Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethicists debate issues about beginning of life
Cleveland Jewish News ^ | 12.02.06 | MARILYN H. KARFELD,

Posted on 12/02/2006 1:33:42 PM PST by Coleus

Infertility - not assimilation or inadequate education - is perhaps the biggest obstacle to Jewish continuity, suggests Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector and professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.  “We are in a great demographic crisis,” says the Conservative rabbi, an expert in medical ethics. “We Jews are not even reproducing ourselves, let alone growing.”  Dorff understands how much education is required to take somebody born Jewish and transform that person into someone who knows a lot about Judaism and practices it. “But you can't educate someone who is not there,” he said in a phone interview with the CJN.

Infertility has hit Jews harder than other American populations because a higher percentage of Jews go to college and graduate school, Dorff says. These individuals often defer marriage and childbearing until after completing their education and establishing careers.  Unfortunately for those planning to get pregnant in their late 20s and 30s, age is “by far the most important factor” in fertility for both men and women, says the rabbi.
  He'll address this topic Sun., Dec 10, as keynote speaker at Siegal College's conference on Bioethics and the Jewish Tradition. Participants will discuss “The Beginning of Life: Medical, Family and Ethical Issues.” The conference is sponsored by Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and supported by a grant from The Mt. Sinai Health Care Foundation.

The optimal age to procreate is 22, according to the American Medical Association. Infertility rates rise for those between ages 27 and 35; about 30% of couples between 27 and 35 are infertile, Dorff says. Couples age 35 to 40 also see an increase in offspring with Down syndrome and other genetic defects. From ages 40 to 42, couples have only a 9% chance of delivering a healthy child.   It's essential that organized Judaism take steps to try to reverse this demographic trend, the rabbi says. Parents and community leaders should encourage teens to apply to colleges with a large Jewish population to enhance their romantic opportunities as well as their educational and religious ones.

Second, young Jewish couples should be encouraged to marry and bear children younger, perhaps while still in graduate school, and to have three or four children, not the typical two. “Encourage means money,” Dorff adds. “Those of us beyond child-bearing years have to provide money for affordable day care and tuition for day schools and Hebrew schools and Jewish camps.” As a rabbi, Dorff frequently counsels those struggling with the “sheer ache” of infertility problems. “There's a lot of tension in the marriage. Every month is a final exam, and if you're infertile, you're going to fail a lot of those exams. Jews are not used to failing, especially something as personal as this.

“Marriages break up. People question ‘Who am I as a man?' ‘Who am I as a woman?' ‘Who are we as a couple?'”  While many young Jewish couples think that modern science makes it possible to stretch their child-bearing years almost to menopause, Dorff says that is just not true. Assisted reproduction techniques, however, can help many Jewish couples have a child. Some of these procedures raise ethical questions. Having children with the parents' own egg and sperm, fertilized in a petri dish and then implanted in the womb, is not a problem ethically, at least not to Dorff. Rather, it's a problem financially. In vitro fertilization (IVF) costs $10,000 (and up) a try. Insurance doesn't cover the procedure, and couples have only a one in five chance of having a child with each IVF attempt.

Using donor gametes (sperm or egg) raises other issues. Among Orthodox Jews, very few would allow the use of donor gametes, Dorff maintains. The problem is there's always a possibility, no matter how remote, of unintentional incest in the next generation. This is especially true in closed communities that tend to intermarry.
  Couples are more likely to know the identity of egg donors than sperm donors. But egg donations pose questions about how to raise the child, Dorff points out. For example, an infertile woman desiring a child asks her sister to donate an egg. Is the egg donor the baby's mother or aunt?

Before even contemplating having a child, Jewish couples should be tested for the dozen or so Ashkenazi Jewish genetic disorders, the rabbi insists; these include Tay Sachs, Canavan's, and BRCA I and II genes, which carry a predisposition to developing breast and ovarian cancer.  “Even if the news is bad, it's good to have the knowledge,” he says. “Not testing raises the ethical question, ‘Do you have the right not to know?'”  A couple carrying affected genes can take steps to avoid having a child with a genetic disorder. In the case of recessive genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs, if both parents are carriers, they have a 1 in 4 chance of having a child with the disease. One way to avoid this is to do preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to determine if the embryo has the mutant gene.

