Bioethics

Pro-life advocates saw the 2022 Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a turning point in the fight against abortion in the United States. After the court overturned Roe v. Wade and removed federal protection for the procedure, some conservative states began introducing fetal personhood laws, granting the unborn the same rights as full-born children.

But Hannah Strege watched it all unfold with another vulnerable group in mind: frozen embryos. In this new era, would they have rights? If they did, would anyone respect them?

Strege, 24, was conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1996 and frozen for two years. In 1997, she and 19 of her siblings were adopted in embryo form by John and Marlene Strege. They were shipped by FedEx to a local fertility clinic. Hannah was the only embryo to survive thawing and to successfully implant in Marlene’s uterus. She was born in December 1998.

Since Hannah was born, the number of frozen embryos sitting in storage in the United States has risen from roughly 100,000 to an estimated 1.5 million. Many of these embryos remain from IVF treatments, indefinitely chilled in canisters of liquid nitrogen with no plans for their future.

Some clinics feel overwhelmed by the growing volume of embryos sitting in storage and doctors may create dozens of embryos per patient. One doctor told NBC News in 2019 that some patients have 40–60 eggs retrieved in a cycle, and “the embryologist gets the orders from her doctor to inseminate all of them—and the question isn’t asked if the patient even wants that many inseminated. … Nobody’s going to have 30 kids.”

One Florida reproductive endocrinologist said, “We were not prepared for any of this. Twenty-one percent of our embryos have been abandoned.”

How many times have you heard expectant couples say, "Well, as long as our baby is healthy"? John Knight from Desiring God ministries cautions, "'Healthy' exists on a spectrum of possibilities just like disability. And that spectrum is becoming narrower with every passing year." He points to an article about University of Washington scientists who were able to identify the DNA sequence of a fetus with 98 percent accuracy, and with safer techniques.

The article noted, "The accomplishment heralds an era in which parents might find it easier to know the complete DNA blueprint of a child months before it is born. That would allow thousands of genetic diseases to be detected prenatally." That means that more children with disabilities will be aborted.

But Knight also argues that many people will be tempted to order up "designer babies"—all fueled by "an increasingly idolatrous mindset that says I have the right and the responsibility to determine what is best for me — including the physical and/or developmental makeup of my children, or somebody else's children."

Cicero said, “The thing itself cannot be praised. Only its potential.” He was talking about young children. Such was the view in the Empire where Jesus arrived as an infant. Plutarch said, “The child, is more like a plant” than a human, or even than an animal.

But Jesus and his followers had a different view of the moral status of children. To follow him, Jesus said, you had to become like a child. Even babies, Christians said, are fully human and fully bear the image of God. As the African bishop Cyprian wrote, “God himself does not make such distinction of person or of age, since he offers himself as a Father to all.” And if that’s God’s view, then “Every sex and age should be held in honor among you.”

The church even extended that honor and protection to the unborn. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents says, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”

Throughout the Roe regime, contemporary Christians have similarly demonstrated their “contempt of death,” their pursuit of justice for the unborn, and their love of children and pregnant women. The church has more than mere potential to better bear witness to life. It is the house of the Life himself.

Betty Hodge knows what it’s like to have an unplanned pregnancy. And she knows what it’s like to have the father of the unborn child push for an abortion. She’s been there. But she didn’t seriously consider terminating her pregnancy, because she didn’t feel alone. Hodge said, “Thankfully I had a family that was supportive.” She now works at a pregnancy resource center in Jackson, Mississippi, so she can provide that same support for other mothers in need.

These days, she sees a lot of them. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (in 2022), allowing the state of Mississippi to pass a law banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest that have been reported to police. The clinic that gave its name to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case shut down in July. It was the state’s only abortion provider. So, while women may still travel to Florida, New York, or Illinois to terminate a pregnancy, abortion has effectively ended in the Magnolia State.

