Hal. I will be so bold as to say that the pro-life position is “yes, we should stop IVF.” Now there are other reasons that one could argue, but I believe the main reason would be that part of IVF involves implanting 5 or so embryos, hoping that at least one of them survives. This, of course, implies the death of all the others. So you are creating 5 human beings with the hope that at least one of them survives. But if more than the “desired number” are able to survive long enough, we then have the so-called “fetal reduction” where the undesired fetuses are aborted. So IVF is almost always an automatic creating and destroying of 4 or so embryos.
“what is the pro life position on what to do with “excess” fertilized eggs?”
This is a good question anyway. Of course, I would argue as above that they should not be there in the first place. But they are there, and so what do we do? I read a lot about this last year from many good ethicists, and I’m still a bit undecided. I lean towards allowing women to adopt them and implant them, so-called snowflake babies. On the other hand, there are good reasons why doing so may undermine the conjugal act. But then again, the evil was not done by the adopting parents, and they neither cooperate nor give implicit or implied consent to the practice of IVF. It’s a very difficult question. I don’t know. I’m open to listening to other ideas people have.
Thanks Bobbby. Makes sense. I’m uncomfortable with the whole IVF thing. Not that it should be illegal, but certainly discouraged. The obsession with having a biological baby at such expense and emotional toll seems destructive and unnecessary. And, for religious people, all the objections you raise.
Bobby, let me expand Hal’s question a bit. Colorado has a constitutional “personhood” amendment on the November ballot that would effectively outlaw IVF (along with abortion, and many types of birth control).
I understand your position as outlined above, but do you believe that IVF should be made illegal, and that no one should have the right to use it?
Bobby,
I remember asking the same question to at a Catholic bio-ethics conference. The answer was pretty much the same: “the situation shouldn’t be.” It was frustrating.
I see the point, in that these moral issues should be decided before the embryos are created, not afterwards, and that creating “acceptable procedures” for unacceptable situations might encourage more unacceptable situations! (ie, a couple might be more willing to seek IVF if there’s a good way to “handle/dispose” of the excesses)
On the other hand, if no more IVF were to occur, something must be done with the frozen embryos. Since they are new, unique lives, I would think implantation would be the best option. The immoral act would have been completed at creation of the embryo, or maybe throughout the whole intended process (one long immoral act broken into several parts). I would think, in this case, single implantations by the natural or adoptive women would be the least disrespectful of the human lives created.
It’s extremely tough to find God’s path when you’re operating in the devil’s field.
Hi PPC. Yes, I do believe it should be outlawed because it treats the human being as a mere object and a commodity to to be bought. Of course, it also follows that if you believe that the embryo is a human person, it should be outlawed as well since some of the embryos you are creating with the intention of it dying or even killing it. Hey, is SoMG around? What does (s)he think of this? According to SoMG, the embryo is a human person just like you and me, but abortion is justifiable homicide based on the woman’s bodily ownership. However, I see nothing in that that would conflict with a rejection of IVF. That would be interesting; someone who is in favor of abortion but against IVF or ESCR for that matter. What do you think, SoMG?
“On the other hand, if no more IVF were to occur, something must be done with the frozen embryos.”
Exactly Michael. We’re in this situation, and something MUST be done. I actually once heard an Father Nicanor Austriaco, who writes for the NCBQ, suggest that one possible option is to unfreeze them and let them die naturally. I’m not so sure about that one.
Nicholas Tonti-Filippini argues that there is no morally upright solution, even embryo adoption, but William May who is like THE MAN in moral theology is for embryo adoption.
“It’s extremely tough to find God’s path when you’re operating in the devil’s field. ”
Very well said, Michael. God love you.
“That would be interesting; someone who is in favor of abortion but against IVF or ESCR for that matter.”
That’s sort of me. Not in “favor of abortion,” but in favor of abortion rights. And against IVF. Not in favor of banning it, but discouraging it.
The obsession with having a biological baby at such expense and emotional toll seems destructive and unnecessary.
Hal, one of the very few areas where I’d disagree with you. Different people want different things, and for some having their own biological child is a huge deal.
“Unnecessary”? Who’s to say? “Destructive”?
