Timeless Truth for a Sound Bite Culture

You Can HELP

Share TRUTH Across the World

Donate NOW

Join Our E-Mail List

JOIN

SR Blog

Illegal Immigration and the Scripture

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Immigration is front and center in recent news. The US borders are still leaking like a sieve, and violence, spawned by the drug wars, is becoming more frequent. Arizona has stepped in to fill the federal vacuum of action and people around the country are taking sides and looking for political solutions. Immigration policy and, more particularly, what to do about the illegal immigrants already in this country is generating a lot of angst. Evangelical Christianity seems to be similarly divided. One News Now reports contrary views between a number of evangelical leaders on this topic. In another story religious leaders are speaking directly against the new Arizona law. Instead of trying to address the various political solutions, this post is going to try to look at some biblical conceptions (or misconceptions) about immigrants and illegal aliens. I would like to lay out a possible biblical argument used by more liberal advocates of policy and see if it stands the smell test. We all know what the issues in the news are and most of us have political perspective, but what does the Bible have to say illegal immigrants in particular?

The Bible For Amnesty?

Here are some Bible texts (NIV) that may be used to support an open immigration policy:

Leviticus 19:33-34: 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."

Exodus 22:21: "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

Exodus 23:9: "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt."

Deuteronomy 10:19: "And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt."

In light of these scriptural commands, are Christians to support open borders and/or amnesty programs for those that have come into our country without legal process? Should we be against the enforcement of civil laws requiring deportation? It seems to make sense that if Israel was commanded to treat the aliens among them "as one of your native-born" then Christians should take a similar approach and support illegal immigration. As with many so called biblical positions a look at the broader context of the passages may change the perspective.

A Little Deeper Look

1) Be careful not to uncritically impose Old Testament Law on current civil governments. While there are many principles from which we gain wisdom in the Old Testament law Christians should not desire a return to the theonomy of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Even in the future reign of Christ on earth a return to the specifics of the law will not be imposed as this was only a shadow of the Gospel under Christ (Col 2:16-17). That being said, it does not seem improper to take a command to treat others (including aliens) as yourself (does this sound vaguely familiar?) as outdated.

2) In that vein (of the Golden rule), it is because the Israelites were strangers in Egypt themselves that they needed to treat other strangers honorably. That is, they knew what it was like (Deut. 10:19) to be in a foreign land. So, reach out to illegal immigrants and love them. Do not abuse or use them (Malachi 3:5). It is a temptation to hold their status over them. In the eyes of God, we are not better than any illegal alien (Rom. 3:9, 27). We all deserve the full weight of the law of God, but have been given mercy. We must look at everyone as made in the image of God and remember that we (as Christians) were once  wanderers and aliens to God.

The New Testament uses the Old Testament terminology of aliens and foreigners to illustrate the change that takes place when we trust Christ. Ephesians 2:19: "Consequently [because of the blood of Christ], you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, . . " It is a picture of going from an "outsiders" status to one of intimacy and fellowship. (Alternately, this language is also used in the New Testament to describe the position of Christians in relation to the rest of the world as analogous to being strangers on earth [e.g., Heb. 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11].) It would be appropriate to use the current cultural issue of immigration to remind us of our just alienation from God and subsequent merciful acceptance into His family of those that trust Him. Immigration can remind us of the need to spread the Gospel.

3) Keep in mind that the aliens in Israel about which the passages above (Leviticus 19:33-34;Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Deuteronomy 10:19) were spoken were not illegal. They were invited by the law to stay. Further, the Isrealites in Egypt were invited there by Pharaoh (Gen. 47:1-10). Only later were they oppressed when another Pharaoh had forgotten what Joseph had done (Exodus 1:8). Thus, in the biblical context a stranger and alien does not imply being illegally in that place. Similarly, we have many aliens in this country who we have invited and who we have let come. These are the people that the passages mentioned spoke specifically about.

4) The strangers in Israel were treated differently than Israelites. They could not own property; they could be bought as slaves and charged interest unlike Israelites. (Lev. 25: 47; I Chron. 22:1-3; 2 Chronicles 2:16-18). This is similar to the laws in our country. There are certain priviledges afforded to legal aliens and there are certain priviledges denied. For instance, someone in the United States on a student visa is not allowed to hold certain jobs. They do not have the rights of citizens. They do not have the right of leadership (Deuteronomy 17:14-15).

