« What makes a woman womanly? | Main | My hope is built on nothing less »

Language, Death and Embryos

Today is the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Courts decision to legalize abortion. In these 35 years, we've debated the issues from the perspective of women's rights, the right to life of the unborn, the health of the mother, the personhood of the fetus, etc. Images of dead babies ripped from their mother's uterus and the use of ultrasound to reveal babies in the warmth of their mother's womb have served to bring about wide range of emotions that have benefited the movement for life.

When we think of these images, we call them babies, people, and life. But when you see the image of an embryo, do you think of it as a human being whose life is at risk by the hands of scientists researching stem cells or women/couples who are utilizing ART's? The truth is, we don't speak of the death of embryos, we speak of their destruction. It seems perhaps we have adopted the language of science as we speak of embryonic people and this may prove to be a disastrous move on our part.

I believe part of why we speak of embryos being destroyed instead of being killed, destruction vs. death, is because the image of embryos does not conjure up the feelings we have for people at the infant stage. We are repulsed at the idea of small, vulnerable people experiencing a painful death at the hands of those who are expected to do no harm. While the image is important in retaining our sense of repugnance, it may be that this image has become the basis for our prolife position and is preventing us from being a stronger voice for the lives of embryos in frozen storage and/or being sought for research purposes. Without the images to generate our emotions, have we lacked the motivation to fight as hard for the embryo as we do for the child at a later stage of gestation? I believe this is the case, and this is why some of our republican presidential candidates are getting away with an inconsistent life position.

As this 35th anniversary comes and goes, remember the embryonic life at risk in cryopreservation and in research labs. We shouldn't need to have the bloody images to invoke our outrage and sense of humanity.

Comments

Yes, Sarah, quite true! We, as a society, are so dependent on the visual. If it looks heinous, we have no trouble labeling it as such, but if it's a matter of logical thought, we fail to acknowledge it, or do so with considerable less fortitude.

Posted by: Ruthie at January 22, 2008 6:44 PM

Sarah:

You make a vital point about our - and I include myself - clinical response to the death of these individuals. Perhaps we have, as you say, adopted a less offensive language to assuage our repulsion and guilt, labeling it "destruction" rather than what it is: death.

It is not the humanity of the children that is lacking, but our own.

Posted by: Dr Mike at January 23, 2008 9:22 AM

I third that you make a good point, Sarah. I also think that part of what's behind the lack of desire to confront the realities of peril to embryonic people created through ARTs is the intense and deep emotional backdrop to the issue of infertility and desire to have children. The unspoken (and sometimes spoken) question is, how could we want to prevent people who want children so badly from having them? (In other words, the wishes of adults are more important than the lives of embryonic babies)

Also, because the embryo is microscopic, and because of the "hidden" nature of what goes on with creation, preservation, and implantation of embryonic babies, it is easy to think, "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to loss of their lives.

Posted by: Bonnie at January 23, 2008 11:32 AM
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.