The Anti-Life Pro-Lifers

Have you ever come across someone who vehemently supports the criminalization of most or all forms of abortion? Chances are that person opposed with equal fervor President Obama's health care reform bill and most, if not all forms of public assistance to those in need. It is also quite likely that that person supported the Iraq War, which we waged on a nation that had never attacked us and was not a significant threat to us. That person probably also whole-heartedly embraces the death penalty the way it is applied today in our criminal justice system. I find it incredibly disturbing when so many conservatives claim that they value the sanctity of life, yet show no concern for the living.

I'm not trying to criticize the "pro-life" position that advocates restrictions or complete prohibition of abortion. I wrote two posts (here and here) where I articulated my views about abortion and the role of government in regulating it. I do, however, have a problem with people who claim to value the sanctity of life, yet do not care for the most vulnerable living among us.

Pregnant Rape Victims Should Turn Lemons into Lemonade- Sharron Angle

Tea Party extraordinaire and Nevada Republican candidate for US Senate Sharron Angle recently told a reporter that she thinks teenage rape victims should make "a lemon situation into lemonade" by carrying their pregnancies to term. This radical does not think that there should be a legal abortion exception for rape or incest. Instead, she thinks these situations should be left solely to Divine Providence.

Questioner: What do you say then to a young girl... when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.

Her interview with radio talk show host Bill Manders goes even further:



I can respect someone's view when they feel that the government should prevent elective abortions (though I may not agree with it- as I stated in my Culture of Life posts, I am neither Pro-Choice, nor Pro-Life as I have not completely decided my view of the government's role in regulating elective abortion). But to say that a girl who has been raped by her father cannot have the option to an abortion, that the government and society will compel that girl to carry her pregnancy to term, is truly cruel and unusual punishment. (Of course a pregnancy resulting from a rape should not automatically result in an abortion. The point is that especially in such a scenario, the decision should lie with the victim, not with the government.) Sharon Angle is nut to espouse such a view. But I'm grateful she's being honest about what she believes. A simple examination of some of her public statements shows she is absolutely a far right-wing radical. She's in favor of abolishing Social Security. She recently said that the unemployed were "spoiled," and that as senator, she would do nothing to help with unemployment.



The good news is that Sen. Harry Reid is now leading in the polls, because of a recent focus on Angle's extreme policy positions.

Culture of Life Part 3- Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of the hotly contested issues of the contemporary culture wars. Even within the Republican Party, a division exists over this issue. Prominent Republicans such as Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while others, such as former President George W. Bush and former Governor Mitt Romney, oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds. Before exploring the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, it is important to define it and highlight some of its potential and remarkable benefits. A great deal of misinformation exists about stem cell research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a stem cell information Web page that provides extensive information on this type of research. The following are some excerpts from the NIH Web page:

(If you are already familiar with stem cell research, skip down past the italicized paragraphs to The Ethical Debate section.)

What Are Stem Cells?

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth... When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, the inner cells give rise to the entire body of the organism, including all of the many specialized cell types and organs such as the heart, lung, skin, sperm, eggs and other tissues.

The Healing Potential of Stem Cell Research

Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease. Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become the differentiated cells that form the tissues and organs. Scientists know that turning genes on and off is central to this process. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A more complete understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. Scientists are already using stem cells in the laboratory to screen new drugs and to develop model systems to study normal growth and identify the causes of birth defects.

Why Are Embryonic Stem Cells Needed?

One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell–like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells. Although these cells meet the defining criteria for pluripotent stem cells, it is not known if iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways. This is a breakthrough discovery; however, further research is needed to determine whether iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways... Viruses are currently used to introduce the reprogramming factors into adult cells, and this process must be carefully controlled and tested before the technique can lead to useful treatments for humans. In animal studies, the virus used to introduce the stem cell factors sometimes causes cancers.

