Updated book on Bioethics commended

 

This revised and updated resource is now available from Day One. Inside I have commended it (with the hope that it might promote sales rather than hinder them - ;-))

"This revised and expanded edition of Dr Ling's still concise but broad ranging book on life issues is excellent. It is important for thinking Christians to keep abreast of the vital ethical issues that it covers so clearly. We give thanks to God for such an informative and challenging book."

More here.

C Everett Koop

I notice that C Everett Koop died a week ago yesterday. The Times has an obituary today. You can freely access this Washington Post obituary here. I was aware of him because of the pro-life films he did with Francis Schaeffer. He was a longstanding member of Tenth Presbyterian and came to prominence as President Reagan's Surgeon General.

Affinity 2013 Paper 6

The snow has begun to fall and so we are going to finish our conference here in High Leigh slightly early by dropping the final plenary session and ending with the presentation of the last paper. Once again the written paper was summarised and we then went to our groups to discuss before coming together again for a plenary session.

This was the most controversial of the papers, pleading as it did for a new approach to the subject of abortion.

The New Bioethical Wine in the Old Moral Wineskins?

Exploring the Issues When Human Life Begins:

Dr Leonardo De Chirico, Istituto di Formazione Evangelica e Documentazione

Outline

1. A polarized field

2. The Dead-Ends of Biolatry and Egolatry

ie the pro-life absolutising of the sacredness of an aspect of life life and the pro-choice absolutising of the individual and his or her choice

3. The shortcomings of evangelical bioethics

4. The anthropology of the womb

Arguing that the beginnings of life are always linked with the womb in Scripture

5. The beginning of life of the first and last Adam

6. The bioethical implications of being created in the image of God

7. A relational bioethics of the beginning of life

Questions

1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the pro-life position?

2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the pro-choice position?

3) How can life become an idol in the biblical sense? Find examples.

4) How can individual choice can become an idol in the biblical sense? Find examples.

5) What does Psalm 139 say about the beginning of life? What does it not say?

6) What does the typology of the first and last Adam say about the beginning of life?

7) In what sense the ‘relational’ aspect of the Trinity has a bearing on the bioethics of the beginning of life?

8) What can be done in society in order to overcome the polarized debate between pro-life and pro-choice?

Carey Conference 2011 02

Our second paper at Carey was from John Ling from Aberystwyth who for over 30 years has been looking at subjects to do with what can be called the culture of death. (See website here). At one time it was chiefly abortion - a single issue almost - however, by now a long list of issues can be made in this area. Dr Ling reminded us that those who sit before ministers today are all impacted by issues of life and death. Think of

1. Infertility - it affects 1 in 6 couples 2. Teenage pregnancy - 41, 361 girls under 18 in England and Wales last year 3. Abortion - 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion 4. Predisposition 5. Suicide - 1 every 80 minutes 6. STDs 7. Mental illness 8. Illegitimate children - 46% and rising 9. Death - 100% affected!

Against this background he asserted the biblical world view. He reminded us, quoting many Scriptures, that

1. Human life is unique and special

2. Human life begins at conception (utilising the Lennart Nilsson pictures he guided at this point on the journey from zygote to death. More here.)

3. Human life requires stewardship

4. Human life ends in natural death

5. Taking innocent human life is forbidden

6. Human life demands special care

He went on to look at four subjects with powerful factual statements.

1. Abortion

195, 743 in England and Wales in 2009. The population of Swansea or Dundee. 750 every day. Worldwide there are millions being killed. Staggering.

2. Stem cell technology

In an effort to save lives regenerative medicine attempts to use embryonic stem cells to help people. However, other sources can be found such as umbilical blood, fat, etc. Further Yamanaka in Japan has developed a way of producing stem cells (iPS cells) from ordinary cells. These are ideal for treatments and soon there will be no argument for use of embryonic cells. See here.

3. Assisted Reproductive Technologies

There are many bioethical dilemmas in this area

1. Unknown thousands of orphaned, human embryos, frozen for 5, 10, 15 years

2. Treatment of post-menopausal women

3. Grandmothers giving birth to grandchildren

4. Babies with 5 parents - 3 mums and 2 dads

5. "Making children" v "normative parenthood"

6. A mild eugenics programme

7. Treatment costs

8. Psychological costs

9. Relationship tests

10. Inevitable feelings of failure - 76.3% of attempts fail

11. Multiple pregnancy dangers

12. Production of spare embryos (214,177 annually). Some 101, 972 are destroyed annually

Some 104 babies have already been born through an alternative treatment - NPT. See here.

4. Euthanasia and assisted dying

The Remmelink Report tells us that voluntary euthanasia inevitably leads to non-voluntary euthanasia. In Holland a quarter of cases involved botched attempts.

We need to seek a better theology of death and dying.

As in the first session a good short question time followed. Dr Ling then exhorted us to do five things

1. Pray

2. Educate

3. Agitate

4. Care

5. Join and give

Word watching 3 Abortuary

If you are concerned at the high number of abortions that take place in this country and elsewhere you will immediately recognise the point being made in the term ‘abortuary’. Coined in the late 1980s the term is used to refer to an abortion clinic and amalgamates the words abort and mortuary. The purpose is to emphasise that every time an abortion is performed a death results. As much as any mortuary, an abortion clinic is a place of death. Unlike a mortuary, however, the deaths of babies in abortion clinics are all preventable.

An anti-abortion or pro-life group called the Prolife action league is much in favour of this sort of emotive language. In a series of 99 things you can do about abortion they include use of ‘inflammatory rhetoric’. Most of the language they have in mind would only be ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ to pro-abortionists. For example, ‘baby’ rather than foetus, foetal tissue or the outrageous POC (‘product of conception’) and ‘mother’ rather than ‘killing a baby’ rather than ‘pregnant woman’ or ‘interrupting a pregnancy’. Some doctors object to being known as abortionists. American doctor, Robert Tamis, is an example named by another organisation. He wants to be known as a ‘fertility specialist’ but what many women who seek his help do not realise is that, despite his efforts to help them conceive at other times in the week, on Tuesdays and Saturdays he kills approximately 20 babies a morning.

Christians are well used to this reticence. Many have a distaste for terms like fornication or adultery and prefer ‘pre-marital sex’ or ‘having an affair’. Perhaps terms like ‘pro-life’ and ‘abortuary’ are inflammatory. The Pro-life action league recognises that constant use of such terms can be counter-productive. Nevertheless such terms can be useful in shocking people into realising what is going on.

Other terms for abortion clinics include ‘Death camp’ and ‘Abortion mill’. The word ‘holocaust’ has often been applied to the whole sorry spectacle of mass death that characterises the 20th century abortion industry. Such terms emphasise that just as under Hitler a mechanistic, conveyor belt approach to death existed, so, perhaps for the first time in history, abortionists take the same cold, ruthless line with unwanted babies today.

We cannot condone attacks on abortionists and abortion clinics and we may see little point in ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ but we cannot close our eyes to what is going on. Every day in cardboard boxes marked ‘Medical Services - Regulated Medical Waste’ or something similar, mangled, bloody bodies and torn limbs from tiny babies are taken across town to be incinerated. Can we have any sympathy at all for a man like Henry Morgentaler who alone has been personally responsible for some 100,000 abortions in Canada, a man who once said on a radio talk show ‘I’m quite proud of this accomplishment ... This is my calling in life, it’s my art … I should be given a medal for the compassionate service I have performed for women in this country’!? In 2008 he was indeed given the Order of Canada 'for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations.' A number of members of the order withdrew in protest.

Our sympathies are with them and the American Joe Scheidler who wrote, ‘We live in a sick nation whose highest court legalised child murder, whose medical profession commits the carnage, whose government approves of it, whose legal system defends it, whose legislatures pass laws to protect it … and whose journalists have consistently conducted a program of silence and misinformation regarding this holocaust known as legal abortion.’

116 reasons

The oft repeated story of the medical students who would have aborted Beethoven is apparently not true (see here - Dawkins is useful for some things then) but the following article with its references to Pete Sampras and Abraham Lincoln makes disturbing reading. Found here.

The UK’s fertility treatment regulator has published a list of 116 genetic conditions for which doctors can destroy IVF embryos without seeking special permission.

The list compiled by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) includes a number of conditions which are considered minor, non life-threatening or medically treatable.

These include illnesses suffered by some of history’s highest achievers, but the HFEA list allows UK fertility doctors to routinely destroy embryos if tests show they are at risk of developing such conditions.

