Tag Archives: pro-life

Apology Due to Michael Schiavo?

The Terri Schiavo autopsy results are out and nobody seems to be talking about them. Or rather, it seems nobody who was rallying the troops in her defense is talking about them. Maybe I’m just reading the wrong blogs, but the only ones that I’ve noticed mentioning the autopsy at all are those by folks who were supporters of Michael Schiavo’s position – and they’re gloating.

She wasn’t abused.
Her brain was damaged beyond all hope of repair.
She was blind.

In short, it seems she had long ago ceased to be a living, thinking human being by any reasonable definition.

I’m still waiting to learn more of the details before saying too much, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the pro-life community and Christians in particular may owe Michael Schiavo and his supporters an apology.

Thoughts?

Update 06/19/05: Obviously, around the time I wrote this post, the skeptics (of the autopsy) started posting. Here are some examples.

"The autopsy also documented significant brain atrophy, and the medical panel called the damage ‘irreversible.’

"This is not the same as saying she had no cognitive ability. " – Pro-Life Blogs

To say that would be redundant to the CT scans taken of here brain (source 1, source 2, source 3). If the correct interpretation of scans is that she had no cortical function left, she could not have had any cognitive ability.

"For me, the whole tragedy surrounding Terri and the people who wanted her dead didn�t hinge on how severely brain-damaged she was. She was alive and wasn�t on life support, and her husband�s credibility was extremely low, too low to trust his assertion that Terri wanted to die if ever severely brain-damaged. Forget about what you�d want if you were ever in the same condition. Take yourselves out of the equation."

"The way they killed her was appalling, and I was angry for a long time afterward. I�m giving you a heads-up. Don�t be alarmed or disgusted by the liberal media and liberal bloggers (and some conservatives, too) declaring that Terri�s wayward husband is somehow �vindicated� by the autopsy report. The doctor-induced starvation was immoral." – LaShawn Barber

If Terri Schiavo ceased to be a a thinking, feeling human being years ago, was it actually wrong to starve her empty shell to death? I guess that hinges on whether Michael Schiavo could have had sufficient knowledge to demonstrate that she was, beyond reasonable doubt, lacking cognition.

BTW, Smart Christian seems to agree with my suggestion that there might be some apologies owed. For the record, I haven’t made up my mind on this matter. I’m just not content with plugging my ears, yelling "La, la, la. I can’t hear you!", and essentially ignoring the consequences of the autopsy report, as so many of my Christian and pro-life brethren seem to be.

Stay tuned for another post on this topic.

IVF Morally Reprehensible

"The House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow federal dollars to go toward research on stem cell lines created from donated embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization [IVF] procedures."

"The bill is headed to the Senate, but President Bush has vowed to veto the measure to prevent it from becoming law."

– Annie Schleicherm, NewsHour Extra

I watched the debate between two senators on the news hour. The main point for the pro side: the "extra" IVF embryos would be destroyed anyway. The con side: Americans who find the research morally unacceptable should not have their tax money used on this effort. One thing not mentioned was the morality of IVF itself. Breeching this topic would surmount political suicide for any politician. However, every pro-life individual should find IVF morally reprehensible.

My problems with IVF:

1. Creating and eventually destroying some children to birth some other(s) (in many cases birthing more than originally thought (2-8)).

2. There are children to adopt. Adopt instead of resorting to IVF. [This point needs to be emphasized more. IVF is a very selfish procedure. There are countless children in need of homes. We should look to them before playing with petri dishes. – Funky]

3. It removes the love aspect of marital consummation (love and openness to life required).

How can we bring about debate on the morality (legality?) of IVF in general?

IVF Adoptions

"Fertility clinics across the country, according to the most recent data available, held about 400,000 frozen embryos as of May 2003. Patients had reserved 88 percent of them for their own future use, and they had earmarked about 3 percent for medical research. Two percent — or about 9,000 embryos — were available for donation to other couples, according to Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which collected the data."

….

"But the debate over embryo adoptions is just beginning to take shape. ‘There are very few moral issues on which the Catholic Church has not yet taken a position. This is one,’ said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, chief spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities." – Alan Cooperman, Washington Post

What is the proximate primary end for an embryo? Birth. What is likely to happen to abandoned IVF embryos? They’re either discarded or used in experiments, i.e. killed. Does the Catholic Church approve of IVF? No (cf CCC 2377). Does the Catholic Church approve of ESCR? No (cf CCC 2273-2275).

Now we’re in a pickle.

Which is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of embryos to be killed or bypassing the sex act so that those embryos have a chance of being born? I say desperate times call for desperate measures. IVF should still be regarded as objectively wrong and no new embryos should be made, but Catholics should be permitted to adopt extras.

Every child that was conceived by rape or fornication was conceived during an a violation of sexual morality – an act of sin. Yet there is no moral quandry for any Catholic desiring to adopt such a child – or any for that matter. Adoption in no way validates the sinful act involved in the child’s conception. Why, then, is there any doubt regarding adoption of embryos? Is the failure rate a problem? If so, why? Would it not be better for some to survive than none?

What do you think about this? Chime in. The comments are open and I’m all ears. 🙂

Update 06/01/05: Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has addressed this issue on his blog as well. He’s much more thorough in his breakdown of the issue and he gets far more readers, so I heartily recommend reading his post and the attached comments.

An Exchange on Cloning

[For the uninitiated: Theomorph is an atheist lexivore and Jerry Nora is a Catholic MD/PhD student with penchant for bioethics. – Funky]

A week ago, Theomorph posted some thoughts about cloning on his blog. Below I have the questions that he poses in bold and his own answers in italic, and my own counterpoints are in plain text.

Tuck in, and happy debating!

Continue reading