Not as simple as we think...

When it comes to issues like abortion, most people (like myself), know how they stand on the issue. It's not a new issue! And we occasionally pay attention to the latest court decisions that seem to direct the course of the national debate. One of the things that I'm realizing, however, is that it isn't as simple as being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" all the time.

I'm sure there are people who are 100% consistent on the issue, however most of us want to balance the issue with other considerations. That makes the debate less of a two-sided debate, and more of a continous spectrum on which many of us find ourselves leaning one side or another.

Here's an example:

See the video here

Read the article here

Appeals court decision here

One of my co-workers (perhaps you've seen this news lately, it's national and is going to the Texas Supreme Court possibly the US Supreme Court one day) is currently in a dispute with his ex-wife over what to do with 3 frozen embryos that they had fertilized at the local test-tube lab before they divorced. ASIDE: Now, before we go too much further with this, I will say that I wonder if we as a human race should be messing with this at all? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And I'll demonstrate why and backup this point later. I need to say also that I have great compassion on those who are having fertility issues, and I just can't imagine how tough that is. But I don't think my NOT having fertility issues exempts me from entering the debate and expressing my opinion on the matter.

Note: I'm not gossiping about my co-worker since this is on CNN.

So anyway....the couple agreed during their marriage that IF they were to divorce, the embryos would be destroyed. That was their mutually agreed to plan. Well, unfortunately, that's what happened, they divorced. However, the wife changed her mind about the embryos and decided she still wanted to preserve them (some may say "rescue them". In any case, she didn't stick to the contract).

So where do you side if you're the judge? Are you pro-life EVEN if the legal terms of the contract were perfectly clear and contrary (in my view)? Is it more important to uphold the terms of contracts (which seems to be lost in our culture) or to always protect the unborn life? Well, BOTH are important really.

This is where I do feel some compassion on judges and politicians which may be forced to vote or render decisions contrary to their own beliefs at times, and always to make tough decisions. It also explains why lobbying groups on both sides keep track of judicial decisions and lawmaker's votes and rate them on a percentage basis on HOW MUCH they are pro-life or pro-choice (e.g. 99% or 40%).

So here are my brief thoughts on both sides:

Man-for: He should have the right to remove consent and to NOT bear any children to anyone or to his ex-wife. Also, the contract was clear that in the event of divorce they’d be destroyed.

Man-against: He’s calling for them to be destroyed per the contract, which obviously I’m against as a pro-life believer.

Woman-for: She’s taking the pro-life stand, and I understand these are her children (embryos) too and she wants them preserved.

Woman-against: She can still have embryos formed with another sperm donor, why force her ex-husband to have children with her? I know he doesn't have to be legally responsible, nevertheless, they would be HIS children and that should require his consent shouldn't it? Also, she’s breaking the clear agreement in the contract.

So here are two bottom lines that are quite counter-cultural, but that I believe reflect my views on this situation from the "Christian worldview" perspective:

1. Artificially creating embryos leads to decisions about life that perhaps we were never supposed to be allowed to make.
2. Divorce destroys the lives of all involved (quite literally), and is too widely accepted in our culture.

I understand I'm stepping on a lot of toes by suggesting we shouldn't be doing this fertility stuff. I just can't stop the thought in my head that sometimes these medical procedures get us into tough ethical and spirtual debates that perhaps we weren't meant to be debating. I want you to know, if you disagree with me, that I don't want to sound like some cold-hearted guy who's completely detached from the ramifications of this. And I want everyone who wants to have a child to have one (or a bunch!). In fact, I'd be hard pressed not to consider the option myself if faced with the difficulties of conception. However, I'm trying to look at this from a "best-case" scenario and a 30,000 foot level. The truth is that thousands and thousands of embryos are being destroyed, and I am of the belief that they are human lives.

So, now, you're the judge. How do you rule?

Brad