Intellectuelle   Bioethics

Since there was a considerable amount of interest on the first section of my paper last week, I thought that this week, it would be appropriate to share the the next section.

The Terri Schaivo case in Florida earlier this year illustrates well this erroneous assumption that anyone can be truly neutral. This was made quite evident when several people quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals because of their public Christian worldview.

On March 23, 2005, Dr. Bill Cheshire filed an affidavit in Duval County, Florida which stated that, on the basis of his �review of the extensive medical records documenting Terri�s care over the years,� his �personal observations of Terri,� and his �observations of Terri�s responses� on many hours of video tape, Dr. Cheshire believed Terri demonstrated �a number of behaviors that �cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS.� Dr. Cheshire then proceeded to provide several pages of elaboration on these behaviors and concluded, not with a diagnosis, but an expert opinion that Terri was likely in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative state. He concluded the affidavit with the statement: �Where serious doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.�

While its true that the Christian worldview is going to in some way inform our judgments, this does not necessitate that those judgments are in error by virtue of the fact that we are Christians � as our non-Christian counterparts would like the world to believe. It�s true that both Christians and non-Christians can know something to be true, but by means of holding a comprehensive Christian worldview, the Christian has a more complete grasp of that particular truth because that truth can be accounted for epistemically. Another neurologist could have come to the same conclusions as Dr. Cheshire in that one need not be a Christian to have compassion and concern for the most vulnerable in our culture, but I believe one needs to be a Christian to have the fuller understanding why we should care for the vulnerable.

Immediately after Dr. Cheshire�s affidavit was made public, there was a media frenzy to discredit him, though not only him, but also anyone who approached the Terri Schiavo case and also happened to be a Christian. The assumption was that if you were a Christian, and perhaps more narrowly, a pro-life evangelical or Roman Catholic, you simply could not be objective about this case. And of course, the presuppositional motivation behind this view was that neutrality, pure objectivity, was even possible � that these people quoted did not have a worldview of their own.

In today's speech on the Senate floor, Senator Bill Frist announced his support to increase government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Though I'm not completely surprised he did this, I need to point out what makes his position far more repulsive than that of his liberal counterparts who have been endorsing this research all along:

"I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. And it's biologically human. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science." -- Sen. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader - Friday, July 29, 2005

Who would have thought that Republican, conservative, pro-life Senator Bill Frist would take a position far worse than that of the liberal opposition? At least where they stand, for the most part, the embryo is just a clump of cells and is not a person. But for Frist, as a matter of faith and a fact of science the human embryo is indeed a living human. What we can logically conclude from this is that Frist is ok with killing people if other people can benefit.

This is so incredibly repulsive.

This week at World Magazine's blog, my friend and colleague at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Matthew Eppinette, began the 2BHuman feature blog. Be sure to stop in and tell him that Sarah'elle sent you. :)

A couple of weeks ago, Martin LaBar posted a response to a comment I left at a post of his concerning the question, �When does life begin?� That original post quoted Norman M. Ford, a Catholic with expertise in embryology. I have another response, and, since it�s longer than a comment, will post it here:

I appreciate that Prof. LaBar has given his time and, as always, careful consideration and thoughtfulness in responding to my comment.

This is a quote from a webpage linked to in his post, in which he says of Ford:

Thus, both because a single human embryo, at very early stages, can become more than one adult, and because two or more genetic individuals can become one, he [Ford] cannot accept that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality.

I also do not believe that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality. Yet, as per my original comment, I still believe that the biological housing, if you will, of human individuality � identity worthy of awe, honor, and protection � is present at conception, if as yet unrealized, or only temporary. (I realize that conception itself is not an absolutely precise term, but it�s adequate for the discussion, I think.)

The Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco intends to recruit women to donate eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research for the South Korea-based World Stem Cell Foundation, which announced this week that it is opening a satellite operation in the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the Fertility Center's Dr. Philip Chenette, "women are fascinated by by the chance to help." Of course they are interested in the chance to help. The alternative response to the request would be "no, I'm not interested in helping people who are dying of diseases that research might prove to benefit."

Cloning and embryonic stem cell research depends upon the willingness of women to risk their own health and even their lives in order to produce eggs for research that they are told will help save lives (while, obviously, destroying lives - another issue for another blog entry). What real choice does a woman have to say "no" to such a request? The liberal side of our culture says that a woman has a right to make choices about her own body, but that real choices are often obscured by oppression, coercion, and power-mongering. Doesn't anyone else see how this project is exactly that and amounts to a pure objectification of women? The feminist outcry is barely a whisper at this point.