5) Aliens had to obey the laws of the land. The children of Israel were to live well while in Egypt -  not in opposition to the laws.  Joseph's family asked permission of Pharaoh (Genesis 46:28-47:9) to be there. Later, when the Israelites had their own land they received stern instructions for themselves and foreigners in their midst. Here is a sampling:

Leviticus 18:25-27:  "Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled." Here a distinction is made between natural born citizens and aliens, but both are required to follow the law.

Numbers 19:10 "This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them." The lasting ordinance of the law was applicable to everyone.

Deut. 31:12 "Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law." Again, the law was applicable to everyone.

Joshua 8:32-35  "There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written. All Israel, aliens and citizens alike, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing those who carried it—the priests, who were Levites. . . . Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens who lived among them." A clear delineation was made between citizen and immigrant. The laws were applied to everyone.

From these we see that immigrants are called, like citizens, to submit and obey the laws.  We see in Romans 13:1-7 that government has been established by God. It is the agent of God to keep order, protect the weak, and punish the wrong doer. The language of "bear[ing] the sword" is an image of law enforcement. To willfully disobey the government is the same as disobeying God. Bottom line? Do what is right, obey the law - immigrants and citizens.

Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that governments are put in their place in order that every individual has the best opportunity to seek God. Acts 17:26-27: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

6) What about the instances where people are called to violate a civil law when it directly goes against the commands of God. Don't the laws of God trump the law of man? Yes, there are times when Christians are to obey God rather than man (e.g., Acts 4:15-20; Acts 5:29; Exodus 1:17). The question then is, is that what is happening in the case of illegal immigration? Should we support the illegal immigrants against the supposed tyranny of the government? Should we harbor illegal aliens in our churches so they don't have to be deported to Mexico or other locations.The answer is clearly no. There is no command of God that the United States government (or Arizona government) is violating by expecting to protect it's borders and control the flow of those that would ignore the law. The government is fulfilling it's God given duties of securing the peace in not allowing anyone and everyone to cross it's borders. The ends (securing a better future for themselves and their families) do not justify the means (illegally entering the country). Christians have no justification for subverting the law on this issue. We are not justified in lying for them or harboring them.

But what about illegal aliens who are living “morally” (i.e., who are not breaking other laws)? Aren't they better than native born citizens who are immoral and are breaking the law in many other ways? There is no doubt that there are many illegals who make better citizens than the actual citizens of this country. However, this is not the issue and is a logical rabbit trail. It would not do for the government to refuse to enforce its laws until everyone who is "worse" than some particular law break is given justice. This would be an untenable principle of justice.

What about Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek to abusers (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:29)? Shouldn't we ignore some evil in order to be loving Christians? If they cross the borders illegally, shouldn't we ignore that (turn the other cheek) in order to help them? This would be a gross misapplication of this passage. One has to completely rip this passage out of its context to see the passage this way. First, turning the other cheek is for the purpose of spreading the Gospel not for government regulation. This is a personal admonition, not a directive to appropriate government. The Church is not intended to be a law enforcement agency. The Church is remedial not punitive. That is, it's job is redemption of the soul and not the securing of borders. Security is the God ordained job of government and the Church should recognize and appreciate this role.

7)  A proper path to citizenship was prescribed in the Old Testament and is appropriate today. First, when Jacob's family was entering Egypt they sought and received permission from Pharaoh to stay in his land. (Genesis 46:28-47:9). Likewise, when the Israelites were in their own land and were confronted with how to treat foreigners a proper path to "citizenship" was ordained. They had to fully convert to Judaism (which included the ceremony of circumcision for males). Only then could they own land and be fully integrated. Those desiring to be full member of the society had to take on the values of the host society (including, as seen above, the honoring of the whole law). The Old Testament sojourner (alien) purposed to live under the law of in order to be treated as a fellow Israelite. Review this example:

Exodus 12:48 "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." This parallels the important practice of having those that wish to become citizens of the United States take citizenship classes where they learn the history and values that we espouse. The Old Testament example was not one of easy amnesty. It was one of intentional education and acceptance through a process of time and ceremony and was sealed with a solemn act of deep commitment (adult circumcision was not for those who made light of their new citizenship).

