xfOur lives are loaned. God is the only one that has the power to “kill and make life” (Deuteronomy 32:39, English
Standard Version). There is no guarantee that our lives will continue tomorrow. James 4: 13-14 (Amplified Version)
states, “Come now [and pay attention to this], you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city,
and spend a year there and carry on our business and make a profit.’ Yet you do not know [the least thing] about
what may happen in your life tomorrow. [What is secure in your life?] You are merely a vapor [like a puff of smoke
or a wisp of steam from a cooking pot] that is visible for a little while and then vanishes [into thin air].” This week’s
topic challenged me to think critically about abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and stem cell research. I have posted
my DB posts on this document I thought gave a proper summary on my views. Additionally, will comment on each
topic.
Infanticide & Euthanasia
DB Responses:
Elderly cancer patient
Unfortunately, your mother is in a persistent vegetative state or PVS. This means that her body has suffered
extensive damage to the upper portion of her brain, and she is permanently unconscious. She is can breathe
spontaneously, her heart can beat regularly, she can yawn and sometimes exhibit chewing movements, but she is not
aware of her surroundings, has no memory, and no recollection of her personality. Fortunately, she is not in any pain
or is suffering. Now, if your family decides to keep her on dialysis and wait on the new cancer medication, her body
may be able to combat the cancer, but she will not regain consciousness because of the extensive damage to her
brain.
As Christians, we know that God’s Word is true. We know that God has created us in His image and has
knit us in our mother’s womb as stated in Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 139:13. We also know that God has the power to
give life and to take life (Deuteronomy 32:39, New International Version). Your mother’s body must always be
respected because she was, while on earth, the image of God functioned as God's representative through the body.
However, this PVS condition is total and irreversible, and it is up to you (and your family) to determine, if her loss
of personhood is considered death, and if you should disconnect artificial feeding.
Personally, if it were my mother in the same situation, I would agree to feed my mother by mouth after the
feeding tube is pulled. This continuation of mouth feeding, for me, is an act of warm, personal care to her. Similarly,
I would be willing to treat any pressure sores or skin lesions that ensued due to the awkward posture and lack of
motion of my mother. Although she is no longer conscious and is not suffering, this would ensure closure for me.
However, if you would like to keep your mother sustained by mechanical means, I respect your decision.
Physically tenacious grandfather
Unfortunately, what happened to your grandfather is called passive euthanasia and is not illegal. However, I
do think it wasn’t a morally justified decision. As Christians, we know that God’s Word is true. We know that God
has created us in His image and has knit us in our mother’s womb as stated in Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 139:13. We
also know that God has the power to give life and to take life (Deuteronomy 32:39, New International Version).
I do think the actions that were taken, by removing food and water, were to remove the burden your
grandfather had on the family and staff. If there was removal of food and hydration it should’ve been demonstrated
in a trial period.
But we know that God is a gracious and merciful God! Your guilt is not too much for Him to handle and He
loves you, nonetheless. He states in Matthew 11:28 (English Standard Version), “Come all to me who are weary, and
I will give you rest.” He also states in 1 Peter 5:7 (English Standard Version), “Cast all your anxiety on Him because
he cares for you.” If you feel like you have sinned and need forgiveness, 1 John 1:9 (English Standard Version) tells
us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Commentary:
Both infanticide and euthanasia come in two forms: active or passive. Both passive and active
infanticide/euthanasia are based on an to kill based on Clark & Rakestraw’s (1996) definition. Passive intent
infanticide is withholding basic needs like water, food, or treatment. An example of passive infanticide is the 1982
supreme court ruling in Indiana allowing parents to permit their Down Syndrome baby to starve to death after birth.
Active infanticide, on the other hand, is the completion of an action intended to kill an infant. Common examples of
active infanticide include partial-birth abortion and botched abortion. Individuals in favor of infanticide claim that
parents have the initial and only right to make the decision of infanticide, imperiled children are nonpersons,
imperiled children do not exhibit a certain quality of life, and it is more merciful to kill a child in an imperiled
condition than to allow for the burdens to be placed on someone else. Individuals against infanticide, including
myself, believe that the view that imperiled children are nonperson errs since it believes that actions determine
essence instead of essence determining actions; it is wrong to assume that non-life is better than an imperfect life or
that life and non-life have something in common to enable us [individuals] to compare them; and that it is
unacceptable to kill a child because they are a burden and will infringe on someone’s quality of life. Human beings
are made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6, New International Version) and should not be murdered (Exodus 20:13,
New International Version). Just because an infant is not fully developed does not mean it is not fully human.
