Sigh??????
Well, I purposefully didn???t list Erik???s email address and website but as he posted a comment including his address, it would seem he is open for conversation. Therefore, I will give him due credit for his blog posting written about me and post a link to it for your reading enjoyment. Click here for it.
I was not going to respond to this particular element of debate because quite honestly, I try to pick my battles wisely and in truth engaging in this conversation is just not a good use of my time. However, since Erik has submitted a portion of his argument on my site, I figure that my web readers will be interested in my opinion on what he had to say so I will indulge this a bit longer.
In response to ???The Price of Fame??? post, Erik commented:
“Hi everyone. I think Robin Gilliam states well half of the ethical dilemna experienced by those who believe these embryos are human life,
???NO ONE can ignore that embryo adoption is a life-saving choice for these embryos.???
The other half is that the best medical technology today can bring to term less than 1/3 of cryo-preserved embros, yet it???s reasonable to believe that a decade or two out, technology will allow nearly 100% of those same embryos to come to full term.
If one believes these embryos are people with rights like you and I, attempting IVF with them now is playing russian roulette with human lives in order to save – today – less than 1 out of three of them.
It seems to me any ???rescue mission??? ought be put off as technology improves.
As I said in my original post reproduced by Donni, I don???t find third-party IVF immoral at all, what people do in this arena is their own business, however given the choice, my ethics would compell me to adopt a breathing baby who needs a home over a cluster of cells that needs a womb. “
Erik ??? I find it very interesting that a person who claims to be pro-choice (pro-abortion), and who claims that an embryo is simply a cluster of cells, is now the person that is trying to educate me on how best to give these tiny humans the most optimal opportunity to reach their next stage of development and survive to birth. The irony of that is not lost on me!.
To address the issue though???
First let me go back to what Heidi said (in her comments on Erik???s site) ???
“You suggest that we should make a stand that science get its act together. Well, actually, I believe that is exactly what Doni and other snowflake families are speaking with their lives and their recent trip to Washington. But they are asking for it in a different way than you are. They don’t want science to continue experimentation to learn to freeze properly or grow more children in a lab – as this particular science is performed KNOWING many children will be lost (destroyed, killed) in the process (just as embryonic stem cell research kills as well). Rather, they ask science to be more responsible, more ethical, and protective of life. Finding homes for the many frozen children is a definite start in the right direction… reducing the number of children to be frozen in the future is another step in the right direction… freezing none, using invitro to create only as many as will be planted in the womb at the time of the procedure, and finding homes for all the remaining frozen embryos could come close to solving the problem altogether.”
We (and for the moment I will defend Heidi and I as the ???we???) believe that science has already gone TOO far. We would completely disagree that the way out of this mess is to proceed further into this technological nightmare that has no regard for human life.
Further, you have created a very ideological straw man here. We live in the land of what ???is??? not what ???if???. We don???t have the luxury to sit back and hope the future can improve upon the process. Why?
1. The embryos likely do not have that much time. When we testified in Wisconsin in 2001, scientists on the other side of the debate testified that cryopreserved embryos begin to be compromised after the 3 year mark. As a point of fact, Tanner was frozen 3 years four months and he obviously survived but 10 others didn???t. Did the cryopreservation time frame play into this? I don???t know but based on what I heard scientists testify to ??? they cannot be indefinitely cryopreserved without compromise.
2. I have lost faith in this science. They are proving that they will not do what is in the best interest of the embryos. Let???s not pretend that their attempts to increase their life span is really about their conscience in a life saving endeavor. There would be very little evidence that scientists growing embryos are doing this in reverence to the life of the embryo.
3. You are making an assumption of which you have NO scientific evidence. I would not place my child???s future in the hands of someone with an ???idea???.
I could go on and on???.
Also, I think we need to look a little closer at what you actually said. Your comment on my site was the very condensed version. You said something else that was very relevant to this conversation and I think my audience needs to know where you were going with this:
???In the future, we may be able to grow those same embryos into people completely in the lab with 100% assurance.???
