I'm sticking with my sea-gull analogy. I still say it was good.
Barack Obama is delivering on a campaign promise to overturn George Bush's limits on stem cell research. For those of you who don't know what exactly what a stem cell is, it's a cell that's like a child, it doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. It can become any type of cell with the right conditions, a pancreas cell, liver cell, or even brain cell. The reason stem cell research is controversial is some stem cells are obtained from embryos, meaning a recently fertilized egg is destroyed to gain the stem cells. These usually come from fertility clinics, where they would have been thrown away anyways. President Bush made the claim he was protecting life. We all started out as stem cells and slowly (over a period of 9 months) started to divide with certain things that determined what cell would become what, usually determined by our DNA. The exciting thing about stem cells is that if you find out how to determine what that cell becomes, you can potentially cure many diseases, even paralysis. Because of political pressure or even executive limits, stem cells have largely been off limits. But now President Obama is reversing the decision and making federal funds available to support stem cell research. I checked the Church website and there is no official opionion of the Church on this matter.
While I have disagreed with President Obama on a couple issues, this is one where he has my total support. After learning about embryonic stem cells and the potential for the quality of life for millions of people to be significantly improved, the rewards far outweigh the negatives. Many people argue that an embryo is a life. I do not agree. I have a feeling some will disagree with me on this but I think the scriptures are on my side. In the Old Testament God clearly teaches that "For the life of the flesh is in the blood.." (Lev. 17:11 and Gen 9:4) The scriptures often teach that blood is necessary for life. An embryo first begins to have a heart beat at around 18-21 days, which most physiologists have assumed is when blood begins to flow inside the embryo, before this, it's just a collection of cells dividing. These embryos are harvested well before that time, and never even stand a chance at actually becoming a living person. But what they can do is significantly help us cure diseases like Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis, paralysis, even Alzheimers. Let me end this by asking you a question: if you were paralyzed, and there was a chance that you could regain the use of your limbs by breakthrough research on stem cells, would you be okay with it then? I know I would.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
This is very interesting. When you say that it is controversial because some stem cells are obtained from embryos why don't they just get all the stem cells from other sources and avoid the controversy? (Sorry, I am very ignorant on this subject.) Also when you say that they never stand a chance at becoming a living person why is that?
As to your question: I would hope that I would not make my decision as to being okay w/the research based upon my wanting to walk again. I do not think the end justifies the means.
There are a few troubling things about this post. I also have some questions about the topic. Like Publius, I'll be quick to admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the embryonic stem cells debate either.
1. You say that embyonic stem cells "usually come from fertility clinics where they would have been thrown away anyways." Usually? Where do the other ones come from?Thrown away? Who makes that decision and why?
2. I think it's important to note that billions of private sector dollars have been raised or donated to fund embryonic stem cell research. Why does the government also need to spend MORE of our tax dollars on this when there already is plenty of private funding to cover it? Certainly in this time of economic turmoil, aren't there wiser ways to spend, or better yet, SAVE federal funds?
3. My biggest problem with this post is when you correctly pointed out that the Church doesn't have an official position on this issue, and then go on to say that "the scriptures are on my side." So I'm wondering what did you glean from them that the prophets, seers, and revelators apparently missed? Don't you think that if the issue were as clear as you want it to be, that the church WOULD have an official position that aligns with yours? It seems you're using those blood scriptures out-of-context to back you up for YOUR official position. This is from the Church's website: "The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to . . . embryonic stem cell research."
4. Your basic scriptural justification for the harvesting of these embyos is that it is ok at the early stage because blood has not yet entered into the body. Would Elder Nelson approve of this approach and justification? You decide: He recently said, "The human mind has presumed to determine when 'meaningful life' begins . . . to legislate when a developing life is considered 'meaningful' is PRESUMPTIVE AND QUITE ARBITRARY." That is why I would suggest caution before coming up with an arbitrary boundary separating when it is ok (before blood has entered the body)and when it isn't (after? after 22 weeks? where do you draw the line?) to destroy a human embryo.
5. Last point - after spending just a few minutes on the internet, it seems that there are many scientists and researchers who see much more promise from adult stem cells, skin cells (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2058175020071121) and cord blood stem cells than from embryonic stem cells. Why not, as Publius suggested, just use those and avoid the moral and ethical controversies altogether? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advances in medical technology, but if there are superior alternatives that don't involve destroying human embryos, why not do that instead?