Some Concluding Thoughts What can we take away from all of this? First, remember the Great Commission imperative – make disciples (spread the Gospel). Second, as believers in Christ we must learn to live with the tensions of putting into practice our faith. Our application can not be done haphazardly by pulling a verse or two out of context. We must struggle to rightly apply biblical principles in the complex situations that arise in current affairs. Ethical issues need to be carefully evaluated in light of the whole of Scripture. Third, treat everyone with respect. Be kind to illegal aliens, proclaim the Gospel to them, and encourage them to follow the law in regards to their habitation in our country. Do everything possible to move them toward legal citizenship. Fourth, those that have obeyed the law (i.e., applied legally) should not be put ahead of those that disobey the law. Fifth, uphold the law and respect the God given role of government. Their role is to protect the borders so do not discourage this. Expect obedience to the law by everyone. Further, there is a difference between aliens and trespassers.  There is no Scriptural command for open borders, lawlessness, easy amnesty or the like. Next, when advocating a way to citizenship do not bypass due process and do not encourage rights for those that have not yet yielded to the values of the United States (or other country). Finally, consider solutions that are both just and are cognizant of the realities of those that face severe difficulties in many other countries. Personally, I would like to see processes put in place that legally allowed many more immigrants into our country each year. Many around the world suffer for their faith. Political oppression is prevalent and poverty is rampant. Our country was built on immigrants and should continue to do so--just not at the cost of lawlessness. Close the borders (justice). Open the gates (mercy).

Is. 14:1 "The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob."

Ezekiel 47:21-23 "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance, declares the Sovereign LORD."

POSTED IN: Culture, Ethics, News | 3 Comments »

Is Same Sex Marriage a Private Issue?

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

The gay marriage issue is often framed by supporters in terms of prejudice and racism. The analogy they hope to promote is that opposition to gay marriage is tantamount to racial hatred. Thus, if you disagree with the government's definition of marriage you can expect to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. (Of course when opponents compare gay marriage arguments to similar arguments used to support polygamous, pedophilic, incestuous, or besitality "marriages" they are accused of slippery slope thinking.)

Maggie Gallagher of National Organization for Marriage (www.nationformarriage.org), says that the issue goes far deeper than whether or not a same sex couple get their relationship legally recognized. First, marriage matters because children need a mom and dad. Studies show that this is the case and that in general families have healthier lives.

Second, gay marriage would effect a lot of people besides gay couples in the privacy of their homes. Gallagher contends that several public consequences will follow from gay marriage legislation (and that some are, in fact, already occurring):

  1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way. (FOR EXAMPLE)
  2. Public schools will be forced to teach positively about gay marriage. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way. (FOR EXAMPLE).
  3. Religious institutions face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married). (FOR EXAMPLE)
  4. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline. A large body of social science research now affirms the importance of marriage for children, adults, and communities. Marriage matters because when fathers are committed to their children and their children’s mother, children are most likely to thrive. (MORE INFORMATION)
  5. If marriage is redefined by the government, true marriages will decline even more, bringing more harm to the culture at large.  Pragmatically speaking, marriage reduces the risk of poverty for children and communities (the majority of children whose parents don’t get or stay married experience at least a year of poverty). Fatherless households increase crime (boys whose parents divorced or never married, for example, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults). Marriage protects children’s physical and mental health (children whose parents get and stay married are healthier and also much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide). Both men and women who marry live longer, healthier and happier lives (on virtually every measure of health and well-being, married people are better-off than otherwise similar singles, on average). (MORE INFORMATION)

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, says there is a lot at stake when the government attempts to overturn natural law (see The Role of Religious Authority in Debates on Public Policy). But this also puts the issue into the public realm - for natural law is not bound by any culture (even religious cultures). Gallagher warns supporters of marriage not to give in to the "progressive myth" that the outcome is inevitable: "Despair is gay marriage advocates' prime message point." The facts are that the majority of Americans still favor marriage over legalized gay unions (as votes in typically liberal states have recently shown).