I know Doug. I sure wouldn’t ban it, but I really see SO MUCH effort, stress, and emotions going into “having their own biological child.” Sure, adults can make their own choices, but I guess what I’m really saying is, I would never do it. Adoption, or being childless, would be better options for me.
My impression (from the outside) is that many couples become obsessed with the idea and never really ask themselves honestly if they really have a need to do it.
What is interesting is all the wrath directed at abortion providers around here, and very little at IVF providers, which–according to the majority view here–is just as much “murder” as abortion.
Of course, some like our friend Bobby, have no wrath for anyone.
Well, Hal, considering the large numbers of children needing to be adopted in this country, I would say adoption/fostering children should be the way to go as opposed to IVF. The obsession to have a child that looks just like you is ridiculous when you consider the number of wonderful children suffering with no one to love them.
Hal 1:20 said that IVF ‘is just as much “murder” as abortion.’
According to the Sermon on the Mount, being wrongfully angry with one’s brother is also murder. We are all murderers, but universal guilt does not make murder more desirable. There are degrees of murder, and there are acts which the government can effectively ban, and thoughts and words which it should not even try to ban, wrong though they might be (freedom of speech).
Hal 1:20 also says that very little wrath is directed at IVF providers. I don’t know whether he is correct, but I’m curious to know more. I’d also like to know the reasons.
Hal,
“Not in “favor of abortion,” but in favor of abortion rights.”
Yeah I suppose that’s what I meant.
“IVF …according to the majority view here–is just as much “murder” as abortion.”
Yes exactly! That is why, I believe, that a rejection of IVF is essential for the pro-life position. You’re not the only pro-choicer to see this either, Hal. I’ve heard many other pro-choicers blasting pro-lifers either for not standing up against IVF or arguing that it logically follows that they should given their position. And indeed, they are correct.
Doug,
While the desire to have biological children can indeed be a strong urge, it does not mean that any and all means of achieving this desire are acceptable. At the bioethics conference I attended, one speaker declared, “No one has the right to have a child.” Meaning, the ability to SUCCEED in having a biological child is not a human right.
One of the problems with modern culture is the demand to have what you want when you want it. Actions are morally neutral, and therefore almost anything is permissible if you will get what you want.
With children, it seems this attitude applies as follows: If you want to have sex, but don’t want a child, use BC. If that fails, abort. However, if you want a child but either don’t have a partner or there are infertility issues, turn to ART (assisted reproductive technology). Modern society seems to think that children should not exist unless desired, and if they are desired, should appear instantly.
Beautiful Michael, beautiful.
Thanks for the response, Bobby.
You’re welcome :)
Doug, Hal, and Bobby,
This is a great, civil discussion, and the kind I hope to have with people when I come here.
Hal, your comment about IVF being unnecessarily destructive is spot-on.
“That is why, I believe, that a rejection of IVF is essential for the pro-life position. You’re not the only pro-choicer to see this either, Hal. I’ve heard many other pro-choicers blasting pro-lifers either for not standing up against IVF or arguing that it logically follows that they should given their position. And indeed, they are correct.”
Bobby, I agree completely. I know that us Catholics are often lampooned as being more babies, no matter what. But what we really want is respect for the sanctity and dignity of life from natural conception until natural death. IVF isn’t wrong because it creates babies. It’s wrong because it turns humans into commodities that can be created, inventoried, bought and sold.
As to a lack of “wrath” or other display of protests against IVF practitioners, some of it is probably due to unfamiliarity with the practice. I would be willing to bet that a large segment of the population is ignorant of the fact that there are large freezers holding thousands if not millions of frozen embryos.
Micahel, I mostly agree with you and Bobby, but of course from a different perspective. (non religious)
Still, I think it’s more than some unfamiliarity with IVF and the resulting frozen embryos “left over.” I think there is a moral condemnation of a woman who doesn’t want a baby (abortion) than one (usually married) who does. The fact that the “good, married, wants a baby” woman is destroying life is somehow overlooked.
The “don’t have sex if you can’t handle the consequences” line of thinking doesn’t apply. But it seems at least (probably more) selfish to go through IVF to have a baby and thereby knowingly “destroy a few embryos” then to have one abortion when you really think you can’t handle it.