On Thursday of last week (January 12), my colleague Joe Carter and myself provided testimony at an Illinois committee hearing. As proponents of a bill to ban the funding of human cloning in Illinois, our testimony focused on how human cloning will exploit women, especially poor and minorities, in that it is her eggs that are necessary to the pursuit of human cloning.

The Human Services Committee of the Illinois General Assembly seemed completely uninterested in the facts. Sometime after Joe and I finished giving our testimony, the chairman began a comment with "You people..." as he went on to complain that people like us - I guess conservative, white people - shouldn't be worrying ourselves about the exploitation of the poor and minority communities...apparently that's forbidden territory. And at some point after that outrageous remark, the chairman attempted to describe the goal of human cloning, describing embryonic stem cell research as somehow creating a clone and injecting it into a person's spine (as one example he had for treatment.) Finally, a witness who offered testimony for the opposition of this bill insisted that eggs are not needed for human cloning, that we can get all we need from left over embryos at fertility clinics. Apparently she doesn't know that those aren't cloned embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics. It's a shame that this level of intellect is attempting to play a role of leadership at an organization called Protestants for the Common Good...but then, perhaps, that's all they have.

An interesting quote I found today is egg in the face of Illinois' liberal political establishment: "You cannot clone an embryo without an egg and you cannot get eggs without a clinic." This, from Newcastle University Professor Michael Whitaker, dean of research at its faculty of medical sciences.

Don’t underestimate the significance of the Supreme Court's consideration on the fate of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Here’s the problem: Partial-birth abortion sounds like an abortion, but it looks like infanticide.

Consequently, if this ban is supported, then late-term abortion rights seem much less credible, because butchering a living child fully inside her mother’s womb (D & E abortion) seems just as bad as suctioning the baby’s brains when 2/3s outside her mother’s body (D & X, or partial-birth abortion).

However, if the ban is struck down, then outright infanticide becomes much more credible. Since the baby is just one contraction away from full birth, why not give one last push, completely deliver the child, then take her life? Call it a “post-natal abortion”—arguably the safest procedure yet.

Ideas have consequences.

Greg Koukl - Stand to Reason

Our host Joe Carter writes today about partial birth abortion which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and will soon be made illegal.
He posts details of a cross-examination of Dr. Stephen Chasen, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, by counsel for the Government.

The discussion is graphic in it's descriptions of the procedure but worth reading if you can. it's also thoroughly depressing to realise that Dr Chasen, with all his ability, experience and influence would choose to be an advocate for infanticide instead of , well, something that actually helps people, which is after all what doctors are supposed to do.

Meanwhile on this side of the Pond The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there has been a big rise in the number of doctors who are "conscientious objectors". BBC news reports that:

Experts say the decline in the number of NHS doctors willing to perform abortions has also declined because they are able to "pick and choose" the areas they train and specialise in - and very few opt to carry out terminations when they can choose other areas such as fertility medicine.

Pondering the role of ethics in scientific pursuits over the weekend, I started to consider the issue of global warming and the associated fact that there are costs to scientific progress. Let me first say, I don’t buy totally into the alarmism of global warming, but I do see that there are real consequences to not protecting the environment. In fulfilling the cultural mandate, caring for the condition of the earth is as much our responsibility as is preaching the gospel or defending the life of the unborn.

So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.

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.

More to come.

For those of you who are just becoming familiar, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has recently made public a report on what they term "the medical right" which is essentially the scientific counterpart to the religious right. The purpose of the report is

to provide information on how the incorporation of religious views into secular policy and law is limiting medical services.

The report goes on to assert that the views of the "medical right" contradict "accepted medical consensus" and that to the degree in which they have influence should be cause for concern, especially to those who "value scientific integrity."

Equally disturbing is the disregard of the principle of the separation of church and state in the drive to impose sectarian religious tenets on people of all faiths and beliefs. In sum, the Medical Right threatens basic democratic values by its determination to impose its theological views on a religiously pluralistic public.

