When Adoption is Wrong

A dear friend and I had a discussion today about the Catholic Church's position on reproductive techonolgy. She had read this article and was surprised to hear that the church would be against adoption. Of course, the church isn't against adoption of children but is against embryo adoption. I understand why but still have some questions.

First, IVF itself. My friend was curious as to why the church, which places such a high value on human life, would be against technology to allow a couple to have children. When a couple loves each other, and wants to share that love with a child, and we have the capability to give them one, why would we not want to do that? This is a child that would be loved and cherished, and clearly the couple has the financial means to give it a good life (or they couldn't afford IVF in the first place).

Very good questions. Let's consider what IVF is. Wikipedia says:

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb, in vitro. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman's ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient's uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy.

Aside from the issues surrounding the morality of removing eggs and sperm, and bypassing the relationship and act of love between man and wife, it sounds OK until you get into the method. Eggs are removed from the woman, sperm from the man, and the eggs are fertilized in a petri dish or some other medium outside the body. About 10 to 30 eggs are removed and fertilized at a time. After two to five days, the embryos are "selected" and several are implanted into the woman's uterus.

The selection process is one were the embryologist choose which children will live or die based on criteria. Can you say eugenics? If you can select a child based on these criteria, why not add criteria such as eye color, sex, etc.? We're looking at the precursor to Gattaca.

Then there's the pregnancy rate of 35% and live birth rate of 27%. Of course, there is a high risk of multiple births, so we will want to further cull the embryos by aborting all but one. We've killed enough of our own children already, so what's one more?

Of course, the alternative to this procedure for infertile couple is adopting an already born child. That procedure is extremely risky and has moral questions, like...oh wait! There isn't any risk or any moral dilemma associated with live adoption.

So, rather than thinking of a couple who wants to share their beautiful love, the image in reality is a couple who is so vain that they would ignore the option of sharing their love with a child who needs them, create 10-30 children of their own, kill most of their own children, and risk the lives of the ones they don't intentionally kill, in order to have a "perfect" baby (where "perfect" means having their genetic characteristics). We're not talking about an act of love, but an act of supreme selfishness.

As for being "wanted", whether or not we "want" or even like a person does not affect their basic human dignity and rights.

Back to adoption of embryos. As mentioned, IVF creates 10-30 embryos. The ones which are not used may be destroyed outright or may be frozen and stored. After all, if the couple wants to have another child, it will be cheaper to use a frozen one than to start the process all over again. If the couple doesn't want another child, we can use these for medical experiments. Who cares about them?

Well, some people do, and want to do something about it. But what? One possibility is to "adopt" an embryo. Have it implanted in a woman and grow until birth. It is this "embryo adoption" that the Church teaches us is immoral. Again, one can ask "why?" Here is the case of a technology to allow a couple to have children. When a couple loves each other, and wants to share that love with a child, and we have the capability to give them one, why would we not want to do that? This is a child that would be loved and cherished.

First of all, we have some of the same arguments as before. We would have an embryologist "selecting" which embryo to implant, and we would be putting those children "in harm's way" given the expected number of them that would die. But of course you could make the argument that they are already at risk, when they might be used for medical research or destroyed.

My understanding is that the Church's position is that taking an embryo that is not your own and implanting it in your womb is a form of adultery. Yet, adopting that same child after it has been born is not. At first glance that sounds a little too much like making a distinction between a person who is born and one who is not. However, it is not the state of the embryo that makes the difference, but the intimacy with the mother's body that makes it adultery.

Since it is not valid to perform an evil act even if we intend a good outcome (the end never justifies the means), this means that a couple can't adopt an embryo as it would constitute an evil act (adultery) even if the intended outcome was good (the preservation of the life of the embryo). However, there are certain cases where an unintended evil must be accepted - in the case of ectopic pregnancy, for example.

Could one not make the argument that the implantation of the embryo would be an unfortunate but acceptable evil in order to try to save the life of the embryo? I would argue not, since the implantation could not be done without intention. Thus it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the ectopic pregnancy case. Hence the Church's term "moral dilemma" in the article.

I'm still not sure I understand this issue entirely. If you have more information or opinion on the subject please let me know.

Read More

Reproductive Technology

This is an intro to a topic I want to cover later, embryonic adoption. I know the subject has been covered (probably better) by others (more eloquent than I), but it's my blog, so here goes.

Most people I know dismiss the Catholic position on reproductive "technology" (abortion, fertility treatments) as being a "religious thing" and since they don't agree with the religion, they are absolved from having to consider the position at all. Yet to Catholics, these things are not a matter of faith, but a matter of careful reason, and we can't for the life of us figure out why anyone of any (or no) faith could fail to follow the reasoning.