Moreover, passive euthanasia comes in two forms according to Geisler (2010): natural passive euthanasia
(i.e., letting die) or unnatural passive euthanasia. Natural passive euthanasia is withholding unnatural things such as
an artificial heart or kidney machine from a patient because these artificial instruments can interfere with the natural
process of death rather than enriching the person’s natural life. There are guidelines, according to Geisler, for this
type of euthanasia: the disease must be irreversible (e.x., PVS), it should be a collective decision, and the patient
should be informed (if possible) and if the patient in incompetent, his or her living wills or power of attorney should
be accepted. Removing food and hydration, as an to kill, is passive euthanasia (Clark & Rakestraw, intent
1996a) or unnatural passive euthanasia (Geisler, 2010b) because it withholds the basic needs of life such as
hydration, food, and oxygen. Although (unnatural) passive euthanasia is not illegal, it should be considered morally
wrong. Why? Because it rejects God’s sovereignty over life (Genesis 1:1, New International Version; Psalm 24:1,
New International Version); it is contrary to the sanctity of human life; it is a form of murder and is condemned in
scripture (Exodus 20:13, 21:12-13, Amplified Version; Judges 9:54, 56, Amplified Version); it cheapens the value of
life, and produces guilt in the family and society (as depicted in this case study. We have a duty to protect those who
cannot protect themselves. Proverbs 31:8-9, Common English Bible) exhorts, “Speak out on behalf of the voiceless,
and the rights for all those who are vulnerable. Speak out in order to judge with righteousness and to defend the
needy and the poor.” Unfortunately, families choose unnatural passive euthanasia to release the burden the patient
has confined on them. Removal of food and hydration should be based on the burden of the treatment, not the
burden of the person (Meilaender, 1996)! Even then, the removal of food and hydration requires demonstration
during a trial period. Individuals that are conscious, although perhaps disabled, shouldn’t be deprived of two sources
of life because of his or her burden to their family or medical staff. Although in certain situations as mentioned in
the case study above, a patient may not recognize his or her family, if he or she is conscious and able to speak, he or
she can state whether he or she would like to live or pass away. Also, proper medication, such as pain and sedatives,
can be implemented for the comfort of any patient. Referring to the second case study, since the patient is not in a
persistent vegetative state and deemed permanently unconscious with no memory, personality, and social
interactions, removal of food and hydration (whether mechanically or physically) should not be utilized as a
mechanism for his death.
For me personally, only if a family member was in a PVS would I consider removing any unnecessary
treatment and mechanically administered food and hydration. Since an individual in this situation has suffered grave
damage to the upper cerebrum, his or her human connection with God and his or her personality, social interactions,
and memory is irreversibly lost. Even then, I would feed and hydrate his or her physical body as closure for me, that
I have done what I could to take care of their physical body until it is deceased.
Reproductive Technology & Stem Cell Research
DB Responses:
Low sperm count:
I would first console Matt and Kelly and tell them that their value to God is not dependent on their fertility
status. I would also remind them that God is close to them and listens to their calls. Isaiah 59:1 (New Living
Translation) declares, “Listen! The Lord’s arm is not too weak to save you, nor is his ear too deaf to hear you call.”
In terms of artificial insemination from a donor (AID), there are several risk factors that they should be made aware
of. McDowell (1996) states, “psychological damage to the noncontributing partner, pseudoadultery, confusion of the
child’s genetic inheritance, and a devaluation of the anonymous donor” were the current qualms about AID. Since
their relationship is strained and they have felt their privacy invaded by fertility specialists, I would advise the
couple on the possible risks and their consequences that AID may provoke if that is the approach they would
choose.
I would also advise them of fostering as a potential option for them. There are many children in the fostering
system that are not available to be adopted, but nonetheless, need a home where they can be loved and nourished.
Moreover, I would encourage them to pray to the Lord about potentially adopting children, not from the original
category they wanted or accept infertility as God’s will for them. Isaiah 55:8-9 (New Living Translation) consoles,
“'My thoughts are nothing like your thought,’ says the Lord. ‘And my ways are far beyond anything you could
imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thought
higher than your thoughts.’” Also, Romans 8:28 (Amplified Version) states, “And we know [with great confidence]
that God [who is deeply concerned about us] causes all things to work together [as a plan] for good for those who
love God, to those who are called according to His plan purpose.”and
Sperm bank:
Is it God’s will for them to take this course of action? I don't think effort equals God's will...all the time. Yes,
we should work hard for what we want, but sometimes we make decisions based on our own will and not God’s. For
example, it wasn't God’s will for Abraham to conceive a child with his servant Hagar. God promised a child for
Abraham and Sarah, from Sarah’s womb. But since God grants us free will, Abraham (and Sarah) decided to have
Abraham sleep with Hagar, and later conceive Ishmael. Although God, “causes all things to work together [as a
plan] for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to His plan purpose” (Romans 8:28, and
Amplified Version) and Ishmael was a blessing for their lives, there were consequences when they made that
decision against God's ordinances and laws (ex., Sarah’s jealously; Hagar running away; adultery). Similar decisions
can be read in the stories of Adam and Eve and the Israelites in the wilderness.
