My blogroll currently has 132 feeds, and I recently trimmed it down. I now have my faith-related blogs in three folders, triage style. The truth? I usually don’t get to the second and third folders. But I regularly add new faith blogs to my top tier, and move others down to the second and third tiers if they suck (IMHO, of course).
One of the blogs I am watching now is Reformation 21, which has a simple layout and some writers with some impressive sounding credentials. Now, these guys are no Joe Carter, caretaker of what I consider to be the best Xian blog out there, the Evangelical Outpost (and now general editor of World Mag Blog, congrats Joe!), but they do have some decent content.
But today, they pissed me off with this post on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. This angered me for a few reasons:
- It it patronizing in its oversimplification. It asks, "Is stem cell research morally complex? No." If it was simple as they suggest, then sensible people would not be arguing about it. The only other conslusion they could reach is that the rest of us are not sensible like them. Now, they might be right, but their attitude stinks.
- It asks the wrong question. According to this post, the important question is "Are the embryos in question members of the human family?" I think this is overly vague, which of course, leads to argument. In their second bullet, they give their more specific reasoning for opposing stem cell research, which is the same old evangelical argument that the embryo is genetically unique. However, my skin cells are unique too, but you don’t protect them from experimentation. Anyway, the real question we are all trying to answer is, at what point does a zygote become a person with rights? As I have argued previously, we should probably measure that by some decent definition of life, like heartbeat, brainwaves, response to stimulus. This might push the definition of personhood back to up to even a week after implantation, but conception? I just don’t buy the "it’s genetically distinct with the potential to become a human." I think that logic could easily flow back to demanding that boys cease masturbating because they are killing potential humans. Seriously, I think the evangelical argument is flawed.
Now, I may be wrong on this one, since messing with reproduction and human experimentation should be approached very carefully. But I think on this issue, religious conservatives are being extreme, and I believe extremists, who cease relying on logic and instead turn into chicken-little’s crying "the sky is falling", always end up losing to reasoned truth in the end (or end up killing their opponents and setting up totalitarian states). But I digress.
This is why the pro-choicers and anti-religion secularists are losing in the polls – they are so out there, they have left reason altogether. Everyone realizes that third trimester abortions are heinous, and quite possibly killilng children. But organizations like Planned Parenthood are so out there, they need a reality check. I think that the only reason that they still enjoy some popularity and government funding is that there are no rival organizations that promote abstinence with birth control. If there are, I wanna know so we can fund them and defund PPOA.
One more thing. My beloved PBS show Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had a very interesting segment on Excess Embryos. Check it out. They spoke to a pair of religious couples, each who took a different perspective on their "extra embryos" from in vitro fertilization.
It's posts like this that make me read this blog regularly. FWIW, I think I disagree with your criteria for rights-attachment (heartbeat, brainwaves, etal – those seem to prove what we already knew: this thing is alive. Wouldn't the better event on which rights could supervene be the development of higher brain function/features characteristic of humans?). That said, the best argument for pro-lifers (in turns of correctness, and maybe not persuasiveness vis-a-vis the average Joe or Jane) has gotta be the precautionary principle. That's a tricky one to fend off, I've found.
Well, I'm not sure which ability or combination of abilities makes one completely human. I mean, do brainwaves count? Then I think we're at 8 weeks rather than 4, I think. But higher thinking? I'm not sure how you would define that.
Anyway, I'm not sure which of these developmental markers we should use, if any. Maybe the "genetic uniqueness" argument is right, but I am questioning it.
I think the precautionary principle is nice in theory, but in practice, I don't think that it's an argument based on reason, but on lack of information and caution. It may be wise in that it reduces risk, but it is maddening because it is based on lack of knowledge and may be hindering our progress. People interested in "progress" like facts and not fear, even if the fear is warranted – I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that it doesn't carry a lot of weight in the public argument. Does that make sense?
