C.A.M. - Christian Apologetics Ministries; Minneapolis, St. Paul, MN
Since 1973, Americans have tolerated the killing of millions of unborn children through the practice of abortion. In America, the controversy over “partial birth abortions” in which a fully viable child is delivered up to its head and then murdered (the method is gruesome) has had a profound impact on public opinion about abortion. The pro-life movement is winning the battle one person at a time, and I believe we will see abortion outlawed in America within the life at all levels rages, and Christians need to be aware of the truly breathtaking developments happening around us.
In the area of abortion, one revolting practice is called “selective termination”. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press reported the following in its 8/6/96 issue: “A new surge of outrage swept Britain on Monday after a woman who is 16 weeks pregnant and her gynecologists agreed to abort one of two healthy twin fetuses because she says she is too poor to raise twins”. Tragically, it was reported the next day that the abortion had been performed (Saint Paul Pioneer Press 8/7/96). A variation of “selective termination” is the widespread practice called “sex-selection abortions”, in which parents have their unborn children aborted until they get the sex (usually a male) they desire.
There is also a growing practice called “social surrogacy” in which a couple pays another woman to carry and give birth to their child. “An increasing number of women are ‘ renting’ wombs for reasons of time pressure and vanity… They cite career pressure, the pain of childbirth and the prospect of stretch marks as the main reason for avoiding pregnancy"(Tessa Mayes, Career Women ‘Rent’ Wombs to Beat hassle of Pregnancy, The Sunday Times, 7/8/2001) The same article quoted one such “mother” as saying, “I want a daughter, but I don’t want it to effect my career”. I believe that this is horrible. Can it be denied that the child develops a bond with the woman who carries it through pregnancy and gives birth to it? Will not the woman who rents her womb also feel attached to the baby, leading to inevitable custody battles? One wonders at the selfishness of women who will not carry and deliver their own biological children.
Another very controversial practice is that involving human embryos. One source of Human embryos is fertility clinics, which often create more embryos than is needed for implantation for those seeking pregnancy. These so-called leftover embryos are either destroyed (killed), frozen for later “use” or are used in research. It was recently announced that “Although most cells used in stem cell research come from spare embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures, a Virginia group announced that it has created embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell research” (Gautam Naik and Antonio Regalado, Alternate Method Could Avert Debate, Wall Street Journal, 8/6/01). Scientists believe that embryonic stem cells will eventually be effective in treating hundreds of medical conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and other neurological disorders.
Adding to the controversy is Britain’s consideration of a law to allow human embryos to be cloned. Scientists expect to be able to grow spare human body parts for transplantation into others. In all these cases, the lives of the human embryos are ended. This means that living human beings are used for research and/or for their body parts, and then killed (see UK News, Human Embryos to be Cloned by Kamal Ahmed and Gaby Hinsliff 7/30/2000, and Agape Press AFR News Clinton Administration Okays Research on Cells from Human Embryos 8/23/2000, and Newsroom Britain Debates Cloning Embryos to Treat Disease 1/1/2001.
Cloning itself is also controversial. Its net effect is to create a biological and genetic twin of the entity being cloned. The difference is that the clone will be of a different age. Should we allow a man to clone himself? What if he wants to clone himself 30 times or 300 times?
More shocking is the prediction of Dr. Patrick Dixon, author of The Genetic Revolution, He writes that “…human ‘partial’ babies will be grown to harvest organs for transplants sometime in the next decade.” He believes that current cloning technology will be used to develop babies with NO head, arms or legs -- “as organ factories for tomorrow’s people”. British scientists have recently created a technique to create frog embryos without heads and experts believe that this same technique can be used to harvest human organs such as kidneys, livers and hearts in artificial wombs. (Unborn Babies May Be Grown to Harvest Organs in the Next five to Ten years, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life News, December 1997)
Another shocking practice reported is that of harvesting eggs from female fetuses that have been aborted, and then fertilizing and implanting them in infertile women (Arthur Caplan, No Ethical Stance Could Back Idea of Fetal Egg Donation, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 1/17/94, and William Tuohy Plan to Use Eggs of Aborted Fetuses Fuels Ethics Debate, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 1/3/94). Can you imagine what it would be like to learn that your mother had never been born, but rather was aborted by your own grandmother?