Also interesting to me about this organization's views about religious perspectives is that they fall into the postmodern quagmire of nothing being true. For them, the highest value is inclusivism at the expense of truth and religious perspectives, including any that they hold including their perspective on secularism, are just their own personal values that cannot be true for everyone. So in a pluralistic, yet democratic society, who decides anything? The last I knew, "we the people" have something to say, so the only way to influence "we the people" against fundamentalist biblical values is to silence the medical right with the doctrine of secularism, slamming them up against the wall of separation - or so to speak.

But embryos and children are patently not the same and the law should not treat them as such.

The above is stated at the Women's Bioethics blog, of the Women's Bioethics Project. Assertions like this are tossed about without explanation, and this quote certainly deserves a bit more attention. It's actually an idea taken from an article "Sex, Lies, and Embryos." An interesting piece, it questions laws in Louisiana that provide a legal status to embryos that is equivalent to that of a born person.

I'm struck by the use of the term "patently" in this quote, however. This isn't an argument from science, rather it's an appeal to what they hope is the common view among Americans. The term patently refers to that which is obvious or plain to see. The only thing that is obvious is the size differential, but that does not speak to the question of the nature of the embryo, merely its size. So the question that has been left unaddressed by this piece is whether the embryo is a life - a person. We know that embryos can be alive or dead, because researchers are not interested in dead embryos as they are useless. Something that also deserves differentiation is the difference between pregnancy and conception, and pregnancy isn't a prerequiste to the existence of a living embryo.

I recently submitted the content of this post to a local Christian college as part of the application process as they consider me for a half-time faculty position. I have no idea how things are progressing at this point, I'll be sure to keep you posted.

As a student of theology and evidential apologetics over 10 years ago, it became clear to me that a piecemeal approach to the content of my faith and the practical day to day was insufficient as it did not cohere with the testimony of Scripture. While Scripture captures a coherent, meaningful story from creation to consummation, it does not embrace the disorder that has plagued humanity since the Fall. And though this chaos is a manifestation of sin in the world, Christianity has not been immune to its influence of fragmentation. This fragmentation is not helpful to the believer in that it will often point him in a direction where God is not. An approach to Christian living that forces our life into fragments – the vocational and the spiritual as examples of the dichotomous secular and sacred- does not serve to give God glory in all areas of our life, even while he is sovereign over it all. This approach to living our lives before God does not represent a biblical worldview. Obviously every practitioner of his or her faith falls short, but it is my belief that the Reformed Christian worldview best captures God’s intent for humankind in all areas of life.

From Scripture, we learn the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, all of which are answers to the questions asked by man since the beginning of time. How did I get here? Why does evil exist? How can things be better? How can I be spared death and live forever? As worldviews representative of other religions attempt to answer these questions, they often find themselves falling short or borrowing from Christianity in order to avoid charges of inconsistency. We find secularism, a religion grounded in man, a not-so-worthy-opponent to the Reformed Christian worldview, yet one that provides a great deal of challenges to the transforming of our culture.

The interdisciplinary nature of bioethics has allowed for many different voices to enter the discussion – scientists, medical professionals, philosophers, politicians and theologians. It is exciting to me, as a theologian, to see how the concept of worldview plays an important role in many, if not all, areas of bioethics including biotechnology, genetic research, end-of-life care, and so on. While bioethics is interdisciplinary, no one is without a worldview, their own set of presuppositions, and theology is able to speak to science, medicine, philosophy and politics.

So the questions of worldview, whether they are Sire’s seven questions or framed by the influence of Orr, Kuyper, or Van Til, are especially relevant to the bioethics discussions now and into the future. The question of origins is especially relevant, not only for the reformed theologian who accepts that man was created in the image of God, but also for the philosopher who posits that we are here by means of evolution. For the scientist and politician, the question may not be about how we got here, but how can we create humans again through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) for addressing the healthcare needs of humanity through embryo-destructive research. Human dignity is ultimately what is at stake with the question of origins in worldview discussions, and the best theological response to secularism on these issues will come from a reformed point of view.

I do a lot of things on the train - read, listen to Van Til or some 80's music on my iPod....sometimes I talk to people.....today I was too tired to do any of that....especially since my iPod froze and I couldn't listen to Van Til on Barth. So I decided to spend the time in my own thoughts. Last night I had been reading Clouser's Myth of Religious Neutrality, so I was able to interact with some ideas as I dozed between stops. The essence of his book is that all theories are reducible to religious belief, and so the only way to not have religious belief is to not have theories. He defines religious belief as

any belief in something or other as divine. 'Divine' means having the status of not depending on anything else. (pp. 21-22)

This isn't hard to wrap our minds around. We care for each other on a variety of levels, and when a friend or loved one is sick, we want to see them well, and that may mean taking them to a doctor or hospital. It is a moral obligation within our relationships to care for one another this way because to do otherwise would be to neglect their life. And the basis for that is love and respect of the inherent dignity of all persons and is rooted in the imago dei. We can think of dignity as both something each person has, and also in the way that persons are treated by other persons. But no one gives dignity, all people have it.