The arguement I use against embryotic stem cell research is not based on science , but on scripture. A) God has plans for your life from before your conception B) The cessation of the life process, once set in motion, is interfering with God's will. C) Interfering with God's will is sin d) Therefore; embryotic stem cell research requires sin to do. This does not even touch the "playing God" arguements, or the fact that unless you can prove it is not a human due human rights, it is at least criminal negligence, at worst, premeditated murder. You must prove it is not human- philisophically, religiously and scientifically before it becomes just a medical experiment.
Based on this, when is life set in motion? Is it upon fertilzation, or when a man ejaculates? If the latter, are birth control and masturbation wrong?
And on what scriptures do you base assertion A? Before conception? I know of a scripture that says "before you were born I knew you" (Jeremiah). And of course, God knows all things before they happen, so in one sense, everything is planned. But if everything is planned, then so is the discarded embryo.
It would be upon fertilzation that "life" begins. But that is the second, legal part of the arguement regarding endangerment. As far as scripture…I refer readers to http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-biblean… The arguement is based not on God's forknowledge, but His plans for you. Pslam 139 and Jeremiah 1:5 speak of it being God's work when we are formed in the womb, that formation begins at conception. The question also remains " What if it IS a human according to God?" Are we willing to take the risk? If you are driving down the street and see what may or may not be a person in the road, is it morally responsible to just drive over it? Even if you are in a hurry?
As a Christian, one needs to satisfy 2 conditions 1) The unborn child, at whatever stage , is not human and 2) We can show , from scripture , that God is ok with disrupting His plans and that somehow it is not sin.
Sorry, I missed addressing your last point "If it is known, it is planned, and therefore purposed byt God". ( Not exact quote) God knowing, willing and causing are all different things. I may know that when I let go of a book, it will fall, and I may will it to fall by letting go, but I am not causing it to fall. If I want to cause it, I will throw it down. Likewise , God knowing something does not mean He will cause it. Just because He has a will, does not mean He will always act on it. For example, "It is not God's will that any should perish, but all come within His saving embrace". Does this mean all are saved? No, because free will allows us to go against and remove ourselves from His will. God still does whatever He wants to do (that is, within who He is) but we certainly disobey often enough.
Nice arguments Cory, causing me to think. So, how would you make your argument in the legislative arena where you can't just refer to the scriptures as authoritative?
Would you rely on the "unique DNA with the potential to be a human" argument? I think this argument is weak in that a cloned skin cell or stem cell might also fit the same definition. That's why I called for something that might be uniquely indicative of human life, like heartbeat or brainwaves.
I am not disagreeing with you, just looking for a more inronclad argument that an implanted embryo is a human life with rights. Also, by your biblical argument, if life begins in the womb, does that mean that cells fertilized in a petri dish but never implanted are not human, since they're not in the womb? That may be a technicality, but your argument needs to address that.
Corey,
A) God has plans for your life from before your conception – really? God plans for your life, from even before you are born? And yet, he can't prevent that homosexuality that he allegedly hates so much? How strange. The most powerful being in the entire existence of our lives, who is so powerful even to plan your life from before you're born, can't prevent homosexuality. Wow.
What a bunch of garbage. (I could have also asked about planning starving or abused children, planning death by painful cancer, etc.)
Dude, I can't believe you are bringing up homosexuality again! ;)
I think Corey tried to explain this – it's like me having plans for my kid, but ultimately, their choices and the choices of people around them cause them to not follow my plans or to follow them. The difference between me and God is that God's plans work out for the best. Even tradgedy, though not *intended* by God, is known in some sense, and suffering is transformed into something for good.
"For know that all things work together for good, for those that love God and are called according to His purposes."
In other words, faith, as exercised in unflinching love for God, can make all things, even tradgedy, work for good, like the crucifixion did. Crucifixion was God's plan for Jesus. Imagine that.
It may not seem like an excellent plan, but it fits our reality pretty well. Like it or not. :D
Seeker,
I think legally I would make the arguement that Peter Kreeft makes, that is, there are 4 possible realities that our laws already address that have to do with intent and our knowledge of life issues.