Here I'll respond Devin in the order you brought things up.
1. Embryos are created in fertility clinics usually for the purpose of implanting them into a mother by in vitro fertilization, where the embryo can attach to the uteran wall and begin to divide and eventually become a person. The other embryos, the ones not put into a mother, are stored long past their shelf life and usually have to be thrown away. An embryo CANNOT become a person unless it is implanted into a mother. Because of George W. Bush, the extra embryo's have been going to waste for the last 8 years. So basically George Bush made the decision to have them thrown away instead of using them for research, to answer your question.
2. Some private money has been raised to fund the research, but it is not near enough. The way scientific research works is through grants. For example, right now I do research on a certain enzymatic pathway in intestinal cells that promotes the uptake of Calcium. My research mentor, a professor at USU, came up with something we don't know a lot about, designed a series of experiments to explore this pathway, then submitted it to a government agency to obtain federal grant money. Right now there is not enough private sector dollars to support all the funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not allowing federal funds to go to research embryonic stem cells largely limits who can research what, limiting our discoveries, limiting potential treatments.
3. My own personal belief was in no way a representation of what the Church should believe or teach. It was simply an opinion that I have come to hold by my own thinking and research. It is my personal opinion that an embryo is not a person, not the opinion of the Church or anyone else. I believe the scriptures point out when life begins, and aligning science with scripture, in my own opinion, life either begins at 14 days when the embryo first attaches to a uteran wall or at 18-21 days when the little heart begins to beat. Before it attaches to the wall this embryo can divide and become two people, or two can even join together to become one person, it is, again in my own opinion, not a person if this collection of cells is in a petri dish in a fertilization clinic. Again, not the opinion of the church, just my own.
4. That is Elder Nelson's opinion. I would suggest that if that was the opinion of the Church, they would be opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Or they have decided that maybe the benefits outweigh the potential downsides. Even Sen. Orrin Hatch out of Utah supports embryonic stem cell research.
5. It is true you can isolate stem cells from adults. The problem with these stem cells is they aren't the same as those from an embryo. The stem cells often carry the hosts glycolipids and glycoproteins, small chains of proteins or fats that identify a cell to a person. These can interfere with the usefulness of the stem cell. And according to many embryonic stem cell researchers "adult cells are not an adequate substitute, and that embryonic stem cells are 'absolutely the gold standard' for research purposes."
OK there’s a point I’d like to make about this, but I have to admit it goes back to abortion also because the debates over stem cell research and abortion are basically the same. Both issues basically come back to this question: “when does life begin?” The answer to that question pretty much decides one’s position, especially with abortion, because if life has in fact begun at some point after conception (where a sperm fertilizes an egg) and before birth, then it pretty much follows that “abortion [and embryonic stem cell research] is murder.”
Not surprisingly, Creighton addressed this issue in his post with his whole point about life being in the blood (Lev. 17:11, Gen. 9:4) which hasn’t happened yet with these stem cells. That may well be the case, but there is a further consideration which—I believe—yet remains.
I personally believe that the whole debate about when life begins is largely, if not completely, irrelevant. I don’t think it matters whether God has actually put a spirit into a body before it is destroyed (i.e. for it to be immoral or “murder”). Even if you could prove scientifically that life doesn’t begin until the heart starts beating at 18-21 days as Creighton claims, I don’t think that’s the end of it.
So here’s my point: be it a spirit or a soul or just a body, there is no doubt that there is a potential life at stake. In the words of Steve Austin “That’s the bottom line!” Going back to the blood thing, let’s say you take a fetus before the 18-day mark, and you destroy it (i.e. abort it or harvest the stem cells), what happened? Maybe you didn’t “kill” a “person” in the sense we normally think of. Here’s what did happen: there was at one point a potential for a human life, and now it’s gone. This is definitely controlling for abortion: we have no reason to believe (as far as I know) ahead of time whether the baby’s going to miscarry or die during birth (stillborn). But even if we could predict a failed pregnancy, it still doesn’t make sense to abort the fetus because there’s no need to do what nature will do anyway. So, for all intents and purposes, whenever the practice of abortion is performed, it is generally understood that we have in fact prevented a life from occurring. That is the whole point, after all.
