Hmm. Sad, isn’t it. MJF is right in that there should have been an outcry when in-vitro fertilization began. He is wrong with regard to the temper of the discussion, because those who hold a belief strongly will be labelled as name-callers simply because they have stated their position, when that position makes a judgment about the action being discussed. Moral decisions cut to the essence of existence, and it is ridiculous to expect that people will not be passionate regarding their belief systems, because their perception of self-righteousness is rooted in those belief systems.
The big question is whether an error can be corrected by committing another error. If you believe that life begins at conception, then then you must deal with the numerous problems attending most chemical birth control methods. They are essentially abortifacients. There is also the stunning problem of what to do about the practice of in-vitro fertilization, which to this day results in additional unwanted, or excess, fertilized eggs that have to simply be considered as people under construction. When people play at being God, they ultimately end up working as Satan.
That last comment will probably make some folks climb the walls. Tough.
Gosh if I was going through what he was going through, I would be hiding in my house and refusing to come out. Instead he goes on national tv for an interview to advocate something he feels can make a difference. I think that’s pretty awesome.
Willy, Fox’s comments about the “temper” of the discussion seem to be in response to Sawyer’s question about Rush Limbaugh’s repeatedly slander:
So are you suggesting that we should start a war against birth control and in-vitro fertilization? How about the millions of ways that we artificially prolong life (or the ways that we shorten it, for that matter) … are those “people play[ing] at being God”?
Lance, the war is already on, sad to say. I didn’t see that MJF’s comment was directed toward Limbaugh specifically, BTW; it came across in translation as “Don’t tell me my actions are morally wrong just because we disagree.” The MSNBC talking heads in your second clip are doing exactly what they are accusing Limbaugh of.
As I noted, people are going to be passionate about their core beliefs, and if you and I disagree on a core matter, then only one of us can be right. If that is not the case, then the belief isn’t that important after all.
The hardest thing in the world is to admit that something you are doing might be sinful, when to change requires a change in lifestyle and a requirement to ask God’s forgiveness. The latter completely shatters a person’s self-righteousness.
The logical conclusion flowing from the basic assumption, e.g. “life begins at conception”, requires acceptance that once an egg is fertilized, it is then a living human being. If it dies during gestation, there are bound to be questions about the cause of death.
In the natural course of events, the fertilized egg slides down the fallopian tubes and attaches to the uterine wall; if it is defective, it self-aborts. Chemical/hormonal birth control ensures that the fertilized egg cannot be implanted in the uterus, in similitude to the concept of a person falling off a cliff and grasping for a rope, which rope has been liberally coated with grease by its owner because the owner did not want anyone using the rope. If the person had no hands, or the rope was out of reach, it could be argued that the subsequent death was accidental. But, if he grasped the rope and slid to his death anyway because it was greased, was he not murdered?
The problem with in vitro fertilization is the shotgun approach to the problem. If it could be limited to one egg being fertilized, implanted, and the baby being brought to term, no one could question the marvel of having assisted someone, who otherwise might not be able to conceive, to have a child. However, the process has involved multiple fertilized embryos, with perhaps only the “pick of the litter” being chosen to survive. The rest of the embryos — little people already, if you believe life begins at conception — are merely “trash” to be disposed of. The people stuck with the “trash” have felt morally obligated not to dispose of it (after all, they believe life begins at conception, and they don’t want to kill those little babies), and from the standpoint of those who wish to use them for research purposes, it is simply a matter of not wasting good “trash”.
That is the argument MJF is making. The embryos exist. For all practical purposes, they are already dead, because there is no one who wishes to have them implanted to grow up. It is better to use them, says that argument, in a lofty purpose, rather than just throwing them away or keeping them in the freezer forever. He is very aptly pointing out that those who oppose such research are hypocrites if they do not also oppose the creation of those embryos in the first place.
The moral dilemma exists because the embryos exist, not because of what he wants to do to them. The people who oppose him blythely ignore the fact that something has to be done with the embryos; they would prefer that he be quiet, leave the embryos alone, and allow them in turn to continue to ignore those same embryos. Quite a dilemma. Perhaps the “owners” of the embryos, their biological mothers and fathers, should be required by law to take care of them, whether in the freezer, or by having a funeral, or by releasing them for research. They have been shielded from their responsibility. There is no option but that the argument become hot and judgmental.
Willy Wong Ka said:
“In the natural course of events, the fertilized egg slides down the fallopian tubes and attaches to the uterine wall; if it is defective, it self-aborts.”
This is hardly the case and a gross oversimplification of the complexities of human physiology, take a course in embryology and you will see what I mean.
Of course it is an oversimplification, but it is what happens. The post was too long as it was. And not all the defectives self-abort; some even grow up to be adults.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:49 pm EST
Woah, this new YouTube video player looks bloated and cartoony … yuck. They need to slim down that control bar at the bottom.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:36 am EST
thanks for posting this. (found you via Capture Cincinnati!).
October 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm EST
Hmm. Sad, isn’t it. MJF is right in that there should have been an outcry when in-vitro fertilization began. He is wrong with regard to the temper of the discussion, because those who hold a belief strongly will be labelled as name-callers simply because they have stated their position, when that position makes a judgment about the action being discussed. Moral decisions cut to the essence of existence, and it is ridiculous to expect that people will not be passionate regarding their belief systems, because their perception of self-righteousness is rooted in those belief systems.
The big question is whether an error can be corrected by committing another error. If you believe that life begins at conception, then then you must deal with the numerous problems attending most chemical birth control methods. They are essentially abortifacients. There is also the stunning problem of what to do about the practice of in-vitro fertilization, which to this day results in additional unwanted, or excess, fertilized eggs that have to simply be considered as people under construction. When people play at being God, they ultimately end up working as Satan.
That last comment will probably make some folks climb the walls. Tough.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am EST
Gosh if I was going through what he was going through, I would be hiding in my house and refusing to come out. Instead he goes on national tv for an interview to advocate something he feels can make a difference. I think that’s pretty awesome.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am EST
Willy, Fox’s comments about the “temper” of the discussion seem to be in response to Sawyer’s question about Rush Limbaugh’s repeatedly slander:
So are you suggesting that we should start a war against birth control and in-vitro fertilization? How about the millions of ways that we artificially prolong life (or the ways that we shorten it, for that matter) … are those “people play[ing] at being God”?
I’m not sure that I follow …
October 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pm EST
Lance, the war is already on, sad to say. I didn’t see that MJF’s comment was directed toward Limbaugh specifically, BTW; it came across in translation as “Don’t tell me my actions are morally wrong just because we disagree.” The MSNBC talking heads in your second clip are doing exactly what they are accusing Limbaugh of.
As I noted, people are going to be passionate about their core beliefs, and if you and I disagree on a core matter, then only one of us can be right. If that is not the case, then the belief isn’t that important after all.
The hardest thing in the world is to admit that something you are doing might be sinful, when to change requires a change in lifestyle and a requirement to ask God’s forgiveness. The latter completely shatters a person’s self-righteousness.
The logical conclusion flowing from the basic assumption, e.g. “life begins at conception”, requires acceptance that once an egg is fertilized, it is then a living human being. If it dies during gestation, there are bound to be questions about the cause of death.
In the natural course of events, the fertilized egg slides down the fallopian tubes and attaches to the uterine wall; if it is defective, it self-aborts. Chemical/hormonal birth control ensures that the fertilized egg cannot be implanted in the uterus, in similitude to the concept of a person falling off a cliff and grasping for a rope, which rope has been liberally coated with grease by its owner because the owner did not want anyone using the rope. If the person had no hands, or the rope was out of reach, it could be argued that the subsequent death was accidental. But, if he grasped the rope and slid to his death anyway because it was greased, was he not murdered?
The problem with in vitro fertilization is the shotgun approach to the problem. If it could be limited to one egg being fertilized, implanted, and the baby being brought to term, no one could question the marvel of having assisted someone, who otherwise might not be able to conceive, to have a child. However, the process has involved multiple fertilized embryos, with perhaps only the “pick of the litter” being chosen to survive. The rest of the embryos — little people already, if you believe life begins at conception — are merely “trash” to be disposed of. The people stuck with the “trash” have felt morally obligated not to dispose of it (after all, they believe life begins at conception, and they don’t want to kill those little babies), and from the standpoint of those who wish to use them for research purposes, it is simply a matter of not wasting good “trash”.
That is the argument MJF is making. The embryos exist. For all practical purposes, they are already dead, because there is no one who wishes to have them implanted to grow up. It is better to use them, says that argument, in a lofty purpose, rather than just throwing them away or keeping them in the freezer forever. He is very aptly pointing out that those who oppose such research are hypocrites if they do not also oppose the creation of those embryos in the first place.
The moral dilemma exists because the embryos exist, not because of what he wants to do to them. The people who oppose him blythely ignore the fact that something has to be done with the embryos; they would prefer that he be quiet, leave the embryos alone, and allow them in turn to continue to ignore those same embryos. Quite a dilemma. Perhaps the “owners” of the embryos, their biological mothers and fathers, should be required by law to take care of them, whether in the freezer, or by having a funeral, or by releasing them for research. They have been shielded from their responsibility. There is no option but that the argument become hot and judgmental.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 am EST
Willy Wong Ka said:
“In the natural course of events, the fertilized egg slides down the fallopian tubes and attaches to the uterine wall; if it is defective, it self-aborts.”
This is hardly the case and a gross oversimplification of the complexities of human physiology, take a course in embryology and you will see what I mean.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 am EST
Of course it is an oversimplification, but it is what happens. The post was too long as it was. And not all the defectives self-abort; some even grow up to be adults.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm EST
Not to further complicated, but some actually grow up to be defective adults…
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm EST
I was actually going to say that they grew up to be adults that posted on the internet…