Consider the growing practice of “embryonic cryogenics” in which human embryos (i.e. living babies) are frozen, and then later thawed, implanted, and born, while others are discarded (see Rick Weiss, Freezing Method Allows Human Eggs to be Stored for Future Use, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 10/17/97). Bioethicist Arthur Caplan reports that “More than 10,000 cryopreserved embryos are stored in fertility clinics in the United States. Those embryos could keep for hundreds of years” (Arthur Caplan, The Brave New World of Babymaking, Life Magazine, 1993). Think what it would be like to find out that you had been frozen for a hundred years, and learning that your parents were already dead.
Or how about the British couple who are having one embryo implanted for birth, and yet freezing its identical twin for implantation and birth years into the future (Lois Rogers, Couple seek to Have Twins Born Years Apart, The Sunday Times, 7/2/2000). One wonders how it would feel to have a twin that is years (or even decades) older or younger than you? The above-cited article even speculates that the twin embryos might be implanted in two different women. Furthermore, the twin embryos could be implanted into two different women, neither of which is the biological mother!
Another disconcerting practice is that which is reported in England, in which women married to infertile husbands are choosing to be impregnated by “reproductive donations” from their husband’s father (Jason Burke and Paul Harris, Infertile Men Turn to Fathers for Sperm, The Observer. 11/19/2000). This means that the children in these arrangements are actually the biological children of their grandfathers and the half-brother of the man they call dad.
Another new technique for infertile women is being developed in mice, with hopes for eventual human use. It “involves taking a cell from an infertile woman’s body, and inserting it into an emptied donated egg. The resulting egg contains the genetic material of the woman wanting the baby, not the donor” (Emma Ross, Manufacture Human Eggs, Associated Press, 7/2001). The egg is then fertilized with sperm from the father by in vitro fertilization. I object to this, because it does not honor the sanctity of the gift that God has given the woman. By allowing her own genetic material to be removed from her egg, she destroys the purpose for which she was given them by God. Her eggs were intended only for procreation with her own husband and no one else.
At almost the same time as the last technique was announced, another one that is very similar was also announced. This one is unique, in that it would allow for children to be born without biological fathers. “Australian researchers said on Tuesday they may have found a way to fertilize an egg with cells from any part of the body, rather than sperm, in a new study which offers hope to infertile men and even lesbian couples… Lachman-Kaplan said the research, if successful, also theoretically could allow babies to be born without any input from men, although she admitted that such an outcome could open up an ethical can of worms” (Marie McInerney, Australian Research Fertilizes Eggs Without Sperm, Reuters, 7/10/2001). Can we even imagine a world in which children grow up with fathers, at least biological ones?
There are a number of other ethical questions facing couples who are unable to have children naturally, and are seeking the help of modern science. I will quote at length from Scott Rae, professor at Talbot School of Theology, who gives a brief synopsis of such moral dilemmas (Scott Rae, Brave New Families, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996, pp. 17-18):
As Rae points out in his book, the number of people seeking the help of specialists at fertility clinics is immense, and Christians need to be wary of some of the “reproductive technologies” being employed. It is my opinion that God meant for the genetic material of each person to be used only in procreating their own child.
I share the opinion of many Christian Bioethicists, that any third party involvement in reproduction is a form of adultery. If a child cannot be conceived with only the genetic material of both marital parents, the child should not be conceived at all. This rules out any form of surrogacy, as well as using egg or sperm from outside the marriage.
On the other hand, I do not object to the use of in vitro fertilization as long as only the marital partner’s genetic material is used, and no embryos are frozen or destroyed. However, I object to the use of fertility drugs on the following grounds. Often more embryos are conceived than is desired, which leads to two potential problems. One, that “excess” embryos will be destroyed (killed), or they will all be implanted with great risk to each of them as the pregnancy develops. If these objections were met, I would lose my opposition to such drugs.
Another concern is the recent announcement that Children were born that had been “genetically altered”, some of which have two biological mothers. “In the technique, doctors take an egg from an infertile woman, the egg from a donor woman and the sperm from the infertile woman’s mate. The doctors then suck out a little bit of the contents of the donor egg -- the cytoplasm… The cytoplasm is then injected into the infertile woman’s egg along with the sperm to fertilize it… Tests confirmed that two of the 15 babies produced by the technique at the institute were carrying genetic material from the birth mother, the father and the woman who donated an egg, Cohen said” (Will Durham, World’s First Genetically Altered Babies Born, Reuters, Yahoo News, 5/4/2001). I think it is outrageous to tamper with God’s creation and give a child two mothers. We can only wonder at the problems this will cause for children born in this method.