So let's look at the issue for a moment. Without invoking God, or faith, or any aspect that is not totally secular. Let's use as our only guidelines science and history. The first part is scientific. An embryo is a complete unique human being. That is not a matter of opinion, or faith or belief of any kind, that is a scientific fact. By any reasonable definition, there is no lightning bolt moment of change that occurs from the moment of conception through birth that takes you from non-human to human.

The embryo is not part of the mother's body, nor is it a "potential-human" or any other of the terms people make up to try to defend a pro-choice opinion they already hold. All of those arguments are anti-scientific and are simply not supported by fact. Don't believe it? Get a textbook on embryology and find where it says the embryo is not human. For some web references, check out When Does Life Begin?, The Embryo as a Human Being and When Does Science Say Human Life Begins?.

So there's the scientific evidence supporting the Church's position. You could say "yes, the unborn is human, but it doesn't have rights." To which I will apply the second point, one which is made quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. They are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. First, let's look at what this means, then why it is an important principle to hold.

With all due respect to those who argue for inclusive language, "men" as used here means "members of the human race" (if you don't believe me, look in a dictionary). So it is saying all human beings have equal rights. A human being's rights don't depend on his location, his skin color, his beliefs, his size or ability. Very powerful words, and words which this country has not yet lived up to. From it's beginning America practiced slavery, although it was not in accordance with these words. Today it is the unborn human being who has his basic rights violated.

But the Declaration of Independence says "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Doesn't the mother's pursuit of happiness count? Yes it does, but consider that (except in the case of rape) the woman chose to risk pregnancy (even if she did not desire it, it was a consequence of her freely chosen course of action), so her "pursuit of happiness" has not been violated, she just made a decision that was not consistent with her goals (if her goal was not to be pregnant).

In any case nine months of pregnancy doesn't ruin your chance at happiness forever, whereas losing one's life irrevocably destroys all one's rights for all time. Those three rights were not put in that order by accident, but in order to reflect a priority. Without life there are no other rights possible. Without liberty, pursuing one's happiness is not possible.

OK, so equal rights means we don't kill humans, form conception to death. But who's to say that we should have equal rights for all. Suppose I say that some rights are for "people", not just "humans" and I define "people" to mean those who are born. Let's follow this thought to its logical conclusion. Someone (presumably someone in power) has to decide who is a "person". Since there is no logical, scientific means of determining what "person" means (remember we're ignoring the scientific term "human being"), the definition is arbitrary, and will come to mean whatever those with that power choose to make it to support their goals.

Could this happen? History tells us it can. In colonial America (and until frighteningly recently) Africans were considered a "sub-human" species, not "people" and thus not subject to equal rights with white skinned people. Thus, slavery was acceptable. In Nazi Germany, there were several classes of people based on how close to the genetic Arin "ideal" they were. Jews, in particular, were "non-persons". Don't like that system? The government would declare you a "non-person". Off to the concentration camps to be a slave, and ultimately killed. We've seen numerous groups up to the current day that define one group or another as being "non-persons" to justify genocide. It has happened in Iraq, Darfour, China, and numerous other places in recent history. Once we allow any redefinition of person in order to remove someone's fundamental rights we are on a slippery slope.

Thus, the only logical, ethical, moral and just choice is to be pro-life. Only by protecting the rights of all human beings as they are clearly delineated by science can we avoid slavery, war, genocide (no, being pro-life is not sufficient to stop these, but it is necessary)!

And thus is the Church's position on abortion, and in-vitro fertilization and most other reproductive procedures (because they all involve killing human beings). Embryonic stem cells fall under the same logic (human beings are killed to harvest the cells). All arrived at without mentioning God (oops!)

Read More

Why the Scouts?

I was a Cub Scout. I made it all the way through Webelos. In fact, my dad was my den leader in Webelos. Yet I never went into Boy Scouts. I'm still not sure why. Through the years that part of my life has become misty until I don't really recall much except certain events, good and bad.

My oldest son followed in my footsteps in this regard. His mother was his den leader, and like me he didn't cross over into Boy Scouts. In his case the reason is clear - his friends didn't go into Boy Scouts.

Now we move to son #2. He was thrilled to cross over. It was I who was a bit hesitant. I mean c'mon - camping every month - even in the winter? These guys are crazy. I went along with it and went on my first scout camping trip.

It was March, and it was cold and damp. We arrived at dusk and carried our gear a great distance from the parking lot to the camp site. His buddy arrived about the same time, and together the three boys who were sharing a tent (scouts don't get their own tent - they share with other scouts) began setting it up by flashlight.

