Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 18:44:22 EDT

Let me go back to a point I tried to make earlier, but too briefly.
Anyone who opposes abortion because the zygote is a human being must
oppose IVF because IVF produces more embryos than can be implanted or, as
noted by Randy, can be adopted. Octomom is not a rational response for
the crowding is known to produce injury to the developing embryos and
fetuses. This is different from the defects produced inadvertently by
genetic problems in normal procreation, diseases like rubella during
pregnancy, etc.

What I have noted is that most people consider only the premises and
consequences that support a foregone position. They do not consider non
sequiturs and those that conflict.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:19:23 -0400 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
writes:
Good point Randy. I agree that the embryo adoption thing is weird. The
Christian Legal Society, a very conservative evangelical lawyers' group,
did a feature on embryo adoption in their magazine (presenting it in a
positive light) and it freaked me out. I recognize some inconsistency
here with my views about embryo research perhaps, but there it is.

The lack of regulation of the IVF industry is also scary, IMHO, because
of eugenics. There is virtually no legal regulation of the sorts of
characteristics that can be selected for during pre-implantation
screening. Screening is routinely done today for gender, and embryos are
culled simply because they are the wrong gender. Screening techniques
are not currently so precise as to allow for designer babies, but the law
is not prepared for advances in screening technology that seem
inevitable.

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.
<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 <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 <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.

____________________________________________________________

Find all of your table tennis gear for less! Click here!
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTotEMUUjfqwWWdvEPYW1a2sjKQmO6Rqu1oRolGwaBq5FsSYYA/

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 18:48:51 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 18:48:51 EDT