If pro lifers overlook those embryos then, as Bobby pointed out, how can they object to an abortion of a two or three week embryo?
Thanks, Michael 1:50. You helped answer my questions too. I would add that IVF is an attempt to play God and is therefore wrong. God’s expressed plan for the propagation of human beings is the family. A family is created when a man and woman marry. Children were meant to result from their intimacy, not from trial and error in a laboratory or medical clinic. I am amazed that the king David whom God prevented from building the temple on account of all the people he had killed in war was the same poet who in Psalm 139 expressed such awe and respect for the beginnings of human life.
The embryo quandary–what do we do with existing human embryos?–is more difficult than the bastard quandary–what do we do with an illegitimate child?–but both result from playing God. Sin often (always?) results in quandaries. War is another big one. I, too, like Michael’s summary: “It’s extremely tough to find God’s path when you’re operating in the devil’s field.”
“I think there is a moral condemnation of a woman who doesn’t want a baby (abortion) than one (usually married) who does. The fact that the “good, married, wants a baby” woman is destroying life is somehow overlooked.”
Hal, excellent point. I think you’re spot on.
Jon, thanks for the clarification of my point. You are right, the overarching principle that is violated is trying to play God. I just wanted to clarify that the child’s existence is not an ongoing sin.
Do pro lifers picket IVF clinics?
IVF doesn’t require the creation of “excess” embryos. They are created for a couple of reasons:
* To pick out the healthiest and select for implantation;
* To freeze for use later, instead of having to put the woman through superovulation and egg harvesting again. Hopefully, as egg-freezing technology improves, this will become less of a consideration.
It’s possible to do IVF without discarding embryos, and just create fewer (2-3) embryos and implant all of them.
Jen 3:02, hopefully, as scientists keep their hands off of what does not belong to them, IVF will cease. The process is intrinsically wrong.
Hal,
I think there have been a few times, but I can’t find a cite right now. It’s definitely not common. I think some of the hesitancy is lack of immediacy of danger to life (about to create embryos is not the same as terminating a child in the womb) and also a lack of visuals (whether or not you agree with them, photos of the aborted pack a punch; photos of industrial freezers, not as much).
I’m certainly guilty of not protesting ART as much as I should. And I don’t mean with pickets. Education through civil discussions and debates is usually the most persuasive method of changing minds and hearts.
I also think the link between IVF and ESCR has been minimized, perhaps in part because of the phenomenon of not blaming the woman/couple who wants a child, as you mentioned above. Were thousands of embryos not readily available for experimentation, I doubt ESCR would enjoy even a 1/4 of its popularity.
Hal, out of curiosity, do you think non-embryonic stem cell research (adult/skin) should be promoted and funded to its limits before ESCR? I guess I’m wondering if the discomfort you have with IVF extends to its offspring. If not, or if so, why? Is the problem with IVF the dogged pursuit of biological offspring or the process that creates and destroys life? (Not trying to bait you or trap you, like other times when questions are not so innocently asked.)
I really don’t know much about the IVF issue, however, it seems to me that views on it, for and against, are intertwined with the abortion/adoption issue and governed by one’s store or lack of the knowledge of God’s will on the subject.
Fundamentally, life (birth-adoption) promotion issues revolve around and are governed by the denial of self and death (abortion) issues revolve around and are governed by the gratification of self. Notwithstanding, even life issues can be tainted by less than noble motives.
Which side does IVF fall on? It can be said that one’s desire to have a child is a noble desire, however, what if God is saying no? Using IVF as a tool to override God’s negative answer (the successful result of which may be a way of God saying, “OK, have it your way, deal with it on your own”), it can be seen as a grave affront to the Creator. Not the creation of life itself, but the imposition of human will over divine will.
This abdication by God to a human being’s expressed deire is demonstrated in the Book of Romans where Paul describes those who are unwilling to forsake the homosexual lifestyle as ones being forsaken by Him and given over to their lust. Sometimes God just says, “you want it that bad, go ahead and have it”? Of course, there is not a more dangerous position to be in than to be in a lifestyle contrary to God’s will.
Giving birth and adoption are generally seen as charitable acts, as long as they are not done for unselfish reasons and abortion is generally seen as an extremely selfish act.
