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.
Nobody claimed they were "evil" Mac. And I would be careful lumping St Thomas and St Augustines views together. St Thomas wrote that abortion was always a grave moral evil but that it only became murder after an Aristotelian time period. There is ample reason to believe that given todays science, St Thomas would have modified his views to those embraced by the Church today and I happen to believe that Augustine would as well.
So yes science has a place in the development of a theological view and the better the science the firmer the theology vis a vis aborting human beings.
jwalsh07 has already answered this question well, but here's my 2 cents:
Just as I cannot measure souls or another woman's faith, none of the early philosophers could measure a pregnancy until miscarriage or quickening. Although, it is possible that Pius IX was familiar with microscopic evidence of the early embryo.
However, in the case of the human embryo made in the petri dish, or whose existence can be followed by serial ultrasounds and his/her mother's serum HCG levels, we know better than any earlier thinkers could know. We know that there never is a time when the body is "unformed," only early stages of the human form. Those who are willing to endanger the lives of early humans can watch the cell division, down to the movement of the RNA and alignment of the centromeres and then the chromosomes.
We understand, as Robert George and Eric Cohen have written separately and together, and as has been seen and experienced in lab after lab all over the world regardless of the faith of the observer, that the body is living, and begins life at the penetration of the oocyte cell membrane by the sperm.
A couple of points. First, I believe from what I have read, that Augustine had seen either aborted or miscarried fetuses in various stages of development. Second, Pius IX was (to the best of my knowledge) not in receipt of any new information concerning the development stages of the fetus. Finally, the concept of ensoulment at any stage of development is a completely theological determination, even though Augustine and others attempted to link it to physiology.
As for the debate on abortion today, I don't think many even consider the history. Those for it link it simply to a woman's choice right up to and including the birth process. Those opposed usually consider it murder from the moment of conception. Neither will consider the history that we have been discussing, nor any possibility of something in between conception and birth.
While a majority of Americans do not like abortion, still the majority seems to recognize that there actually are distinctions between those two points, as shown in the recent South Dakota vote, and most polls taken in the past few years.
Ultimately, just as it was with Augustine, it is a matter of faith, not science that drives most opinions. Yet only few consider the constitutional issue: At what point if any, does a fetus assume the rights granted by the Bill of Rights? Here, science can play a role. Sentience is a consideration. At some point a fetus has sufficiently progressed to the possession of a central nervous system, can feel pain, can learn. Even those who do not believe in souls must still consider the Constitution as it applies to the fetus.
Of course they have. Almost any thread that attempts to discuss this issue considers anyone who approves of an abortion as evil. If these people believe the same as Augustine, that a soul does not exist for at least some period during the development, and if they are evil, by definition, so must Augustine be.
St Thomas wrote that abortion was always a grave moral evil but that it only became murder after an Aristotelian time period.
That was because many during that time believed also that both birth control and other methods of sexual gratification stopped the process God intended, and was therefore evil. The issue is the concept of ensoulment, not the moral implications of birth control and other methods.
There is ample reason to believe that given todays science, St Thomas would have modified his views to those embraced by the Church today and I happen to believe that Augustine would as well.
Perhaps, but only because today it is Church doctrine, not subject to any disagreement by the faithful. The issue raised though, is still valid if one feels that doctrine does not hinder his thinking.
So yes science has a place in the development of a theological view and the better the science the firmer the theology vis a vis aborting human beings.
Well, again, what information did Pius IX have that Augustine did not have? Certainly had the Pope determined that ensoulment takes place at an earlier stage than 16 to 30 weeks, I would agree. But the Pope decreed that ensoulment takes place at the moment of conception. That eliminates science as a basis for the later determination, and depends completely on faith.
He would better understand at what stage a central nervous system is sufficiently formed, when sex is determined, when pain can be "felt" and so on. But would he see a sufficiently formed human body a few days after conception? I doubt it.
I think Augustine's faith would have been enriched along with his understanding, if he had access to the science of today. Augustine found his faith without the great scientific knowledge that we have today. Septic that I am, I may never have found my faith without science revealing the fingerprints of God. I guess that is why Augustine is a saint.
Psalm 43 intones God as saying "BEFORE you were born I knew you".. Aquinas was probably WRONG... Meaning we existed before we were enfleshed and will remain alive after this body dies also.. What IS life?.. Indeed... The "EVOs" are playing a game with too many Jokers/Wild Cards..
As one of my instructors (John Kilner, PhD, at Trinity International University) said, the fact that we are created in the image of God doesn't tell us who or what humans are, but Whose we are.
I put it a little differently: those who believe in the Creator should think carefully before attempting to dividing the image of God.
I don't know that St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas had any lack of belief in the Creator. Yet they made distinctions.
If they discriminated, they made mistakes. No surprise: Jesus Christ is the only Man Who never made a mistake.
