Inconsistency and the Pro-Life position

The state of Mississippi voted last November to defeat Poposition 26, which offered an amendment to the (state) constitution that said:

“As used in this Article III of the state constitution, the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

The discussion surrounding this issue was wide and varied, and a number of arguments were offered against it. I won't go into the details of all of them (I'm not sure I could), but I will point to one interesting take by a Mississippi pastor, Stephen Wedgeworth: An Examination of Mississippi's Proposition 26.

What I do want to consider is something that arose as an interesting part of the discussion among Mississippians. It may not surprise you to hear that this referendum was contentious and divisive, but it might surprise you to learn that it was contentious and divisive even among those claiming a "Pro-Life" position. Popular (outgoing) Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, for example, spoke out against it because defining life as beginning at fertilization, rather than at conception (which I presume would be defined as the point at which a fertilized ovum implants into a woman's uterus), meant that some forms of birth control might be made legally-questionable by this definition. Others acknowledged that this represented an open challenge to the ethics of some aspects of in vitro fertilization (such as unimplanted zygotes being disposed of).

My response to these is, "exactly."

Of course, this definition would have substantially restricted (if not eliminated outright) the practice of abortion in all, or nearly all, circumstances, even raising legality concerns when the mother's life is threatened by the circumstances. Indeed, I'm fairly confident that the prospect of such was precisely the motivation behind this proposed amendment.

In reality, however, those who are consistently "pro-life" should already know that questions reaching far beyond the issue of abortion need to be raised. It shouldn't take the potential passing of a legal, constitutional definition for socially-conservative thinkers to consider the ethical implications of matters of a less cut-and-dried (at least in the eyes of the so-called pro-lifers) nature.

Consider birth control. Many who claim to be "pro-life" have probably never pondered at length the implications of many forms of birth control. However, many of the oral means of birth control ("the pill") contain an abortifacient, which is to say they contain some substance that prevents a fertilized egg (aka a zygote) from implanting into the uterus.

The thinking behind oral birth control goes like this: the primary substance in the birth control medication is meant to inhibit fertility by providing an artificial hormone which prevents ovulation. Secondarily, penetration of sperm through the cervix is inhibited by decreasing the viscosity of cervical mucus. In other words, between the two, it should be very unlikely that a viable egg would form in the first place, and if it does, that it should be fertilized.

However, in the event that these two both fail to prevent fertilization— or in some cases, as an alternative secondary measure— some oral contraceptives also contain the abortifacient mentioned above. Scientists will disclaim that the secondary measures are almost unnecessary; thus, they say, "pro-lifers" should not have a problem with it. This begs the question: why include the secondary measures in the first place, then?

Such matters are part of the reason why Mississippi Proposition 26 failed; it would make the legality of such birth control measures questionable, at least. But it seems to come as a surprise to many Pro-Life folk that this question even emerged as part of the equation. (For the record: our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have been far more consistent on this question than we protestants. In fact, it was a Roman Catholic doctor who invented the condom, believing he had found a means for birth control that was clear of these ethical puzzles— though he was castigated by the Roman Catholic church nevertheless.)

Or consider the husband and wife whose infertility prohibits them from conceiving naturally via intercourse, but whose doctors have advised them that they would be good candidates for in vitro fertilization — where the wife will receive hormone therapy to increase her production of ova, and these will be "harvested" (removed) from her, then fertilized in a petri dish with her husband's sperm. At a certain point, decisions must be made: of the 10 harvested eggs, 7 were successfully fertilized; how many should the implant into her? They recommend 4, as it is likely that 2 or 3 of them may not be able to attach properly to the uterine wall, so she would probably conceive with twins or a singleton. Even if 3 attach, though, she will then only have triplets.

But what about the ones left in the petri dish? And the one (or more) that is expected to fail to attach? Ethical puzzles abound about these. Had the Mississippi referendum passed, all of the other zygotes would be legally considered persons and would be treated accordingly, insofar as legal rights are concerned (leaving the doctors and parents legally responsible for the well-being of the rest of the zygotes).