The Embryo….
1) Is a life and we know it is = premeditated murder
2) Is a life but we don't know (can't prove) it= manslaughter
3) Is not a life but we can't know that= reckless endangerment, criminal negligence
4) Is not a life and we know it is not= surgical procedure
In all cases excaept #4, it violates current law. Only in case 4 would it be permissible. Obviously these are arguements against abortion. The burden is on those choosing "choice" to prove it is "not a life" before proceeding. The burden of our law is not to prove it is a life, but to show reasonable measures, even heroic measures, were made to protect life. Read Kreeft's stuff on this, it's much better said.
Sam,
What you pose is the difficulty many people have with reconciling God's will and the free will He allows us. As a parent, I allow my kids a lot of free choice, within certain boundaries. they can play outside, but not in the traffic. Sometimes God allows consequences to our sinful behavior to get our attention, sometimes to discipline us. True love does not mean total pleasure as many desire. I have to punish my kids so they learn and change, otherwise they become selfcentered little brats( then big brats).
As for Homosexuality, it is like any other sexual sin like adultery. It has not been shown to be genetic BUT even if it was, that does not condone behavior. Some are "genetically predisposed" to anger, alcoholism, depression, but yet we try to escape/heal/avert these behaviors because they are destructive. We cannot blame mankind's selfdestruction on God, He is saving us from it and from an eternal perspective, eternity is what we live for anyway.
So by Kreeft's argument, how do we know that eggs and sperms aren't a "life"? Is it therefore reckless endangerment to, um, waste them?
The question is, how do you define life? I hear you, thgough, we should definitely err on the side of life just in case. But how far is too far? Perhaps by this argument, all birth control (except for rhythm or abstinence) is also, at best, criminal negligence.
Well, you do get into the debate over the "creation" of the fertilized egg to begin with. Usually this is done for fertility reasons and I am empathetic there. We need to decide whether we should do something just because we can. That's the difference between wisdom and knowledge.
As far as banning birth control, it depends on the method. Anything that prevents conception is ok, for no life is created, but many forms destroy life after it is started by either preventing implantation or by chemically destroying the child.
In all the debate on stem cell research, the media fails to mention that it has been , to date, very unsuccessful, especially compared to adult stem cell research. You can also get these cells from umbilical cords with having to hurt the child. I have many friends who are micro biologists and study this stuff and they say that embryotic stem cell research is an overblown "hope for the future" and for many researchers, it is simply a matter of keeping funding coming. Others, they have found, are profoundly prochoice and as soon as the ethical debate comes up , they start arguing abortion issues. This is the philosophical root here, if we define life that early in science, it changes the whole aborton debate, so NARAL and others are trying desperately to frame this discussion, NOT because of potential research, but because of definition of life issues.
I still think that definining life as "beginning at conception" is not an overwhelmingly convincing argument. By that definition, every frozen embryo discarded is a murder (or criminal negligence).
Again, the argument that it is "potential life" applies somewhat to sperm and egg separately, while the fact that my skin cells are "genetically unique" does not make them life either.
This is why I think that when an embryo is clump of cells, it is not that different from a clump of skin or organ cells we grow in a dish. But when it begins to develop the signs of complexity that indicate a living creature, i.e. brainwaves, heartbeat, response to stimuli, then you have an ironclad case, legally speaking (since "the bible says" may hold water with xians, but not in public policy discourse). And these developmental milestones occur as early as 12 days after conception.
If we could prohibit abortions and experimentation with a clear buffer to keep us from harming children at this stage of development, I would be satisfied with that. I think legislating anything more than that is an all or nothing wager, one which is currently costing thousands of aborted lives because we are unwilling to make a reasoned compromise.
