Today, I during the 3 o'clock hour, Bob was chiding Christians for taking an inconsistent stance on in vitro fertilization. Bob's reasoning went like this: Life begins at conception. All life should be protected. Therefore, it is impermissible to freeze the embryos because they are discarded later. It is best if all embryos are implanted in the uterus to permit God to determine which embryo should survive. Because only God's will should determine who gets to gestate.
Beyond arguing whether or not life begins at fertilization, I have a serious question: Is Bob making God a murderer?
The process of in vitro fertilization is complex. It starts with the woman donating eggs and the man donating sperm. Both must donate enough of each to ensure the production of multiple embryos for implantation. (Granted, this is easier for the man.) A number of zygotes are then implanted because, often, a single zygote often will not take. Implanting a panoply of zygotes is insurance that the couple will, in fact, become pregnant. The doctors freeze the remaining embryos just in case the implanted embryos fail and the couple wants to try again.
But as I said, Bob wants all the zygotes implanted so God can decide if the couple should be pregnant. But if God doesn't want the woman to become pregnant, God decides that none of the zygotes get to become children. God has, in essence, terminated the pregnancy. And since life begins at conception, i.e., fertilization, God has taken a life.
Now, I'm not calling God a murderer. I'm saying that the logical conclusion to Bob's reasoning makes God complicit in the death of any child that fails to impregnate a woman through in vitro fertilization.
Using Bob's logic, I ask again: Does God have any culpability in the death of those zygotes that fail to gestate?
If, as Bob believes, God is involved personally in the day-to-day operation of the universe, God must be morally responsible for the failure of those zygotes to gestate. Either that, or He doesn't care.
Either way, Bob's idea of God is reprehensible.
4 comments:
I caught the segment, too.
The thing with Bob is as the Christian Left, along with simple facts comes into play, Bob has to play a game of cat and mouse. This time it went like this:
Bob: Embryonic stem cell research is murder because you're using embryos!
Reality based community: The embryos were from fertility clinics and they were going to be thrown away anyway! You might as well use them to cure diseases!
Bob: Well the science doesn't work anyway, and I should know because nobody knows more about science than a radio talk show host! And I'm now going to attack invitro fertilization as being unchristian!
It's cat and mouse with Bob. Disprove one of his talking points and he'll make another. This is the same with many conservative pundits, and after the third new talking point they stop making sense. This is the case with Bob.
I don't think Bob really thinks of God as a murderer. Most Christians believe that natural death is God's will (even if by invitro miscarriage). But by bashing families that need medical assistance in becoming pregnant, he shows a serious lack of Christian empathy. But then again, caring for people has never been Bob's strong suit.
Forgot to mention-being a Christian hasn't been one of Bob's strong suits, either.
I think it's more than just a cat-and-mouse game with Bob.
You've hit it on the head by describing baffling callers and guests with a litany of talking points.
He makes no effort to argue from principle, because his understanding of most issues is a litany of talking points.
For example, mention that God appears nowhere in the Constitution and he disagrees. He'll point to "In the year of our Lord" at the end of the document and claim this supports his views.
It's like swatting at flies. Once he gets the caller/guest to admit they can refute this or that minor point, Bob declares victory.
It's not cat-and-mouse; It's a sheer disingenuousness and misrepresentation.
The "blessings of liberty" refers to God because liberty comes from God. Dan Barker then tried to counter that by pointing out biblical slavery and Dutko cut him right off and said that they were not going to discuss that. I know the debate was not over slavery but if Nutjob wants to say that God is in the Constitution because the blessings of liberty come from God, then Dan has the right to mention bible slavery. In an actual debate, Dutko couldn't do that. He would have to stand there while Dan points out that God is a dictator and that he condoned slavery in the bible. Saying "the blessings of liberty" is just like saying the "rewards of hard work". Dan tried to tell the red fundie that he was being desparate in trying to point out some little thing in the margin and of course Nutjob wasn't listening.
Post a Comment