Without the law, all we have is ethics. But a pro-life thinker should be clear about this, as well: the zygotes in the dish are still their offspring (or, at least by the most liberating definition, potential offspring), and they mustn't dismiss the implications of this. Doctors will sometimes advise that the fertilized eggs be kept and preserved, in the event that the first implantation doesn't succeed and the couple should wish to try again. But the implanting procedure is financially costly (not to mention the emotional strain that the entire process puts on them both, and the physiological challenges for the wife), and many cannot afford to ever try again. Often these zygotes are simply thrown out. (Remember, the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research advocate that these "left over" zygotes be harvested for research purposes.)

Some friends of ours actually went through this, when they faced infertility obstacles in their own family. Their solution was to go ahead and implant all of the eggs that had successfully fertilized (in their case, this was only 3) to avoid the dilemma of having to decide what to do with the rest. For our friends, only one zygote attached, and he is doing well.

As for the one or more that are implanted but do not attach: well, here the ethics is even more gray, because the same set of events occurs naturally on a regular basis. Through intercourse, a couple may actually have an egg fertilized that does NOT attach to the uterine wall, and therefore the zygote never becomes a fetus, baby, adult, and so on. We don't mourn these fertilized eggs, even though they may be people; we don't even realize that they exist. Does that mean that the artificially-fertilized, harvested-then-implanted egg is not an ethical concern? Not so fast: it's really more of a "yes" and "no" answer. Remember, that zygote wouldn't exist had the mother, father, and doctors never begun the process of in vitro. There is some responsibility for its brief life in their hands, and its brief life's end.

This is not to say that parents for whom zygotes fail to implant (whether those zygotes are naturally or artificially fertilized) are irresponsible. At the bottom line, there is the matter of God's sovereign hand upon all things, and there is a limit to the accountability that is appropriate in such circumstances. My point isn't to try to parse these ethical issues, but to point out a few things:

• Many, if not most, Christians have never considered that their claim to being "pro-life" ever amounts to anything more than being "anti-abortion"— when, in fact, the above issues (and others) are closely related.
  
• The question of life and viability is often appealed to by Christians as the irrefutable claim against pro-abortion arguments; what is clear, however, is that many of the most conservative segments of our society haven't considered this argument out to its reasonable end.
  
• Christians should not wantonly or thoughtlessly embrace fertilization technology on the basis that "God loves children and families" but most be more discerning about techniques such as in vitro fertilization and the ethical implications surrounding it.
  
• Likewise, Christians need to be more thoughtful about using birth control; not eliminating it altogether, necessarily, but understanding what is actually going on by its use and considering whether these things are ethically consistent with their positions.

Why "Expelled"?

I didn't see An Inconvenient Truth. It's not that I don't care about the environment; I'm even impressed with Al Gore's passion and presentation skills (had he honed these a few years earlier, he may have won the electoral vote!). I just don't care too much about sitting through a movie-length propaganda film from a point of view that I don't completely agree with.

Likewise, I've never seen any of Michael Moore's documentaries-- although I confess I've always wanted to see Roger and Me, his film about how General Motors abandoned their factory in Flint, Michigan. Moore's political worldview, so I understand, is so in-your-face that those who disagree can feel the blood pressure rising.

The bottom line is: why go see such films? While some are cleverly disguised as documentaries (which, by definition, has a somewhat raw and unedited approach to presenting reality-- thereby calling into question whether the films mentioned here are true documentaries), they are actually long propaganda pieces.

Here's my question: who goes to see these that don't already hold to the positions presented? Can Moore claim to have swayed thousands to his political perspective through Fahrenheit 9/11? Has Al Gore really turned toward global warming the attention of those who were skeptical before?

I ask because I'm curious about the kerfuffle and spin surrounding the recently-released Expelled. Apparently Ben Stein (you remember him: the monotone teacher constantly calling for Ferris Bueller) has positioned himself as the Al Gore of Intelligent Design, making an exposé-like film that reveals how scientists everywhere, who are sympathetic to an Intelligent Design (ID) position, are being fired or run out of their positions in academia and scientific research because of their belief in the possibility of ID.