The Ethical Debate

There is one final fact to point out before discussing the political debate over embryonic stem cell research. It is absolutely crucial to note that embryonic stem cells used in this research are derived from the vitro fertilization process. The NIH website explains:

The embryos used in these studies were created for reproductive purposes through in vitro fertilization procedures. When they were no longer needed for that purpose, they were donated for research with the informed consent of the donor... They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

In vitro fertilization has enabled tens of thousands of couples to have children each year in the United States. In the vitro fertilization process, doctors harvest multiple eggs from the woman, invariably more than will be implanted back into her uterus after laboratory fertilization. The reasons for the retrieval of extra eggs are that some eggs will not develop or fertilize after harvest and/or implantation, the high cost for the surgical procedure of harvesting eggs, and the trauma and relative risk the harvest process poses to the woman's body. In vitro fertilization almost always results in extra, unneeded embryos. These extra embryos, still in the undifferentiated stage, are the source for embryonic stem cell research. They are only donated for research with the consent of the donors. If the embryos are not donated for research, they are usually discarded.

Those who oppose stem cell research on ethical grounds should understand that the embryonic stem cells used for research would otherwise have been destroyed after the in vitro fertilization process. Thus, if one opposes this research on "pro-life" grounds, they should also oppose in vitro fertilization because it ends with the same result, the destruction of fertilized embryos. Of course, this would not be a popular political position because in vitro fertilization has helped so many Americans longing to be parents. However, it is the only logically consistent position for someone who opposes stem cell research. I can respect someone who holds the consistent position of opposing both embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Both of these processes deal with the question of when and how life begins. For me, I do not believe that life begins at conception; I believe that life begins at some point after differentiation. Thus I fully and vehemently support all forms of stem cell research because of the incredible potential it has at treating and curing diseases and improving the quality of life for millions of people. And, if these left over laboratory embryos with stem cells are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for a noble and important purpose? Supporting stem cell research ought to be considered a "pro-life" position because of its potential to improve and save millions of lives.

Like with most political issues, the Church has adopted a position of strict neutrality on embryonic stem cell research. The Church's website states, "The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research." Thus it is important for all individuals, and particularly Church members, to become fully informed before taking a strong stand on this or any political issue.

Culture of Life Part 2

In the previous post, Culture of Life Part 1, I demonstrated the LDS Church’s political neutrality on the debate over the government’s role in regulating and criminalizing abortion, even as the Church emphasizes the sanctity of life and counsels its members not to obtain elective abortions. Those who believe in criminalization of elective abortion (the pro-life position) should consider the repercussions of such a law. What are some of the costs and unintended consequences of compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? I don’t intend the following as an argument against the pro-life position. I simply hope that by exploring of some of the underlying implications of criminalizing elective abortion, we will realize that abortion policy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. The implementation of ethical pro-life laws would require a significant amount of social welfare programs, which most pro-life advocates vehemently oppose.

Medical Care for Poor Children and Expecting Mothers

Those who have given birth to a child understand that a tremendous amount of care is required both before and after a child is born and that the diet and health of the mother is invariably linked to that of the unborn child. Even though not all of those who obtain elective abortions are poor or are teenagers, tens of thousands of those who do obtain elective abortion each year do not have the financial resources to cope with the medical costs of pregnancy. The medical costs for those without insurance are excessive. Furthermore, there are additional costs for working women who have to take time away from their jobs, or perhaps loose their jobs completely, depending on how smoothly the pregnancy progresses. If a single woman with an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, and ends up having to take a few months off without pay while she is on bed rest, who will pay for her living expenses? What if she looses her job? Since conservatives are typically opposed to government social assistance programs, how does the financial need of a woman who is being compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term sync with the conservative view on eliminating these welfare programs? Are we as taxpayers willing to have some of our tax dollars assist the ultimately tens of thousands of poor women each year who would be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term under pro-life laws?

Additionally, costly medical care is required for children and mothers after they are born. If a poor woman decides to keep the child rather than give it up for adoption, financial assistance would be necessary to pay for post-partum medical care. The pro-life position can be very myopic if it does not include assurances for the proper medical care of a newborn resulting from an unwanted pregnancy. How “pro-life” can we really be if all we care about is that the baby is born, but once the child arrives in the world, we are not equally passionate about ensuring they have a fair shot at a healthy life through proper care? If one opposes programs like SCHIP and Medicaid, which provide health insurance to poor children and children of the working poor, can that person accurately claim that he or she is “pro-life”?