In PGD, the father's sperm and several of the mother's eggs are fertilized in a petri test. The resulting embryos are tested for disease. Only a healthy embryo would be implanted in the mother's womb; the diseased ones would be discarded.  As genetic testing and PGD becomes more routine, ethicists worry about the possibility of creating so-called designer babies. Parents could choose a child based on sex, and someday in the not too distant future, they could select for some other characteristic, such as height or eye color. Ethicists like Dorff ask, “What's the difference between therapy and enhancement?''  PGD is not an ethical problem for Jews, even Orthodox Jews, Dorff insists, even though it does involve destroying embryos, albeit diseased ones. Similarly, embryonic stem-cell research, which Orthodox rabbis support, requires the destruction of a days-old embryo.

“The Talmud says that for the first 40 days a fertilized egg is in the womb, it is simply liquid,” Dorff explains. “Throughout pregnancy, a fetus does not have the status of a full-fledged human being.” The moral watershed is whether we learn about a disease before or after it's a fact, he maintains. After the child is born, Jews have to see a person created in the image of God and make sure that individual has as full a life as possible. But before the child's birth, Jews have the right and duty to test for genetic diseases and to employ methods such as PGD to make sure they bring a healthy child into the world, Dorff says. That in itself raises ethical questions, too. “What diseases do you choose against?” the rabbi asks.

Dorff acknowledges that it's really hard for him to talk about choosing to bear a healthy child in the presence of people from the disabled community. With advances in science, he notes, the moral issues have to be re-examined.
“Once you can do something, you do have to ask whether or not you should do it,” he says. “Not everything you can do, should you do.” mkarfeld@cjn.org  Bioethics and the Jewish Tradition will be held Sun., Dec. 10, at 7:30 p.m. and Mon., Dec. 11, from 7:30 a.m.-noon at Siegal College. It is open to the community and offers continuing education credits. Call 216-464-5827 or register online at http://siegalcollege. edu.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: bioethics; crevo; ethics; gene; genetics; infertility; ivf; jewish; pgd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Coleus; y'all
"From ages 40 to 42, couples have only a 9% chance of delivering a healthy child."

Is this true?

21 posted on 12/02/2006 6:37:37 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Augustine was doing scientific reseach on the progression of the fetus from A to B? Who knew? And wasn't the early Catholic fail safe fetus point something like 6 weeks? What was that based on?

I posted a thread on that several years ago about this lucunae of Catholic doctrine (before it was dumped in the 19th century), in a larger essay by Easterbrook on fetuses and sentience, which was not well received. I reposted it years later, and someone observed that most of the participants from back then had been banned. And I am still here! Maybe miracles are not impossible. Anything is possible.

22 posted on 12/02/2006 6:38:28 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Sounds like BS to me, particularly vis a vis the male. My dad was 45 when he sired me,and 48 when he sired my younger brother. Of course, some here might consider me unhealthy.


23 posted on 12/02/2006 6:40:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

I think it has to do with whether or not it's your first child. If you had a child previously, the outcome may be different. There are physicians on the FR, maybe one of them will read this and be more precise.


24 posted on 12/02/2006 6:44:56 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, geese, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Torie

The male part doesn't seem to go as fast. They can produce healthy babies with young women into their 70s+. It's the female biochem/mech that has a problem. I know Down's syndrome is very likely after 40, and that's due to something about the female. 9% seemed kind of low...


25 posted on 12/02/2006 6:47:58 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The Church knew realized it from the beginning, they were led astray shall we say.

Which would of course indicate that no new bio-science was necessary for the determination. Nor do I believe Augustine and Thomas among many others during that time and for the next 1200 years were evil. They were some of the best minds within the Church. Suffice it to say that for more than a millennium, it was an arguable position, just as it is today.

Yes, many did not support that position, just as some Catholics and other Christians don't support the Church's position today.

The beat goes on...

26 posted on 12/02/2006 6:50:34 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Torie
Thanks. I found this.