Assuming that the sperm bank is God’s will for them, I would encourage Barry and Ann to assess all of the
consequences, whether positive or negative, that is associated with keeping Barry’s sperm in a sperm bank. Could
Barry’s sperm be used by other women/families for IVF or AID? What is the monetary expense associated with the
decision? There are also several risk factors for couples deciding AID. McDowell (1996) states, “psychological
damage to the noncontributing partner, pseudoadultery, confusion of the child’s genetic inheritance, and a
devaluation of the anonymous donor” were the current qualms about AID.
I do think that medical advances are good when utilized for the right reasons. Barry is taking chemotherapy as
a treatment for his cancer. The sperm bank decisions can be a "treatment" for the couple’s potential infertility. This
doesn't ensure than Ann will get pregnant, but at least they can say that they did the best they could. Sometimes the
journey is better than the destination.
Commentary (Reproductive Tech):
Should IVF and other methods of reproductive technology be used/approved by Christians? My simple
answer: yes. However, it should be decided with God’s guidance. Since we live in a fallen world, sickness is bound
to happen, and it has. Many couples suffer with infertility and I believe that God has created medical experts to
bring physical healing in all areas, including infertility. Of all the alternatives to infertility, my favorite is adoption. I
have a HUGE heart for adoption since I was a teen, and I would LOVE to foster/adopt as many children as possible.
Although many couples would like to have their own genetic children and opt for IVF, surrogacy, and AID/H,
adoption reflects God’s love for humanity the most. Moses was adopted; Jesus was adopted by Joseph; and God
adopted us into his family.
Now between IVF, surrogacy, embryo adoption, and AID/H, I feel the most comfortable with the former
three and AIH. As I mentioned in my response to the first case study, AID can cause some problems within a
marriage. McDowell (1996) states, “psychological damage to the noncontributing partner, pseudoadultery, confusion
of the child’s genetic inheritance, and a devaluation of the anonymous donor” were the current qualms about AID. I
personally like embryo adoption and have seen families who have adopted the unused embryos from other families.
Essentially, the woman who has embryos implanted into her uterus is giving birth to her adopted children. I prefer
this method over AID because the adopted embryos are composed of woman’s egg and man’s another another
sperm, rather in AID in which the woman, who in the case study is married, is using her eggs and another man’s
sperm.
Commentary (Stem Cell Research):
I think human life begins at conception, the fusion of egg and sperm. Viewing embryos as nonpersons
because they don’t have the quality of life as an adult human errs because it believes that, “actions determine
essence instead of essence determining actions” (Geisler, 2010). Like Kyra, as I read this chapter, the first verse I
thought of was Psalm 139:13 (New International Version): “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together
in my mother’s womb.” That was my immediate combat to my argument against embryonic stem cell research.
Wagner (2008) refers to Robert Lindsay whom stated, “those who claim full moral status for the embryo seem to
regard gestation within a woman’s uterus as an inconsequential and incidental detail…the embryo must be provided
with the appropriate conditions for development to occur.” Therefore, if an embryo is created outside of the womb,
they are not being removed from conditions that might permit their development and therefore, the embryo won’t
develop into a human person, according to this viewpoint.
This perspective had me questioning myself: are embryos created from in vitro fertilization (IVF) not human
because they weren’t “knitted together” in a woman’s womb? Absolutely not; they are absolutely human because
they derived from a fertilized. Psalm 139:13 should be read within its context. Today’s technology wasn’t available
back then, so the psalmist referred to the only way back then a child was made.
With this in mind, the viewpoint I would most agree with is Thomas Shannon’s, embryonic stem cell
research is unethical. Like Kyra, I agree that souls are intact with conception. God knows the number of hairs on our
hears (Luke 12:7, New International Version) and has called us by our name and undoubtedly redeems us as his
(Isaiah 43:1, New International Version).
Moreover, there are other alternatives to embryonic stem cell research: extraction of cells from dead
embryos, nonharmful biopsy of live embryos, using cells from artificially created cell systems, reprogramming adult
somatic cells, and chemically triggering an unfertilized egg to begin dividing and organizing. These alternatives
should be implemented to resolve the confounding ethical issues mentioned. Additionally, I do think ethical stem
cell research should be both federally and privately funded with federal oversight.
I also agree with Mark that ethical issues will never be resolved. There are over three-hundred million
Americans, each with different values and opinions. All we can do is give our opinion with respect, with proper
evidence, and show God’s love, grace, and mercy. 1 Peter 2:17 (Amplified Version) declares, “Show respect to all
people [treat them honorably], love the brotherhood [of believers], fear God, honor the king.”
Abortion
Commentary:
This topic for me was the hardest. I have always had a stern outlook on abortion and the readings this week
had me question women rights. For me, there are two questions on abortion that need to be answered: (1) is the baby
human? (2) Despite that answer, should women be allowed to get abortions? I think that all babies are fully human.