For more information on what you can do to protect marriage please contact the National Organization for Marriage at (609) 688-0450 or on the web at www.nationformarriage.org.

POSTED IN: Culture, Ethics | 1 Comment »

Answers for Abortion Arguments

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010


Kortney Blythe

Abortion.

For some, the mere mention of the word elicits uneasiness. Most Christians would label themselves “pro-life,” but do they really know what it means and how to defend that position?

Christians should not be intimidated by so-called (and misnamed) “pro-choice” advocates. Science, philosophy and religion are on the side of those opposed to abortion.

Science.

The law of biogenesis states that species reproduce after their own kind. This means that a pregnant human woman can only be pregnant with another human being. In addition, one could take a DNA sample from the child in the womb and determine that living inside the mother is a separate, individual and unique human being with a specific eye color, hair color and gender.

From the beginning of biological development, a separate, unique individual human being is present and growing. This distinctive human being has never existed before and will never exist again. This human being living inside his mother’s womb is not developing into a human. He is not a “potential human,” but a small human with the potential to be a larger human, granted that he is not killed.

Philosophy.

Have you ever met a human being who is not a person? Sounds absurd, but that is what many ethicists claim makes abortion morally acceptable. This is a scary assertion. Historically, if one person, group or government has possessed the power to arbitrarily choose which characteristics of human beings give them inherent value, then genocides, holocausts and gross discriminations result.

Without even bringing religion into the picture, one can provide abortion advocates with a strong case against abortion. Pro-abortion arguments are mostly based on emotions, dehumanizing rhetoric and fabricated scare tactics.

Abortion is a violent human rights violation. When discussing abortion, always steer the conversation back to the crux of the issue, the bottom line – is the unborn a human being? If yes, there’s a Holocaust occurring that you must speak out against.

Visit www.rockforlife.org for more information on what you can do and to educate yourself on how to fight the pervasive culture of death. Also, feel free to e-mail me at Kortney@rockforlife.org with any questions or comments you may have.

POSTED IN: Ethics | No Comments »

The Bible On Homosexual Behavior

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Biblical passages that speak against homosexual behavior

Genesis 19
This is a lengthy passage relating to the destruction of Sodom.

Leviticus 18:22, 24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22, 24
And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:11-12
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:42-46
Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. . . .
And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: . . .
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:3, 7
And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.

Biblical References in the Old Testament

Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7

Homosexual References in the New Testament

Romans 1: 26-29
1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 7

Biblical Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

1. God lists "homosexual offenders" among "the wicked" (1 Corinthians 6:9).

2. God lists "homosexual offenders" among those who He determines will "not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9).

3. Historically, homosexuality has incurred God's destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).

4. God's word defines the men of Sodom as "sinning greatly" because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).

5. God calls Sodom's sin "sexual perversion" (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome...) are on the road to destruction.

6. God's word identifies husband-wife relations as "natural relations" and homosexual relations as "unnatural ones" (Romans 1:26-27) and "perversion" (vs. 27).

7. God's word also rebukes those who "approve of those who practice" homosexuality (Romans 1:32).

8. Jesus declared that God had made them "male and female ... a man ... [and] his wife" (Matthew 19:4-5).

POSTED IN: Ethics | 3 Comments »

BioEthics Q&A 2

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

We're getting comments and questions from our show on Bioethics last week (remember - to send in Q&A to the show use questions@soundrezn.com). Here is one of them , answered by an SES alumnus Dr. Scott Henderson:

QUESTION: In a room there is a 4 month old human baby girl. Also in the room is container of 30 human frozen embryos.  You are there in the room also. The room,and its contents, will briefly be totally destroyed. You can escape taking either the baby girl, or take with you the 30 embryos and leave the baby girl to be destroyed with the room.  Which do you leave with, and why? Is crushing an acorn the same as cutting down a full grown tree with a chain saw? Define the term "person." Is an embryo a person? Thanks and Good Luck.

