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 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer
1 posted on 12/02/2006 1:33:47 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


2 posted on 12/02/2006 1:34:48 PM PST by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
“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.”

With great respect to the Talmud, we can't know exactly when life begins. If we believe in God and the existence of an immortal soul within us, we must err on the side of caution. From the point of view of the human intellect, the most obvious time for God to impart a soul is at the moment of conception. That is when the most profound physiologic changes occur. That is when an incomplete genetic package becomes complete with all the code of a complete human being.

3 posted on 12/02/2006 2:05:58 PM PST by outofstyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
What is life; the physical body or the spirit that inhabits it?..
Can you kill a spirit?...
If so how?...

What should be the price/condemnation for killing a human physical body?..
even at the age of 1 month?..

4 posted on 12/02/2006 2:16:14 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Well, scientifically, we know when the life of an individual human being begins. It begins at conception. You can only get life from life, Frankenstein to the contrary. A live child is conceived by living parents, and we say that its life "begins" because it is genetically a separate person from either of its parents.

The Talmud is presumably based on biblical descriptions such as the one in the Book of Job. But the Bible is not attempting to be scientifically precise at all points. The Bible says that the sun "rises" and "sets," but we know it doesn't actually do that--rather, the earth turns and it only seems to rise and set. But it's so convenient to say so that we still say that the sun rises and sets, which certainly is not a false statement. It merely has to be properly understood.

Similarly, St. Thomas and other theologians spoke about life beginning at the moment of quickening or ensoulment, taken to be when the baby is first felt to move in the womb. But we now know that life begins earlier, at the beginning, and that therefore ensoulment must also be earlier.

I must say, these days whenever I see the word "ethicist," I reach for my pistol (metaphorically). An ethicist is, more often than not, a highly trained professional who is almost completely ignorant of real morality. His function is to tell hospitals and other institutions who pay him what they want to hear.


5 posted on 12/02/2006 2:36:05 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Similarly, St. Thomas and other theologians spoke about life beginning at the moment of quickening or ensoulment, taken to be when the baby is first felt to move in the womb. But we now know that life begins earlier, at the beginning, and that therefore ensoulment must also be earlier.

St. Thomas and St. Augustine knew that life itself began at conception. They simply didn't believe it had advanced to the point of having a soul until it had developed to the point of movement. Nor was there any scientific evidence that changed the mind of the Church. It was "decreed" in the 1850s that life and soul began at conception. It was thought by some to be as much a political decision by the Pope as a theological one.

6 posted on 12/02/2006 3:07:17 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle

How about when it is too late for an embryo to become a twin?


7 posted on 12/02/2006 4:27:12 PM PST by yochanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

the dog dies, the kids leave home...THAT's when life begins.


8 posted on 12/02/2006 4:36:41 PM PST by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I must say, these days whenever I see the word "ethicist," I reach for my pistol (metaphorically).

I know the feeling. "Medical ethics" has become pseudonym for creative ways in which to end life. This is the logical extension of abandonment of personal moral responsibility.

9 posted on 12/02/2006 4:48:23 PM PST by outofstyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
While St Augustine did subscribe to the Aristotlean view vis a vis animated and unanimated unborn babies, the Churchs position from the Didache on was that abortion is wrong. Eg. “The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed [ensouled and unensouled fetus] makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.” 4th Century St Basil.

St Augustines views on early development of the fetus were not what one would call biologically apt.

Life begins at conception. God says He knew us before we were in the womb. God deals in souls. Ergo, ensoulment and conception go hand in hand.

10 posted on 12/02/2006 4:54:33 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Life begins at conception. God says He knew us before we were in the womb. God deals in souls. Ergo, ensoulment and conception go hand in hand.

It seems so simple, a near application of the transitive principle, A=B, and B=C, and therefore A=C, but ... there are always first principles to be assumed aren't there?

11 posted on 12/02/2006 5:13:02 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Life begins at conception. God says He knew us before we were in the womb. God deals in souls. Ergo, ensoulment and conception go hand in hand.

Wonder why the Church didn't realize that for about 1200 years? And of course, not everyone would agree with you on a couple of points. Life, yes. Human life, maybe. Your conclusion on ensoulment and conception merely state an opinion, not a scientific proof. Which is why many do not accept that theory.

12 posted on 12/02/2006 5:20:57 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; Torie
Your conclusion on ensoulment and conception merely state an opinion, not a scientific proof. Which is why many do not accept that theory.

But of course. Ensoulment is an article of faith. Conception is science. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not have the tools of science at hand that we do. Hence, they made bad conclusions scientifically which affected their theology.

I've been studying this issue for some time now. The science is clear, biogenesis is the law of the land, new human life begins at conception. These things are not arguable though you can find arguments in "science" texts debating when human life begins. Junk science borne of ideology.

Of course there is junk theology as well.

Nobody gets a pass here at FR. :-}

13 posted on 12/02/2006 5:53:34 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Wonder why the Church didn't realize that for about 1200 years?

The Church knew realized it from the beginning, they were led astray shall we say. I can give you more but I'd say God's word would be the deciding factor for those of faith though the Didache and many other early and prominent Christians did not adhere to Augustines views.

Stuff happens.

14 posted on 12/02/2006 5:57:27 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Nascent future potential versus the present actual. Some find that relevant, and some don't. Still, I have more of a conscience issue with even legalized first trimester abortions, than I do with legalizing how one manages one's final exit (although that one in practice would have some downside risk as well). But then, when I consider it time to depart this mortal coil, the legalities will be of absolutely no interest to me. And so it goes.


15 posted on 12/02/2006 6:04:27 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Me either. When it's time I'll go. I almost died once, it didn't scare me. Maybe it's the faith, I don't know. But I do know that the God I have faith in does not embrace suffering for sufferings sake. I would prefer to keep the government out of end of life decisions for various reasons but I understand that Doctors need protection from the lawyers. :-} I'm open to any ideas on how we might wed those thoughts.


16 posted on 12/02/2006 6:09:13 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

I'm not entirely sure of that, although I may be mistaken. 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.

I suppose it depends what you mean by soul. It was commonly thought, from ancient times through medieval to the Renaissance, that plants had a single soul, which governed growth and reproduction; animals had a second soul, which included the senses and locomotion, and humans had a third soul, which involved reason, will, and memory. Some also speak of a higher spiritual soul, but this is not a firmly established idea.

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.

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.


17 posted on 12/02/2006 6:19:45 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Ensoulment is an article of faith. Conception is science. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not have the tools of science at hand that we do. Hence, they made bad conclusions scientifically which affected their theology.

They certainly knew how conception took place. They knew that a "life" was growing. That was not the issue. The issue was the theory or concept of ensoulment, which has no scientific basis. When Pius IX issued his determination that a fetus had a soul at conception, it still had no scientific basis, nor is their any evidence he had any more biological knowledge than did Augustine, whose determination of no ensoulment was based on the unformed and non-animated body of the fetus, which are still facts today.

I've been studying this issue for some time now. The science is clear, biogenesis is the law of the land, new human life begins at conception

You should give Augustine some credit. He knew that the life growing from a "seed" was indeed a human, but so unformed as to make it unready for the soul. No amount of biogenesis is sufficient to counter the point made by Augustine. The early fetus has no central nervous system, no arms, legs, sexual distinction, mind, nor any of the physical attributes that distinuish a human being from any other early stage animal. Augustine's determinations of ensoulment and Pius' later countermanding of that are both simply philosophical calls, not based on any science.

This is purely an article of faith. Both sides of the issue have credibility...until the fetus is in its later term. Then, I believe, common sense and the Constitution come into play.

Nobody gets a pass here at FR

You got that right!

18 posted on 12/02/2006 6:21:46 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Suicide is a decision anyone is free to make and has always been free to make. I discourage people from doing so of course but they are still free to do it. Forcing society to bless that choice however is objectionable and selfish. My opinion anyway.


19 posted on 12/02/2006 6:24:20 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
On the matter of euthanasia, a zillion years ago, a professor whom I knew at the University of Michigan Law School, wrote an article about legalized euthanasia, which profoundly affected me. My conclusion at the time, was sort of like the issue of legalized pot. It should remain illegal, even as I enjoyed getting high. Believe it or not, I embraced that notion while inhaling; odd, but true. I enjoyed parsing the abstract. The laws are not all about me. Sometimes the Anglo Saxon virtue of embracing the grey, the muddle, avoiding Cartesian "logical" elegance, is simply common sense. It might be best for Torie to commit a crime when he hastens his exit. Let the DA prosecute his ashes. I can't find the seminal Kamisar article, but here is a tete a tete that will have to do for the moment. It really does not capture however his elegant and persuasive essay on the real dangers of the right to die slippery sliding into becoming the duty to die. I need to find his essay.

I know I am not making much sense perhaps.

20 posted on 12/02/2006 6:32:38 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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