The Missouri Synod Gives Embryos the Benefit of the Doubt

A press release from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod you may find of interest:

CTCR: `Care, not kill` applies to all human embryos

By Roland Lovstad

"Always to care, never to kill" is a principle that applies to all human embryos, even those developed outside the womb through scientific methods such as in-vitro fertilization, concludes a new report from the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR).

"Christian Faith and Human Beginnings" was adopted by the CTCR in September. It is scheduled to be distributed to congregations and all rostered church workers by the end of this year. Requested by the 1998 LCMS Convention, this report is intended to guide Christian response to the use of fertilized human eggs for medical research such as recovery of stem cells. It describes techniques for in-vitro fertilization and cloning and provides a glossary of related terms.

Dr. Samuel Nafzger, executive director of the CTCR, believes the report is one of the most significant documents the commission has prepared. "It is an important document, very technical, but very readable," he said. "It makes the strongest case that neither science nor medicine has documented reasons for change in the long-standing LCMS position that human life -- and that includes pre-implantation life -- is included under the Scriptural mandate for protection and care."

In-vitro fertilization is the clinical practice of fertilizing human eggs in a laboratory setting and often includes decisions not to transfer all the eggs into the woman's body. Some are frozen for possible future transfer and others are discarded.

The commission cites several contemporary factors pressing for the use of the leftover fertilized eggs. Scientific curiosity seeks to unlock secrets of the embryo. Medical research sees embryos as sources for stem cells, which may have potential for treatment of disease. The commission also notes that the promise of economic gain may override moral concerns for the status of the embryo.

"Today we know that in-vitro fertilization is a widely used technology, and that we cannot escape pondering the significance of human life presented to us in Petri dishes in an in-vitro fertilization clinic," reads the report. "Access to human life in these earliest stages in a laboratory setting requires us carefully to examine the sources of some people's uneasy sense that life in this form is 'doubtfully' an object of compassion and love.

"Upon examination," the report continues, "the Commission on Theology and Church Relations has remained convinced that both biblical and philosophical perspectives support the wisdom of protecting pre-implantation embryos from the time of conception." The report adds that cloning pre-implantation human life for stem cells also ends the development of the embryo, preventing it from developing into a live-born human.

"Human embryos, beginning with conception, are set on a course of development that leads continuously to an unfolding of a unique human life," says the CTCR report. The commission says it found no moment in that "unfolding" that establishes a basis for distinguishing between embryonic life that need not be protected and embryonic or fetal or live-born life that should be protected.

The burden of proof to the contrary lies with those who argue for removing protection from pre-implantation embryos, the report states.

The report cites Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139:13-16, Job 10:8-12, and Job 31:15 as biblical texts often used in arguments concerning pre-implantation embryos.

"When conversing with people who are not convinced that these passages and principles extend to pre-implantation human life, we can nonetheless assert that -- at the very least -- the bias in Scripture testifies to God's care for all human life," the report says.

"This comprehensive care casts reasonable doubt upon attempts to remove embryonic human life from under the umbrella of God's love," the report continues. "Furthermore, Scripture offers no guidelines for exempting certain lives from God's interest and care."

The report also argues that the biblical call to see embryos as our "neighbors" through our love and care -- as illustrated in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan -- is much clearer than opposing arguments that suggest human life need not be protected from the earliest stages of its development. Scripture calls again and again, the report says, "to love and service of the 'least of these,' our brothers and sisters."

"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."

The report also warns, "If we become accustomed to excluding some human lives even when we may reasonably doubt the ethics of the exclusion, we may in our sinful pride find pretexts also to exclude other lives from the circle of our care. This fact of human moral carelessness should make us all redouble our efforts to be completely sure about our ethics before we press forward."

I may be missing something, having only the press release to go by, but arguments like "In the absence of decisive arguments, pre-implantation embryonic life should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of life" strike me as very odd. The commission seems unwilling to grant the embryonic child an absolute right to life, despite almost saying so here and there.

I wouldn't think this was a particularly difficult matter. If the embryonic child isn't a human being, what is he? There aren't any other options. And if he is a human being, why should his survival depend on the "absence of decisive arguments" and "the benefit of the doubt"?

The report also, as far as one can tell from the press release, seems to approve of in vitro fertilization. For an argument on why IVF is wrong, see the editorial from our March issue, Gifts of the Womb.

Comments

[Todd Mitchell]

Perhaps "decisive argument" = empirically based dialectic?

[Tony Dunlop]

I also wonder if I'm missing something regarding the views of LCMS on the ethics of IVF itself. Do the authors of this document consider "freeze it and forget about it" a form of care?

[td]

oops...I guess I posted before reading the last paragraph of David's blog. Mea culpa.

[Martin Aleutherius]

I'm frankly appalled at this news. The LCMS has been, historically, one of the most consistently pro-life denominations in the USA. What in the world were they thinking allowing this thing to see the light of day?

Why do they surrender the rhetorical high ground?

Since when do we refer to "pre-implanted embryonic life" instead of what these "things" are: human beings, children, fruit of the loins and fruit of the womb.

I'm horrified by this news.

[Petersen]

I am horrified as well. But unlike the other commentators I also embarrassed. Being a member of the LCMS brings frequent embarassmentthese days, but that seems never so much the case as when Theology is left to elected committees (or worse elected officials.) There are good men on this committee. They are striving to speak the truth with clarity. But at the end of the day this is a committee with a great deal of institutional loyalty and fear. That drives the CTCR to always consider politics. And its opinions, even when are mostly good, are short of what needs to be said. Also there nearly always ends up being a minority report. In the old days we had seminary faculties do this work, but we discovered they were too dogmatic, so we invited a committee. Such is life in the LCMS.

[Stiegemeyer]

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.