LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 392

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

392 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

For example, in part two we reported an illustrative thought exper-
iment proposed by Boston University law professor George Annas.
His thought experiment is meant to show that we relate to embryos
in decisively different ways from the way in which we relate to live-
born humans. People also point to differences in naming and other
relational activities, including Baptism and funeral/memorial prac-
tices. The conclusion is that we (rightly) respect pre-implantation
human life while not according to such life the moral/spiritual sta-
tus accorded to living humans.

Perhaps related to this line of reasoning is the observation that
in the best of circumstances with in vitro fertilization only about
one third of embryos transferred to the woman’s reproductive sys-
tem lead to a successful beginning of a pregnancy, let alone toa live
birth. In light of this fact of nature some hold that nature itself seems
to relate to pre-implantation human life differently than it does to
implanted life.

Working backward through these related lines of thought, we
make the following observations. First, many hazards attend the
drawing of conclusions from “natural facts” such as those con-
cerning loss of fertilized eggs in natural conception. Consider an
analogous argument that might have been offered in cultures that
practiced infanticide: in the natural course of infant development
we experience very high rates of infant mortality. We might con-
clude that we are free not to protect infant lives until they reach a
safer maturity. The conclusion demonstrates that this reasoning is
flawed, but the argument is of precisely the same structure as the
one offered concerning the loss of fertilized eggs.®

When they seek to interpret nature, Lutherans often look to Rom.
8:20 and reflect on a natural world currently subjected to frustra-
tion. We are accustomed to acknowledging how God’s will and pur-
pose are hidden in the natural world. In Luther’s view, “we need the
wisdom that distinguishes God from His mask. The world does not
have this wisdom.” © Commenting on Luther’s insight, Heinrich
Bormkamm urges caution: “Whoever supposes that he can grasp
God in nature or in history with his hands, as it were, confuses God
with His masks and does not differentiate between these. He gropes
and reaches out into the dark. Here there is no room for reliance and
confidence. I can rely only on him whose heart is known to me.”6’
God makes His heart known to us through the revelation of His
Word—centered in the Gospel of His Son Jesus Christ—and not
through the facts of nature. The Lutheran Confessions also point us
to Christ and not to facts of nature or history as the source of our
sure knowledge about God, His love, and His gracious will for our
lives. In its discussion of the scriptural doctrine of election, the For-
mula of Concord comments on the challenging questions raised by
nature and history and offers the following counsel concerning re-
flection on God’s knowledge of all things: “[O]ne should as a mat-
ter of course refrain from speculation over the naked, secret, hidden,
inscrutable foreknowledge of God. On the contrary, one should fo-
cus on how God’s counsel, intention, and preordination in Jesus
Christ (who is the genuine, true ‘Book of Life’ [Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5;
20:15]) is revealed to us through the Word” (FC SD XI, 13).

We agree with Oliver O’ Donovan’s judgment that statistics con-
cerning the loss of a significant percentage of pre-implantation hu-
man lives will not, as a mere statistical argument, provide a clear
indication to counter the presumption that the new personal history
begins at conception. We find that the puzzling biological facts con-
cerning loss of fertilized eggs in natural conception do not of them-
selves suffice to refute the claim that a new personal history begins
at conception.

George Annas’s thought experiment concerning rescuing em-
bryos depends on an assumption that love and care are to be offered
to humans in a manner indexed to our assessment of their worthi-
ness. People may indeed more easily see the “worthiness” of a live-
born infant than of an embryo suspended in nitrogen, but love and
care for humans is not something that flows from us in response to

2007 Convention Workbook

the other’s worth. Rather, God’s love gives us humans our worth.
So, acknowledging God’s valuing of humans, our love and care go
out to others. Furthermore, even in its own terms, this thought ex-
periment overlooks the following possibility. A person might in-
deed decide to rescue the child rather than the embryos when only
one or the other can be saved. But this decision does not yet show
what could and should be done if all could be rescued. A decision
to save a five-year-old child rather than a ninety-five year old in-
valid does not suggest that the life of the invalid is less precious in
God’s sight.

We have maintained throughout this discussion that those who
propose to use embryos for research must convince us that embryos
need not be protected. The approaches proposed thus far do not suc-
ceed in providing clear and convincing evidence to lift the burden
of proof that lies on those who propose to destroy embryos. In the
absence of decisive arguments, pre-implantation embryonic life
should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of life.

One further consideration should weigh heavily upon us as we
contemplate excluding embryonic life from fundamental protec-
tions. Human beings have a bad history of sliding down slippery
slopes. If we become accustomed to excluding some human lives
even when we may reasonably doubt the ethics of the exclusion, we
may in our sinful pride find pretexts also to exclude other lives from
the circle of our care. This fact of human moral carelessness should
make us all redouble our efforts to be completely sure about our
ethics before we press forward.

Conclusions: Christian Care
for Pre-implantation Human Life

In this report we have examined the arguments of thoughtful
Christians and others who do not defend the principle that pre-im-
plantation embryos should be accorded protection on the same ba-
sis as live-born humans. We have acknowledged that some have
raised challenging questions concerning whether God’s care ex-
tends across all fertilized eggs and cloned human entities.

In response we have argued the following points. First, God’s
Word makes plain that God cares for human lives from beginning
to end. Second, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that
God’s care does not extend across all fertilized eggs and cloned hu-
mans. Third, no arguments in favor of removing protection from
pre-implantation embryos attain the strength necessary to carry the
burden of proof. © :

Implications for Congregational Life

In the next section we discuss implications for individual and
societal decision making, but we begin in this section with a dis-
cussion of congregational life. The Christian congregation is acom-
munity of people who hear the Savior’s voice and gather around
Word and sacraments. The church “is the assembly of all believers
among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments
are administered according to the gospel” (AC VII, 1). People who
are drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit seek to shape their lives in a
God-pleasing way. The New Testament makes plain that the single
most important feature of a God-pleasing life is Spirit-given faith
in the good news that we have been forgiven and granted new life
in Christ.

In this report we are probing what life in Christ might mean for
decisions about in vitro fertilization and stem cell research. We have
maintained that biblically disciplined moral reasoning puts the bur-
den of proof on those who would deny protection to embryos. While
we believe that this burden has not been met by any of the argu-
ments that have been offered, we are aware that people in our con-
gregations currently have widely differing views concerning the
right understanding of the moral significance of pre-implantation
human life. We can and must pray and hope that God will guide our
society, both Christian and non-Christian, toward consensus on