Thalassemia, a blood disorder which can cause mild anaemia, is on the list, even though having it did not hinder the career of seven-times Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras.

The HFEA’s list also includes Marfan’s syndrome, a condition which can lead to abnormal growth.

Former US President Abraham Lincoln and French leader Charles de Gualle are both believed to have suffered from this condition.

UK fertility clinics identify genetic conditions using a technique known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

PGD involves removing cells from embryos and running tests on them, although some embryos may be harmed by this process.

After PGD screening only the ‘healthy’ embryos are implanted into a woman’s womb. The embryos carrying ‘defects’ are discarded.

Critics say screening embryos raises serious ethical problems and widens the door to the possibility of creating flawless designer babies.

Dr David King, the Director of Human Genetics Alert, said: “It contributes to a social climate in which even minor deviations from ‘normality’ are seen as unacceptable.”

The HFEA is responsible for licensing and monitoring UK fertility clinics and all UK research involving human embryos. It is currently considering adding a further 24 inherited conditions to the 116 it already lists.

Although the UK allows PGD to be used for screening embryos for inherited conditions it cannot be used to select the child’s sex.

Some British couples have travelled to America so that they can select the sex of their children.

However, last August a Chinese study conducted on mice revealed memory decline in adulthood, prompting fears that PGD testing could increase the risk of offspring developing neurodegenerative disorders.

Dr John Ling

It was very good to hear Dr John Ling speaking tonight at the chapel on bioethics and abortion. Embarrassingly, he had last been with us 22 years ago! He'll be 82 when he comes next if we don't get ourselves organised. To be fair, we have had others address the topic and similar ones. To hear a man with the material at his finger tips is a great privilege, however. He talked us through the principles (Man in God's image, human life beginning at conception, the sanctity of life, the duty to care for the weak) then the Parliamentary acts (1861, 1967, 1990 and the current bill before Parliament) and the frightening statistics (550 abortions a day in the UK alone). Practically he called for prayer, education, care, agitation and giving. He gave quite a challenge and I confess to feeling slightly uncomfortable with it. I was sorry we were under thirty present. A week tomorrow is the fortieth anniversary of the implementation of the 1967 Act. Some 6.7 million have died as a result. Many now want to go further. It is frightening.

Meeting coming up

A meeting will be held here in Childs Hill on April 19 on the subject of abortion called 40 Years On – Where Are We Now? The speaker will be Dr John Ling. More details here. Also see here.

Atkins Again

Providentially, I was listening to BBC Radio 4 today when Anne Atkins was on again. Once more she was on the ball. At the close she drew the analogy between abortion and the slave trade that I made myself reviewing Amazing Grace. You can hear it here.

Abortion is like divorce: it is never a good thing. It may arguably be the lesser of two evils, but it is never a reason for rejoicing. So when the Department of Health puts out a statement reassuring us that "the statistics show that the number of abortions performed remains stable year on year" it hardly seems cause for congratulation. Especially when that statistic is over 500 abortions a day, at a cost of over 70 million a year to the NHS. This subject divides us passionately. And yet surely almost all of us are both pro-choice and pro-life? No civilised person wants either to force a woman to give birth to a baby she dreads, or to end the life of a healthy unborn child. We may disagree about which is worse, but we surely concur that both are pretty undesirable. Can we not agree on other things, then, which might help to reduce the statistics? Open access to all information, for instance: Some years ago, the Pro-Life Alliance put up 50 candidates for the General Election, specifically to earn the right to make a party political broadcast. I saw that broadcast, and it was the most powerful few minutes of film I've ever seen. Apart from back-ground music, it only consisted of facts, figures and photographs, yet it was banned by every single television channel. Why? Because the images could cause offence. Indeed: but if the truth is unpalatable, isn't it even more important to see it? It's not hard to think of upsetting television footage we tolerate without even the need to know. Also genuine freedom of speech: I was asked to write an article on the negative effects on the mental and physical health of some women who have abortions, and soon discovered an extreme reluctance even to discuss such matters. Of course this was selective information, and as such needed a balance: we also ought to know the negative effects of withholding abortion. Truthful education means all the evidence, all the arguments, all facts and all interpretations. If we don't like a particular bias, the an-swer is more, not less information. And real choice: The Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative gives help to women with "crisis pregnancies", enabling them to keep the baby if they wish to by giving equipment, support and money. Offered entirely without pressure, it's hard to see what objection could be raised to it - though there have been those, sadly and predictably, who have accused it of "bribing" women. But in recent years there has also been more consensus, and glowing accolades from unexpected pro-choice quarters. I was at a conference, over the weekend of the anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, where many wondered what Wilberforce's cause might be today. Some of the world's worst atrocities have been committed against people denied human status - because they are black, because they are Jewish ... and now, perhaps, because they are not yet born. copyright 2007 BBC.