From the trailers, Stein's movie looks snarky and humorous (at least to those of us who lean toward his view on the matter). Apparently Stein interviewed a few prominent Evolutionists for the film as well as ID proponents, and his use of their perspectives has cast question on the reliability of he presentation, for me at least. At least one of these prominent scientists (who viewed the film in a pre-screening) claims that the editing and cut-and-paste job done to his interview completely misrepresents his point of view. What is worse, apparently one of the dominant thrusts that Stein attempts to make in the film is that Darwinism was a prime motivating factor in Hitler's Nazi regime, and therefore Darwinism ought to be inherently suspect. (Good thing folks haven't drawn the same mistaken conclusion about Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition... oh, wait-- they have.)

So I wonder: what is the goal here? Do we (Christians, sympathizers to ID, those concerned with the lack of "objectivity" that comes with worldview-- take your pick) honestly believe and hope that secular, atheist scientists who doubt ID or zealously affirm a Macro-Evolutionary position will come to this movie and have their worlds turned upside-down? Do we expect that thoughtful secularists who are NOT scientists will be persuaded by such a film?

And if so, do we expect that it will happen through sarcasm, misrepresentation, and a handful of arguments wrought with poor logic (hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.)? And that actions like kicking out those who disagree from early screenings will advance the cause? I don't really follow what the point is, unless it is some sort of retribution for Christians and other conservative thinkers being mischaracterized in the past. Otherwise everyone sees it for what it is: a propaganda piece (as my friend Jon said, "Obviously it is propaganda, but it is *my* kind of propaganda :)").

One more thing: I want to take this opportunity to call on World magazine, and especially Marvin Olasky, to step up and do the right thing with regard to this movie. Over the last three weeks, I have been appalled by World's coverage of this film. The same magazine that called Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, "disgusting, pathetic propaganda without the slightest shred of integrity" (July 17, 2004 issue) and accused Gore's An Inconvenient Truth of employing "stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric" (June 17, 2006 issue) lauds Expelled as, "reasonable, radical, risible, and right" (April 5, 2008 issue). Ironically, Olasky himself (who reviewed Expelled) said that biblically-directed reviews should "emphasize specific detail, not abstract theorizing" and "should present a biblical perspective, not individual bias" (Olasky, Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996, p. 173). Marvin, your team of reviewers has been waffling back and forth between "Inconsistent Christians" and "Traditionalists" instead of pursuing true biblical objectivity (see ch.1, esp. p.20, of Telling the Truth).

When are we going to see wireless AC power?

Mark my words: the day is coming, and soon will be, when we no longer need wires to connect our electrical (and electronic) devices to a power source.

A few years ago, I was chatting with one of my professors at Covenant Seminary, and I mentioned this. (We were talking about the eventual plans for the "courtyard" space at CTS, which is now a circle driveway but eventually will be a garden/picnic/sitting area with green space and landscaping.) I suggested that total wireless-- not just "wifi" which allows wireless network connections, but wireless electricity-- would be the ideal here. He said it couldn't be done.

But it can be done. Witness the amazing technology that wireless networks are: where once we were required to have a telephone line connection (which is an electrical signal), we then transitioned to hard-wired ethernet connections (which are also electrical signals). Now we have fully wireless connections: somewhere in my house, my office, and most every coffee shop I visit, it's possible to connect to the Internet without the use of a wired connection.

We already have batteries, which are both freeing and troublesome: freeing, in that they allow us (for a certain period of time-- sometimes much shorter than we prefer!) to move about with our mobile phones, laptop computers, and all manner of other devices powered, before we have to plug them in to recharge. Troublesome, because, a) the battery life never is enough; b) we still have to recharge them; and c) eventually they die completely, creating landfill and ecological concerns. (Yes, they can be recycled to a degree-- but only some parts. The rest are discarded.)