Anthony, my son's friend's father, and I started to help, but were told by an older scout that the boys had to do all the work - we could give them advice or verbal instructions, but it was their tent and they had to set it up. And surprisingly, they did get it set up fairly quickly.

Anthony and I set up my tent, which we were sharing, and by the time we were done, the scouts had a cheery fire going and were running around laughing and joking. After "cracker barrel" (cheese, crackers, apples, grapes, etc.) the kids were sent off to their tents and the adults sat around the fire drinking coffee and chatting. It was actually kind of fun.

That night I learned two important things. First, that you could stay warm in a tent, even if it was freezing outside. Second I learned that I can out-snore the best of them (or so they claim)! The next morning I learned how good food can taste when you're camping.

My son didn't last all the way through that first weekend, but has since gotten "into" it in a big way. Not only have we been camping in cold or hot weather, the past two summers we went to camp for a week, and next year he hopes to be able to attend the jamboree. Of course it's not all camping, and we have done various advancement and merit badge activities together, from fishing to star gazing to 50 mile bike rides.

I know not all troops are created equal, but ours is great. The older boys help the younger ones and everyone is (more or less) included and taken care of, no matter what their background or abilities. Parents (of both genders) are welcome to help in various capacities and the leaders are an impressive bunch of caring and capable men. If you are considering scouting, do "shop around" nearby troops to find one that meets your needs.

I am glad my son decided to participate in scouting. The Boy Scout's mission statement is "to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." Over the past year and a half I have seen how scouting has helped him to grow in knowledge and confidence, as well as give us a way to be closer as father and son.

Read More

The Stem Cell Debate is Over?

These were the words of Dr. Oz to Michael J Fox on Oprah earlier this year. Sadly, though the science is settled, the debate rages on. Hopefully that can be changed.

I recently came across this article, which claims that Chinese scientists have created stem cells that are identical to embryonic stem cells. Here's the equivalent article form the Washington Post. So, what did they do, and what does it mean? This isn't supposed to be a comprehensive explanation of the topic, but I hope it will help you to understand the issues. For a more in depth discussion of the science involved you can visit the National Institute of Health. Of course, their information ignores some issues and is a bit out of date on some points, but you get the idea.

What is a Stem Cell?

You are composed of cells, trillions of them. Those cells are all 100% genetically identical, and uniquely you. However, most of your cells have special duties. Cells specialize to perform those duties by differentiating. That means that although they have the same DNA they express it differently. It like everybody having the same song book but reading different musical parts to sing in harmony. So instead of having all identical cells, you have a brain made of brain cells, a heart made of heart cells, skin made of skin cells and so on. If your liver fails, you can't take a kidney and move it to the right place and have it turn into a new liver. Stem cells are cells that aren't differentiated, so they can become other cells.

The hope of stem cell research is that we can learn to grow these cells and teach them to become other cells at will. So, when you have tissue damaged by disease or accident, you can regrow that tissue and replace the damaged part. By regrowing pancreatic cells we could potentially cure diabetes. By regrowing nerve cells we could potentially cure paraplegics, or parkinson's disease patients.

Why are there different kinds of Stem Cells?

Most Americans think (and have been encouraged to think) that stem cells are stem cells. It is unfortunate that the media often doesn't even report what type of stem cells they are talking about, because there are three different kinds, and there are very important differences between them. Let's talk about the different kinds.

At one time you were composed of just one cell, and all of the cells you have now came from that one cell that was you. So, at some point you had cells that could grow into any part of you. These cells are called "stem" cells, because all of the different kinds of cells stem from them. These cells are called embyronic stems cells because they are present in embryos.

Even today, if you get a cut in your skin you can grow new skin over the cut (as long as it's not too big). If you have a heart attack your heart can regenerate new muscle. The cells that can regenerate are also stem cells, but for some reason they can only grow into certain types of tissue. For instance, stem cells from your heart can grow heart tissue but can't grow brain tissue. These cells are called adult stem cells, because they are present in adults.

As I've mentioned, all of the cells in your body have the same DNA. That is to say, they all have the complete song book. So why can't we get the cell to look at the whole "book"; to "undifferentiate", or go back to the state it was in before it became a heart cell or a skin cell? It turns out we can. Scientists have learned to take skin cells and make them revert into stem cells. Cells produced this way are called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.

There are other types of stem cells, such as fetal and amniotic stem cells, but these are the "big three" that make the news all the time.

What's the difference?