IVF falls somewhere in the middle, however, in its performance there seems to be a disregard and apathy towards the moral implications of the biology. “Out of sight, out of mind”?
What is the biblical model? If we are believers we are adopted sons and daughters of God out of satan’s family into God’s family by virtue of Christ’s salvific work. Therefore, it seems that any and every desire of a parent for a child, modeling the biblical example, should be one containing no conditions or the imposition of one’s human will. Also, there are numerous examples in the Bible where infertile couples were miraculously made parents.
If life and death issues like pregnancy, abortion, and adoption are not dealt with using the Biblcial model, all hell usually breaks loose over the long term.
In conclusion, IVF, would seem to reflect a lack of understanding of the biblical model. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying that a prospective parent should look long and hard at what their motives are and who they are trying to serve in doing IVF. Of course, fervent prayer about such a mammoth moral issue is mandatory.
As far as human embryos are involved, if the technolgy exists to grow them into viable humans, the question must be asked, is there a moral imperative to do so? If you are pro-life and believe that life begins at conception, I see no other answer. I mean, if God is in control, i.e., ONe who has the ability to turn stones into angels at His word, we have the duty to bring forth and preserve all life.
If you are not pro-life and just see these embyros as “insentient, non-viable globs of tissues and cells”, I guess it wouldn’t matter to you, However, to take this view, without regard to a “Creator”, is simply foolish.
“Is the problem with IVF the dogged pursuit of biological offspring or the process that creates and destroys life?”
Michael, for me it’s more the former, the “dooged pursuit of biological offspring.” It’s expensive, and I think egg harvesting is no picnic from what I’ve heard. Those are not really “moral” objections, and I wouldn’t ban the practice. As someone who can tolerate legal abortions, I don’t so much have a problem with the fact that “it creates and destroys life,” although I would think that would be a huge concern to those who think some Birth Control is immoral, that even very early abortions are “murder,” etc. As I pointed out, if you look at it that way, the intentional creation of life, knowing “excess embryos” will be destroyed, seems to be a far greater sin than abortion.
I’m not really looking for an argument, just understand better the way pro-lifers look at it.
Hal, I didn’t think you were looking for an argument, but if you were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k :)
I don’t know if pro-lifers are in agreement. I think most Catholic pro-lifers oppose it, for some of the reasons Bobby and (to a lesser extent) I stated earlier.
I do know other strongly pro-choice people who hate egg harvesting, especially the type in ads in college papers (Up to $10,000 to sell your eggs!). A pro-choice bioethicist I know said the risks of harvesting were immense, and often scarred the donor. The hormones they pump into the woman are insane.
Hal:
You bring up a good point, one that I didn’t think of.
The creation of human embryos without the ability ro bring them to term is a total disregard of life, perhaps, worse than abortion, I assume, from your point of view, due to that disregard?
Am I reading you correctly?
HisMan. That’s what I was getting at. Not from my point of view necessarily, because — as you know –I’m not particularly troubled by loss of life at that very early cellular stage. But from the point of view of many of you that beliive “unique and precious human life begins at conception,” I would think this issue would far exceed the evils of abortion. It’s so deliberate and completely avoidable. And — unlike abortion– if it were illegal it would practically cease to exist.
Yes Hal:
Perhaps we pro-lifers have missed the boat on this one and need to make it an issue.
However, I see where no Roe v. Wade decision has been sent down from the Sumpreme Court on this. Perhaps there needs to be a case brought before the Suprmee Court to test the issue. I’d hate for the Court to put their impramatur on another life/death issue though. Also, there’s a whole money making industry out there that would battle this to the hilt, i.e., like Planned Parenthood.
Also, while not minimizing the moral imperative on doing something about IVF, could taking on this issue not be seen as a way to dilute the pro-life anti-abortion cause? I mean, there’s only so many of us out there, right?
On the surface, IVF seems to be an attempt at bringing life into the world and not terminating it. However, I see how there’s some ambiguity in the issue as the process actually terminates more humans that it brings forth.
Come soon Lord Jesus, for our world is in a mess and we are powerless to change it apart from You…….
There is nothing like a bunch of men discussing the importance of embryos.