My guess is this: it won't be long before technology catches up and we are able to "receive" electricity wirelessly. We are already surrounded by half of the signal, which is grounding. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to push the positive current through the air at enough power to keep mobile phones running, then computers, and eventually cars and houses. No more outages from downed power lines, and no more expensive gasoline.

The only question then will be: will battery makers and oil companies fight to suppress this technology?

I give it 2 years before the proof-of-concept devices are out there, and another 1-2 before broad market acceptance is in place. What do you think?

A new view on waste disposal

Here's an interesting set of artwork that depicts quantities of waste created in the U.S., with statistics. While some of this is fairly heavy-handed rhetoric, a good bit of it is illustrative in ways that just seeing numbers alone cannot accomplish.

It certainly brings us back to the question: what sort of stewardship are we exercising with regard to our world?

A new (to me) take on global warming

George Will argues that the human cost of global warming is "cheaper" than the cost of maintaining or improving the global temperature. By cheaper, I mean that the threat to humanity and to our ability to survive and thrive as a society. As Will says, an important question is: "How much are they willing to pay—in direct expenditures, forgone economic growth, inefficiencies and constricted freedom—in order to have a negligible effect on climate change?"

Will approaches the problems of environmental concern with a quite pragmatic vantage point, but I think what he underscores (indirectly) is helpful: there are things that we fail to consider when we look at such problems. Often, our solutions appear to be what is best for now, only to create new problems down the line.

Think, for example, of the problem of our reliance on fossil fuels for so many parts of life, but especially transportation. For many, the obvious solution is hybrid and all-electric technology to power cars. But the long-term effects of this may be even worse than depleting fossil fuels: such vehicles require enormous batteries that will, eventually, be disposed of; where will we put them? Is there a clear plan in place to efficiently recycle them so that we don't end up with even more waste (and fairly hazardous waste, at that) in our landfills?

It may be better, instead, to focus on utilizing natural gas (another fossil fuel, ironically) as the next step for fueling our cars and trucks-- it burns very cleanly, and we have it in abundance-- the main issue is one of distribution. Meanwhile, batteries can continue to reduce in size and our ability to recycle them will also improve.

A similar concern is with regard to electrical power: for years, environmental activists have asserted that our current (primarily coal-powered) power grid is a threat to our ecosystem, especially with more than 35% of our CO² emissions coming from them, causing harm to our atmosphere. Yet, the same activists have long maintained that nuclear power-- which has the unique ability to create incredibly large amounts of electricity without atmospheric repercussions-- is equally as dangerous in other ways.

However, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace (one of the loudest voices about such concerns) has recently made a bold statement reversing his position on the matter. Moore's argument is that we need to give a second look to nuclear as a truly viable alternative to burning coal.

Still, the long-term costs must be accounted for: though nuclear power plants are not the threat to the well-being of those around them they once were feared to be, an increase of nuclear power plants represents a corresponding increase of nuclear waste that must be disposed of carefully and safely. The question of what sort of legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren is one that we must consider. With continuing improvements in realms such as wind, hydroelectric, and solar power (the Japanese have made substantial advances with solar, in particular), there are better long-term alternatives.

And I have to wonder (and as a Pastor, feel compelled to wonder aloud): is the stewardship we are called to exercise as Christians best understood as simply improving our technology? How about simply reducing our demand for it? Driving less, riding in carpools when possible, and implementing alternative means of transportation come to mind when gas prices are up-- why not at other times? Using space heaters, efficient gas logs, and other forms of more localized heating during winter are great alternatives to simply turning up the thermostat. And there are surely other ways to reduce our collective demand for local, national, and global use of energy and fuels.

What are some ways that you can think of to reduce demand and improve stewardship?

Internet communities article

I've always been fascinated with technology, and over time I've developed a lot of thoughts and ideas about how faith and technology collide. A few of these thoughts made their way into an article that I recently wrote for ByFaith magazine, which ended up being called, "Looking for Love in a Few Wrong Places". That article, which focuses particularly on how technology and the Internet allow communities to be built in new ways, is now available on the ByFaith website, in case you're interested.

