OK, so that is a little bitter and shrill blog post title. I was quite disappointed last night when I saw the gap closing on the lead that the “No” votes had in the Amendment 2 vote. I pretty much could guess the conclusion and went to bed. I am not a Republican, but do tend to vote that way for lack of pro-life Democrats. And, no, I do not want to have a discussion here about why being a one issue voter is a bad thing. I am working on that. However, I don’t absolutely mind the House going Democratic. I think the Republicans need to be taken to the wood shed a bit.
And so, Missouri is stripped of its ability to use the normal arm of governing in a representative democracy, the elected legislature, to craft laws promoting or regulating embryonic stem cell research. And let me say here that I am not a supporter of the bills that restrict it in draconian terms.
And so, as a society we attempt to sluff of more of our creatureliness, to grasp for power and control which, I believe, is not ours to wield. We seek to be less contingent, less dependent. We seek to be more the captain of our souls. No, we seek even more, to be the arbiter of whether to grant life or death to other souls.
Still, congratulations to and blessings upon all those who made this race so close, and I wish would have joined them more. Being outspent 10 to 1 (see “earlier story“), they still managed to make this vote so close. It was a wonderous coalition of people from many denominations, not to mention pro-life and pro-choice people working together in some cases.
And, finally, after driving to work today in a rather despondent mood this morning, I was cheered by reading a post-election blog post by Renae (who goes to my church but whom I haven’t met yet), that despite this loss that, indeed, “God is bigger than the Boogie Man.”
I’ve had that song in my head ever since I wrote that post. Arghh!
I’ve read yours and others’ blogs on stlblogs over the past couple months and wondered, “Who *are* some of these NCF people??” Maybe we’ll run into each other one of these days! I’m guessing I haven’t met you because you go to the S. City site?
Renae, I officially am at 82nd Street, however, I go to South City sometimes. I generally sit on the left hand side of the church, where many of the singles tend to sit, which proves either the maxim “birds of a feather flock together” or “misery loves company.” OK, so it is not quite that bad, but close
If it helps, see the blog post two blog posts ago for a photo of me and come up and say “Hi.”
“And so, as a society we attempt to sluff of more of our creatureliness, to grasp for power and control which, I believe, is not ours to wield. We seek to be less contingent, less dependent. We seek to be more the captain of our souls. No, we seek even more, to be the arbiter of whether to grant life or death to other souls.”
Is this an odd way of saying doctors suck?
P.S. Someone needs to do a post/write a paper on the theology of Veggie Tales. It seems little moralistic works oriented to me sometimes. I haven’t seen them all, but the “King George and the Ducky,” if I remember correctly, had some Gospel in it. Larry and Bob need to go to Sonship.
Mid, not exactly, though I suppose some of the extents to which we go to prolong life would fall under the the category of “attempts to sluff off more of our creaturliness.” No, at least in the West, Christianity has historically acknowledged that doctors (and scientists) should seek to alleviate human suffering and prolong life. Such acts, at their best, are mirrors of the Gospel, of undoing the effects of sin, of anticipating the scene in Revelation when all sickness and death will be no more.
Have we in the West put too much faith in doctors and science, given them too much authority? I answer a qualified “Yes.” We definitely give too much authority, though, when we allow, and even demand them, to create cures which impinge on human rights.
Already, our culture uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources, expects an exceedingly high medical standard of living and life expectancy. If we seek to up this ante even more, particularly at the expense of early human life and by potentially exploiting women with meager resources, then it becomes much worse.
Long answer. Sorry.
No problem on the long answer -I appreciate the debate.
There are quite a few arguments to consider here but I’ll ask a question instead. I assume you consider a fertilized egg to be protected human life correct?
So, I’ll also assume that you have issues with In vitro fertilisation.
Question: Your in a burning building and you have a choice to save a 3 year old child or a petri dish with 30+ fertilized eggs. You can only save one…which one do you pick and why?
Ah, yes, the “singles section.” We were over on the left, somewhat behind the singles, for awhile, but have migrated to middle-right, which allows our 4-year-old good viewing access to the guitars and drums. And George’s viola, when he plays. I’ll keep an eye out for you!