Like there is no woman involved in the equation. Budda bing budda bang. Sperm meets ovum and instant baby. Nothing and no one else is involved or necessary.
Groovy. You guys go on contemplating the importance of your great big contribution to creating life by pondering philosophies of life while women are left to the actual business of creating that life as well as it’s consequences.
Sally 7:31, the will of God is quite relevant to the “business of creating life,” and men as leaders ought to consider it. One of the wrong things about IVF is that it distances and makes indirect the male role that in natural intimacy so often results in baby. Yes, I believe that a husband should lead his wife–in love, for her own good–just as they together lead, direct, and instruct their children, in love, and for the children’s good.
Aside from the implications of natural hierarchy, aren’t many of the ESCR scientists men?
Sally@7:31,
What is your point? Would you like this to be woman-only blog?
I think men who actually give a darn about family issues are pretty cool. Keep talking, guys (and gals)!
Gee, Sally 7:31, you just nailed the problem with IVF. Outside of the separated donations/harvestings of sperm and egg, no biological parent (woman or man) is involved when the embryos are created! Glad you see things our way.
It’s as if you can’t bear watching a civil discourse among disagreeing parties on this site.
“On the surface, IVF seems to be an attempt at bringing life into the world and not terminating it.”
Hisman, one of the snares of sin is to make something bad appear as good. Part of the sin involved in IVF is the desire to have a biological child at any cost (the aspect that Hal is uncomfortable with). Another part is accepting God’s plan in your life. For some couples and individuals, infertility is the cross they are asked to bear. IVF tells God, “I won’t accept my cross; I choose differently.” From a Catholic perspective, IVF is a sibling of birth control. Birth control separates the procreative nature of lovemaking from the unitative by permitting only the unitative. IVF separates the procreative nature of lovemaking from the unitative by permitting only the procreative and eliminating the unitative.
However, I don’t believe people who seek IVF are evil. I have complete sympathy and offer prayers for those who struggle with infertility. It has broken up a marriage in my family, in part because of disagreement over how far they would pursue a biological child. I think that many IVF users are so focused on having a child (losing sight of God and His laws) that they don’t think about the moral implications. They don’t ask themselves, “Should we?,” only “Could we?” The greater blame lies on the practitioner, who coldly disregards the fact that he/she is manipulating and devaluing human life and leading others to do so as well.
Michael 7:30, isn’t the same true for abortion? Many women with “unplanned” pregnancies are so focused on their ideal lifestyle (losing sight of God and His laws) that they don’t think about the moral implications. They don’t ask themselves, “Should we?,” only “Could we?” The greater blame lies on the practitioner, who coldly disregards the fact that he/she is manipulating and devaluing human life and leading others to do so as well.
I heart my prolife doctor!!
I heart my prolife doctor!!
Carla, what a coincidence! I heart my pro-life doctor too! :D
Let’s stick together, shall we?? :)
Let’s stick together, shall we?? :)
Posted by: Carla at August 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Like glue!
:-)
Sally: “There is nothing like a bunch of men discussing the importance of embryos.”
^ (and she says this on a blog maintained by a pro-life woman) ^
I’ve heard many other pro-choicers blasting pro-lifers either for not standing up against IVF or arguing that it logically follows that they should given their position. And indeed, they are correct.
Michael, I don’t see that – why should pro-lifers be against people wanting to have their own biological children? I don’t share your religious beliefs, but going with the “God wants it this way” is like saying a person shouldn’t seek treatment for cancer.
……
While the desire to have biological children can indeed be a strong urge, it does not mean that any and all means of achieving this desire are acceptable. At the bioethics conference I attended, one speaker declared, “No one has the right to have a child.” Meaning, the ability to SUCCEED in having a biological child is not a human right.
I agree – of course it’s not a “right.” Yet I don’t see your objections as trumping the desire of a given couple who just wants to have their kids. I don’t see your opinion of what is acceptable as being as applicable as theirs.
……
One of the problems with modern culture is the demand to have what you want when you want it. Actions are morally neutral, and therefore almost anything is permissible if you will get what you want.
We not really talking about the “when,” though – for the vast majority of people IVF is sought after other methods fail, right?