By the way, if you don't already subscribe to ByFaith, I would highly recommend it (and not just because I write for them)-- it is a good magazine that offers a helpful look at many diverse topics.

Stem cells and life issues

One of the issues that has confused Christians for nearly a decade is that of stem cell research. While many of us have heard the claims that "stem cell research will cure the world's diseases and afflictions," these claims are sometimes challenged, often unsubstantiated. And just as the issue was moving to the fore of public interest, the 9/11 terrorist attacks (rightly) took our attention off of it.

What is going on with the stem cell question? Proponents have long argued, as I mentioned before, that the key to solving a great many medical problems may lie in investing in stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they have maintained that only embryonic stem cells offer the possibilities that medical science hopes for. Opponents claim that, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a moral/ethical sticky wicket involved: in order to obtain these cells for research, a human embryo must be destroyed. Since many believe that human life begins at conception, this means that, a human life must be taken in order to perform the research. This was the state of the debate 6 years ago, and for a long time there was little change in this impasse. Immediately prior to 9/11, President Bush issued an executive order substantially limiting stem cell research, and that further ceased any progress in the discussion.

Fast-forward to June of this year: a bill (one of a series) was passed by Congress to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research, and President Bush vetoed it. At that time, he put forth the argument that he (and many other opponents) have offered before: there are other, better sources for stem cells than living human embryos, and these offer as much possibility as any embryonic cells do. While many proponents snickered or jeered at Bush's dogmatic take on the research, a few scientists (specifically in Kyoto, Japan and Madison, Wisconsin) plodded ahead with just such an effort.

This fall, they announced their success in two medical journals (Cell and Science): they had succeeded in creating human stem cells ("pluripotent" ones-- meaning they have the potential to take many forms) from existing human skin cells. What is more, because these stem cells are created from a human's own cells, they theoretically offer better potential at organ replacement, for example, because of a lesser likelihood that the organs will be rejected. And this obviously removes the ethical concern, as no embryos are required for this process. They declared their discovery an "ethical and political win-win."

This advance, however, is not welcome news to the ears of everyone interested in this medical technology. It turns out that other implications have emerged from this research, as well: stem cell research may not be the promising cure-all that many hoped it to be. Instead, it may simply contribute to the study and advance of existing cures for diseases, rather than offering exciting and near-miraculous new approaches to curing things like paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or heart failure.

Many still claim that embryonic stem cells still offer this promise. Yet the truth is starting to come out: as Paul Nurse (a medical Nobel winner) said at a stem cell conference, "Creating cell lines for transplant is unlikely to come down the pike any time soon. Opponents recognized that this was an overselling of the technology" (Newsweek, 12/3). Even if the strongest opponents are right about embryonic stem cells, that still leaves the ethical dilemma of the use of embryos for research purposes. Thus, this revelation (about the realistic limits of stem cell research) at best puts us back to the stand-off that has been status quo for the past six years.

Two things need to occur to reasonably advance this issue for Christians and others: first, attentive thought should begin to debunk the myth that "funded stem cell research = cures for all our ills." Until our world begins to understand this more fully, no profitable discussion on the matter can really take place.

Second, however, is the imperative that everyone, even (and especially) Christians, must begin to accept: the bio-ethical issues of the value and sanctity of human life, so core to many Christians' understanding of how we understand things like the abortion issue, needs to be explored more fully. We must not accept a weak, inconsistent application of life-value, but must realize the full extent to which this value applies to our world. It includes (but is not limited to) embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and abortion; but it also includes questions about elder care, certain fertility efforts, and even warfare. From my perspective, we (as a Church) have been careless about thinking through the consistent application of our claims to be "pro-life" in the big-picture sense.

Sources:
"Where they stand" by Richard Ostling, in World magazine, December 15, 2007 issue.
"Reality Check on an Embryonic Debate" by Sharon Begley, in Newsweek magazine, December 3, 2007 issue.
"Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin" by Joe Palca, on All Things Considered, November 20, 2007 episode.