Well, eliminating all religious elements, it does get down to a matter of conscience. I can't buy the "it's a clump 'o cells" until real complexity begins. The biggest step in complexity IS conception when 2 DNA codes combine to amazingly form a new, unique strand of code. Imagine just putting two computer program together and getting a totally new program, unique from the others, yet a combination of the two. There is no other stage of development as profound as this.
Philosophically, it comes down to deciding if the risk of potetially and unknowingly taking lives is worth it for the potential yet to date unseen cures or treatments for the betterment of the sick. Does the rights of those sick to be treated outweigh the rights of the unborn?
How will history judge us if at some point in the future we realize that we are destroying life an that the research was fruitless or unnecessary? I have yet to see any convincing hope from embryotic research. Most in the field will tell you that adult stem cells are actually better. For me, even religious conviction aside, it is not worth the moral risk. Maybe for others it is worth that risk, and that is fine. As for legislation, I will vote for those who more agree with me, that's democracy. Personally I am much more grieved over the 35 million children aborted in the last 40 years than the 22 embryotic stem cell lines currently in use. How will history judge us on that? Hopefully the same way we judge Stalin and our own history of slavery.
Well, you say if we remove the religious argument, then we are only left with conscience and philosophy. But that's not good enough for public policy. We at least need a common ethic, and a measureable, scientific definition of life.
I think the genetic uniqueness argument fails because my skin cells are genetically unique also. In my mind, what makes a fetus different and human are the higher functions of response to stimuli, heartbeat, brainwaves. If we just agreed to these less stringent definitions, we could prevent most abortions.
I doubt science will ever give us the ability to look back and say "hey, the zygote was a human!" We have enough info now to make some common sense decisions. Cells are cells. Once they hit a certain level of differentiation and the qualities I mentioned earlier, they are most certainly human lives. Before that, it's a guessing game.
So why not try to base our public arguments on what we can be sure of and get agreement on, and add a week or three of buffer to make sure? I.e. if we find that a fetus is human by 6 weeks, let's say no abortions after 3 or 4 weeks. Later, if we need to move that date back even further, let that be another battle. In the meantime thousands of lives will be saved, and I doubt that this precedent will make it any harder to get a total ban on abortion in the future if that's what hardliners want.
I think this is better than the all or nothing approaches of NARAL and the NRLC (the latter whom I respect).
Well, the problem is our philosophies and consciences have been so influenced by science. It is not philosophical to say life starts with brainwaves because that is based on a scientific particular and is random. Why brainwaves and not heartbeat, or not , as I mentioned, the new DNA strand, as it is a) what makes us human ( as opposed to being turtles) b) the most dramatic development.
We have slipped into an abortion arguement ( actually I think I put us there) which adds some questions. For ESCR, we have this potential for good that we are trying to balance with the potential harm. With abortion, there is a harder case to be made because 95% of abortions or more are for convenience. Even destroying a "potential" human is not acceptable then. For example, there is a huge fine for destroying a bald eagle egg, a "potential" eagle , because of it's inherent value as a bird, yet we abort children because their existence will cause us hardship, incovenience, emabarassment or whatever. So being consistant, shouldn't we protect even the potentially human as much as we do the potentially eagle? Look at the bugs we protect, the worms, the birds, it's a total double standard.
If you proposed you last though of limiting abortion to 6 weeks or whatever, I would vote for it, the less the better and I realize I am in a culture that does not subscribe to my faith or my moral framework in scripture, so I will , within the world of politics, take whatever ground that is reasonably offered.
Still leaves us with the "what if" question. What if life begins at conception? Because there is a truth there, not just a philosophy. What if we were wrong? Many genocides have occurred based on "good scince" . Look at the eugenics horror in this country in the first part of the century, based on evolutionary theory that some humans were "less human" than others, so we killed and sterilized them. (I recommend War Against the Weak for reading on the subject) So now this all seems ok, but our philosophy cannot hinge on science for science is often changing which means it is often wrong.
Enjoying the conversation, by the way.
:)
This could eventually make this discussion pointless…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166378,00.html