In general terms, agreed that we are more into “instant gratification,” these days, though. However, as always it comes down to whether we can afford a thing or not. I think a true hallmark of maturity is the willingness to sacrifice current gratification for long term planning, as with saving money versus just spending it, or going into debt.
……
With children, it seems this attitude applies as follows: If you want to have sex, but don’t want a child, use BC. If that fails, abort. However, if you want a child but either don’t have a partner or there are infertility issues, turn to ART (assisted reproductive technology). Modern society seems to think that children should not exist unless desired, and if they are desired, should appear instantly.
On the “instantly” I don’t see where anybody has a really good reason to act like somebody else should just “roll the dice” and keep trying to have kids a certain way when it’s failed many times already.
Yeah – if you don’t want kids then BC is certainly prudent if you’re going to have sex. And people do sometimes have abortions if birth control fails. And if there are infertility issues then it just seems crazy to me to blame people for trying IVF, etc.
Doug 8:42, I’m not here answering your arguments, nor am I saying whether they are valid or invalid, informed or uninformed–except for this:
IVF is a sin; cancer is not. Cancer is a result of sin in general.
IVF is a sin because people do not have the authority to give and take human life. “For in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). The only exceptions are parents, giving human life by uniting their bodies, and the civil government, taking human life in order to protect it, in the exercise of justice.
We should note that just as the civil government can abuse its authority–and often has–so also parents can abuse theirs. They should not, but they can.
God created people pro-choice. After they sinned, He mercifully restrained their tendency to make bad choices. They can still make bad choices, but good government makes their bad choices harder to implement. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Ps. 33:12).
I think that I share Michael’s religious beliefs, and they are consistent.
Doug,
“[W]hy should pro-lifers be against people wanting to have their own biological children?”
We’re not. What I’m against is using any means available to achieve this goal. Fertility drugs, when used carefully (sadly, many practitioners and patients start with the maximum dose), can be helpful and useful. My relatives were taught fertility awareness (ie, NFP) and prescribed medicines.
The limits begin when you manipulate human lives. Jen R’s description of IVF (8/13 @3:02) is accurate but scary. You 1)create embryos (new life, from the PL point of view). You 2)then pick and choose which ones are healthiest and best (this process is used, in other countries and maybe the US, to select preferred traits such as sex, eye color, etc.). You 3) then attempt to implant excess embryos, intending a number to fail. If, by chance, too many implant, 4) the woman is encouraged to “selective reduction,” ie, aborting the least desirable. The excess embryos, which aren’t implanted, are frozen for further attempts. If they are no longer wanted, they 5) are destroyed or turned over for “medical research.”
Why should it be surprising that PLer’s might oppose IVF? Every step is morally problematic if not morally wrong from the PL point of view (and morally wrong from the Catholic viewpoint). #2, especially as practiced in other countries, is eugenics, plain and simple.
………….
“[G]oing with the “God wants it this way” is like saying a person shouldn’t seek treatment for cancer.”
A PL difference between treating cancer and IVF: Treating cancer attempts to alleviate a disease suffered by an individual by focusing on manipulating and destroying the disease. IVF seeks to alleviate the affects of a disease or physical condition by creating, manipulating, and destroying other individuals. The religious distinction would be that God gave us permission to subdue and regulate nature (the cancer) but not to subdue and control the beginning and ending of human life (IVF embryos).
While these arguments also have religious underpinnings, I’ll try to avoid religious arguments against IVF as much as possible so you can see how secular PLers should oppose IVF, too.
I do want to reiterate, I pray and have heartfelt sympathy for those who struggle with infertility. The idea that procreation is possible is very fundamental to our sense of human identity. To be unable to do so, for whatever reason, is a severe blow.
IVF is a sin; cancer is not. Cancer is a result of sin in general.
Jon, if that’s what it boils down to for you, then one obvious response is that there’s no proof of any such thing.
It’s you saying “sin” against people wanting to have their own biological children, and in no way does your opinion necessarily trump theirs.
Michael: You 1)create embryos (new life, from the PL point of view).
Mighty good posts, Michael. I do understand your objection – that not every embryo will live. I’m Pro-Choice but I consider the embryo “new life” too. However, I don’t see us as having the need to have every embryo survive, certainly not at the cost of denying people IVF.