So back to the issue of health care. Any moral obligation is dependent on something beyond ourselves, otherwise there is no moral obligation. Health care for all Americans is nothing less than a religious, prolife argument - I'd really like for the presidential contenders to call it what it is.

As human life and dignity continues to face unrelenting assault from the influences of secularism in our culture, I am thankful to know that this book is available. Biotechnology and the Human Good brings biotechnology where it belongs - in the realm of worldview and philosophy.

Biotechnology and the Human Good (BHG) is coauthored by experts in the field of bioethics: C. Ben Mitchell, Edmund Pellegrino, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John F. Kilner, and Scott Rae. BHG provides discussion on the philosophical framework that structures the dominant worldviews in the bioethics arena: Christian theism, Philosophical Naturalism and Environmentalist Biocentrism. It then moves into a discussion on human dignity in relationship to biotechnology, considering various views in light of the critical assessment criteria comprehensiveness, consistency, and credibility. Comprehensiveness addresses the application of the concept of human dignity, that it "covers all people to whom the term appropriately applies." (p. 65). Consistency refers to the concept of human dignity being able to "withstand the critiques it levels at other approaches." (p. 65). Credibility speaks to the plausibility of the concept, that it "accords with what we know about the present and what we hope about the future." (p. 65).

Near the end of the book there lists presuppositions for engagement. They are:

1. We must begin with the affirmation of a creator of everything. 2. We also affirm that the biblical account is the best guide to understanding the nature, problems, and ends of human life. 3. As all human beings-regardless of age or level of development, health, disability, or status-are God's imagers, each is worthy of respect and protection. 4. Human beings are also distinct from human tissues. 5. Human beings were created for community and communion, with God and with one another. 6. The fundamental problem of humankind is not physical or mental inadequacy, but sin.

The challenges presented by advancing technologies, particularly biotechnologies, are growing almost exponentially. Yet...we are theologically ill equipped to address these challenges wither individually or collectively. One of the major deficiencies lies in the fact that theology has too often become an arcane, academic discipline. We have forgotten...the Puritans, who understood that for theology to have meaning, it must permeate every aspect of life...The theological community must take up the issues we raise in this book and lift its sights from its own intradisciplinary conversations to an interdisciplinary engagement with medicine, philosophy, law, science, industry, and the lay community. For only in the context of a robust, practical theology of living can a workable theology of technology and biotechnology be developed.

Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C.
ISBN: 1589011384

Abortion isn't a religious issue according to Garry Wills in a LA Times opinion. If you read the article with a highlighter, searching it for fallacies, you will have a very colorful document when finished. Please check out the article for yourself, I want to address some core issues here.

First of all, this rant against evangelicals opposing abortion on the basis of religion is terribly amusing given that he doesn't quote a single evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, bioethicist, biologist, etc. Interestingly, he suggests that the relevant experts are

philosophers, neurobiologists, embryologists. Evangelicals want to exclude them because most give answers they do not want to hear.

Apparently his circle of influence is very small, he can't even find a Christian philosopher? And by virtue of his list of qualified professionals, he's left himself out, thus rendering his commentary null and void. After all, what could a historian possibly know about human dignity, when life begins, or about theological arguments supporting the life position?!

For a historian, he does make an excellent point about the issue of exceptions. I agree with him that a consistent life ethic would exclude making exceptions for abortion, because as he states, "the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived." I've called Sean Hannity on this before.

The heart of Wills' article is the belief that "there is no theological basis for defending or condemning abortion." It's curious that he includes 'defending' abortion, I'm sure the folks at RCRC aren't very happy with him on that. What Wills misses is an entire body of work on the topic of human dignity. Human dignity is the basis for respecting persons and is grounded in the fact that all persons are created in the image of God. This is the basis for the evangelical prolife position and Wills misses it entirely.

