Embryonic Hypocrisy

[S.A.Laffin]

Embryonic Hypocrisy

This happens to be an issue which has bothered me for quite some time, however I have yet to discuss it or write on it, until now. There is a gigantic gap in the logic of many evangelical Christians on the issue of biochemistry. Many evangelicals are in adamant opposition to embryonic stem cell research. They are in opposition to these because they believe that life begins at conception. They believe that life begins when a single sperm enters an egg, life has begun. Since, embryonic stem cell research destroys fertilized eggs they are destroying life.

However, almost all evangelical Christians are content with in vitro fertilization. The process of in vitro fertilization results in an excess of fertilized eggs. These eggs are either frozen, destroyed or given over for scientific experiments. In vitro fertilization destroys more fertilized eggs each year than stem cell research. Yet, there are no protests, or "special" radio programs, or bills being pushed by evangelicals in opposition to in vitro fertilization.

In this post I'm neither supporting nor opposing in vitro fertilization or embryonic stem cell research. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy widely found among evangelicals. This embryonic hypocrisy should not be. People should either hold to the position that life begins at conception and therefore embryonic stem cell research AND in vitro fertilization are immoral. Or, they should hold to the position that life begins some point after conception and therefore embryonic stem cell research AND in vitro fertilization are morally acceptable. It is inconsistent to claim that many fertilized eggs can be destroyed so that a 20-50% chance of a woman carrying and giving birth to a child, is moral; but experimenting on fertilized eggs with the hope of keeping people alive, is immoral. With hypocrisy like this, it is no wonder that people stereotype evangelicals as a bunch on brainwashed ignorant people.

(Taken from God Worshippers, with permission from author)

[Guest]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:1-2

However, almost all evangelical Christians are content with in vitro fertilization. The process of in vitro fertilization results in an excess of fertilized eggs. These eggs are either frozen, destroyed or given over for scientific experiments. In vitro fertilization destroys more fertilized eggs each year than stem cell research. Yet, there are no protests, or "special" radio programs, or bills being pushed by evangelicals in opposition to in vitro fertilization.

Dear Brother

Your Blog Is Interesting And Thought Provoking.

Thank You For Sharing It.

Both Christian Folk And Unbelievers Alike Rejoice When A Child Is Born.

In Vitro Fertilization And The Birth Of A Wanted Child Is A Jubilant Miracle Indeed.

A Birth That Was (Barring God's Hand) Impossible For Some Couples Before This Wonderful Medical Development.

Christian Couples And Unbelievers Alike Often Suffer From Loss When These "Extra" Embryos Are Killed.

In Vitro Fertilization And The Destruction Of Ones Own Living Unborn Children Is A Heart Breaker Felt By Many Believers And Unbelievers Alike.

The Desire To Prove A Point By Some Advocates May Needlessly Add To The Suffering Of Baby Loving Couples.

An Example Of Another Addressing This Issue... http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/sweeney.htm

I Find Your Blog Refreshingly Lacking In Condemnation Of The Mothers And Fathers Living With This Hard Choice.

Evangelical Christians Have Broad Enough Shoulders And Have Been Forgiven Of Enough Sins That The Use Of Us To Make A Point Is A Non-Issue.

After All, I Am Convinced That All Wisdom Starts With.....

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" 1 Corinthians 2:2

You Go Bro!

Post Early, Post Often.

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest LadyC]

hmmm, very thought provoking. i think maybe many people have blinders on when it comes to IVF, not consciously acknowledging that mass eggs are fertilized. i mean, we KNOW, but we conveniently ignore.

i'm going to share my personal opinions on the two of them, and my sincere apologies are going out right now to those who i might offend, because i'm sure my opinions will do just that... i don't think any less of someone who has had IVF.

aside from the life begins at conception argument, i have other reasons for thinking both procedures are ill-advised. when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, the argument is scientific in nature. while cord blood and adult stem cells have been found to effectively treat or cure nearly 100 diseases, with all the years of research using embryonic stem cells, not a single positive outcome has been found to date. in fact, unlike other stem cells, embryonic ones have been proven thus far to often cause malignant tumors, and to have a high rate of rejection after transplant.