Another unintended consequence of criminalization of elective abortion is the risky behavior of some women with unwanted pregnancies. If women who have no desire to be pregnant are compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, some would unfortunately have little or no incentive to make changes in their lifestyle to ensure that the fetus is properly nourished and protected from harmful substances. Women who smoke or drink alcohol may have difficulty in abstaining during the pregnancy. A large volume of research has clearly shown that tobacco and alcohol can often have severe adverse affects on a fetus, causing serious deformities and diseases. Deformed and chronically ill infants resulting from such unwanted pregnancies where the mother did not observe a proper lifestyle, require expensive medical care. There may be fewer who are willing to adopt such children with expensive health problems. Again, are those who are pro-life willing to have their tax dollars pay for the expensive care of children with such diseases as fetal alcohol syndrome?

Black Market Abortions

Inevitably, by prohibiting elective abortions, there will always be some women who will seek to end their unwanted pregnancy at any cost, rather than carrying it to term as required by law. In an America where elective abortions are banned, such women would pursue abortions on the black market. As has been the experience in societies where abortion is prohibited, many such black market abortions are unsafe and can easily result in severe and permanent injury or even death to the women.

Some may argue that such a woman has only herself to blame for being careless about protection while being promiscuous. If the woman is injured or dies as a result of a black market or illegal abortion, I have heard some argue that although that would be unfortunate, it is the woman’s fault for seeking an elective abortion in the first place. However, as one of the reader comments in Culture of Life Part I states, why does all the responsibility lie with the woman? What are the ethics of creating a black market situation where we know some women with unwanted pregnancies will die? By prohibiting elective abortion, a black market for elective abortions will certainly be created. But by removing elective abortion from the realm of regulated and standardized medicine, the procedure ultimately ends up in an unregulated and non-standardized state where no license, quality control, or professional standard is required.

Perhaps those who are on both sides of the debate can at least agree to work together on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Sustained efforts at reducing the overall number of unwanted pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Studies have shown that publicly-funded family planning clinics have prevented 20 million unwanted pregnancies over the past 20 years, 9 million of which would have resulted in abortions.

So even while vying for pro-choice or pro-life positions on government regulation of abortion, those on both sides who believe in the sanctity of life should seek to educate the public on methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies, including comprehensive birth control education, which could include abstinence. However, any sex education curriculum that does not include comprehensive birth control instruction is woefully inadequate for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Though we may not like the fact of rampant sexual promiscuity, to neglect to educate our population on the methods of preventing pregnancies is only an invitation to more unwanted pregnancies.

The criminalization of elective abortion would result in other unintended consequences that need to be addressed by those who are proponents of prohibition. The above is not meant to counter pro-life arguments, but only to show that a comprehensive pro-life position must include consideration of many other factors, including some social welfare programs.

In upcoming posts in this series, I will explore emergency contraceptives, also known as the morning after pill, stem-cell research, and in vitro fertilization.

Culture of Life Part 1

While a student at BYU, I encountered an incredible amount of misconceptions on the political issue of abortion. It seemed that anyone who spoke to me of the issue assumed that Democrats and liberals "believed in" abortion, meaning that those who were pro-choice thought abortions were good things, and not something to be avoided. Over the next few posts, I aim to explore various aspects concerning the political issues of abortion, stem cell research, and as President George W. Bush termed it, "the culture of life." To be clear, this is not an effort on my part to support the pro-choice position as I do not define myself as pro-choice, nor do I define myself as pro-life. I hope to establish a framework for thoughtful people to have rational discussions about these issues.

Since this is an LDS-related blog, I want to start this series of posts with the Church's positions on abortion. Yes, that's right, positions. On moral and ethical grounds, the Church has clearly articulated its expectations of its members. The Church "believes in the sanctity of human life... and opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." It only allows for possible exceptions in cases of (1) rape/incest, (2) where the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and (3) where the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Additionally, these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It is clear that the Church considers elective abortion to be sinful. I would never personally support or encourage someone to have an elective abortion because of my personal view on the sanctity of life.

However, the Church's position on what the government's role should be in regulating abortion is entirely different. On the Church's official newsroom webpage, it states that "the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been politically neutral on what laws related to abortion should be adopted by our legislatures.

So to kick off my series of posts about the political issues of life, it needs to be clear, at least within LDS circles, that there is room within official LDS orthodoxy on what should be the law of the land. The pro-choice position basically articulates the belief that our government has little or no role in regulating abortions in our country. The pro-life position conversely believes that the government should have a heavy hand in regulating abortion, criminalizing it in most cases. I believe there are earnest, moral, and thoughtful people who are in both camps and in between.