There are drawbacks to each of these types of stem cells. The biggest drawback to embryonic stem cells is not a scientific one, but an ethical one. To extract these cells, an embryo, which is a whole living human being, must be killed. This makes them sort of like, well, Dracula, where the living are sacrificed and their "life essence" extracted to provide the vampire with life. Some scientist, politicians, actors, etc. would have you believe that an embryo is not a living human being, yet it is clearly human, or we could not use the cells, and clearly living, as we are extracting living tissue from it. In fact, just read an embryology textbook and you'll see that they are wrong.

Other scientists et. al. would argue that we'd only kill embryos that nobody wants anyway. That argument doesn't hold water ethically, as it's the same one used to justify the genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany. There is no ethical way known to obtain embryonic stem cells, and scientist, politicians - well, you know how - who say they will use them "ethically" are flat out liars, or completely ignorant of the facts.

OK, that's one drawback, but there are also scientific problems with them. The major scientific problem is related to the ethical problem; they are not your cells. If you attempt to cure diabetes by growing pancreatic cells, you are not growing your own body's pancreas, you are growing someone else's, and so you have all the problems of tissue rejection that people who receive transplants have. Then there is the fact that they don't behave like your own cells, and often go haywire in the environment of your body, turning cancerous.

The state of the art in embryonic stem cells is exemplified by the articles I quoted in an earlier post on stem cells. We see doctors struggling to find a way to keep the stem cells from forming dangerous tumors.

OK, what about adult stem cells? We can take adult stem cells from your body, grow them until we have as many as we need, and insert them back into the body, where they will happily grow into healthy tissue. There is no issue with rejection or cancer, because it is your own tissue. In fact this has been done successfully for many disease over the past years. The drawback is that adult stem cells can only become certain types of tissue, not any type. Therefore you need to take stem cells from the organ that needs to be repaired. Thus, to repair heart tissue, part of your heart needs to be surgically extracted. Also, it is not known how to extract stem cells for some types of tissue. So, while there have been many success stories (in fact, all of the successful "stem cell cures" discovered so far use adult stem cells), there's still a lot of work to be done.

Finally we come to iPS stem cells. These cells are the best of both worlds. Like adult stem cells, they are your own tissue. Like adult stem cells they are ethically "good". Like embryonic stem cells they seem to be able to become more than one type of tissue. So, what's the down side? The key word is seem. Nobody was sure if they coudl actually become any cell, or if embryonic stem cells still had an "edge" in that department.

What does the article really say?

The article I mentioned at the beginning of this post describes experiments done by researchers in China. They took iPS cells from a mouse and grew another complete mouse from those cells! If you can grow a complete organism from a stem cell, then clearly those stem cells are the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells, and they can become any kind of tissue. This is definite proof, since if the cells couldn't become heart tissue, for example, the resulting mouse wold have no heart and would not live.

Now this does not mean there are no problems with iPS stem cells. We are still learning how to make them and how to use them, but it does mean that there is now no possible reason to use embryonic stem cells for research, as they can be replaced cell for cell by an iPS stem cell that doesn't have the ethical or rejection issues.

Read More

Aborting Health Care

I know I am preaching to the choir, since all 3 of my readers probably know this better than me, but I'd still like to say my piece about why abortion should not be in the health care bill, and specifically should be excluded from it. So hear are my 6 reasons to reject the health care bill as it is written, no matter what your views.

1. Abortion kills a human being. 'Nuff said. But if you don't believe that consider

2. More Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. So, in addition to the above, by passing it our representatives are not representing most Americans, but going counter to the "majority rule" that has been used to justify abortion in the past.

3. It violates Americans' right to conscience. If passed, all American individuals and institutions, including the Catholic church, will be directly funding Planned Parenthood's abortion industry.

4. Even if you are pro-choice, the fact that it's a choice means it is elective surgery. If you think every women has the right to choose an abortion consider that every woman has the right to choose a boob-job, but should we all be forced to pay for it?

5. Even if you are pro-choice and believe that no woman should pressured one way or the other in her choice, consider that by funding abortions we are pressuring women to have them, since the cost after health insurance is higher for keeping the baby. Why not demand funding for pregnancy services and obstetrics to make thing on an even footing economically, and truly trust women to make the choice?

6. Let's say you don't care about abortion, your big issue is the economy. Do you think at this time, when we are trillions in debt, we should be dumping another ton of money, this time to "bail out" an industry that's wildly profitable? Planned Parenthood has (IIRC) $300 million in cash and over $1 billion in assets and we're going to give then an estimated $700 million our of our pockets?

Stop the abortion mandate now!

P.S. As Lavona wrote in her comments, there are many, many more reasons, some of which I was aware of, some not (like hers). you can find more here and here and dozens of other places. Perhaps the bill should be changed to "Eugenics 101".

Read More

Junk? Science?

