« Missionary hostages and political bargaining | Main | On the virtues of virtual worlds »

"The Medical Right"

Talk2Action's frontpage article "The Medical Right: Remaking Medicine in Their Image" contains so much that it deserves a very lengthy response, so I will be spending the next few weeks offering an analysis of this and the 80 page document they have posted here. I encourage all of you to read this.

The article I am referencing in this post is just a lot of the same bad arguments that are usually lobbed at the prolife community. How I wish for something new.

Here is the essence of the article at Talk2Action and the 80 page document by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

Religion comes into the equation because the Medical Right operates from a generally unstated, implicit and unwavering biblical worldview and intends to enact its version of Biblical values into law. The “sanctity of human life” is Religious Right Speak for the Medical Right non-medical definition of the beginning of life.
Once again we are seeing people with a particular worldview, and in this case an obvious liberal bias, suggesting that only conservative Christians have a worldview. As soon as anyone begins to make statements about when life begins - or when it doesn't - they are engaging in a metaphysical dialogue that really goes beyond science. But at the same time, we know that at the earliest stages of development that an embryo is indeed a human life. ESC researchers don't ask for dead dog embryonic stem cells to study....they want living human embryos.

More to come.

Comments

Why do people object to stem-cell research, but not to in vitro fertilization (which is the process that creates all those 'extra' embryos that have no chance at life, in the first place) ? Seems like, if all those embryos are getting created anyway, stem cell research is at least better than just destroying them outright.

Just curious.

(FYI I agree with you about where life begins, just in a different place policy- and strategy-wise.)

Posted by: Heather W. Reichgott at September 18, 2007 8:23 PM

Heather, I'm not sure whether you're asking specifically Sarah or not, but I am one who does object to most forms of IVF, and on grounds that appear earlier in the process than the question of what to do with "leftover" embryos. I wrote about it here.

(Another option for their use, besides stem-cell research, is frozen-embryo adoption.)

Posted by: Bonnie at September 18, 2007 11:10 PM

Heather - this is a new way of thinking in evangelical bioethics. Perhaps you can say that we're "going to Rome" on this issue. Many in evangelicalism are rejecting most forms of IVF because of the risks to the embryo - both voluntary and involuntary. Left over embryos are indeed a serious problem.....embryos that die as a result of the process or are discarded because of any genetic abnormalities....that's probably a bigger problem.

Posted by: Sarah at September 19, 2007 11:39 AM

IVF is an objectionable procedure, Heather. I just don't think that enough pro-life people have given enough thought to IVF's ramifications before committing to a procedure.

Incidentally, I just posted my own blog entry about IVF, not knowing about the latest med politics until checking out Sarah's blog. I ask all the questions I've been wondering about. I won't retype them here, but you're welcome to visit my site.

www.talithakoumfiles.blogspot.com

*Letitia*

Posted by: Letitia at September 19, 2007 3:41 PM

Thanks for all the responses--now i have more to read :)
Heather

Posted by: Heather W. Reichgott at September 19, 2007 4:54 PM

The Catholic Church is against all IVF, as well as artificial insemination.

A good summary:

http://www.ncbcenter.org/em/0709-1.aspx

The most comprehensive statement (by then-Cardinal Ratzinger):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

Posted by: Atlantic at September 19, 2007 7:18 PM

In the abstract, IVF is really just the flip side to artificial contraception. The Church teaches that the marital act has both unitive and procreative purposes that should not be separated. Artificial contraception violates it by intentionally dispensing with the procreative, whilst artificial conception dispenses with the unitive.

Posted by: Atlantic at September 19, 2007 7:23 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.