"Age-related chromosomal problems typically originate at the time of meiosis, when the egg cell eliminates half of its 46 chromosomes to accommodate the male's genetic material. Tiny filaments called spindles, which appear to become detached from the chromosomes as women age, separate the chromosomes. This detachment can result in an abnormal number of chromosomes in the egg, a condition called aneuploidy. This occurs in about 33 percent of eggs at age 35 and 50 percent of eggs at age 40."

So ~50% of the eggs have a problem at ~40.

27 posted on 12/02/2006 6:55:38 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
For the record, my mother was 30 when she had me, and 33 when she had my younger brother. My dad has lost his first wife to tuberculosis, which lasted over a ten year period until she died (yes 10 years in the hospital, to which my Dad visited each and every day, for 10 years), and then a couple of years later, as a very successful man in his career in NYC, married this absolutely gorgeous, vivacious, loving, people oriented, highly intelligent, willful, quite spoiled, Scarlet O"Hara type women from Iowa. (My mother's pics from that time are simply stunning, and take my breath away to this day.) As he told me while he was dying, yes I knew she was high maintenance, but I decided I could afford her, and therefore gave her lot of slack. I made a bargain, and kept it, and loved her dearly for what she was. Without her, and the sons she gave me, my life would have no meaning. And I cried. And there you have it.
28 posted on 12/02/2006 7:09:40 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It was a fairly common view that life could come from non-living matter. The best known instance is Nile mud, which was thought capable of yearly giving birth to all sorts of living creatures. That one was still current in the Renaissance.

True, but Augustine was as much a scientist as a theologian. And his determination that the human body was simply unformed in the early weeks is true today. His belief that the soul could only enter a formed body was purely theological, not based on any science. Many did not agree with him.

I suppose it depends what you mean by soul.

The issue was timing. Pius IX simply put the whole issue to rest by stating that the soul entered at conception. Of course, it was still not based on any science, but merely a philosophical point. The ensoulment determination ended the question (for those who believe) of when the fetus becomes a human being. For those who don't subscribe to that, it is still an arguable point.

But etymology, both Hebrew and Greek, suggest that life, breath, wind, and spirit are related concepts (ruach and pneuma). God breathes into Adam to give him life, and when the breath leaves the body we die.

Yes, I believe those concepts to be survivors from very ancient beliefs, many of which fell by the wayside, for Christians at least. I believe the concept of the soul to be a catchall for those earlier beliefs.

Further, the soul is not only spiritual. The Catechism of the Catholic Church still includes a formulation that goes back to Aristotle, that the soul is the form of the body. The body lives only when it has a soul. So, I would think this was a development of doctrine, not a change of doctrine.

Yet that defies the earlier concept of the timing of ensoulment. The Pope's encyclical in 1869 defining the timing of the act of ensoulment as instantaneous with conception was the second such decree by a Pope. There was one such call a few hundred years earlier, I believe, but it was short lived.

29 posted on 12/02/2006 7:11:35 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Augustine was doing scientific reseach on the progression of the fetus from A to B? Who knew? And wasn't the early Catholic fail safe fetus point something like 6 weeks? What was that based on?

Yes, there were actually two concepts that came into play. One which Augustine subscribed to was the time when the body was sufficiently formed to resemble a human. The other was called animation, when the movement in the womb began.

I'm glad you mentioned sentience, because for those who think non-theologically, that must be a consideration. For me, it is one consideration as to when the Bill of Rights comes into play. It's unfortunate that on a conservative web site many fear being banned for simply doing nothing more than adding an intellectual point of view. There are certainly a few areas of no trespass to non believers, but I didn't know this was one of them.

30 posted on 12/02/2006 7:19:48 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Actually it was the critics of Easterbrook's essay who were banned, for other perceived transgression, apparently. Just an odd lucunae of FR history. For some reason I get a lot of slack, and I don't self censor myself. Never have, never will. I enjoy just being me.


31 posted on 12/02/2006 7:24:25 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

No, informed conversation such as you have contributed certainly shouldn't be objected to, because it furthers the discussion.


32 posted on 12/02/2006 7:48:27 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Cicero; Coleus; MACVSOG68; Torie; MHGinTN

I'm convinced that the decisions they made were made with the knowledge they had at the time, and to protect the women who miscarried or had a late period.

