Human life, religious voices and the public square
Multiple births create wrenching dilemmas for religious believers. Photo courtesy of the New York Times.
Last week the New York Times published a two-part series on artificial reproductive technologies. The series makes a riveting read, as writer Stephanie Saul narrates the joys and terrors of premature birth, high order multiples, NICU stays, and—finally, sometimes—the precious goal, a baby at home with a family. Although I have no first-hand experience with ARTs, I follow the topic with interest and so I was drawn into the story of the Stansel family, which anchors the second article.
Amanda Stansel underwent a common procedure called intrauterine insemination, in which her ovaries were stimulated with fertility drugs and her husband’s sperm was injected into her uterus. But something went terribly wrong, and Ms Stansel became pregnant with six babies. The chances of delivering healthy sextuplets are punishingly slim, and the Stansels’ doctors recommended selective reduction, the medical euphemism for the destruction of several embryos in hopes of improving the odds of survival for the remaining babies. Faced with this grievous dilemma, the Stansels decided to keep all six babies. Tragically, the babies were born prematurely, and four of the six have died. The two remaining baby girls face an uncertain future. The emotional drama of the Stansels’ path to parenthood passes through our most basic human hopes and fears.
I was drawn into this heartbreaking story for another reason: the Stansels are Latter-day Saints, as I am. Their Mormon faith is not prominently featured in the story, but nevertheless it was a key part of their decision to allow all six babies to be born. The article reports:
Many opponents criticize selective reduction as a form of abortion. And for many parents who elect to carry all of the fetuses, the decision often hinges on religious convictions. There is also a chance, up to 5 percent, that selective reduction will be followed by a miscarriage of all the fetuses, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
For the Stansels, the decision was influenced by their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church generally opposes abortion. After learning that Mrs. Stansel was carrying sextuplets, the Stansels decided to meet with church elders and consult with a reduction specialist.
“It just never felt right,” Mr. Stansel said. “We prayed many nights. A lot of sleepless nights. Originally we thought we might do the reduction. We chose to carry all six and, we believe, let God do what he’s going to do.”
I ache with sympathy for the Stansels’ loss; no compassionate reader could feel otherwise. I applaud their decision to keep all six babies—I hope that I would have the courage to do the same, were I ever in the same situation—and I have no wish to question their choices or their rationale. (I hope commenters will extend the same respect, and focus the discussion on general ideas rather than the Stansels’ particular case.)
But I can’t help wondering how the Stansels’ stated reason for rejecting the selective abortions—that is, their desire to allow God’s will to prevail—strikes non-religious readers. The article implies that the only reasons for opposing selective reduction are rooted in religion. Secular readers could come away with the impression that there is no ethical reason for non-believers to avoid “reducing” a high-order multiple pregnancy.
This raises a question: is it in the best interest of religious institutions and individuals to articulate secular arguments for their moral positions? If religion-minded people wish to persuade the non-religious to support one side of a thorny ethical question, then presumably they must do so with arguments that do not rely on explicitly religious claims. After all, an agnostic couple facing the Stansels’ excruciating choice is unlikely to be moved by an appeal to God’s will, but they might respond to a philosophical or scientific argument.
On the other hand, perhaps religious interests risk ceding the public square to secular voices if they voluntarily remove or recast religious discourse in debate. If it becomes unusual or unpopular to express religious points of view in public forums, then faith is effectively banished to the private sphere and religious citizens have difficulty finding the language to publicly speak their conscience. Perhaps, then, it is in the best interest of religious individuals to strongly insist on the relevance of religious claims to public debate.
Of course, this all assumes that it is possible to articulate secular arguments for religious positions. In some cases there simply may not be a secular route to the destination that religion has in view. In any case, this is a dilemma that has bedeviled religious citizens of modern states since the advent of religious pluralism. In our time, which sees such dizzying social and scientific change in matters close to the heart of religious claims, the dilemma is unlikely to be resolved.
First, to clear this thought from my head. It is God’s will to artificially interceed in the fertilization, but not the birth?
Responsibility is an curious thing to justify. It can not be done in integrity. Responsibility lies entirely in choice. It can not be defended. It stands alone. The couple did what they did as they were inspired to do. The conversation around the right and wrong (morality) of it is a separate conversation, and I believe a secular one.
My view would not judge either the intervetion in the fertilization, or the intervetion to manage a successful outcome of that intervention, or to declare what a succesful outcome is for them. A “moral” conversation could “argue” that the artificial insemination is the source of the dilemma. I would only remark on the integrity of what distinquishes the will of God in one and not the other, and then listen.
I would question a postion that declares that artificial insemination is right, and selective reduction is wrong. I am inspired by a possibility that is commited to life, and that six were protected and nutured with that possibility. I am also inspired by being responsible for our choices. God’s will in everything.
To speak to the ways of the world can occurr outside of judgment(morality). One can simple say, I would not do that, and if it is said clearly without judgment, it works. (Judgement would sound like this. I am right, and in that, you are wrong.) To add what it is that inspires me in this way completes it without judgment.
Who we are in the world is who we say we are, and exercise with intergrity in our word. This is the example of Jesus for Christians.
Integrity is the root. If one can not speak cleary what they are commited to with integrity it does not exist for them or the world. We provide this for each other in our listening. If we listen for justification and agreement we are not being who we say we are for ourselves and for others.