I think that there needs to be an increase of contraception, sex education and affordable childcare. I think abortion is
murdering a growing human being, a human being under development. I think abortion is thought as a temporary fix
for a slip-up (in most cases).
Then the question comes, is making abortion illegal infringing on the religious freedom and rights of
women? Even though I think abortion is terrible, should I determine what others think and make abortion illegal?
This is the mind bottling question that has been haunting me this week.
Moreover, according to Finer and colleagues (2005), the reasons most frequently cited for having an
abortion were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents
(74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having
relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in ten women said that they had completed their childbearing, and almost
one-third were not ready to have a child. Additionally, unsafe abortion numbers are increasing throughout the world.
Of course, I think these numbers can decrease with family planning and, “reliable and affordable means of
contraception, improving the quality of life for the born as well as the unborn by finding ways to provide poor
families with food, shelter, and clothing; paying just wages for women’s work; developing adequate, affordable
child care centers and shelter for battered spouses and children; and providing thorough sex education that teaches
people to honor human dignity in their relationships,” as mentioned by Mollenkott (1996).
In an age of promiscuity, God is often left out of the equation. As I’ve mentioned several times, God is in
control of life and death. He is the Physician, Counselor, Healer, and everything we could ever need. He created sex
as a covenant between man and woman within the container of a marriage. Yet, autonomy and self-idols have taken
over the world, and God’s ordinances are left under the rug.
I think there are options for women that find themselves pregnant. Adoption is a great option. According to
the gospelcoalition.org (2019), "for every eligible child in the foster-care system to find a home, 17 percent of all
Christian congregations-about 64,000 churches- [would need] to adopt one additional child." Additionally, there
are approximately 2,000,000 couples wanting to adopt according to Americanadoptions.com (n.d.). It may be an
option for the expectant mother to, if she'd like, put her child up for adoption.
Although there are many situations in which abortion seems like the best option such as in anencephaly,
malnourishment and rape/incest, believers should be assured that God makes everything work out for good. Isaiah
59:1 (New Living Translation) declares, “Listen! The Lord’s arm is not too weak to save you, nor is his ear too deaf
to hear you call.”
Bailey, R. (2008). Ethical stem cell research does not depend on federal funding or oversight. In V. Wagner (Ed.),
Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 79–84). GreenHaven Press.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996a). Abortion. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications
(pp. 21–49). Baker Books.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996b). Euthanasia. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and
applications (pp. 95–102). Baker Books.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996c). Reproductive technologies and genetics. In Reading in christian ethics,
vol 2: Issues and applications (pp. 57–89). Baker Books.
Carter, J. (2019). FactChecker: Could U.S. churches solve the orphan crisis? Retrieved from The Gospel Coalition
website: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-u-s-churches-solve-orphan-crisis/
Domestic Policy Council. (2008). Using alternative sources of stem cells does resolve ethical issues. In V. Wagner
(Ed.), (pp. 57–62). GreenHaven Press.Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
Finer, L., Frohwirth, L., Dauphinee, L., Singh, S., & Moore, A. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions:
Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspective on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), 110–118.
Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-
quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Geisler, N. (2010a). Abortion. In (2nd ed., pp. 131–160). Baker Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
Academic.
Geisler, N. (2010b). Infanticide and euthanasia. In (2nd ed., pp. Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
160–180). Baker Academic.
How many couples are waiting to adopt? (n.d.).
Kimmelman, J., Baylis, F., & Glass, K. (2008). Ethical stem cell research requires federal funding and oversight. In
V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 71–78). GreenHaven Press.
Lindsay, R. (2008). Embryonic stem cell research is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical
ethics (pp. 33–42). GreenHaven Press.
Macrina, F. (2014). Use of humans in biomedical research. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible
conduct of research (4th ed., pp. 135–140).
McConchie, D. (2008). Using alternative sources of stem cells does not resolve ethical issues. In V. Wagner (Ed.),
Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 63–70). GreenHaven Press.
McDowell, J. (1996). Ethical implications of in vitro fertilization. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.), Reading in
christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (8th ed., pp. 63–68). Baker Books.
Meilaender, G. (1996). On removing food and water. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.), Reading in christian
ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (pp. 109–115). Baker Books.
Mollenkott, V. (1996). Reproductive choice: Basic to justice for women. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.),
Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (8th ed., pp. 26–31). Baker Books.
National Institue of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2019). Anencephaly information page.
Rakestraw, R. (1996). The persistent vegetative state and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. In D. Clark & R.
Rakestraw (Eds.), (pp. 116–132). Baker Books.Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications
Wagner, V. (Ed.). (2008). Is stem cell research ethical? In (pp. 19–85). Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
GreenHaven Press.