This statement is horrifying to me Erik. This time allow me the luxury to recap what I believe you have said:
1. You are pro-choice
2. An embryo is simply a cluster of cells (Erik – you may consider reading this article on the state of an embryo. It was written by an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, currently conducting research on the regeneration of embryonic and adult neurons following spinal cord injury).
3. Your system of morality is quite different than mine.
4. You believe the real solution may be to keep babies out of women???s wombs entirely and grow them in a lab until birth.
5. You believe science may improve upon this process by 100% – no losses of life. That is quite a statement you made. Even God does not allow embryos to survive to term 100% of the time by HIS choice. I can???t speak for His reasons (obviously) but my Dr.s told me that woman miscarry 25% of all known pregnancies and the number is signifcantly higher when you factor in the miscarriage of children prior to their mama???s knowledge of them.
Seems to me that based on what you have written you believe everyone failed. You very clearly stated that I failed (lest we forget the ???uterus of death??? comment). Now you have insinuated that women in general have failed and you believe that science may ensure an 100% live birth rate if children are tube grown. From this I must conclude that you also believe God failed. His design was imperfect and you have a better idea. (If you do not believe in God than I am admittedly off on this point???you wouldn???t believe a creator could fail if one doesn???t exist???I won???t go there though!)
For the benefit of my audience I would now reference the biblical story of Babel. Genesis chaper 11 details the men who intended to build a tower to heaven and God???s response. The issue wasn???t the tower. The issue was the heart of the men who would not bow to God. They had a better plan. They knew a better way. They were going to raise the bar of the human condition and succeed the great Creator in intellegince. I believe God gives us knowledge and intellegince and intends for us to use it. He also expects us to use that intellegence wisely and ethically in accordance with the guidelines He has given us.
What Erik has said here raises alarms for me. To quote Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park ???It isn???t about whether or not we can! Did anyone stop long enough to consider whether or not we should????
Erik ??? you may believe that you are safest in the hands of an advancing technological age. I do not. I will seek my comfort in the arms of the Master Creator. Science is likely going to make a bigger mess. Ultimately, it is God who will fix this.
Note to my readers: If you choose to comment directly to Erik either via his site or mine, I would ask that while you are submitting your honest heart felt thoughts that you also try diligently to treat Erik with kindness and respect. Erik and I differ in our beliefs and I doubt we would agree on much but I would have to remove a posting if it was diragatory. Let???s practice compassion.
To those who already posted: I new I couldn???t keep you from googling! When reading your responses I was humbled. Thank you for how you love me and my family.
Doni
P.S. I realize that my rebuttal will be rather insignificant to Erik because we are coming at this conversation from a diametrically opposed system of belief. Therefore, this was not written for his benefit but for my web readers who seem to, by in large, share my basic beliefs.
16 responses to “Erik Erik Erik…”
WELL SAID SISTER!
i just have to say again to those who don’t believe living human embryos (even frozen ones) are actually people… consider for a moment a thought… you might be wrong. if you are, we are making some of the biggest mistakes of all time. it would be so much more sensible (and compassionate) to take the chance or error on the side of life. i can hardly grasp how that is inconceivable to so many, and yet it is.
This was posted on Erik’s site. I thought it should be restated, because it is simply stated.
I have some points that I would like to make and some questions I would like to ask.
Point #1.) It is scientifically proven that at the time of conception (at most, 24 hrs. later), there is a heart beat of the newly created embryo.
Question #1.) If a creature, no matter what it is, human or otherwise, has a heart and it’s beating, is it not living?
Point #2.) When a heart stops beating (obviously, permanently), a creature is pronounced dead. Sorry so blunt.
Question #2.) If a creature dies, it had to at one point be living, correct?
I am very big in the pro-life side of things, however I do see the need for a cure for diseases. But I don’t think the death of an innocent “creature” is the way to go about it. This “creature” is defensless and can’t fight for itself, so isn’t that an unfair battle? That’s like a Junior High bully picking on a kindergartener. It’s an unfair match.
When that “creature” has grown and is capable of defending itself, then direct the subject of ESCR toward them and see how they truly feel. They will be able to tell you their opinion simply because they weren’t murdered and were allowed to live the life they started from within 24 hours of conception.
-C
-C
1) You are incorrect. The heartbeat starts at around 21 days.
2) An embryo is living without a heartbeating. He/She is dividing, maturing and growing. A plant “lives” without a heart beat. The difference though between an ameba, plant, or simple living organism and a human embryo should be obvious. The embryo is a living, developing and unique member of the human species.
3)I think you would really like the article that I posted for Erik as it does use the definition of death to help understand life. Further you might like to visit the visioembryo site (there is a reference on my ESCR resources page) as it describes in great detail the development of human life from the moment of fertilization.
Doni
Wow, going by Erik’s justifications, I should have given up having children before we even started. After 8 miscarriages, we have 2 wonderful children, and I am happy to be a failure by Erik’s standards! The Grace and Love I learned from these experiences, soothed my heart, and continue to help with lifes greifs.
I wish for Erik to feel God’s love, and to know that no matter the living being, all are loved. I doubt, that after feeling the strength of that love, he would question the worth of each of the babies that need mamas. However, if I am not able to understand his position, I will believe that God has a Purpose for even that, too. If you have ever read “The Hiding Place” by Corrie Ten Boom, she learned that even the fleas had a purpose. All things, no matter how unpleasant seeming, have a “Reason unto Heaven”.
Cari
Doni,
It is so hard for me to know what to do and say when presented with this situation. And I’m sure you know what I mean. You go in respectfully clarifying facts and continue to get arguements about things that you (and many who are with you) will never budge on.
Our points about caution towards the side of life fall on deaf ears. Everything in my being screams “Write! Fight with the pen! Retaliate! Respond! Argue farther!” and yet there is this still small voice that you and I have both been hearing… let go, move on, don’t lose sleep, you won’t win over every person, let those who have ears to hear listen…
As you’ve always said, “We may not win this battle (the fight for life of preborn children) but that doesn’t give us the right to stop fighting.” I whole-heartedly agree with you! We will continue to be a voice for the voiceless but will learn to know when our audience has lost it’s ears (or chopped them off!) 🙂 but continue sharing so that those who have ears can hear. I think it is well said to “pick your battles.”
In the meantime, I do hope that others will learn to be gracious in their words and deeds towards your family. NO ONE who speaks unkindly about what you have done on behalf of your children, and the children of others, can properly verbalize the intents and motivations of your hearts. If they read anything on your site and judge unkindly then the judgement belongs on them. May the reassurance of the truth always validate and fill your heart with joy and peace.
One more thought… many can not even begin to see the value of the unborn or worthiness of the cause of protecting them. They spew words of hate towards those who believe embryos are living and valuable humans, people, and at those who love God and value His say in the matter. The bottom line of all that? He gets the last word. Out of grace He gives us the opportunity to choose life – to even choose life for ourselves through Him… but the day will come that even those who choose to fight against that grace and to silence the voice of the innocent will realize just what a horrific mistake they’ve made. I pray they will have ears to hear and choose life now.
I love you sister – hold tight to the hope set before you. If even one starfish gets thrown back into the see you can know without a doubt that it mattered to him. 🙂
Love,
Heidi Jo
Doni,
It is so hard for me to know what to do and say when presented with this situation. And I’m sure you know what I mean. You go in respectfully clarifying facts and continue to get arguements about things that you (and many who are with you) will never budge on.
Our points about caution towards the side of life fall on deaf ears. Everything in my being screams “Write! Fight with the pen! Retaliate! Respond! Argue farther!” and yet there is this still small voice that you and I have both been hearing… let go, move on, don’t lose sleep, you won’t win over every person, let those who have ears to hear listen…
As you’ve always said, “We may not win this battle (the fight for life of preborn children) but that doesn’t give us the right to stop fighting.” I whole-heartedly agree with you! We will continue to be a voice for the voiceless but will learn to know when our audience has lost it’s ears (or chopped them off!) 🙂 but continue sharing so that those who have ears can hear. I think it is well said to “pick your battles.”
In the meantime, I do hope that others will learn to be gracious in their words and deeds towards your family. NO ONE who speaks unkindly about what you have done on behalf of your children, and the children of others, can properly verbalize the intents and motivations of your hearts. If they read anything on your site and judge unkindly then the judgement belongs on them. May the reassurance of the truth always validate and fill your heart with joy and peace.
One more thought… many can not even begin to see the value of the unborn or worthiness of the cause of protecting them. They spew words of hate towards those who believe embryos are living and valuable humans, people, and at those who love God and value His say in the matter. The bottom line of all that? He gets the last word. Out of grace He gives us the opportunity to choose life – to even choose life for ourselves through Him… but the day will come that even those who choose to fight against that grace and to silence the voice of the innocent will realize just what a horrific mistake they’ve made. I pray they will have ears to hear and choose life now.
I love you sister – hold tight to the hope set before you. If even one starfish gets thrown back into the sea
you can know without a doubt that it mattered to him. 🙂
Love,
Heidi Jo
Regarding “erring on the side of life”.
That fact that people bring this up is an admission that they are themselves unsure – or cannot sufficiently prove – if or when a developing human being is, in fact, a person.
Indeed, it’s is a great argument for letting a woman and her doctor make decisions about gray areas. Let other people make their own errors if errors must be made. It’s immoral to force an important decision on another based on unsubstantiated personal feelings.
I am tempted not to respond at all to Erik because this arguement is so unfortunate and I’m certain is getting nowhere. However – he has questioned an important point I am making and acutally, Erik, I knew you would do just that with this point. 🙂
First of all – I have absolutely positively no doubt whatsoever that life begins at the moment of conception as defined by the moment a sperm fertilizes the egg. My thoughts regarding any possible error is directed at those who say that there is no way to tell when life begins. Many seem sure abortion is ok, killing embryos for science is ok (benefit for the “greater” good theory), but they don’t seem to be able to say with any clarity when personhood begins for the living human embryo… in response to THAT I say, if YOU can not tell me when personhood begins, let’s not take the chance of being wrong about those cells being insignificant or non-people!
Now, Erik, I know you almost answered this question in a round about way – saying should be protected one week out from when it can have a possibility of being saved by the best technology has to offer today… Well, if we held that theory and acted on it there would be hundreds of adults in the world today who would have never had a chance at life. You see, over the years doctors and nurses have been able to help save babies at earlier and earlier ages… you yourself say that babies will be capable of being grown through complete gestation in labs 10 years from now… that means the rule would have had to have been different 10, 20, 50 years ago than today… and again would have to be changed 10 years from now to protect ALL preborn children (because if you are right and all children can be grown in lab pseudo-uteruses then that means technology has advanced to the point that all babies can be saved… if we protect them a week before that point then all babies can be protected even at the moment of conception (or the week before by your theory). 🙂
Now, I know you are right that I can not sufficiently prove that the living human embryo is a person TO YOU. But I’ve clearly made my case already on that one and YOU just don’t happen to believe my case.
I can go on to clarify even more based on what the actual Creator of life says and HE says HE knew my name before I was born – HE knew all the days that would be given to me – HE knit me together in my mother’s womb – HE chose to breathe life into me – HE saw my UNFORMED body… all of this comes directly from His Word, Scripture, The Bible.
Here’s where you and I may forever be at an impass and no logic or arguement will ever win out on a heart closed to God and His word. I can not convince you it is true – something must happen in your own heart – how I wish I could reach your heart but it seems I’m failing miserably. I hope someday you can receive the grace that is offered freely.
I keep wondering why someone would write an article in the first place… surely there was a reason behind it. It could be just to slander, it could be just to be heard, it could be to advocate traditional adoption – it could be all of the above and then some. I know one thing, if I was going to be an advocate for adoption I sure wouldn’t go about it like this.
Heidi Jo –
Your argument seems to be against a floating date to define personhood. We can legally prove with any given pregnancy when the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival outside of a womb, and thereby has rights separate from the woman’s. And of course, as science advances, that date becomes earlier. I don’t see the problem.
You present a religious viewpoint for your opinion – we don’t make religious laws in this country.
I’ll step into what you say about scripture though, as I’m curious.
What scriptural reference can you give that claims or even hints at the idea that a soul is infused at the moment of conception? The Israelites believed that a person was in a man’s sperm and the woman was a receptacle that just grew the person. Genesis 38 implies that life begins at ejaculation more clearly than any passage I know of that would state or imply life begins at fertilization. Fertilization was a concept unknown during Biblical times, so I’m puzzled at how you come to the conclusion en embryo (“fertilized egg”) “is a person”.
One of the Psalms says the Lord knit the Psalmist in the womb. This is impertinent. The Bible says the lord forms everything – this doesn’t mean it ought not be destroyed. Is it necessarily a sin to mine a mountain, eat a pheasant, stone your children or execute a rape victim? Relying on scripture cannot bring you to such conclusions – Deuteronomy 21 gives explicit instructions on stoning children as the next chapter commands the faithful to execute urban rape victims.
You say, “I know you are right that I can not sufficiently prove that the living human embryo is a person TO YOU. But I???ve clearly made my case already on that one and YOU just don???t happen to believe my case.”
I’ve offered reasoning for my position. That is how we come to form the laws by which we govern ourselves: reason. Not by what I or you believe, but by human reason.
I realize some of the above may be hard to respond to, but enjoy talking religion / epistimology / ethics / science and this debate ties in all four, so thank you for the conversation.
Well Erik – you are intent on debating this one! I’m thankful you’ve kept a friendly and respectful tone despite our VAST differences of opinion. 🙂
I am too tired after a very long day to go into a detailed response to your note tonight but will respond more later. For now I will respond to your statement:
“We can legally prove with any given pregnancy when the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival outside of a womb, and thereby has rights separate from the woman???s. And of course, as science advances, that date becomes earlier. I don???t see the problem.”
My problem with this theory is that the date of personhood (just an easier way to name what you call rights seperate from a woman) would be something that changes. If 10 years from now a child has a reasonable chance of survival outside of the womb at 20 weeks, 12 weeks, or even from the moment of conception (which you suggest may be possible) then those children have rights of their own – seperate from the man and woman who conceived them… I believe the preborn children of today are JUST as valuable as the children who will be born 10 years from now. They should have no less right to life because they are living in a womb verses a lab uterus…
You know, the thought just occurred to me how crazy this conversation is. We would assign more rights to a child who can live with all the scientific, technological, & medical intervention that generations of the worlds most intelligent minds can muster but not to the child who simply grows in the safety of the mother’s womb – where in most cases he/she grows with no help whatsoever from those master minds. It just all seems so strange and crazy to me.
I must get some rest now – will have to chat later.
Heidi Jo –
I hear and understand your concern that the way I would like to see abortion law changed may afford rights to a fetus next year that doesn’t have rights this year.
I’m not troubled by the idea because I think I am correct in observing that our technology is rapidly changing our very selves. Through science, the deaf can hear, the blind can see … and fetuses can survive apart from a womb earlier and earlier. I believe our ethics must be informed by these changes. I think our difference, in part, is because I am more excited about technology than you may be.
Our morals also change over time. If one believes in Genesis as historical fact, one can see that it was not one moral, but imperative to put to death someone who gathered sticks for a fire on the sabbath (Gen. 31:14, 25:2).
As I mentioned above, it was once thought that sperm alone was a “potential person”, it’s not controversial in most circles that an egg must be involved as well.
I hope that some day, science will be able to tell us things it now cannot: among them, when a human being acquires free will. But for now, the best I see that we have to work with is when a person’s body can survive outside of a womb, and as we can’t make religious laws, that is the best we have to go on.
Sorry – the killing people for gathering tinder on the sabbath is Exodus 31:14 and 25:2.
I’ll add that the way Jesus threw down with all the Pharisees ‘s legalistic nonsense and replaced it with reason set a good example for us to act on our reason, not our feelings, or traditions, or those who claim religious authority.
2 things – then i really must not spend much time debating today – i have to focus on my family which actually, is much more fun! (though i do enjoy a good conversation about something i feel passionately about!) 🙂
1. i actually am amazed and awed at technology and all that man has discovered. probably no less than you – no wait, correction… yes, less than you but only because of one VITAL reason… i look at all that man has done and i am not so awed at man’s accomplishment as i am awed at what God has created and what He has allowed us to be capable of learning. What medicine has taught us about the human body and science taught us about the laws of the universe and the seemingly never-ending ions of galaxies and stars… it is so great – so amazing – so unbelievable and truly AWEsome! it all points to a Master Designer who created this universe with such love for His creation. to me it’s not about the creation (and science, medicine, technology) but rather, it’s all about the Creator.
2. I don’t believe that Jesus threw down the Pharisee’s legalistic nonsense only to replace it with reason. there is so much more beyond reason when it comes to knowing Him and he made it pretty clear. how desperately Nichodemus wanted to reason and understand the concept of being born again. But alas – all the education, status, intelligence, logic, reason in the world could not help me grasp with his mind what first had to start in the heart, the spirit. Only then could his mind be opened to understand. Reason will never be enough.
Eric,
I really do have to go spend time with my son. I stayed up late writing last night and really chewing on our conversations. I take them seriously and I listen to you carefully – not just for the sake of debate but because you are one of us – a fellow man, one of God’s creation. However, my family misses out when I stay stuck in this chatter for too long. 🙂 I’m sure you understand. Watching cartoons with my son will be one of the greatest gifts of my day so I must go. I just wanted to say, I don’t know, some closing thought and I’m at a bit of a loss for words. We can debate scripture and theorize all day long about their application to daily living… and by the way, I do believe God’s word has eveyr place in our lives and yes, even our laws… He proves He wants that all through the Old AND New Testaments – Jesus went to every level of humanity and authority to counter man’s ways with God’s… our world would be so different if we would allow God’s influence in our laws. This not said to further debate but simply say I beleve differently than you and we can simply agree to disagree on this one.
I guess what I want to also say is that you and I have a different view of God’s word. You seem to have some amount of respect for the Bible and have certainly studied to some degree to even know a verse or reference (I do wonder how/why you know something about the Bible?)… but you haven’t expressed any love of God or His word. I LOVE His words – as I read His words and ask for His involvement in my life and reading I get the gift of knowing Him. It seems futile to debate scripture with someone who has no true love or attachment to God and His word. We will never see eye to eye without that common thread and could debate ’til the end of time but never get anywhere. So, I wonder at what point this conversation needs to end, perhaps soon… at the moment I think I will take a break to focus on loving my family as it is one of my greatest joys!
Thanks for taking the time to chat. I’ll think of you and pray for you for years to come I’m sure.
Hey Heidi, I know I dont really know you though I feel I sorta do! I think you did a fantastic job debating this one. Worded perfectly and thoughtfully, your heart did do this justice. Good for you!!! ~Shayla~
Shayla,
Thank you so much for your affirming words! It was very kind of you to take the time to share and it really does mean a lot to me. Thank you so much.
Heidi Jo