The absurdities of this article continue with statements such as this:

The universal mandate to preserve "human life" makes no sense. My hair is human life -- it is not canine hair, and it is living. It grows. When it grows too long, I have it cut. Is that aborting human life? The same with my growing human fingernails. An evangelical might respond that my hair does not have the potential to become a person. True. But semen has the potential to become a person, and we do not preserve every bit of semen that is ejaculated but never fertilizes an egg.

Is this guy serious? Sperm is a necessary component of fertilizing an egg (unless we are talking about SCNT) but the sperm on its own will never mature into an adult human person. Do we really have to explain these things?

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.

On Friday's episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, several young women were introduced as products of the sperm donation industry. In fact, one of the young women said of herself that that is exactly what she is--a product--emphasizing the dehumanizing nature of the industry. Two sperm fathers were also present during the show, there to discuss the many children they are starting to become aware of and have relationships with.

What struck me about this program is how the natural implications of the industry were viewed so casually, the emptiness of the children created by what our culture has said is a valid and even ideal family model--single parent and child. Regrets were not communicated by the mothers or donors of these young people, but the offspring certainly felt cheated out of a part of their own identity.

Is it really any surprise that the children of anonymous sperm "donors" are forced to address the decisions made for them by their mother and sperm father? We're not surprised--we've always understood the implications associated with reproductive technologies that make the marital union unnecessary. And Oprah and her guests didn't seem surprised--they too have understood the implications, but they are not looking for a corrective for the industry, they just want to change the rules of the game. In hindsight, each of us sees and knows that fatherless children lack a substantive piece of their life. And now we have to contend with the issue of childless fathers, those who regret the literally hundreds of donations many of them made at sperm banks and wonder where their children are.

It was also said on the program that up to 30,000 children a year are born by this manner of conception. As a society we've been terribly worried for our children with deadbeat dads, now our society is electing to make this paradox the norm--fatherless children and childless fathers.

I've made it a point to avoid blogging on politics (or politicians), but when a key issue is also unavoidably political, it's well, unavoidable.

What happens when a staunchly pro-abortion politician stumps for another staunchly pro-abortion politician at a pro-life Catholic university? Blessed beauty. Last Sunday (February 17), Bill Clinton was heckled by pro-life students at Ohio's Steubenville University for his support for abortion on demand during his administration. LifeNews.com and FoxNews.com covered this event in snippets, capturing Clinton's rebuttal:

“We had the lowest teen pregnancy rate since the statistics had been kept when we were doing that. And guess what? Without overturning Roe v. Wade, or trying to keep people all torn up and upset or calling them killers, the abortion rate went down almost 20 percent on our watch.”

And then this after more heckling:

I Can, Can You? Written and photographed by Marjorie W. Pitzer. ISBN 1890627577 (board book). Click to view a page from the book.

Although this book was mainly put together for babies and toddlers (and six year-olds learning to read), it's a great book for adults to look at and think about. Every page is a photograph of a young child with Down's Syndrome doing everyday activities, like playing, swimming, and even learning sign language. Anyone who doubts the human worth of such kids has a greater congenital defect than they, Peter Singer.

The title of this post might cause you to think that I'm in favor of a relativistic view of gender, that perhaps I see no difference between male and female. To put that notion to rest, let me say that I believe the opposite is true. There are obvious physical and biological differences that cannot be viewed relativistically or regarded as cultural constructs. For example, females, naturally, have the capacity for pregnancy, males do not. In the news recently, there was a story about a pregnant person living as a man, but this person is not male, she is female. The capacity of the body to function in particular ways points directly to maleness and femaleness. Even surgery, an attempt to be stripped of certain physical characteristics that are evidence of the maleness or femaleness, doesn't change the sex of said person. In the pursuit of transgenderedness, a male cannot contain the natural reproductive system of a female. The male, unsatisfied with his maleness, cannot fully conquer his gender.

Now that I've addressed what God in nature has fixed as male and female, my question is, is what is naturally male automatically masculine? Similarly, is what is naturally female automatically feminine? While I don't believe the physical/biological categories can ever be viewed relativistically or simply discarded, I believe we have a problem with the terms masculine and feminine. I believe in trying to define male and female through masculine and feminine we run into problems, even from a theological perspective.

The etymology of the word feminine dates back to the 14th century and finds its meaning in the Greek term thele, meaning nipple as it relates to function. I find satisfaction in understanding feminine in terms of a fixed anatomy with fixed function as these are absolute ways of understanding the distinction between feminine and masculine, even through every surgical attempt a person might pursue.