Concerns are also being raised by James Watson’s (a Nobel prize winner for his co-discovery of the double helix in DNA) call for the legalization of genetic engineering “so that scientists can alter the genes of sperm, eggs and embryos and rid genetic defects from future generations"(Steve Connor, Let Us Rid Society of Genetic Defects, Says DNA Pioneer, Independent News.Co.UK, 4/16/2001). The same article went on to say that “There are also ethical and moral concerns about tinkering with human DNA to improve a family’s genetic stock either by eliminating ‘ bad’ genes or introducing ‘ good’ ones. Critics say it raises the spectre of eugenics, as practiced by the Nazis."
Parents in the very near future may face decisions regarding “enhancement therapy”, a form of genetic engineering in which parents would be able to choose the genetic make-up of their children. Do we want to live in a made to order world in which all so-called “undesirable characteristics” have been eliminated? Imagine this doctor visit of the future; Ok doctor, I want my son to be six foot tall. Give him brown eyes, no make them blue … and so forth (see Michael McKenzie, Genetics and Christianity: An Uneasy but Necessary Partnership, Christian Research Journal, Fall 1995).
Some of the new biotechnology is even challenging our understanding of what it means to be a human being. For instance, consider the practice of Xenotransplantation, which is the practice of transplanting animal “parts” into humans. One effort underway is transplanting pig cells into Alzheimer patients’ brains (E. David Cook, Have a Heart … Even a Pig’s?, A Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Paper, 1/3/2001). Even more bizarre is the recent report that scientists have formed hybrid embryos combining pig and human cells although “whatever ‘ it’ was that resulted, scientists reportedly destroyed it before it had barely begun” (Stuart Shepard, Pig/Man Embryo Renews Ethical Questions, Pulpit Helps, January 2001).
“A biotech company has taken out a Europe-wide patent on a process which campaigners claim would allow ‘ chimeric’ animals to be developed with body parts originating in humans. An Australian company, Amrad, was granted a patent last year, which covers embryos containing cells both from humans and from ‘ mice, sheep, pigs, cattle, goats, or fish’ (Anthony Barnett, Patent Allows Creation of Man-Animal Hybrid, The Observer, 11/26/2000).
Fitting into this disturbing pattern is the following report. “We are told it is technically feasible for animals to carry implanted human babies, and even more horrifying, that in the United Kingdom cow ova (eggs) have been impregnated with human sperm (where thus far the ‘ pregnancy’ is terminated before it gets beyond the two-cell stage). In the Unites States, 20,000 cow-human embryos are created each month, supposedly for testing male fertility” (Dr. Carl Wieland, Of Lettuces and Cow-Humans, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1987).
In the area of organ transplantation came the shocking story of organs being harvested from Chinese prisoners being executed. A Chinese doctor, Wang Guoqi, seeking asylum in the United states, reported that prisoners were executed and there organs removed within two minutes, sometimes while the prisoners were still alive (Steve Mufson, Chinese Doctor Tells Of Organ Removals after Executions, The Washington Post Online, 6/27/2001).
Equally revolting was this headline, “Doctor ‘had Child’s head in a Jar’ ”. The story stated that, “The pathologist at the heart of a scandal over stockpiled human organs kept a child’s head in a jar… The report comes after a one-year inquiry into how hundreds of children’s organs, many taken at post-mortem examinations without parents’ knowledge… up to 40,000 body parts are stored for teaching and research at hospitals throughout Britain, many without relatives knowledge” (Gaby Hinsliff and Anthony Browne, Doctor ‘Had Child”s Head in a Jar’, The Observer, 1/28/2001). God Help Us!
