A Touchstone Spanking:
Re: A Touchstone Spanking-(Respond to this post) - Pr. Fickel
We've been headed this way. We lost the argument over IVF, when we couldn't resist the language of mercy. From that point forward, we have as an institution kept two categories of human life -- those implanted in the womb and those sitting in petri dishes or freezers. It was too hard to tell childless women that IVF was not future's hope but satan's lie. We swallowed it.
Now, confronted with the end of the game, we are trapped in our previous sophistry. There is no escape. Unless our Lord intervenes in mercy, we will find medical or scientific evidence in the coming decades to distinguies completely between human-life, implanted in the uterine wall, and non-human life resting in a lab dish.
Contraception separated sex from its consequences, and we went along with it. IVF separated pro-creation or reproduction from its cause, and we followed in line. Embryonic stem cell research separates bodies, no matter how small, from souls. May we, by God's grace, not be punished for it.
-Fickel
Dec 07, 2005 16:21:42 Re: A Touchstone Spanking-(Respond to this post) - Stiegemeyer
And here is the comment I posted there:
[I, like Rev. Petersen who comments above, am a pastor in the LCMS. And I too am very frustrated by the way our synod tries to do theology and address such topics these days. Many of our leadership seem to want to be known as "conservative" but lack the firm conviction of their stated beliefs. Nowadays, we like to make statements that say little. I think we used to talk softly carrying a big stick, but now we just talk softly./i]
As I stated in my last post, it's not so disappointing to have the CTCR (Commission on Theology and Church Relations) release a document supporting unborn life but rather they use scientific language which has no place in the church. See the
original press release:
"The approaches proposed thus far do not succeed in providing clear and convincing evidence to lift the burden of proof that lies on those who propose to destroy embryos," the report concludes. "In the absence of decisive arguments, pre-implantation embryonic life should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of life."
What is "pre-implantation embryonic life"? If we're about protecting generic life forms, lets avoiding eating plants and animals as they are "life" which science deems worth protecting. This language implies embryonic life is non-human. By this we are suggesting treatment of unborn human life in petri dish should differ from that in the womb.