What I see happening within evangelical Christianity is an attempt to define feminine in terms of culturally influenced likes and dislikes that are far from fixed. While it is common for boys to like sports, it is not fixed by nature that only boys will like baseball. While it is common for girls to like cooking with mom, it is not fixed by nature that only girls would enjoy this activity. What is fixed by nature is that the cultural mandate to fill the earth requires both male and female, and that each has a distinctly different role in this act of recreating. The capacity to function in these ways is, where I believe, femininity and masculinity resides.

At this point, I haven't entirely answered the question, the title of this post. Look for part 2 shortly.

When we think about women's voices speaking to any particular issue in society, it's easy to assume those voices belong to secular feminism and not evangelical theology. This isn't to suggest that there are no evangelical women theologians involved in important areas like bioethics, but the numbers are low and have little bearing on what is referred to as "women' issues." This is a topic I will be speaking about next week at CBHD's summer bioethics conference.

Part of the problem is internal. Evangelicalism doesn't provide much space for the female theologian as she is almost always relegated exclusively to matters of the home (if she is married).. The debates over roles in the church and family limit the likelihood that a woman would enter into the theological academy, and as a result her voice is silent and she has little influence on other women in church and culture.

Feminists and other women's rights activists have a significant voice in public debate largely due to the fact that the Christian community is viewed as being oppressive of women, something that is not entirely true. But the absence of female voices can feed into that generalization.

Grounded in a theology committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, evangelical women can bring a voice of faith, reason and experience to bioethics issues. The experienced joy of womanhood within the framework of a Christian worldview is an invaluable resource for the church in ministry to women in church and society at large.

I mentioned in a recent post that fragmented thinking "has taught people to believe that certain matters are to be addressed by their doctors and certain matters are to be addressed by their pastors." In other words, an error often made within the Christian community is the split between the "spiritual" and everything else. Obviously, Christians aren't alone in this regard, perhaps they are taking cues from NARAL?

On NARAL, it states: "If you are facing an unintended pregnancy, it is important that you talk about your feelings and emotions with someone you trust, be that a family member, a close friend or a member of the clergy. It is also important that you consult a health care professional to discuss your options."

Did you catch that? You can talk about your feelings and emotions with your clergy--not the truth, but your feelings and emotions. The role of clergy in this circumstance is purely therapeutic where the role of the health care professional is about the facts, the "options." This fact/feeling divide is grounded in assumptions about the nature of religion, that it has nothing to contribute to the decision at hand. By relegating religious leaders to the domain of emotions, it deems them irrelevant to any discussion related to the fate of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. As well, it assumes that abortion is primarily a medical decision and that there are no spiritual dimensions to the situation. They have determined, as an organization focused on "health care," that philosophical/theological reflection has no place in discussing "the options."

It also needs to be pointed out that they believe in the myth of the purely secular, that they and abortion providers have no worldview commitments.

So you're wondering why this is news. It isn't to me, but for some, it needs to be clarified that the worldview being expressed here has a view of religion as fiction, or something created by culture. For them, life begins only at birth because that is when a person begins to be enculturated. The meaning of life isn't found in anything metaphysical, but in the influence of culture who has created meaning for itself. Until birth, there is no meaning, rendering preborn life meaningless.

My official alma mater is Boilermaker country in the midwest (Purdue), but I do adopt Arizona State University as a kind of "aunt" when it comes to schools I've attended and have a particular soft spot for (aside from the fact that I'm from AZ and ASU is the alma mater to my husband and sister and other members of my extended family and in-laws and great crowd of friends). Thus, when I ran across Steve Wagner's latest newsletter about his recent open air time at ASU, partnered with Justice For All, I was genuinely interested in the outcome of his encounter with students concerning the issue of abortion. I invite you to read it and think about the dialogue that took place between himself and one particular student.

I am convinced that this student's views are consistent with the vast majority of Americans on the issue of abortion. Most people (even former liberal Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry) are "personally against abortion," but cannot deny that the unborn are living humans that we can legally kill for reasons unrelated to medical necessity whatsoever.

We have come a long way to valuing the visible lives of women in human civilization. Isn't it about time we also valued them at the time when they are the most vulnerable and invisible--in the womb of their mothers?

(Steve Wagner is on staff with Stand to Reason, a Christian ministry that I would better term hard-hitting Christian thinktank or thinkarmory than anything else.)