Particularly troublesome to Christians is the appointment of bioethicist Pete Singer at Princeton University (Sylvia Nasar, Princeton Appointment Creates an Uproar, The New York Times on the Web, 4/10/1999). Singer attacks what he calls “specie-ism”, which he describes as the idea that human beings have a higher intrinsic value than animals. This despite the fact that the bible says in Genesis 1:26−28 that man has dominion over the animals, and that only man is created in the image of God. Singer also approves of the practice of infanticide in cases in which infants are born with spina bifada and hemophilia. Further, Singer is against the killing and eating of animals, although the Bible explicitly allows for it (i.e. Genesis 9:3), and yet he approves of the killing of innocent newborn children. Professor Singer advocated in his book The Essential Singer that parents should have thirty days after a child is born to determine ‘ if they want to keep it’ (The Sword of the Lord, Newborn Infants are Not Persons?, 2/16/2001).
We would like to think that the practice of partial birth abortions is as bad as it can get, but we must be aware of the growing infanticide movement of which Singer is representative. For instance is this statement by Singer, “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a dog or pig … We will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities … only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species Homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. But species membership alone is not relevant … If we can put aside the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life, we may start to look at human life as it really is: at the Quality of life that each human being has or can attain” (Peter Singer, Sanctity of Life, Quality of Life, Pediatrics, Vol.72, No. 1, 1983, p.18).
Influential Ethicist Joseph Fletcher stated that “It is reasonable to describe infanticide as a post-natal abortion” (Joseph Fletcher, Infanticide and the Ethics of Loving Concern, in Infanticide and the Value of Life, Marvin Kohl Ed. 1978, p. 17). Milton Heifetz said “Is life at birth more significant than at the second, fourth, or sixth month of pregnancy? It is not” (Milton Heifetz and Charles Mangel, The Right to Die, 1975, p. 51).
Nor can I conclude this article without reference to the shocking movement to devalue life in its closing stages. Dr. Kervorkian (Dr. Death) and the so-called “right to die” assisted suicide movement has lead an assault on our elderly and vulnerable. The Netherlands are leading the way in this effort as is reported in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Charles Trueheart, Netherlands Close to Legalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 8/16/99). In America, the State of Oregon has lead the way with the nations first law allowing for “Assisted Suicide" with their so-called “death with dignity act."
What is truly alarming is the practice of so-called mercy killing in which the patient is killed without their or their family’s consent. Daniel Hanley reported for the Associated Press that “One in five intensive-care nurses responding to a survey admitted hastening the deaths of terminally ill people, sometimes without the knowledge of doctors, families or the patient … Most nurses who intentionally killed patients said they had done it only once or twice. However, six nurses said they had hastened the deaths of 20 or more people” (Daniel Q. Hanley, Critical Care Nurses Sometimes Hasten Death, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 5/23/96).
Marc Kaufman reported for Knight Rider News Service that “Asch said one of the more surprising findings was that 39 percent of doctors reported withholding or withdrawing life support without the consent-- or sometimes the knowledge-- of the patient or the family. In addition, 3 percent of doctors said they had made life-ending decisions over the objections of a patient’s family” (Marc Kaufman, Doctors Have Become Less Reluctant to Take Patients off Life Support, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 2/19/95).
The challenges addressed in the body of this article bring to mind important questions for Christian theologians and apologists. I will briefly raise a few, not to give specific answers, but rather to raise awareness and stir up discussions on these questions.
What makes a person a person? Is it the body, or soul, or memories, or all of the above. What if in the future, we could actually record, store and transfer human memories from one brain to another?
How do the practices described in this article affect our understanding of the resurrection of the body? Is cremation of the body an acceptable practice for the Christian at death?
When does a person receive their human soul (conception, implantation after twinning/recombination, gradually through pregnancy, birth)?
How far can we allow organ transplantation to go? Would we approve of the transplantation of a head, a brain, or part of a brain? How far can we allow Xenotransplantation to go? For instance, should we allow Humans to have orangutan hearts, heads, brains (perhaps for the purpose of making them for slave workers)? Should we allow genetic hybrids of half-human half monkey along the lines of the mythical, or maybe not so mythical, centaurs? Some of these questions may sound absurd, but do not be surprised if one day they become realities, perhaps in your lifetime.
Certain Biblical principles should guide us as we face these challenges of the future and the present. Here are a few:
It is my hope that this piece will awaken Christians to the very real ethical problems that face us now and in the near future. We must confront the challenges of this “Brave New World” with the power and truth of God’s Word!
«»«»«»