Veggie Tales. Moralistic legalism. Yes, I think the two are at least kissing cousins. My kids seemed to have moved on from VT, and I leave the heady theology stuff to others. The tunes are catchy.
Mid, I do not have issues with in vitro fertilization per se, however, I do have problems with some of the fertility treatments that employ it. I have detailed my view in this previous post:
http://dassler.stlouisblogs.org/archives/000721.html
And more in this one:
http://dassler.stlouisblogs.org/archives/000722.html
In short though, I am opposed to fertility treatments that create more embryos than will be implanted and those which select for ideal embryos and cull (yes, cull, as in thinning a herd) the rest, whether in a petri dish or in a womb. So, I think I am consistent here at least.
Regarding your hypothetical example, I am sure I would rescue the three year old child. On an emotional level, yes, I do relate more to a human at that stage in its lifecyle. I would respond to the tears of the child. I may know her parents. It might be my child.
So, you have me logically trapped. I would allow 30 lives to be destroyed to save one? Would it make any difference to me if I knew that everyone of those 30 embryos was going to be implanted? I don’t know. The emotional pull would still be toward the three year old child.
This question could, of course, be extrapolated to any number of values clarification type exercises. Would you pick a baby over a senior citizen? Would you pick a brilliant scientist over some one on welfare or someone who was mentally retarded?
My answer is to say that all these lives are equal in that they are created in the image of God, whether the person is weak or strong, smart or dumb, rich or poor, useful to society or not, independent or dependent. The embryos, too, are persons created in the image of God, and are simply at an earlier stage in their life cycle.
Having given my reasons as to why I would pick the child, I would trust God to judge correctly.
As a Christian, all my sins, past, present, and future, sins of commission (doing bad stuff I shouldn’t) and sins of omission (not doing good stuff I should) have been forgiven in Christ’s death and ressurrection. And if I sin by my choice of choosing the child over the embryos, that will be forgiven too.
Is that a cop out answer? I hope not.
This hypothetical answer does not, though, address the question of whether extra embryos should be created in the first place, either to be wallflowers in fertility treatments or to become substrate for stem cell lines. It does not address the question of whether cloned embryos should be created through the agency of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer to accomplish the second of these two goals. What say you, Mid?
Great answer. Great point on it being a trap -which it is for anyone. When forced to make a choice like this we are invariably deciding which life has more “value” to us. The reasons for this decision, on your terms, are always wrong because all life should be equally valued.
And yet life will present us with situations in which we have to choose. I’m not a religious man(agnostic) but I would assume you would view this as God’s design. God presents us with situations in which we must judge the value of life.
Your answer is not a cop out. Its a common Christian answer -we make mistakes and will be forgiven. Granted, in the question I asked it is impossible NOT to make a mistake. Interesting that God would create situations in which we will fail.
Its my take that the process of allowing couples to have children who would otherwise not be able to is a good thing. You have a good point about people “sorting” through the eggs to find the “best” child. Its a bit odd.
I would offer the weak explanation that this is just representive of the process of having children in the first place. From selecting a mate, time of year, right house/neighborhood, diet, planets align etc. People use many factors in deciding how to bring kids into the world. My point is there are many layers. Why not value every unfertizled egg? Does this not represent potential life as much as the fertizled embryo?
For me its easy. I would take the child. For the same reason you would -because I value its life more than eggs in a petri dish. You may argue that you value all life the same but when forced to decide…
Great posts on the site by the way. I’m enjoying reading through them.
Mid, thank you for your gracious tenor in this discussion and your kind words re: my blog.
Is it really “failure” in this situation to make a choice when truly one cannot exercise both options? I don’t think it is necessarily failure, even though it may still be tragic. It would be rather unfair to chastize a rescuer who plucks one of two people from the water and comes back only to find that the other has succumbed to tiredness and hyperthermia and slipped beneath the waves. We are creatures and, so, are limited.
Of course, that leads directly to the next question of why such situations, indeed, of why evil itself exists in the first place (theodicy is the technical term), of why God, who is not limited nor contingent, allows, no, ordains such things to happen. That discussion is too large for this string, and too difficult perhaps for any discussion to completely get to the bottom of, in any case.