As I said, I believe they were working on the knowledge that they had at the time. Science has increased our knowledge and our tools to demonstrate what is true.
(And, to prove that I can make - and admit - my own mistakes: That should have been, "before attempting to divide the image of God.)
Two laws of sociopolitical change:
1) What "progressives" introduce as optional soon becomes mandatory.
2)When the traditional is made optional it soon is proscribed.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights!
The practice of willfully killing alive unborn humans is evil, and to try to divert the discussion into lines meant to obfuscate the basic truths regarding the wrongness of killing for arbitrary notions and basic selfishness is close to aiding and abetting evil. Your desire to pin gray upon the various appearances of the early ages in a human lifetime is quite telling. Self-justification is a powerful drive don'tchaknow.
I understand the importance this is to today's Church doctrine on abortion. I would never attack faith, but I merely point out for those who believe in the soul itself, no amount of science will ever support it, nor does it have to. And I understand how, in the ongoing debate on abortion, it is important to justify the distinction between Augustine's beliefs and those of the Church in the 19th Century.
There is a little irony here however. In the debate over evolution, Christians try desperately to prove that science is wrong in order to support the theory of creation. In the abortion debate, Christians try to use science to substantiate the timing of ensoulment.
I point these dichotomies out simply to illustrate your point that man makes mistakes, and men, after all, made these determinations.
Take care.
I am not an abortion advocate. I am merely pointing out how the Church for over 1200 years generally believed that no soul was present until a defined point in the development. And efforts to demonstrate that science had improved to the point of leading the Church to its 1869 decree on abortion fail any test of logic. Augustine was well aware of what very early fetuses looked like. He didn't simply imagine it all. He was a scientist as well as a philosopher. Even today, we know that the early fetus is completely unformed, sexless, brainless, lacking any central nervous system. The question is what we know today that Augustine didn't know that makes one so sure a soul exists at that very early stage?
Lies are the necessary tools of those defending the abortion slaughter.
I won't accuse anyone of lying, but I can tell you that when Pius IX issued the encyclical banning all abortions in 1869, it was not through any new scientific knowledge. Yet those who try and justify the distinction between the Church's early policy on abortion and its current policy use that very point...that science had improved. How would you describe that tactic?
Are all defenders of abortion evil? Hardly, but most in favor of unfettered abortion 'rights' are deluded by graying arguments diverting attention to such notions of sentience, learning capability, heartbeat, etc, just as you seem so willing to divert this discussion.
I'm not the one who was attempting to use science to justify the timing of ensoulment. Once you use science, you cannot simply back away from it. Your side of the issue determined that after these miraculous scientific breakthroughs in the 1800s, the Pope, using science as a guide, determined that ensoulment took place at the instant of conception, not later, after a more formed and animated fetus could be observed. Now you say that I am graying the issue by discussing it in scientific terms. If science is at issue, then yes, sentience, a central nervous system, etc are fair topics. If you are relying solely on faith, then no.
Nor have I or anyone on this thread been discussing abortion as an "unfettered right".
The practice of willfully killing alive unborn humans is evil, and to try to divert the discussion into lines meant to obfuscate the basic truths regarding the wrongness of killing for arbitrary notions and basic selfishness is close to aiding and abetting evil.
Again, we are going into a circular argument, but suffice it to say that if it is evil today, it was evil during the time of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Ergo, they were evil.
Your desire to pin gray upon the various appearances of the early ages in a human lifetime is quite telling. Self-justification is a powerful drive don'tchaknow.
How so? This entire debate has been about that very point, the timing of the ensoulment of a pre-birth human life. Again, I'm not the one who attempted to link it to science. In fact, my issue is with the Constitution, not with the "faith" of anyone. My concern is over what point a human is sufficiently developed to be considered a person for purposes of the Bill of Rights.
But it's a lot easier to label someone as simply evil, than to debate an issue on its face.
Take care.
Evidently not. St Augustine distinguished between males and females. We now know that external sexual characteristics present by the end of the 11th week yet St Augustine stated that males could not be aborted after the 6th week, 40 days. Something wrong there, no?
Second, Pius IX was (to the best of my knowledge) not in receipt of any new information concerning the development stages of the fetus. Finally, the concept of ensoulment at any stage of development is a completely theological determination, even though Augustine and others attempted to link it to physiology.
Correct which is exactly the point I've been trying to get across to you. St Thomas and Maimonides basically said the same thing, that being that if science conflicts with the theology one needs to reexamine ones theology because truth can not contradict truth. So while ensoulment is faith based when life begins is not, it is science.
As for the debate on abortion today, I don't think many even consider the history. Those for it link it simply to a woman's choice right up to and including the birth process. Those opposed usually consider it murder from the moment of conception. Neither will consider the history that we have been discussing, nor any possibility of something in between conception and birth.