Now I’m honestly a little hazy on the details of stem cell research, so it’s a little harder to make the application there. Specifically Creighton said “These embryos are harvested well before that time, and never even stand a chance at actually becoming a living person” and “These usually come from fertility clinics, where they would have been thrown away anyways.” With regard to the first quote I quite frankly think it’s false. How can you say these stem cells can’t turn into a living person? I don’t get it. On the second one I think we’re left wondering: “why in the heck were these embryos going to be thrown away in the first place?” I’d have to do some research to answer this question, but I think my argument still applies. If nothing else, it seems illogical that there would be such a controversy about all this we only used scrap embryos. Why is anyone even complaining if it’s just waste we’re dealing with? I find it hard to believe it would be controversial if either of those claims were true. But again, I might be wrong because I don’t know the details.
At any rate, I think Creighton would still object to my contention about potential life prevention on different grounds, aside from the specifics of stem cell research. I don’t mean to embarrass him, but there’s another belief which usually comes up with the abortion issue. To him, the question of “when does life begin” is also insignificant but for a different reason. What he supports this with is essentially a variation of re-incarnation doctrine: “If God knows that a fetus is about to be aborted [or in any way destroyed, presumably], then God will snatch the soul back out of the body before the abortion and will put it back into another body.” So it’s basically like God is frantically running around fixing our mistakes...if we try to kill a person then he doesn’t hold it against us because he’s got it all taken care of.
Here’s my first problem with that notion: why stop there? If God is so ready and willing to undo our mistakes with abortion, why not do the same thing with murder? Why not resort to all-out re-incarnation? Could he not pre-empt any murder by snatching the spirit out of the body before it happens, then putting it back into a different body? The only real difference there is that you would have to start over: there simply aren’t full-grown bodies lying around ready to be planted with souls. But at the same time, God could just start the whole thing over by putting the spirit into a brand new fetus and redo the veil so the baby starts fresh. It would be like the first life never happened because God could make him or her forget everything from the first life and he’d start fresh.
If this seems a little odd, just wait. If God really wanted to be consistent again we might ask why stop there? Why is murder the only injustice sufficient to justify divine intervention? Why not include victims of natural disasters? Why not include everyone who dies? Why stop at death? Why not include every injustice or unfortunate circumstance we could think of? It would only be fair, right?
Anyone who’s LDS knows the answer to that question: it would totally defeat the purpose of life. We’re basically dealing with 2 Ne Chapter 2: the necessity for opposition in all things. If God simply undid everything unfair about life by prevention, then life would be ultimately meaningless. Without sorrow we couldn’t appreciate joy, without evil we couldn’t appreciate good, and (more to the point) without death we couldn’t appreciate life!
For anyone who isn’t LDS who might be reading this, there is a strictly biblical sense of responsibility which would be violated here. In Luke 22: 21-22 the Lord predicts that he will be betrayed by one of his own disciples, pointing out that it is necessary, but also says that the betrayer will nonetheless be held accountable. (“but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!”) This might seem like a stretch, but I think there are two important points to take from it. First off, it is true that God is very aware of evil actions even before the fact. But rather than either preventing the use of free will or undoing the effects of it, he lets it happen and holds the evildoer responsible for his actions, as was the case with Judas. One would almost think that the fact that someone had to do it would get him off the hook, but he was nonetheless held accountable for the actions.
So here’s my question: if Judas, who did something that was actually necessary to God’s plan, wasn’t pre-empted by God or in any way justified for what he did, then why would someone be more justified in an abortion (or stem cell research) deserve any more leniency for an action that is detrimental to God’s plan? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Even if God was in the business of crime prevention (like the movie Minority Report), that doesn’t mean he lets people off the hook for misbehavior. What’s more common is for God to let the apples fall where they may, and then meet out punishments and compensations after the fact (which sometimes falls on the after-life—see the sermon on the mount). That’s no less brutally true for people who destroy innocent life or potential for life (I believe) as it was for Judas Iscariot, because “he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.” (Col. 3:25) It would be categorically unfair for God to use different standards with us than he did with Judas, which is exactly why he doesn’t. We are ultimately accountable for everything we do irrespective of the consequences or lack thereof (at least with God), which means that Publius was right to say “I do not think the end justifies the means.” Touche’ my friend. If doing something to advance God’s Plan for everyone (as was the case with Judas) doesn’t justify ending a life, then I would find it hard to believe that preventing a life merely to regain the use of a limb would be any more justified or even “worth it.” Even if God was OK with it, I still wouldn’t feel good about depriving someone the opportunity to live even if I was a quadriplegic!
Creighton, your liberal responses to # 1 and 2 were predictable: Blame it all on George George Bush and we need much more money for ES cell research. But to your credit, I didn't ask the question properly. I was really wondering why there are so many excess embryos lying around in the first place? I apologize for not being clear the first time.
I'm glad you cleared up #3. Although I find it interesting that even after "aligning science with scripture," you still can't decide when life really begins. I think it might be easier to just take Jeff's approach and look at it as a POTENTIAL life to be safe.
As to #4, I disagree that "maybe the church has concluded that the potential benefits outweigh the downsides" of ES cell research. If that were true, I think the church WOULD have an official position. And Elder Nelson's "opinion" was published in the Ensign not long ago in the talk, "Abrtion: an Assault on the Defenseless." This leads me to think that the issues of abortion and ES cell research, while similar in some ways, are not similar enough to allow the church to come out with an official position like it has about abortion. Regardless, I think he is right (after all, he is an Apostle as well as an M.D.) when he suggests that when the human mind tries to determine "when life begins," it is just an arbitrary and presumptive exercise. This is why I prefer the "potential for life" approach.
And I don't really care what Orrin Hatch does or doesn't support. He's entitled to his own opinions, just as all of us are. But I pay a lot more attention to Elder Nelson's "opinions" than Hatch's!
So here's a hypothetical for you: what if the church's position was against ES cell research? What would you do in that case?
Finally, #5 is debatable. I've found many recent articles online from credible sources written by experts who outline why AS cells are better and show much more promise than do ES cells. I could insert many quotes here, but this debate would go on and on because there are also articles suggest that ES cells are the way to go, and I need to end this comment ;)
This is how it works. A couple will come in and due to abnormalities of the filopian tube of the mother, she cannot conceive. Basically they give her drugs that make it possible for them to obtain some of her eggs. Women are born with thousands of them, so they obtain quite a few. They then place the eggs along with male sperm from the father in a medium in a test tube or petri dish. After 48 hours an embryologist determines which eggs have been fertilized and of those, which are the most healthy. Depending on the age of the mother, anywhere from 1 to 8 (octomom) can be implanted into the uterus. The leftover embryos come from those who didn't make it into the mother. So I stand by my original claim that George Bush made the decision to throw those away. Those leftover embryos are usually stored past their shelf life, and then thrown away. Now that the federal restriction is lifted, those leftover embryos, with permission of the parents, can be harvested for their stem cells for research. If the Church was against stem cell research then I would be too. To believe or act in a way against the Church is defined as heretical, prideful, and apostate. Since I would prefer not to be any of those, I'll stick with the Church.
As for potential for life argument, wouldn't that make birth control a form of abortion since you're stopping the potential for life? I think abortion and embryonic stem cell research are completely different because of their purpose. One is to erase consequences of a poor decision (morally wrong) and one is to boost the quality of life by using embryos that would otherwise go to waste (morally right, in my opinion of course.)
Thanks for those detailed explanations. I had a general idea of how a fertility clinic worked, I just wasn't sure how many eggs were typically extracted and fertilized each round. So thanks for the info.
You bring up a decent point about birth control. However, I think it is taking the logic to the extreme. With ES cells and abortions, the egg has already been fertilized. The embryo or fetus, if given the chance, could develop and eventually become a child.
On the other hand, even if a couple had unprotected sex, there is still a good chance that fertilization would not occur. I guess the point is that with ES cells and abortion, you are taking the potential for life away that was already there in the form of an embryo or fetus. Birth control is obviously different because fertilization hasn't occurred, nor is it guaranteed that it WOULD occur in the absence of birth control.
So does that difference even matter? I'm not sure. I didn't say the potential for life theory was flawless, I just think it's better than drawing an arbitrary line that determines when an embryo or a fetus "doesn't matter."
The ES cell and abortion debates have this in common: in both situations, judges and politicians have made value determinations that the ends of protecting a woman's right to choose and treating chronic diseases justifies the means - destruction of potential lives. I agree with you that curing diseases is much nobler than terminating a pregnancy because it is inconvenient. But, if there are other means (AS cells) that don't involve terminating potential lives that could also achieve the same goal of curing diseases, I'd prefer those means instead.
As a side, did you notice that Pres. Obama had to promise us that he would make sure that human cloning would not happen when he lifted the ban on federal funding? This shows how dangerously close we've come as a society to playing God. And if Obama continues his rapid pace of breaking his promises, one can only hope that this is one of the few he decides to actually keep!
I really haven't read through all of the comments so forgive me if I'm repeating a standpoint. In my view (as a psychotic libertarian), the issue isn't about morality or when life begins or whatever. What place is it of the federal government to provide funding for medical research? If there's some medical funding clause in the Constitution that I'm not aware of, again, you'll need to forgive me. But it just seems like more tax dollars to fund more unwarranted federal spending that the free market should be taking care of.
so creighton i'm confused: are you against abortion now? I thought you believed that abortion wasn't a big deal because god just puts the spirits in different bodies. If god "undoes the consequences" of abortion, as it were, then why is it morally wrong? Does this mean you accept my theory of responsibility where god holds people accountable even if he undoes the harmful consequences of their behavior? Or was it just in the three cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is in jeopardy that you think it's "morally" OK? Maybe I just forgot your overall position on that.
As for the birth control thing, you do have an interesting point but i think Devin's right: there's a huge difference between prevention at that level and the point where you have a fertilized egg. People don't typically consider sperm or eggs as separately containing the potential of life, at least to the degree that a fertilized egg does. If so, then (forgive me for the analogy) every wet dream would be a sin because it would be destroying potential life. I think it's just taking it too far. But there are people, though, who do believe birth control is wrong for similar reasons, so I guess it's just a question of individual belief. That said, I do think birth control can be wrong if used too much: as in the case of couples who only want one or two kids. I think if you have the means to support more kids then it is morally wrong to use birth control to limit your family size, but I would argue it's wrong in a different way or at least to a lesser degree than abortion or ES research. If you can draw the line anywhere, it at least has to be at conception. Though you can use similar arguments before that, I think they're fundamentally different than dealing with an already-developing (if only "potential") human life. I hope that makes sense.
Jeff,
I have always been against abortion personally. I would never encourage anyone to have an abortion, and I believe abortion to be a sin. I don't think it's as serious as murder, but still serious. And I do believe God would put those spirits into different bodies or how else would they even get a body and gain experience? Usually pregnancies are terminated fairly early, how could a spirit already be in that body? I mean if I'm doctrinally wrong please let me know. I can't imagine a fair God not giving someone a chance at life because their biological mother had an abortion. So Devin do you have another proposal for the unused embryos? Should we just throw them away? Isn't that the same thing only with no benefit of gaining the stem cells?
To Nic's point - I argued the same thing in my first comment (see comment 2, #2). There is no medical funding clause in the Constitution, and in my opinion, the market is doing a fabulous job providing funds to support ES cell research. Many popular and wealthy people are very successful in raising private funds to cure these diseases with this technology (Michael J. Fox, for example).
And Creighton, you ask a great question. I'm not sure what to do with the unused embryos. Perhaps we have already come too medically close to playing God when we even have to worry about what to do with "unused embryos" and how to protect against human cloning with these new medical advancements? Just a thought . . . but I don't have a definite answer to your question, you bring up a good point.
Without federal funding, all universities would have to raise their tuition to match other private universities (except for BYU supported by tithing) but all state universities would have to increase tuition dramatically. The reason universities even exist is to do research. My professor told me the other day that her superiors didn't really care about her student evaluations and how she was doing as an instructor, but cared how her research was going, and what she was working on publishing on. Without publically funded research there would be dramatic decreases in new innovations for science, engineering, etc. If you are okay with the implications of cutting off all federally funded research that's definitely your right to have that opinion. But I personally am extremely grateful for federally funded research, without it, I wouldn't have the opportunity to gain research experience right now, wouldn't have a chance to get an Undergraduate Reseach Grant, and I really think the overall level of education in our country would decline. The private sector just isn't large enough to support all the research that we really need, in my own humble opinion. Luckily for me and unluckily for you, we have a president who has consistently said that he would be a science promoting president.