REPLY: The questioner begins with a dilemma posed in the form of an unlikely scenario. Before we attempt an answer, there are several other important questions that must be addressed. First, how should we define a person? For clarity's sake, I will prefer to pose the question in this form: “what is a human person?” There are two general answers among bioethicists to that question. Some define a human person in functionalist terms. Until and unless a human organism functions in a certain way, that is, until the organism has certain person-making capacities, we are in no way justified in granting moral standing to the organism in question. What those capacities are differ depending on who one asks. For most functionalists, persons are human beings who have the capacity for consciousness (or some key mental capacity), a necessary condition of which is an intact cerebral cortex. This view depends on a body-self (or body-person) dualism that supposes that the person comes to be (and may cease to be) at one time and the human organism associated with that person at another. Depending on which form of functionalism one embraces, functionalists generally disqualify human embryos, fetuses, newborns (in some cases), as well as adult humans in certain diminished neurological states (PVS, brain death, and some cases of dementia and amnesia) as persons. But designating these humans as non-persons has numerous counter-intuitive problems. (Two excellent critiques are: Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Francis Beckwith. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge, 2007.)

The traditional substance view defines a human person in terms of its substantial identity (or nature). A thing is what it is according to its nature. According to the substance view, a human person throughout its development and decline does not undergo any substantial changes that alter its identity until it dies. Indeed, it remains numerically identical to itself as long as it exists even when it is unable to exhibit all the functions normally associated with healthy adult human persons. Hence, mere membership in the species homo sapiens is sufficient reason to attribute intrinsic value and rights to any human individual in recognition that it is “one of us.” There are several important factors to note about human embryos that render them human persons. First, an embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the father and mother. This is due to its internal, directed, and distinct growth toward maturation. Second, the embryo is human with a genetic make-up characteristic of humans. Third, the embryo, though immature, is acomplete or whole organism that will, barring disease, violence, or variation in environment, direct itself toward full expression of its nature or essence. All of these features are present in the embryo and none of the changes it undergoes during its development generates a new direction of growth. In short, the thing that you and I are now is identical to the organism that came to be at conception. Therefore, we as persons are human organisms of a substantial kind and what would make it wrong to kill you and me now would have been present at every stage of our development. In short, a human person is an organism belonging to the species homo sapiens.

The questioner asks whether crushing an acorn is the same as cutting down a full-grown tree with a chain saw. It appears that the questioner is attempting to make the analogy that an acorn is not a tree in the same way that an embryo is not a person, and as such, killing an embryo is not the same thing as killing a person. The analogy, however, is a false one. An acorn is certainly not a tree. A tree is a fully developed plant and an acorn is an underdeveloped plant. However, both the acorn and the tree are by nature plants of a particular kind. If the acorn came from an oak tree, then it shares the same nature as the oak tree from which it came. Therefore, the difference is not an essential one, but merely accidental—a difference in development. In the same way, although an embryo is not a toddler, adolescent, or adult, it is by nature a human person. Additionally, I would add that an acorn has not yet germinated. This further shows the weakness of the analogy. There is no human equivalent to pollination and germination. I don't rake oak trees out of my yard when I collect acorns, but I would argue that I certainly pull up oak trees when I pull up the sprouts.

Now to the dilemma. Here we are confronted with having to make a choice between saving a four-month-old baby girl, and saving multiple embryos. If we accept the reasoning above, the 30 embryos are human persons. So, how do we resolve this dilemma? I think the best way to approach this scenario is to treat it as we do in circumstances that call for Triage. Triage is a process of sorting or selecting who can benefit most in a crisis situation . It is often used in emergency rooms, on battlefields, or at disaster sites when there is a real need to allocate resources and time. The process does not adjudicate based on status, age or gender but rather on the likelihood of benefit from immediate attention. The 30 embryos are most likely discarded or left over embryos from the reproductive process known as in vitro-fertilization (IVF). [IVF poses multiple ethical problems, at least as it is currently practiced.] They will probably never be implanted and allowed to develop further. In short, they are doomed whether or not they are saved from the impending disaster presented in the scenario. However, the four-month-old baby girl will clearly benefit from my saving her.. Therefore, I would choose to save the baby girl.

D. Scott Henderson, Ph.D.
www.dshenderson.com
http://ratio-intellectus.blogspot.com

POSTED IN: Ethics | No Comments »

« Older Entries