A miscarriage can be a massively sad thing for a given person or couple, yet the world goes on. Same for IVF – if you or other people are also massively sad over the death of the embryos. Does your sadness trump the desire of the people who want their own biological kids? That’s where I say no.
On the religious underpinnings to arguments – given all the rules, etc., in the Mosaic Law, I think it’s preposterous that the Bible doesn’t mention prohibitions to abortion, if anything such was intended by the writers.
…..
sadly, many practitioners and patients start with the maximum dose (of fertility drugs)
A cousin of mine and his wife did what I assume was a big dose. I don’t see them often and heard it through the grapevine, so to speak, but perhaps the clock was ticking for them, and they ended up with 7 embryos. They are pro-life, and were going to keep all 7, but two died fairly early on, then three more as time went on. I forget the exact details – I posted about this a long time ago right here on Jill’s blog.
The remaining two looked like they were going to make it, but stuff went wrong and they both ended up dying too.
Thanks Doug, for your replies, too. I know we don’t agree on many things, but as I mentioned earlier, I really appreciate it when there can be threads and debates where both sides respect each other.
I’m sorry to hear about your cousin and his wife, too. I can’t imagine the various emotions that happened over the course of that ordeal (troubles with fertility, treatments, pregnancy and the gradual miscarriage of 7! in a short period).
Finally, I’m not a Mosaic/Jewish scholar by any means, but http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar34.htm has some interesting quotes and teachings against abortion by 1st century BC and AD Jewish authors (itself pulled from a Michael Gorman 1993 Christianity Today journal article). I don’t know if any of these are considered part of Mosaic law, which I know is comprised of more than just the Old Testament books in the Bible. (It certainly would be nice if there was a direct 10 Commandments-esque abortion condemnation in the Bible itself, or a coda that abortion is included in murder.)
Have a nice weekend, all.
Doug 12:28, when you made your original arguments at 8:42 PM on Aug. 14, you were challenging the consistency of Michael’s religion beliefs. I tried to demonstrate that they were indeed consistent.
At any rate, Michael has also responded to your challenge. I would agree that he has done a better job than I.
Jon, you and Michael are both good guys, and I do see that he’s being consistent.
I’m sorry to hear about your cousin and his wife, too. I can’t imagine the various emotions that happened over the course of that ordeal (troubles with fertility, treatments, pregnancy and the gradual miscarriage of 7! in a short period).
Michael – yeah – it was a strange deal. They have two kids, so I was thinking, “With seven more you’ll have NINE…
It certainly would be nice if there was a direct 10 Commandments-esque abortion condemnation in the Bible itself, or a coda that abortion is included in murder.
There is obviously some argument about the translation, but ancient Israel’s legal code said the following (Exodus 21:22). For background, see the online transcript of a commentary by Gregory Koukl on the radio show Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700). I got my text, the current New American Standard version below, online from Bible Gateway.
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Following is the New International Version:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life…”
Gregory Koukl says, “Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child… is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable–even powerful–argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.”
Gregory Koukl says, “Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child… is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable–even powerful–argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.”
Jon, I’ve seen people argue like crazy over Exodus 21:22. I’d say that in biblical times, premature birth would usually mean the death of the baby, hence the fine. “Life for life” applied to killing the woman. There are other fines for killing in the Bible, at times even when it’s born people that were killed. And of course I realize that some people interpret it differently, and that along the way (of time) there are often conflicting things present.
The Jews considered the baby a full-fledged human being when it was halfway out of the womb, or when the head was out (correct me if I’m wrong).
Going forward in time, St. Augustine (400 A.D. or so) went with the “quickening” theory – when the fetus became animated. Before that, abortion was okay.
St. Jerome, the same time, wrote, “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs.”
For western European Christians in the 7th century A.D., oral sex, Onanism, etc., were considered to be much worse than abortion. Oral sex, for example, required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance, while abortion required only 120 days.
Pope Innocent III, around 1200 A.D., ruled that it was not homicide if the abortion was done before the fetus was animated.
St. Thomas Aquinas also held that abortion was murder only after quickening.
Pope Gregory XIV, in the late 1500’s, determined that “quickening” happened at 116 days into pregnancy.