After reading all the comments, I just have one to make. As I understand it Pres. Bush's decision did not prohibit use of embryonic stem cells for research. Pres. Obama's decision makes it so that federal funds may be used to conduct research on ESC lines that came into existence after the effective date of Pres. Bush's ban on federal funds. I thought Pres. Bush's action was respectful of the moral objections of a large percentage of the country (perhaps a minority) to using the tax dollars they paid into the federal government to experiment on stem cells harvested from embryos. I think Pres. Obama's reversal disregards those feelings, not only because they do not align with his own (if he thought about their views at all), but because he views the federal government as all-powerful and all other forces (for good) impotent by comparison, and also because the number of people who can claim legitimate objection to the use of federal tax money they paid into the treasury has diminished or will diminish to the point that the number is a miniscule percentage of the overall population, and as they are "rich" and therefore un-deserving, their objections as to how their tax dollars are spent should be disregarded anyway. WHEW! Believe it or not, that was one comment!
whoa, whoa, whoa, you're totally putting words in my mouth! All I'm saying is that IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE (ES cell research), where there are already billions of dollars being pumped into this area of research from private funding, the world isn't going to end if there is a ban on federal funds to promote more ES cell research. You make it seem like I hate science, want all public research universities to jack up tuition rates, and want the private sector to fund ALL research - which couldn't be further from the truth.
And unluckily for ALL of us, we have a president who has made a habit of saying something and doing another. He's lied way too many times to allow me to believe him when he says something. Unsurprisingly, it's politics as usual in DC.
Hahaha sorry Devin I'm sorry I see your point on stem cell lines, I thought you and Nic were saying the federal government shouldn't support research at all. That idea, to me, was ludacris, but just for stem cell lines you make a valid point. Hopefully lifting the ban will open up this area of research and we can start seeing results, I think legitimate treatments for things like paralysis, Parkinsons, and a lot of those kind of conditions could be in the near future.
OK I hate to be argumentative here, but there’s still a few things I don’t get. You maintain that abortion is less evil than run-of-the-mill murder (“I don't think it's as serious as murder, but still serious”) but yet still bad for some reason. Why is it still bad? Isn’t the reason you don’t think it’s not as bad as abortion because God basically undoes it by putting the spirit into a different body (assuming he has already done so)? If that’s really the case, then why is it bad at all? If I believed as you did, I would have absolutely no qualm with any abortion at all (as long as it happened before birth—so partial birth abortion wouldn’t count because it isn’t really an abortion). You’re pretty clear that abortion is fundamentally different from murder but my question to you is “why, then, is it bad at all?” If it absolutely isn’t murder then what else is it that’s bad but not that bad? Is it like involuntary manslaughter or attempted murder? But you see that’s a lesser form of murder, right? Every form of murder there is involves the loss of one person’s life (separation of body from spirit) resulting, in one way or another, from another person’s actions. Take away one of those general elements and you don’t really have murder (I realize that by that standard attempted murder wouldn’t be murder—but really it isn’t, when you think about it because nobody died).
Here’s my point in a nutshell: I don’t see how it’s bad in anyway if it isn’t at least some degree or form of murder. I guess you could technically say that it still isn’t as bad as shooting someone in the head (because there are varying degrees of murder, at least in our criminal system), but if you say that it isn’t murder then it has to be something else. Well, what is it? Is it a lower form of murder like involuntary manslaughter or is it a different kind of “sin” altogether? I can’t for the life of me think of any other type of sin it could be that isn’t some form of murder, at least from God’s standpoint. He knows for a fact whether there was a spirit in every aborted fetus, so for him the whole point about doubt is mute. But even from out standpoint, if you’re trying to justify it with the doubt argument (“I may have killed this person, but I didn’t realize it because I didn’t know they were alive”), that would still be like involuntary manslaughter, which is (correct me if I’m wrong) a lesser form of murder. I guess some might consider involuntary manslaughter to be fundamentally different, maybe that’s where you’re coming from, but we’re still talking about loss of life there.
And if, on the other hand, these bodies aren’t “alive” (contain spirits) when they are destroyed, then not only is that not murder—it isn’t anything. Who cares what I do to a dead body? If I go to a cadaver lab and sever a head so I can study it, is that wrong? Why? There was nothing in there, so I didn’t hurt anybody…who cares? Granted, there are certain things you could do that would be inappropriate (and actually against the law in some cases), such as displaying the body in public in a disturbing way or digging a body out of a grave without permission. What’s important to me, though, about that is the fact that there is a symbolic representation of life involved. Those things are bad, in other words, because people remember the person who inhabited that body. They are offended not for the sake of the body itself, but out of respect for the life they remember. None of that would apply in the case of abortion (again, assuming there was no spirit in the body) because the body has no connection to a life, so in that sense it would be like destroying a cardboard box. The only connection you could make would be to accept my potential life theory, but that would seem to take us back to dealing with murder in some way.