All too often, these arguments are made by the same people who ridicule religion for insisting that the sun revolved around the earth. As though none of the geocentrists were the equivalent of scientists. And, they're hoping we don't remember the way Medicine resisted the germ theory and the way that Semelweis was treated by the hierarchy at that time. Or, more recently, the difficulty in convincing Medicine that folic acid was vital to neural tube development, that breast feeding really is best, that heart disease is really due to a bacterial infection and that cervical cancer is an STD.

We should all remember that science develops better tools, with finer measurements all the time. Knowledge simply increases, often before we know what we're doing. It's hard to let go of the old pardigms -- especially if someone's reputation (or Lord forbid!) research grant is at risk.

We now know what happens when a sperm and an oocyte fuse. We especially know which embryos in the Petri dish are alive and which are not embryos or which are not dividing.

Extrapolating from "water" in the womb that can't be measured or verified to "water" in the lab - petri dish or, soon, the artificial uterus - after a deliberate act of creation is simply wishful thinking. And it goes against scientific knowledge.


33 posted on 12/03/2006 12:21:36 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle; Cicero
From my profile at LifeEthics:

"Bioethics" is the formal study of who we can kill and enslave by designating them as not-human-enough to possess the basic human right not to be killed or enslaved. That's not what "they" say. But it's what they do if we let 'em. Let's don't let 'em.

34 posted on 12/03/2006 12:25:27 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Actually it was the critics of Easterbrook's essay who were banned, for other perceived transgression, apparently. Just an odd lucunae of FR history. For some reason I get a lot of slack, and I don't self censor myself. Never have, never will. I enjoy just being me.

I can only guess then that they launched into the personal attack mode. Even if one is on the "right" side of an issue here, he can still cross the line. I suspect you bring valid points into the debate without resorting to the personal attack.

35 posted on 12/03/2006 5:47:07 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Thank you.


36 posted on 12/03/2006 5:57:11 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
I'm convinced that the decisions they made were made with the knowledge they had at the time, and to protect the women who miscarried or had a late period.

Why? Do you think they did not understand the basic concept of "conception"? The issue was not the scientific knowledge today that did not exist then. Their rationale was not based on any lack of knowledge since the reasons given by them (unformed body and lack of animation)were in fact actually how the fetus is formed. Nor am I aware that Pope Pius IX was aware of any new scientific knowledge. Since the very existence of the soul itself is based on theological or philosophical conclusions, no amount of scientific knowledge can support its existence at any stage of development. Faith must substitute for proof.

For those who do not have such faith, abortion can still be opposed on constitutional grounds.

37 posted on 12/03/2006 6:12:39 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
<1>"From ages 40 to 42, couples have only a 9% chance of delivering a healthy child." Is this true?

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. The reality is that an older woman is equally likely to concieve a healthy child as a younger woman is. The difference is that the fetus in a younger woman is more likely to self-abort if something is wrong whereas an older woman is more likely to carry it to term. Hence, older women give birth to more downs babies, but not because they are less likely to concieve healthy ones.

38 posted on 12/03/2006 6:13:19 AM PST by pjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

What do they mean "when does life begin"? Life is present before and after conception. After conception it is a different life, a new individual.
At this point the lefties say "well it's not human!"
Well then, what is it? A dog? an ape? an amoeba? a paramecium? a virus?
If it's not human, at what point does it become human? And what is it that causes it to change from whatever to human? How does a formless mass of protoplasm (what they call it) become human? Either there is something inside it that makes it become human or something outside it that makes it become human.
At this point I've lost all the leftists, since their minds don't function like those of normal people.
And that's why I say "Leftism is Mentally Deranged"


39 posted on 12/03/2006 6:26:10 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (leftism = mentally deranged. Oh, that's my user name!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle

At conception, the soul of life force is proven 'there' by the action of organized growth, as in will exercised to live. What we do not have proof of is the presence of the human spirit with the soul of life, but as in your 'cautionary' word, we ought assume the spirit is present as soon as the soul is present. Until someone can prove the spriit doesn't take up residence with the soul at conception but at some later date, it is an arbitrary selfish (I would say self-appointed godhood) assumption to kill the newly conceived claiming 'no human is there yet.'


40 posted on 12/03/2006 8:48:48 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson