Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 17:16:55 EDT

As one who has adopted three orphan children, I quite obviously
endorse that particular action. I was delighted when two of my
children, fighting infertility, also chose to adopt.

"We have eight children; three are adopted; I forget which three."
Although technically this is an untrue statement, it is still a true
statement.

Burgy

"Sex is holy; that's why we don't speak about it in church."

"Sex is dirty, so save it for the one you love."

On 3/11/09, David Randall Gabrielse <r.gabrielse@att.net> wrote:
> At 3/10/2009 01:11 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>>Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "acceptable." In any event, as
>>to my own view about IVF -- and I don't claim here or elsewhere to
>>speak for "evangelicals" generally -- I've said several times in
>>this thread that I think IVF is a rogue industry in need of
>>regulation. While I sympathize with people who have fertility
>>problems, I don't think IVF, at least in the form we now practice
>>it, is an answer that society should promote. So, I don't think I'm
>>personally taking an inconsistent approach at all.
>>David W. Opderbeck
>>Associate Professor of Law
>>Seton Hall University Law School
>>Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> Regarding David's comment:
> Having looked at adoption because of our own infertility issues (I
> had radiation for childhood leukemia at age 7), we found the
> presentation of Embryo Adoption positively weird. The staff at the
> Christian agency where we sought adoption were also visibly
> uncomfortable with the presentation. This and a recent disturbing
> claiming the absolute benefits of Embryo Adoption lead me to conclude
> that the whole idea of IVF is problematci and is the point at which
> to address the issue: David's "rogue industry in need of
> regulation." I believe that Christians need to address the
> familiotary or childolatry which has led us, along with others, to
> this point over the past 30 years. Our churches need to celebrate
> adoption where couples embrace it, recognize a special place for
> childless couples (like ourselves for the time being), and provide
> holistic ministry and direction for those struggling. As with so much
> in Christianity, I believe we need to get our own house in order
> before we go accusing others of immoral or unethical behavior.
>
> Peace,
> Randy Gabrielse
>
>
>
>
>>On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr.
>><<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>>Your responses would be acceptable if you and other evangelicals
>>opposed IVF with the same vigor as ESCR and abortion.
>>Dave (ASA)
>>
>>On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:34:13 -0400 David Opderbeck
>><<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
>>Responses below.
>>
>>
>>David W. Opderbeck
>>Associate Professor of Law
>>Seton Hall University Law School
>>Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM, George Murphy
>><<mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>1) Why should a "precautionary principle" invoke precautions
>>against the possibility that a human person is being destroyed & not
>>be concerned with precautions against the possibility that people
>>will continue to suffer from illnesses & injuries that might be
>>healed as a result of ESCR?
>>
>>
>>I never said that shouldn't also be a concern. As with the
>>precautionary principle in environmental ethics, the question is
>>whether there is some probability, even if small, that an action
>>taken will have effects significantly more deleterious than the harm
>>the action is seeking to prevent. Just about everyone will agree
>>that it is immoral to conduct medical research on human subjects
>>involving the subject's certain death, even with informed consent;
>>and just about everyone will agree that it is immoral to conduct
>>medical research involving any significant risk of death on infants,
>>regardless of the parent's informed consent.
>>
>>If the moral status of a human embryo is uncertain, there is some
>>probability that embryonic stem cell research will result in the
>>great harm of taking human lives for research purposes. Under the
>>precautionary principle, proponents of the research would have to
>>show a near certainty that the proposed research would succeed in
>>producing an even more substantially beneficial result -- something
>>that cannot under any estimation presently be shown.
>>
>>
>>2) Of course an embryo is a potential person. A seperated ovum &
>>sperm is also a potential person. The stirring of desire in a
>>husband & wife is a potential person. How far do we take this?
>>
>>
>>No, a separated ovum and sperm is not a potential person. The
>>potentiality for personhood only exists when a zygote is
>>formed. Neither an ovum nor a sperm can individually mature into a
>>person. There is a morally significant, qualitative difference
>>between a zygote and an individual ovum or individual sperm.
>>
>>
>>
>>Now David said previously, "I personally find destructive human
>>embryonic stem cell research morally horrifying, particularly when
>>cell lines are harvested from embryos cast off by the IVF
>>industry." This seems strange to me, suggesting as it does that
>>research on embryos produced for IVF is worse than that on embryos
>>produced solely to be destroyed for research. It makes sense only
>>if "the IVF industry" is immoral, which may well be what David means.
>>
>>
>>The problem here, as I see it, is that this research reinforces an
>>industry that is essentially unregulated and, in my judgment, highly
>>morally problematic.
>>
>>
>>But let's reflect on that a bit. One of the criticisms of IVF - &
>>at the same time the reason why it can supply ESCR, is that "spare"
>>embryos that will not be allowed to develop fully, are always
>>produced in the procedure. But the same thing in fact happens when
>>babies are conceived in the old fashioned way. We know now that a
>>high percentage of conceptions are spontaneously aborted very early
>>in pregnancy. (I've seen estimates of something like 80% but
>>someone more knowledgeable may have a better number.) So
>>traditional conception & IVF are not wholly different in this regard.
>>
>>
>>I don't agree. Natural miscarriages result in the context of an
>>intent to carry the baby to term. (Let's set aside for the moment
>>the question of unplanned pregnancies, which gets into additional
>>issues about the ends of sexuality, marriage, and the family). With
>>IVF, the intent at the outset is to produce embryos that will have
>>to be destroyed. Intent is critical to moral and ethical assessment
>>of the conduct.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>><http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTHRkDaFBFqcJPtWtGVO3vznef1inMQnqGru3Pt2nNxErhCjPsczew/>Find
>>
>>all of your table tennis gear for less! Click here!
>>
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 11 17:17:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 17:17:50 EDT