Faith Unexamined
from the keep-it-simple-stupid
dept.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, I guess. But if
faith is never examined, mulled over, and prayed about, then it's really not
faith at all. We should bring our reasoning under examination, and perhaps even
to the point of doubt. However, many of us avoid any examination because it
makes us uncomfortable. To avoid this is to be ignorant of one's own
beliefs.
For example, someone who is
absolutely against abortion and embryonic-stemcell-research (ESR) cannot be in
favor of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) without heavy examination and
justification, which in my opinion is a dubious and self-serving
process.
Or, to put it another way, it
is difficult to be critical of abortion and ESR and simultaneously defend IVF.
I would say it is better to be silent in regards to all three than vocal about
one or two of them. For many, the desire for having a child is so overwhelming
that truth becomes just a pest to
ignore.
Christians who won't examine
the facts aren't exercising faith in the providence of God. This allows them to
put their conscience at ease because they think ignorance is bliss. In reality,
they are just hardening their
hearts.
Here are some examples of how
Christians justify away their faith in the providence of God and instead place
their faith in
IVF...
Problem
#1: Many methods of IVF produce extra embryos.
Christians in favor of IVF justify this objection in the following
ways:
1. Keep the number of embryos produced low so
that the surplus can be more easily mitigated.
2. Donate extra embryos (if any) to another
trustworthy couple (if any).
The
problem with response #1 is that a low number of embryos reduces the chances of
pregnancy. This results in increased risk and cost. It also doesn't completely
address all of the issues (see below). Another problem is that many clinics in
the U.S. don't perform the procedure exactly in this way. Doctors are usually
successful in convincing the couples to go ahead and fertilize extra embryos
just in case.
The problem with response
#2 is that no one can guarantee the adoptive couple will be as "ethical" with
the embryos as the donor couple. Besides, isn't this a form of unregulated
adoption? Could you really give away your flesh and blood so freely and not
wonder about their fate for the rest of your
life?
Problem
#2: All methods of IVF are selective with
embryos. Usually, if an embryo appears unhealthy, it is not implanted.
Christians in favor of IVF justify this objection in the following
ways:
1. Go ahead and implant them all anyway and let
God sort it out for them.
2. Trust the doctor's expertise to tell which
embryos will definitely survive and which ones definitely won't (I know this is
a straw-man argument, but it helps to illustrate the lengths people will go to
justify anything).The problem with
response #1 is that just because an embryo appears unhealthy doesn't mean God
will take care of it by terminating it for you. Not only that, but there is one
birth complication that can develop from IVF that cannot develop by the natural
process. That complication is known as "blame." If a child is born with birth
defects, the child may feel justified in blaming his or her parents for the
birth defects (see example). Such a rationale isn't hard to empathize with, from the child's
perspective, because the parents had direct involvement in the events that lead
up to the defects.The problem with
response #2 is obvious. Doctors make mistakes and can't judge the inviability
an embryo as well as we'd like to think they can. The doctors may deem an
embryo inviable when in fact viability cannot truly be determined. They're only
guessing. The Hippocratic Oath is in real conflict here. On the one hand, to
do no harm would be to go ahead and implant the embryo as opposed to destroying
it, but that could do harm by causing a defective birth. It's quite a
quandary.Problem
#3: When God opens a womb which many times
results an unwanted pregnancy, the anti-abortion crowd tells the expectant
mother that it was God's decision, and who are we to second guess God? However,
when God closes a womb, God's decision does not seem to apply. Christians in
favor if IVF justify this objection in the following ways:
1. God helps those who help
themselves.
2. The need to have a child is just too
strong.The problem with response #1 is
that it's just wrong. God doesn't need our help, especially with this task.
And why doesn't this justification also apply to
abortion?The problem with response #2
is that childbearing isn't a need, it's a desire. It won't result in death if a
woman cannot conceive. Placing anything above God's will is
sin.Epilogue:If
you're not a Christian and are shocked at these views, don't worry; these views
really don't apply to you. As far as Christians are concerned they actually do
apply to you, but in a very different way. You don't believe in this doctrine,
so there's no conflict. I don't mean that truth is relative because it's not.
My point is that Christians are commanded not to judge people outside the
church, just those inside (see I Cor. 5:9-13). My experience is that Christians
tend to reverse this, which is another example of faith
unexamined.---Search
referrals to this page: IVF
extra embryos, ivf
article, christian
view on ivf, christians
& IVF, extra
embryos from ivf, ivf
objections faith, is
IVF and christian beliefs, christians
and IVF, "faith
unexamined", ivf
and christians, Christians
IVF, Christians
views of IVF, should
christians do IVF, christian
views on ivf, Christian
beliefs on IVF, Christian
views on IVF, christians
views on ivf, IVF
low response, christians
and IVF, ivf
problem, Christian
Views on I.V.F, "christian"
"ivf", extra
embryos, ivf
& god Did I change your
mind about IVF? Yes
| No
Posted: Friday - August 26, 2005 at 02:53 PM |
Permalink |
|
|
|
|
|