Later, the “quickening” idea became part of English common law, where abortion was not held to be wrong to quickening – then said to be around 5 months.
It continued into the 1800’s in the US, until the individual states began to outlaw abortion (in general).
Doug,
“Pope Innocent III, around 1200 A.D., ruled that it was not homicide if the abortion was done before the fetus was animated.
Pope Gregory XIV, in the late 1500’s, determined that “quickening” happened at 116 days into pregnancy. ”
I can’t find the letters or statements that these Popes wrote which confirms the above.
God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being
Jon, there are some good arguments against this.
Genesis 38:24 Judah thinks his pregnant daughter-in-law had been a prostitute, and orders that she be burned alive. She was pregnant with twins, and if the unborn had been considered to have value, her death would have been delayed until after their birth.
But there is no mention of delay, and no criticiam of Judah for ordering it so.
(Judah changes his mind about the mother’s death when he finds out that he is the father of the twins – nice guy, huh?)
……
Numbers 31:17 The command is given to kill all the men and the non-virgin girls and women. Thus, all pregnant women would be killed, and any unborn with them.
……
Numbers 5:12 A husband could have his wife drink a mixture prepared by priests if he suspected her of adultery. The drink includes sweepings from the floor of the temple, thus ergot mold from grain would be present – a potent abortifacient. If she’s innocent, there will be no effect, but if she’s guilty she’ll get an infection and have an abortion. No mention of the unborn being seen as valuable.
…..
Hosea 13: 16 The people of Samaria will be killed, their infants dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up, etc. The biblical god is not valuing the unborn here either.
There are more, but overall it can be seen that the biblical God does not always see the unborn as valuable. The biblical God did not want every pregnancy to continue. If that God is all-knowing then he knows just what abortions and miscarriages are going to occur in our present time, and there too there’s no indication that such a God would want things any differently.
Bobby, one of my links was to catholicculture.org but now it looks like it’s been taken down. Googling:
[“Pope Innocent” was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”]
still brings up the description:
but the page has apparently been taken down. That’s a site I thought you’d respect. There are many other mentions of it, such as at religioustolerance.org.
Pope Innocent was writing to the archbishop of Mainz.
For Pope Gregory it was Sedes Apostolica
I also see references to them both in
Hurst, Jane, ‘The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church’ (1989)
Yeah, I mean I found it on religioustolerance too, but I really need to see the actual documents that these Popes put out because nearly 100% on the time, people and groups who do not understand Catholic doctrine twist and confuse the meanings of papal statements. It’s kind of like how the MSM never gets anything right when it reports on religion.
Bobby, would you trust catholicculture.org?
Well, I”m not familiar with them. I mean, the thing is that if a website is claiming that the RCC once taught something, it should be very easy to verify it because we have a teaching authority and hierarchy which puts out statements like Sedes Apostolica that you mentioned above. The problem is that I’ve looked into the Gregory XIV incident before, and I”m pretty sure that he changed the canonical penalty for an abortion. Unfortunately, websites that don’t understand Catholic doctrine and have an agenda will interpret that as him having changed the teaching about abortion. And then I have to explain the difference between doctrine and law, and it always turns out that these claims are made because people don’t understand the nature by which the church operates. But I’ll certainly read what cathocliculture has to say.
Then I guess it’s a good question. I realize that the Pope is “the Church” (at least to a large extent) for you and many others, but I see a guy with an opinion, and that could certainly vary from individual to individual.
Doug @ 9:34,
Then I guess it’s a good question. I realize that the Pope is “the Church” (at least to a large extent) for you and many others, but I see a guy with an opinion, and that could certainly vary from individual to individual.
I don’t want to interrupt your discussion with Bobby, but want to clarify one thing you said to him which will be misleading to others. The Pope is not “the Church”. He’s the physical representation of Christ on earth. His “opinions” do not make Church teachings.
Janet, I may be wrong but isn’t it more complex than that, i.e. that sometimes what the Pope says is considered to be church doctrine?
Doug,
Yes, you are right in a sense.
There are times the Pope states his opinion on a subject but it does not carry the weight of official church teaching. When he speaks “ex cathedra” (“from the chair”) his word is infallible. This actually happens less frequently than many people might imagine.
All ‘ight, den, Janet.