The state health office estimates this will result in an additional 5,000 babies being born in Mississippi in 2023. The pro-life movement there is eager to celebrate each of these precious lives, but they’re also aware of other upsetting statistics: Mississippi has the highest rate of preterm births—over 30 percent more than the national average. The state has the highest infant mortality rate in the US, with nearly nine of every 1,000 babies dying. And for the infants who live to be toddlers, 28 percent will live in poverty.

Hodge doesn’t shy away from these hard facts. For her, this is part of the work of being pro-life. ... And with the state expecting 5,000 more babies in 2023, she sees an opportunity to put pro-life beliefs into practice and show that Christians care. She said, “If we’re going to say we stand for life, then it’s pertinent for us to stand up and say we don’t just care about the unborn child. As a church, we have an opportunity to make a difference.”

Last year a software engineer at Google made an unusual assertion: That an artificial-intelligence chatbot developed at the company had become sentient, was entitled to rights as a person and might even have a soul. After what the company called a “lengthy engagement” with the employee on the issue, Google fired him.

It’s unlikely this will be the last such episode. Artificial intelligence is writing essays, winning at chess, detecting likely cancers, and making business decisions. That’s just the beginning for a technology that will only grow more powerful and pervasive, bolstering longstanding worries that robots might someday overtake us.

Yet far less attention has been paid to how we should treat these new forms of intelligence, some of which will be embodied in increasingly anthropomorphic forms. Might we eventually owe them some kind of moral or legal rights? Might we feel we should treat them like people if they look and act the part?

Answering those questions will force society to address profound social, ethical, and legal quandaries. What exactly is it that entitles a being to rights, and what kind of rights should those be? Are there helpful parallels in the human relationship with animals? Will the synthetic minds of tomorrow, quite possibly destined to surpass human intelligence, someday be entitled to vote or to marry? If they make an articulate demand for such rights, will anyone be in a position to say no?

These concerns might seem far-fetched. But the robot invasion is already well under way. The question of rights for these soon-to-be-ubiquitous artificial forms of intelligence has gained urgency from the sudden prominence of ChatGPT and the AI-powered new form of Microsoft’s Bing. Both of which have astounded with their sophisticated responses to user questions.

“We need to think about this right now,” says David Gunkel, author of the book Robot Rights. Citing the rapid spread of AI and its fast-growing capabilities, he adds: “We are already in this territory.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

The world continues to play down the unique sacredness of human life and is willing to grant equality to animals or manmade robots. Humankind was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Only we have the “breath of God” (Gen. 2:7) and are unique among all of creation. Only God can create life; the best we can do is create an imitation of life in AI.

Can fetuses (or unborn children) really feel pain and experience a human connection with other humans? New scientific research provides a mass of evidence that they can. Here are some of the facts from the latest research:

• There is now strong evidence that fetuses as early as twelve weeks exhibit conscious, intentional behavior and that they actively discriminate among similar sensory experiences.

• At 12 weeks the baby demonstrates intentional “social” movements—behavior that isn’t accidental nor reflexive but demonstrates conscious awareness of the environment, and intentional—even social—planning of physical actions.

• As early as 14 weeks, fetuses distinguish between music and mere vibrational noise that stimulates the same auditory pathways.

• At 19–23 weeks unborn babies electively respond to and distinguish between different types of external stimulation, displaying more intentional movement to their mother’s belly touch than to maternal speaking.

• As early as 20 weeks, fetal hand movements toward the mouth and eyes are straighter and less jerky, revealing a surprisingly advanced level of motor planning.

Stuart Derbyshire, a researcher and former pro-choice consultant, was considered “a leading voice against the likelihood of fetal pain.” Yet, faced with mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, Derbyshire changed his mind and wrote, “The evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points toward an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks.”

Newly-released figures (June, 2022) show that one-fifth of all US pregnancies were aborted in 2020, with 930,160 terminations taking place over the course of that year. The statistics showed that the number of terminations rocketed by eight percent between 2017 and 2020.

An exact breakdown on how advanced each of the terminated pregnancies has not been released. But researchers did determine that 54 percent of all terminations which took place in 2020 were the result of the so-called “abortion pill.” It sees women take two doses of a drug which induces miscarriage during the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy.

The statistics were released almost two months after a leaked Supreme Court draft judgement indicated plans to scrap the 1973 Roe v Wade law. It guarantees American women the right to an abortion. Multiple states are now poised to impose an outright ban on terminations as the conservative majority court prepares to publish its completed opinion.

The number of abortions carried out in 1973--the first year the procedure became legal--sat at around 750,000. That number rose to more than one million by the late 70s, and stayed there throughout the 1980s, reaching an all-time high of more than 1.5 million abortions in 1990.

The figure dropped below one million for the first time in 2011, and now faces decreasing further as tough new laws come into place across conservative states.

Advances in medical technology since Roe was published have further complicated the issue. Roe allows women to have abortions up until the point a fetus can survive outside the womb. That is currently defined as between 23 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

But in 2021, an Alabama baby born at just 21 weeks went on to survive thanks to modern medicine that would not have been available in 1973, sparking further discussion about abortion time limits.

In late 2021, a young man by the name of Kaivan Shroff published an article entitled, “Men like me benefit from safe abortion access.” By “men like me,” Shroff clearly means successful men, men who are too busy to care about any aspect of their sexual activity other than enjoyment, let alone take responsibility for it. Thanks to abortion, neither the needs and desires of the woman involved nor the life of the child who might come into being must enter his calculation.

According to his lengthy bio, Shroff is very important. He’s a senior adviser to D.C. non-profit and a former staffer for Hillary Clinton campaign’s digital team. Not to mention he has an MBA from Yale and a BA from Brown—and, he is about to graduate from law school. He certainly doesn’t need a child to complicate all of that success.

Shroff tells us, “In many ways, it feels like my life is just about to begin. It would be a terrible time to have a baby.” He wants to have kids someday. But he’s not in a relationship and after suffering through the pandemic, he’s ready “to eke out and enjoy every last minute of my 20s.” So, while he’s busy sowing his wild oats, any children he happens to father will just have to meet their untimely end, at least until the time is right for him.

Legal scholar Erika Bachiochi writes, “While pregnant, a woman is carrying a new and vulnerable human being within her. Unlike a biological father, a pregnant woman cannot just walk away; a pregnant woman must engage in a life-destroying act.”

Abortion, in other words, facilitates the sexual desires of cowardly, irresponsible men to abandon their unborn child and their child’s mother—while encouraging women to “free” themselves from the tyranny of their biology by committing an act of violence against their unborn child.

But what Shroff doesn’t acknowledge is that abortion isn’t cost-free. While it enables him to walk away from sex with nary a consequence, it requires much of women, much that doesn’t set them “free” at all.

Official estimates are that approximately 30,000 Canadians died from COVID over the last 18 months (Editor’s Note: article was written in 10/21.). To combat the illness, provincial governments locked down businesses for weeks going on months, and also kept people from church, from funerals, and from seeing their aged relatives or anyone else. Masks were mandated in most public settings, and vaccines went from being offered to being required to travel on trains or planes. And at the federal level, the government was spending almost $1 billion a day on Covid.

The point here isn’t to question these impositions and costs, but to contrast them with what’s being done for the unborn. We don’t even know how many unborn babies were murdered over the same 18-month period because that toll isn’t being printed in our daily newspaper. Their deaths aren’t thought important enough for figures to be kept current, so we have to go back to 2019 to get any statistics.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada reports 83,576 unborn children were killed that year though this number only includes hospital and clinic abortions, which means the overall toll could be much higher. So, over the same time period that we’ve been dealing with COVID, a conservative estimate would put the abortion death toll at well over 120,000 Canadians. We can be grateful that there are signs COVID may be abating, but the same isn’t true of abortion: long before COVID hit our shores, abortion was already ending the lives of one in five Canadian babies and it continues to do so.

Christians should pray for our governments to take action to protect the unborn, but the contrast presented here is one for God’s people to consider too. If the deaths of 30,000 concerned us enough to shut down the country, and got even the Liberal Prime Minister arguing that when there are other lives at risk then “My body, my choice” shouldn’t apply, how should we respond when we learn that another plague is killing four times that number? What sort of attention should we give, and what sort of time, energy, and money should we devote, to fighting abortion?

Roland Warren has led the National Fatherhood Initiative for 11 years. In 2012 he became president and CEO of Care Net, the nation’s largest network of pregnancy resource centers. Roland contends that one of the keys to stopping abortion involves getting men to step up as fathers. Roland says,

If I were to have a heart attack at this moment, the most important person is the first responder whose action affects the life trajectory of the person in a crisis. With pregnancy, the guy is typically the first responder. We did a national survey of women who had had abortions and asked them who they talked with about it. The No. 1 person—ahead of medical professionals, abortion providers, pregnancy centers, their mother, their best friend, their father, anybody—was the guy who got her pregnant. He’s the first responder and the most influential person in her decision to abort.

Roe v. Wade delinked fatherhood and motherhood. When we talk to clients, the mother often says, “I can’t give birth to this child.” She understands she’s already a mother: Her body is changing. Often when we talk to the men, they say, “I don’t want to be a father.” [But] he already is a father. The question on the table is “What kind of father will you be?”

Margaret Boemer went for a routine ultrasound 16 weeks into her pregnancy with her third child. She quickly found out that things were far from routine. "The doctor came in and told us that there was something seriously wrong with our baby and that she had a sacrococcygeal teratoma (tumor) . . . And it was very shocking and scary, because we didn't know what that long word meant or what diagnosis that would bring."

Although other doctors had advised her to terminate the pregnancy, her doctor told her about another possibility: fetal surgery. This option, though, would not be an easy road. Boemer said, “LynLee didn't have much of a chance. At 23 weeks, the tumor was shutting her heart down and causing her to go into cardiac failure, so it was a choice of allowing the tumor to take over her body or giving her a chance at life. It was an easy decision for us: We wanted to give her life.”

She was 23 weeks and 5 days pregnant, when the doctor performed the emergency fetal surgery. By this time, the tumor was nearly larger than her baby. Surgeons operated for about five hours removed the bulk of the tumor and then placed LynLee back inside the womb. Boemer was on bed rest for the remainder of her pregnancy. Despite her pain, she marshaled her strength and made it another 12 weeks to nearly 36 weeks--full term--when LynLee Hope was born, for the second time via C-section.

Boemer said, "It was very difficult.” But seeing her toddler smiling with her sisters, she added: "It was worth every pain." A year after LynLee had been born for a second time, Boemer said, “We’re amazed at how well she is doing. We know that God has great plans for her in the future to do something big.” She explained how little LynLee loved to sing, one of her favorites, “Jesus Loves Me."

A recent Angus Reid poll asked 1,528 Canadians for their moral perspectives on a wide variety of issues. Among the findings: while 51% thought that using plastic straws is always or usually morally wrong, only 20% thought the same of “doctor-assisted dying” and just 26% for abortion.

(People) are rejecting God’s Law and … are creating their own substitutes in an attempt to justify themselves (Jer. 2:13-14. Luke 18:9-14). Sure, I may have just had my elderly mother euthanized, and had my unborn baby aborted, but I’m a good person because I always use a bamboo, not plastic, straw. I’m doing my part!

Possible Preaching Angle:

The lawless trend this poll reveals provides Christians with an opportunity to contrast the sandy foundation of the world’s moral code with the Solid Rock (Matt. 7:24-27, Ps. 18:2). God’s Law versus the world’s morals--has the contrast ever been clearer? Let’s take full advantage of this time and opportunity given to us to bring many to him.

Novelist Erica Jong supports abortion but is candid about its emotional toll. The author of provocative, sexual novels writes that abortion, for her, was too high a price to pay:

As a seventeen-year-old freshman at Barnard, I got my first diaphragm from Planned Parenthood (a college tradition). I never got pregnant accidentally because I knew that an abortion would make me terribly sad. I loved children, dogs, cats and other living things, and I understood that terminating a pregnancy would be extremely hard for me emotionally.

For ten years, once a week, I waited outside abortion clinics, offering help to the women and men going in and coming out. Most of the hours I spent outside the abortion clinic are now a blur of defeat and despair: an obscenity hurled by a passerby; an occasional clash with clinic workers, or abortionists; freezing snow; sweltering heat; pouring rain.

However, punctuating all this failure every once in a while, a woman would change her mind and decide not to have an abortion. I saw at least 2,500 women go into the clinics. Roughly a couple dozen of them told me upon leaving the clinic that they had decided to keep the baby. And how many more changed their minds without ever speaking to me, I will never know on this side of heaven.

I received such a glimmer not long ago. It arrived—just a message on Facebook:

I’m not sure you remember me. I met you 20 years ago outside of Women Services on Main St. … I was only 15-years-old. You saved my son’s life. I was alone, there to start a two-day procedure. … However, that night I felt my son move. The next day on my way into the building I met you. … I believe you read me some scriptures and made me aware of other options. So, I decided to … continue with the pregnancy. ... You were truly a blessing to me. Today my son is almost 20 years old. … (H)e’s the best thing that ever happened to me. When I think of him, I often think of you.

During those years of waiting in front of abortion clinics, I trusted that God would bring forth from my small efforts the fruit he saw fit. And being offered just a sliver of that reward now, I am encouraged all the more to be faithful even in times when I don’t see visible fruit. (Now) a 19-year-old college student is bringing his faithful mother a harvest of love and joy. How much more love and joy we bring our Father as we patiently await the fruit only he can bring.

In her book Confronting Christianity, Rebecca McLaughlin writes:

Paul Offit, a professor of pediatrics and vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, had good reason to think religion hindered morality. In 1991, a measles epidemic had swept through Philadelphia. Hundreds of children got sick. Nine died. Offit was an attending physician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. What differentiated these measles-stricken patients from other sick kids was how unnecessary their suffering was. Two Philadelphia churches, whose schools educated hundreds of children, had refused vaccination and medical care. Thus, the disease took hold and spread.

This incident was one among many that prompted Offit to write a book entitled Bad Faith: How Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine. Being nonreligious, he assumed he would “sound the same themes that have been sounded by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris: that religion is illogical and potentially harmful.”

But as Offit read the Bible and explored the history of medicine, he changed his mind. Jesus' advocacy for children moved him to tears. He concluded:

Independent of whether you believe in the existence of God . . . you have to be impressed with the man described as Jesus of Nazareth. At the time of Jesus’ life, one historian said that child abuse was “the crying vice of the Roman Empire.” Infanticide was common. Abandonment was common. That's because children were property, no different than slaves. But Jesus stood up for children, cared about them, when those around him typically didn't.

Offit now calls Christianity “the single greatest breakthrough against child abuse” in history. He notes that the first Christian emperor of Rome outlawed infanticide in 315 and provided a nascent form of welfare in 321 so poor families would not have to sell their kids. Ultimately, Offit changed the subtitle of his book from How Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine to When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine, acknowledging the massive impact Christianity has had on medicine and ethics.

The UK newspaper The Guardian ran a story exploring the greatest photo of the 20th century. Can you guess which photo became their top pick? Perhaps something from sports or politics? No, The Guardian chose a stunning photo from a 1965 edition of Life magazine.

A Swedish photojournalist named Linnart Nilsson told the editors of Life his plans to capture the beginnings of human existence while visiting New York in 1954. The editor's at Life expressed skepticism about the project. But a decade later he returned with the first photographs, shot in both color and black and white--an unprecedented feat that fused photography and biological study. They were published in Life as an iconic photo essay, entitled Drama of Life Before Birth. Nilsson also published the pictures in A Child Is Born, intended as a guide for mothers to be. It is one of the top-selling illustrated books of all time, having been translated into 20 languages.

The photos created controversy. Some people wanted to deny the obvious--that the fetus looked utterly human. The article tried to remain neutral, but here's how the author summarized the controversy: “The images caused a stir in Paris and it’s easy to see why: their quiet beauty has a powerful emotional pull.” A gallery owner said, “Nilsson wanted to make the invisible visible--and show us the astonishing journey we all make, one that unites all humans. He wanted to give us an opportunity to look inside ourselves, to discover pictures that define us as humankind.”

Check out the link to see the stunning photos.

Though the following article appeared some 20 years ago, it holds true today. World Magazine, in a piece called “Silence of the Shepherds,” documented the silence of ministers on the issue of abortion using two methods.

First, it asked 20 well-known Christian leaders to provide a full sermon they had preached on the topic of abortion. Only six of the 20 were able to do so. Just three more supplied a sermon excerpt that addressed abortion.

Second, it used the results of a study conducted by a Regent University student for her master’s thesis. She surveyed 104 pastors from evangelical, charismatic, mainline, and fundamentalist churches in the South Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Seventy-six percent of pastors agreed that life begins at conception. Sixty-nine percent said the church should speak out on abortion. Just 39 percent said they had preached a full sermon on abortion. Evangelical ministers had the highest percentage of sermons preached on abortion (58 percent).

The conclusion of Regent student Molly Stone: “The average clergyman does not actively encourage his church to be involved in pro-life activity.” She observed, “Even actions that clergy say are highly acceptable are typically not performed.” While 70 percent of these ministers said crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) were their preferred pro-life organization, the same number said they did not support a CPC.

According to World editor Marvin Olasky, “Only a third ever encouraged walking in a march for life or ever showed a pro-life film. Only one-sixth had endorsed pickets or prayer at abortion clinics. Rescues had been encouraged by 7 percent.”

Christopher Hitchens, a devout man of the Left, and an outspoken atheist, must be pro-abortion, must fight for abortion just as he fights for all the other requisite social causes.

We don't know how Hitchens kept his two books, but there is no doubt he kept this lesson in his heart, just as there is no doubt he spent all his time around those who considered abortion a right, and hence were without any moral reservation about it. Christopher kept his very personal ledger on abortion closed to public view until rather late in his life. When, much to everyone's surprise … he stood up on the same moral side as the very religion, Christianity, he had made so lucrative a career in condemning.

He stated that, “I agree with this view for materialist reasons. It seems to me obvious from the discoveries of biology and embryology that the concept 'unborn child' is a real one. ... And it has to be granted to the Church that it has made this a centerpiece of its ethic and its morality.”

A study in the British Journal of Psychiatry reviewed data from 22 published studies and found a link between abortion and mental health difficulties. The meta-analysis of studies looked at 877,181 participants, of whom 163,831 had undergone an abortion. The study reported, “Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems.”

The study found increased risks of the following separate mental health effects for women who had abortions:

-anxiety disorders (34 percent)

-depression (37 percent)

-alcohol use/abuse (110 percent)

-marijuana use/abuse (220 percent)

-suicide behaviors (155 percent)

In addition, post-abortion effects researcher Dr. David Reardon reports that at least 21 studies show a link between abortion and substance abuse. A study from Reardon’s Elliot Institute found that women having abortions were 160 percent more likely to seek psychiatric care in the 90 days afterwards than were women who had delivered their children. The study also found that the frequency of psychiatric treatment was significantly higher for at least four years following abortion.

The famous 20th century British writer Malcolm Muggeridge once noted that in modern times, with family-planning clinics offering ways to correct "mistakes" that might disgrace a family name:

It is … extremely improbable … that Jesus would have been permitted to be born at all. Mary's pregnancy, in poor circumstances, and with the father unknown, would have been an obvious case for an abortion. Her talk of having conceived as a result of the intervention of the Holy Ghost would have pointed to the need for psychiatric treatment, and made the case for terminating her pregnancy even stronger. Thus our generation, needing a Savior more, perhaps, than any that has ever existed, would be too humane to allow one to be born.