Individual life is a continuous function. Human beings take on different human characteristics along that continuum consistent with being a human being. On the other hand God says he knew us before we were formed. A person of faith takes God at his word looks at the science and comes to an inevitable conclusion, life begins at birth and the taking of that innocent human life is wrong.
While a majority of Americans do not like abortion, still the majority seems to recognize that there actually are distinctions between those two points, as shown in the recent South Dakota vote, and most polls taken in the past few years.
Actually, the South Dakota is pretty darn encouraging. The tough position to take is that all innocent human life should be treated the same and visiting the sins of the father on the baby is not a good thing. But I understand peoples reticence to carry a rapists baby to term. It is a very, very difficult thing to do and perhaps to much to ask from government. But 44% of South Dakotans voted to be consistently pro life. An amazing number in todays America don't you think?
Ultimately, just as it was with Augustine, it is a matter of faith, not science that drives most opinions.
I would disagree with that. I think science and faith can go hand and hand in deciding great moral issues.
Yet only few consider the constitutional issue: At what point if any, does a fetus assume the rights granted by the Bill of Rights?
At conception. :-}
Here, science can play a role. Sentience is a consideration.
Why? Is the unborn baby less human prior to sentience? Is a comatose adult less than human? Sentience is an argument I understand but don't put much stock in. It's simply another arbitrary point in the human continuum similar to St Augustines 40 and 80 days.
At some point a fetus has sufficiently progressed to the possession of a central nervous system, can feel pain, can learn. Even those who do not believe in souls must still consider the Constitution as it applies to the fetus.
So when do you think an unborn baby deserves protection under the 5th and 14th amendments?
Well...it does demonstrate that he saw fetuses at later stages, but does not reflect any evidence he didn't see them at very early stages, which I understand he did. His determination that females developed at a different rate than males, or that he was mistaken about the age of the fetus certainly doesn't lead one to conclude (at least through biology) that a soul is implanted at the time of conception.
Correct which is exactly the point I've been trying to get across to you. St Thomas and Maimonides basically said the same thing, that being that if science conflicts with the theology one needs to reexamine ones theology because truth can not contradict truth. So while ensoulment is faith based when life begins is not, it is science.
Yet this whole debate is based on linking science with theology. Those who didn't accept Augustine's conclusions did so by using a scientific argument, not a theological one. Their argument is that Augustine was not in receipt of the knowledge of biological development we are today. My argument here has always been that if one relies on faith, fine. If one attempts to interject science into the argument, it begins to falter...badly. It is the reason the Church today tries to bury the earlier concepts since scientists and popes alike accepted the concept of late ensoulment...based on both faith and science. It tends to cause problems from both perspectives. From a faith perspective, why did so many popes not have the correct faith? From a scientific perspective, what did Pius IX learn that led to his encyclical?
On the other hand God says he knew us before we were formed. A person of faith takes God at his word looks at the science and comes to an inevitable conclusion, life begins at birth and the taking of that innocent human life is wrong.
But if as you say, God said that, it would seem clear that Augustine and everyone else should have known that. Why did they not?
But 44% of South Dakotans voted to be consistently pro life. An amazing number in todays America don't you think?
I'm not sure if that's a trend one way or another. It may be a lot like the gay marriage issue. Most Americans are against gay marriage, as the constitutional amendments in various states reflect. But polls show that most still have no problem with other legal arrangements for gays and lesbians. The same here with abortion. Most Americans don't like it, but accept it under certain circumstances. Polls show only a relatively small number favor a woman's right to an abortion, unfettered at any stage.
I would disagree with that. I think science and faith can go hand and hand in deciding great moral issues.
I made the point in another post that with abortion, most try to link faith with science to demonstrate that life and therefore the soul begins at conception. When discussing the evolution v: creation controversy, many creationists try to delink science from it by denying the science. It can get a tad confusing....
Why? Is the unborn baby less human prior to sentience? Is a comatose adult less than human? Sentience is an argument I understand but don't put much stock in. It's simply another arbitrary point in the human continuum similar to St Augustines 40 and 80 days.
The problem with that is that those of faith can rely on the concept of the soul to make their point. Those who don't must rely completely on biology. For them, the question is at what stage does a life take on sufficient human characteristics to be considered a "person" as envisaged by the Bill of Rights? Nor is it necessarily arbitrary, since there is a point at which development makes one sentient. Others consider viability the real point. But in any case, it cannot be easily brushed off. As for a comatose person, no issue for me. Once a person is determined to have certain rights, a medical condition should not remove them.
So when do you think an unborn baby deserves protection under the 5th and 14th amendments?
For me there is little doubt that viability is the absolute fail safe point. But I am open to the theory that sentience should be considered. Very difficult to put into a workable law. At that point, I would opt for the rights of the unborn child.
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.