Listening and speaking without judgement, and listening for and speaking what inspires us is what works. The use of intellect and reference in knowledge is to manage our integrity around judgement, much less so what is right or wrong.
Our temptation is we are more clever with making ourselves right and others wrong than listening for what inspires us.
This entire conversation can be had just as powerfully without referencing God. To do so is a choice, and a powerful one, when those who choose to engage in the conversation are invited to it and accept it. To force reasoning on others without permission is being righteous.
This blog site is extraordinarily powerful in creating a safe place for this conversation.
I think you’re posing a false dilemma: why does it have to be either/or? Why not both/and? Can’t we proclaim our faith and offer “secular” (or natural law) arguments at the same time? After all, all truth is God’s truth.
Rosalynde,
Another home run. I think you’re right that for matters of persuasion, religious people should use secular arguments. However, that does not mean that secular reasons are the ONLY reasons acceptable to the public square. So, for instance, the religious person might have strictly religious reasons to persuade other religious folks of a particular position. We could appeal to, say, the Gospels to advocate certain policies surrounding poverty, just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently appealed to Scripture in his defense of civil rights. For secularism, his strategy is problematic.
The book to read on this is Hunter Baker’s new critique of secularism, “The End of Secularism,” which I reviewed here: http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=2013
A more foundational question is why do Latter-day Saints permit the practice of artificial insemination in the first place? Is that permission based on Christian history, moral reasoning, or a temporary “revelation”? Such techniques, even when they involve only the married couple, are morally unacceptable because they disassociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union. Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person. A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The supreme gift of marriage is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents, and the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception. (CDF: Donum Vitae)
It does not work to say, “because God says so.” Not everyone has chosen. Even in this Jesus shows that God provides more than obedience.
The way to God is through choice. We provide access to this when we speak in a way that shares what inspires us, that people get that we are inspired in what we have for ourselves. They may try it on, or not.
If they are not clear in this, we have deceived them.
Our laws are social contracts in our communities. They are not God’s laws. The more clear we are in this distinction and free of the judgment of it, the more peace is available to us. This glorifies God, and shows the way for others.
All to often church members are involved in money grubbing. They use their religion to support business ideas that imperil human life. All the while claiming divine reasoning for their folly. The happens in St. Louis with alcohol, chemicals, and weapons. Those who support these industries that often endanger residents of the St. Louis area claim like the fascists they are that they do so for god. God loves the poor more than the rich. You can either give to the poor or store up treasure for your sick pleasures of the flesh. Greed is not good and lust for money causes all the evils in the world. It is high time we stopped claiming that wealth is good and started living the word.
Edit: Michael, I appreciate comments that stick to the topic of the post. —Rosalynde
Thanks for the comments, all. I’ll make a few specific responses.
JSullivan: I do think the both/and strategy works sometimes, maybe even frequently. At other times, though, there simply may not be enough time/media attention/energy/political capital to get convey both religious and secular messages. And sometimes the grounds of secular and religious arguments actually undermine one another, or at least muddy the clarity of each. So I do think it’s a tricky issue.
Matthew, thanks so much for the reference. I will definitely check out the link. I think that there is a special difficulty for those religious believers who wish to articulate a non-religious basis for our preferred position when we are in secular contexts. There can be a temptation to massage the data to fit our claims, and this can undermine our credibility in serious debate. Not that religious voices are any more likely to spin data to our advantage, of course, but we should take extra care to be scrupulous and careful with the facts. I’m sure you agree.
DJB, I sincerely appreciate your careful and challenging responses. I am attracted to the coherence and integrity of Catholic theologies of life, and don’t wish to quarrel with anything you’ve laid out. Mormonism is a young religion, and it doesn’t yet have a deeply developed theological tradition; there is some exciting Mormon theology being done, but it is not authoritative in the sense that it does not come from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Instead, authoritative pronouncements tend to be brief and practical in nature, and leave much to the discretion of individual members and local leaders. The closest thing we have to a theological treatise on family and life issues is the “Proclamation on the Family”: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
On the substance of your comment, you will find a wide range of opinions among Mormons on ARTs. Some hold a rigorous view very similar to yours, but most will take a mixed approach. The very high value placed on family and children in Mormon culture (I believe we have the highest birthrate of any sub-population in the US) will generally trump moral reservations about relatively straightforward procedures like IVF. Surrogacy and other more complex procedures are approached with more caution. Abortion is generally frowned on, but to my knowledge there is no official pronouncement on selective reduction; that is left to individual conscience.
Your response and comments are appreciated, Ms. Welch, thank you. You state: “Abortion is generally frowned on [within the LDS Church], but to my knowledge there is no official pronouncement on selective reduction; that is left to individual conscience.” To clarify the euphemisms, selective reduction is abortion. To follow up on your assertion of “no official pronouncement,” the LDS Church officially, though perhaps quietly, accepts abortions in certain circumstances. According to “The Church Handbook of Instructions” (Sep. 1998 edition), which are the official binding directives to be followed by all local church leaders worldwide, abortions may be performed in several instances (e.g., pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, physician says that the baby has severe defects that will not allow survival beyond birth). In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s “approval” in prayer (156). What appears contradictory is that former Mormon leaders decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” and “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985 taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189). I wonder if Thomas Monson would repeat the same affirmation for “all” (i.e., no exceptions carved out) abortions since Kimball’s teaching was either ignored or changed only a little over a decade later as evidenced in the “Handbook.”