Briefly, though, in the Reformed tradition, to which I more or less ascbribe, God decrees all things, yet contains no evil, nor is source of it. Moreover, in the Original Situation in which people could fail i.e. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were truly free to choose good and not evil, despite the aforementioned assertion about God decreeing all things.
As Adam and Eve’s heirs, the Reformed tradition maintains, sin is present in every aspect of our being. This does not mean that we will be as bad as we can be all the time, but it does mean that sin plagues all our actions and thoughts. Also, vis a vis salvation, it means that we will not choose God unless he has first quickened our hearts to make us conscious of our sin and our need for the forgiveness offered in Christ.
Getting back to the question at hand, though, it is not sin not to do something we cannot do as limited individuals.
Regarding in vitro fertilization, I agree that it is an acceptable option to allow couples to have children within the parameters I detailed above. I do not agree that selecting a good embryo is the same as planning other aspects of a pregnancy, because at this point what I would maintain is a human life has already been created. Catholics do not even allow for this much tinkering with the holy process of procreation. And, by way of disclosure, I have some affinity for this view.
The egg is not the same as a fertilized embryo, because (unless it is homonally inflenced somehow) cannot naturally implant into a uterus. More importantly, it does not constitute a unique genetic entity because it does not have its full complement of chromosomes and cannot begin the process of cell division to continue to develop as a human. Also, in the natural course of things such eggs are discarded each month if fertilization does not occur. They are alive (as are sperm) but are not genetically unique organisms that will develop further given natural, healthy conditions. If fertility treatments can aid in the occurence of these treatments, I think that is fine. If they create additonal, expendable embryos to increase the chances of success, I think it is not acceptable.
Finally, there are other options to the expensive and emotionally difficult procedures of fertility treatments. While I respect, though do not completely resonate with, the impetus to have one’s own flesh and blood as one’s children and live on after one, even that good desire, too, can become an idol, as harsh as that may sound. FYI, as Martin Luther said, my heart too is an “idol factory” and there are dear dreams I hold on to that God has so far seen not to grant and may never, though he is and has promised to always be good to me his child.
At any rate, at my church http://newcity.org, many couples, and some singles, adopt babies, some of whom have high needs, and I think this is a lovely option.
OK, I’ve upped the ante on blog comment length again. We needn’t continue the trend, though, of course
ah, i have so many thoughts and comments i cannot write them all out in a way that would be readable to anyone except perhaps my roomate cause she’s crazy too!
thanks neil and mid for sharing your debate with the rest of us. both of you have obviously thought through these things a lot and your questions and answers have helped me think through my own values regarding these issues. i’m going to stay out of the debate other than to agree with neil that adoption is a lovely option for those who aren’t able (or those who are able) to have children. while i completely understand the desire of a woman to bear her own children, i think that adoption is an amazing opportunity. some friends of mine talk with their adopted children about how we are all adopted by God as sons and daughters and their boys are adopted twice, by God and by their parents. okay i just had to share that because it’s such a blessing to know this family, i don’t even think of their kids as adopted, i just think of them as a family.
sorry this comment got so long. i have other comments about medical professionals having too much authority in this country, but i’ll save that for another time.
Wonderful thoughts on adoption x 2, Claire. Ah, and medical professionals having too much authority? Interesting stuff.
And you’re apologizing for a long comment?!!?Please!
Stem cell research! Talk about hot button issues. Voters on both sides of this issue might be able to point to strong moral convictions about the issue. How can you argue with those who believe that human life is at risk with stem cell research ? How can you argue with those who believe that they, or family members, suffering from debilitating illness might benefit from the passage of amendment 2 ? I truly pray for the cures you seek. In all honesty, my heart and prayers go out to all the voters who approached this issue and voted with their hearts and emotions, no matter which side you supported. GOD bless each and every one of you.
Now, concerning the “movers and shakers” in the major metro areas of Missouri who really got Amendment 2 passed, it’s time to “put up”. Thus far, in what I gather from reading your comments about the passage, I’m sensing a great deal of excitement about the economic and commercial impact on our area. I’m reading very little about your excitement about coming cures.
Congratulations on your windfall—oops, I mean victory. You can be sure that I’m not the only person noticing. What does this say about you?
John, I am not sure if you have accurately read these posts and comments, because while I do want sick people to get well, I believe the moral price to be paid in undertaking this research is too high.