I recently stumbled upon a "60 Minutes" (for those abroad "60 Minutes" is an hour long weekly news show) video segment from April 22, 2009 (my anniversary! Yay!) about Cold Fusion. "Isn't that just junk science?" you might ask. Well, check out the video and come on back for the rest of this post.

I remember the day 20 years ago sitting in my Bell Labs' office, pondering with my office mate whether or not the discovery would be confirmed. "I'd bet against it" he stated, matter of fact-ly. That way if it's fake at least I win the bet, and if I lose the bet at least we'll have cheap energy. I wasn't such a pragmatist. I really wanted it to work. My friend and I actually spec'd out palladium, so if the experiment were confirmed we could grab some before the price went through the roof and start experimenting with our own cells.

Alas, it was not to be. When the news came that results could not be duplicated, I was crushed. But some people didn't give up hope, and it seems for 20 years they've been trying to duplicate the experiments of Pons and Fleischman, with varying decrees of success. Now, according to 60 minutes, there are a number of experimenters who have results that are indisputable. Of course, most scientists still dispute it, and I would hardly consider 60 Minutes to be my weather vane for science. Still, I hope the effect turns out to be something real, although I'm not pricing palladium this time.

If there's any moral to this story it's this. We are taught in science class, and indeed even in history class that scientific discoveries are absolute and empirical, and that they are based purely on observation, hypothesis, prediction and test, using reason and logic only. The truth of science is it is filled with as much faith, doubt, and uncertainty as the religion some scientists spurn.

So, don't hold your breath, but you might want to look into deuterium futures. What do you think?

Read More

Sell the Vatican!

The other day I was speaking with an "ex-Catholic" friend about faith. There were a number of things we discussed, which I will blog about as time goes by, but one thing was his statement that he can't believe in Catholicism because the Pope doesn't. According to him (and others), if the Pope really believed in Catholicism he would sell all the billions of dollars of art work, all the buildings and land, etc. and give all the money to the poor and ed world hunger once and for all.

There are two aspects of this logic that are mistaken. First off, the notion that "I would believe in 'X' if you did 'Y'" when you know darn well the person isn't going to do "y" is simply making an excuse. If you believe you believe. If you don't you don't. If someone else's actions affect your entire world view, you have a seriously fragile world view, and it will just as easily change next week when someone else does something else. Either an argument is logical or it isn't. The actions of the person who tells you about it doesn't make it any more or less compelling. So right away there is a barrier of insincerity in the question.

Secondly, there are number of reasons for the Pope not selling all the art work and giving the money away and ending world hunger. Before going over them, let's make an analogy. If he cares about poor people, why doesn't the president of the United Stated sell all the monuments and art work and stuff in the Smithsonian, and all the buildings in Washington and give the money to the poor and end hunger and provide health care, etc. for all Americans. Same issues, pretty much.

First off, those things are not the president's (Pope's) to do with as he pleases. They belong to the country (world) and many of them serve good uses, like the stuff the in the Smithsonian (name your favorite place here) that is used for teaching.

Secondly, how effectively could the US (Vatican) conduct its business with no buildings, no staff, no way to communicate or educate? A certain amount of money, and yes, even grandeur is needed to be a "player" in this world.

Lastly, and sadly, all the money in the world would not end world hunger. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away (and often exacerbates it). Let's say you did sell everything off and wanted to use the money to feed the hungry. You'd be getting that money from the very rich, and then turning around and giving it back to buy food. the glut of art work on the market place would make it worthless, and the demand for food would drive food prices up so that you'd wind up doing nothing except lining the pockets of speculators. In a day, or a month, or a year, the food would be gone, the rich would still be rich, and the hungry would be hungry again.

Ultimately the problem of the poor and hungry is caused by the attitudes and actions of billions of people, and cannot be solved by a single act by a single individual, or even a single country. The solution is an economy based not on greed or personal gain, but on justice and charity.

Which brings us to Benedict XVI's recent encyclical, "Caritas in Veritae", or "Charity in Truth." Of course I've only read the first couple of pages (it is quite long), but I have read the blogs and heard others analysis who have read it. No, I'm not being hypocritical, I have started reading it and have preordered the book. I just haven't had time yet to spend reading it online, the only form in which I have access to it right now (and I hate reading things online - as you know I prefer books).

In Caritas in Veritae Pope Benedict XVI discusses how in order to have an economy that is just and vital it must be grounded in respect for human beings. It doesn't describe economic practice, more economic philosophy.

For years I've heard people complaining that the Pope can't tell them anything about sex because he is a virgin. The same people complain that the Pope is one of the richest men in the world. So now that he's talking about money, do you think they'll listen?

Read More