Moving on, let’s see if I can answer your question: “And I do believe God would put those spirits into different bodies or how else would they even get a body and gain experience?” I don’t know if you’re familiar with the King Follett Discourse, but I believe it answers that question. I should probably clarify, though, that it’s a controversial paragraph I’m going to use, but there is some scriptural clarification. Here it is: “A question may be asked—‘Will mothers have their children in eternity?’ Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow [in the grave]; it will still be the child, in the same precise form [when it rises] as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms…” My understanding of this is that he’s talking about the millennium, but I could be wrong. Assuming the quoted portion is accurate, though, God technically does give everyone “a chance at life” (or at least these babies who haven’t reached accountability—8 years—before they die) BUT THROUGH RESURRECTION, NOT RE-INCARNATION. I realize it’s an assumption I’m making to apply that quote to the unborn infant (or at least those who do have souls), but like you say it would be “unfair” if he didn’t give them “a chance at life because their biological mother had an abortion.” So if it is true (God lets people finish life after the resurrection), and if every fetus is “alive” at a certain point before birth, then God HAS to give them the opportunity or else he isn’t a just God (and would cease to be God).
I don’t know if you’re still with me, but this raises another issue. Let’s say you at least believe the part about babies growing after resurrection during the millennium (or whenever, it doesn’t really matter). You would, I would think, have to make the same assumptions about them that you do about aborted fetuses, right? God’s fair with children who die in giving them a chance to live after the resurrection, just like he is with aborted fetuses. Here’s the question, then: does God consider killing a <8 year old child murder? Do you see the dilemma? If abortion isn’t murder because God ensures that “they even get a body and gain experience” (even if, presumably, there was a spirit inside the fetus), then why would it be any different for children under 8? They’re not technically being denied any life because God brings them back in the Millennium…so does that mean Herod was alright to kill all those newborns when Christ was born? Was that not murder? The scriptures seem to say otherwise: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mat. 18:6)
My answer to that question is absolutely no. Destroying life is murder, to some degree. God may be more forgiving to some depending on the circumstances, but he’s never happy about one person ending the life (actual or potential, in my mind) or one of his precious children. That’s his job. He is omniscient and knows when we’re ready to move on…WE DON’T. When we presume to “play god” as Devin says, there is a myriad of unforeseen consequences we risk causing which God holds us accountable for. I realize that a lot of this comes back to the issue of when life begins, but either way I think it’s “better to be safe than sorry.” Maybe God treats fetus destruction different than infanticide, and maybe there isn’t any life in there anyway. Me personally, I’d rather not find out the hard way. I also think that the five justices who voted in Roe v. Wade will have A LOT to answer for to God in judgment day, as well as all those irresponsible mothers who had a privilege of bringing life into this world and decided it wasn’t CONVENIENT. To me that’s almost like the part in the Book of Mormon where everyone “hated their own blood” or something like that (I couldn’t find the verse). That’s seriously the way the trend is going, I believe. And I hope it’s later rather than sooner, because that was right before they were destroyed.
Jeff,
If abortion was akin to murder, why does the first presidency treat it so differently? Let's say you're in the mission field and you have two investigators. One is a mother who had an abortion, another is a man who lost his temper and killed somebody. Let's even say the second was not premeditated. In order for these people to get baptized, all the mother has to do is talk to the mission president and usually (happened in every case on my mission,) he realizes they are sorry and they can get baptized. Now consider the second, a man who killed someone else out of rage. Not only will he probably be denied baptism, but if he can it has to be approved by the first presidency. So that is why I believe in a distinction between those two acts. Abortion is serious, it is wrong, but it is not as wrong as killing someone already alive. Just like fornication is wrong, but probably not as wrong as committing adultery. If we believe the purpose of life is to come to earth, gain a body, be tested, and learn experience, how exactly would a loving, fair, just God not give one of his Spirit children that chance because another one of his spirit children exercised their agency to stop an embryo or fetus from growing in their womb? How does that make sense? It doesn't, to me at least. So I maintain my position, an embryo outside a mother's womb in a petri dish is not a person, and abortion is not as serious as murder.
Here is a quote from a talk given by Elder Nelson in 1985 about abortion.
"Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant."
Post a Comment