if adult stem cells can be harvested from within our own bodies without any fear of rejection should we need them, and adult stem cells from one's own body has been proven to cure or effectively treat seventy two different diseases and counting, everything from diabetes to alzeheimer's to heart valve replacement to blindness, why is it even necessary to continue trying to use embryonic stem cells which have proven thus far to be high risk?

first do no harm...

now, about IVF... this one may ruffle some feathers, but there are so many children who are not wanted, who long for a loving family. i know adopting an infant can be a lengthy and expensive prospect, but what about a toddler? what about a pre-schooler? what about all those little kids who are past the initial newborn-cuteness? those who are unlikely to ever be placed in a permanent home... those who are likely to grow up feeling unloved, unwanted, and who stand a good chance of becoming a burden on our prison systems because of the lack of stability in their youth and the anger, resentment and low self esteem that comes with it? with so many children who need loving parents, parents who will raise them according to scripture, i just think that the equally (maybe more) expensive and lengthy process involved in IVF is the ultimate in conceit. people want their OWN baby. they want a child born with their own genetic material. to me it is highly selfish to pass up the opportunity to raise a child just because we didn't conceive it ourselves.

[nebula]

It is a valid point you bring up.

I don't know about all Evangelicals, but I, unfortunately, had an ignorance of this issue. I was young when in vitro was developed, and I was not involved in any debates on the issue, so my knowledge of what occurred was limited. The only controversy I had heard was over the "playing God" issue. The point about the excess fertilized eggs was not brought up; at least, I do not recall seeing any mention of it. So, I sadly did not know of this terrible fate given these children.

I first heard of this, to my recollection, a while back in a debate here. Until that point, I had been made convinced that the initial uproar against in vitro was all "pharisitical." But having learned this point, I most definitely do not support in vitro.

[Iryssa]

They're discovering more places to get good stem cells from all the time. Cord blood, for instance, contains stem cells just as useful as embryonic stem cells. I don't think embryonic stem cell research is necessary anymore...maybe cheaper in dollars than getting stem cells from other places, but more expensive in human life.

[Guest LadyC]

I strongly promote both IVF and Stem Cell Research.

The benefits are too great to cast aside.

exactly WHAT benefits have been found to embryonic stem cells? just curious, since all the research so far has proven that the use of embryonic stem cells almost always results in great risk and has never yet produced a single positive result.

[Guest LadyC]

I strongly promote both IVF and Stem Cell Research.

The benefits are too great to cast aside.

exactly WHAT benefits have been found to embryonic stem cells? just curious, since all the research so far has proven that the use of embryonic stem cells almost always results in great risk and has never yet produced a single positive result.

Actually, you're only half right. While there have been no stable conclusions as to the benefits of using stem cells to cure disease or help informaty, the research itself is a benefit to society. Stem cells have been proven on a small level to be lightyears more beneficial than medicinal treatment. Research, trial and error, thats what it takes to find cures and to find support. If we have the information and technology available to us, why not use it? It could do a lot of good one day. That's how any great treatment comes to light, research and study and experiment. Epiderals, prozac, ambien, viagra... all of these had to be tested and tried.

I completely understand the difference between epiderals and using embryonic stem cells, my point is that in the end, good came of it, and now over 50% of pregnant women are using epiderals. I dont necessarily support the use of embryonic stem cells as a long term thing, but i think stem cell research should be a government funded research program.

but this isn't about stem cells in general, this is about embryonic ones. and now that science has proven that embryonic ones impose a high risk, there should be no question as to whether to keep doing research with them. this is a no-brainer.... we should drop ANY further research with embryonic stem cells.

and i wasn't just half right, i was entirely right... because i was very careful to distinguish between embryonic and other forms of stem cell research in the first response i made in this thread. i suspect you didn't see that post.

[Guest LadyC]

google it. you'll find it. as i mentioned earlier, all attempts to use embryonic stem cells have indicated a high risk of rejection, and a high risk of causing malignant tumors... whereas no such risk levels have been associated with other forms of stem cells. i promise you, i didn't just dream this stuff up... couldn't have, i'm an insomniac! i don't sleep enough to dream up something that important. anyway, google embryonic stem cell risks and you'll find plenty of research.

[Fraught]

i'll put my money where my mouth is, to coin a phrase. if it comes to using embryonic stem cells or my life? no thanks, it's time for me to go. i also did not know this about in vitro. interesting.

[nebula]

Thoughtful - I take it you do not believe the "frozen embryos" are human beings?