Faith Unexamined

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, I guess. But if faith is never examined, mulled over, and prayed about, then it's really not faith at all. We should bring our reasoning under examination, and perhaps even to the point of doubt. However, many of us avoid any examination because it makes us uncomfortable. To avoid this is to be ignorant of one's own beliefs.

For example, someone who is absolutely against abortion and embryonic-stemcell-research (ESR) cannot be in favor of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) without heavy examination and justification, which in my opinion is a dubious and self-serving process.

Or, to put it another way, it is difficult to be critical of abortion and ESR and simultaneously defend IVF. I would say it is better to be silent in regards to all three than vocal about one or two of them. For many, the desire for having a child is so overwhelming that truth becomes just a pest to ignore.

Christians who won't examine the facts aren't exercising faith in the providence of God. This allows them to put their conscience at ease because they think ignorance is bliss. In reality, they are just hardening their hearts.

Here are some examples of how Christians justify away their faith in the providence of God and instead place their faith in IVF...

Problem #1: Many methods of IVF produce extra embryos.

Christians in favor of IVF justify this objection in the following ways:

Keep the number of embryos produced low so that the surplus can be more easily mitigated.
Donate any extra embryos (if any) to another trustworthy couple (if any).

The problem with response #1 is that a low number of embryos reduces the chances of pregnancy. This results in increased risk and cost. It also doesn't completely address all of the issues (see below). Another problem is that many clinics in the U.S. don't perform the procedure exactly in this way. Doctors are usually successful in convincing the couples to go ahead and fertilize extra embryos just in case.

The problem with response #2 is that no one can guarantee the adoptive couple will be as "ethical" with the embryos as the donor couple. Besides, isn't this a form of unregulated adoption? Could you really give away your flesh and blood so freely and not wonder about their fate for the rest of your life?

Problem #2: All methods of IVF are selective with embryos.

Usually, if an embryo appears unhealthy, it is not implanted. Christians in favor of IVF justify this objection in the following ways:

Go ahead and implant them all anyway and let God sort it out for them.
Trust the doctor's expertise to tell which embryos will definitely survive and which ones definitely won't (I know this is a straw man argument, but it helps to illustrate the lengths people will go to justify anything).

The problem with response #1 is that just because an embryo appears unhealthy doesn't mean God will take care of it by terminating it for you. Not only that, but there is one birth complication that can develop from IVF that cannot develop by the natural process. That complication is known as "blame." If a child is born with birth defects, the child may feel justified in blaming his or her parents for the birth defects. Such a rationale isn't hard to empathize with, from the child's perspective, because the parents had direct involvement in the events that lead up to the defects.

The problem with response #2 is obvious. Doctors make mistakes and can't judge the inviability an embryo as well as we'd like to think they can. The doctors may deem an embryo inviable when in fact viability cannot truly be determined. They're only guessing. The Hippocratic Oath is in real conflict here. On the one hand, to do no harm would be to go ahead and implant the embryo as opposed to destroying it, but that could do harm by causing a defective birth. It's quite a quandary.

Problem #3: When God opens a womb which many times result in an unwanted pregnancy, the anti-abortion crowd tells the expectant mother that it was God's decision, and who are we to second-guess God?

However, when God closes a womb, God's decision does not seem to apply. Christians in favor if IVF justify this objection in the following ways:

God helps those who help themselves.
The need to have a child is just too strong.

The problem with response #1 is that it's just wrong. God doesn't need our help, especially with this task. And why doesn't this justification also apply to abortion?

The problem with response #2 is that childbearing isn't a need, it's a desire. It won't result in death if a woman cannot conceive. Placing a need above God's will is sin.

Epilogue:

If you're not a Christian and are shocked at these views, don't worry; these views really don't apply to you. As far as Christians are concerned they actually do apply to you but in a very different way. You don't believe in this doctrine, so there's no conflict. I don't mean that truth is relative because it's not. My point is that Christians are commanded not to judge people outside the church, just those inside (see I Cor. 5:9-13). My experience is that Christians tend to reverse this, which is another example of faith unexamined.