Outbreak of morality

Alan Davey put me on to this
Unexpected outbreak of morality Dt Opinion Opinion Telegraph

The Film about Wilberforce

So I finally got to see 'Amazing Grace' last night. Many thoughts went through my head as I watched what is a good film - interesting, well made, true to the spirit of its chosen subject.

I thought of Chariots of Fire and how excited we were, but I was young then. It's still good to see a positive film about an evangelical Christian, however, even if they don't get it quite right (with him or with Newton - powerful but ultimately inaccurate portrayal). A lot of dramatic licence is used as in CoF (where the attractive hurdling nobleman is a pure figment of the imagination) - Amazing Grace to the familiar tune, the black gentleman he never met, etc. I think I understand why that is necessary better than I did in the past. Then there is the counterpart (a la Harold Abrahams) with Pitt and Thomas Clarkson, so we don't forget what good sorts humanists (moderate and extreme) are too. Scenes like the one where it is made clear how pro-American Wilberforce was and the gratuitous use of Scots guards playing the AG tune outside Westminster Abbey at the very end grated slightly but we need to live in the real world and at least when we talk about Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect people will have some idea of what we are talking about.

All the way through I couldn't help thinking about the abortion trade, the scandal of our own age. The parallels between the two have long been apparent to me. Seeing the valiant efforts they made and the constant defeats they knew and the sort of bedfellows one has to make to get anything done in Parliament was rather dispiriting in some ways but if God gave them victory in the end, surely we have hope too.

Amazing Anne Atkins

I caught Thought for the Day this morning on BBC Radio 4. What a blessing that woman Anne Atkins is. We should be thankful that someone talks sense on that thing. I have pasted this straight from here. Check here for more examples.

Thought for the Day, 12 April 2007
Anne Atkins
It is a heartbreaking ruling. Natallie Evans can never now have a baby. Her children already exist, in embryo, but she cannot give birth to them without their father's consent, and has exhausted all legal appeal. Her progeny must be destroyed and her body can make no more. This raises numerous questions, the most obvious of which is what skin off his nose would it be for her ex, Howard Johnson, to be generous and relinquish his claims. The lawyers may not be able to give her her children, but he could; and he wouldn't need to lift a finger. Or indeed anything else. But this is a conundrum the rest of us can't solve. Our responsibility is to address other issues. Such as why we give a father no right whatsoever to protect the life of his unborn child (from abortion) but every right to end it (in vitro). Or why we demand more consent than Nature herself: he gave consent enough when the eggs were fertilised, which is all that is traditionally granted a man. Perhaps we should go further back. Something is seriously askew. Lone parenthood is up by three times, in as many decades. Both reformers and conservatives bemoan this. As Polly Toynbee said on this programme yesterday, Almost everybody thinks that the best possible thing is to have two loving parents. While her opponent, David Green, explained, If you take more or less any measure - turning to crime, how well children do in school, whether they commit suicide et cetera - it's better to have two parents. We have more evidence than ever before that children need both mother and father. We also know they're far better off, generally speaking, if those parents are married (for one thing, they're over five times more likely to stay together). And yet marriage has never been less fashionable, nor so many born outside it. Throughout history children have been treated as possessions not people, and this is as true today as ever. The government has just passed a bill which it knows will risk the closure of those adoption agencies that serve the most vulnerable children. Why? To make a political point. However worthy it may be to promote adults' equal rights, it is surely not worth paying for them with children's unequal needs. In May, that same government will propose dropping the requirement to meet the child's need for a father in the provision of IVF. Again, why? To give single women their right to have children too. Let us dream, for a moment, of a world where children were not a right but a privilege; where governments protected the vulnerable not the vote; where we dared insist, before offering aided conception, on the commitment of two parents, both to the child and to each other. We could even give that commitment legal status. And call it - what? - 'marriage'?
(copyright 2007 BBC )