Dear Members,

About two weeks ago, I helped with my churches' Bible School. One young girl was very artistic, but had been diagnosed with reumatoid arthritis since birth. She was very short and obviously retaining water, as she was very heavy and her face was swollen so her eyes were difficult to see for all the fluid retained in her face. Her name was Arrian and she was to go to Washington to have stem cell surgery from stem cells obtained from her bone marrow.

A week later my husband and I attended a carnival to raise funds for her surgery. Their were games for the kids and projects for auction made at the Bible School. My husband and I bid on a stained glass piece that Arrian had made. Arrian was a very artistic. She was very careful to choose her colors and stayed carefully in the lines.

Arrian was to be the first child to receive this procedure. I will see her Aunt at church on Sunday and ask if Arrian was the patient who had the surgery. I know she had a lot of pain and she frequently complained to me of tremors.
The surgery was her only hope of leading a normal life.

I have asked the Right to Life group associated with my church and received the following responce to give to those who deem that the option of discarding unused embryo's into the trash was a waste when they could be used to help others. Please consider it carefully and give it thought before replying. Any sarcastic responces will be ignored.

Dear Vicky,

First of all, my prayers go out to you as you fight two battles -
Parkinson's and attacks on your faith. I pray that God gives you the
strength to face these challenges and maintain your strong faith through
each of them.

The arguments that you are hearing are very typical, even among
Christians. The basis of that opinion is misleading though. Most
people believe there are only two options for those embryos: destroy
them in a trash can or destroy them in a scientist's lab. The
assumption continues that if they will be destroyed anyway, why not get
something good from their destruction.

The first correction to that thinking is that there are actually five
options for those embryos, not only two options. They are:
1) throw them in the trash
2) donate them to scientists for research
3) keep them frozen indefinitely
4) transfer them to the mother for the chance they will implant and
continue living
5) place them for embryo adoption so infertile couples can have the
chance for children

Of these five, there are certainly issues with each and none of them are
"easy" choices for couples. Yet, of these five choices the first two
are clearly wrong because the intent is to destroy them. The third
choice is really not much better because the destruction of those
embryos is probably just delayed. The last two, however, are options
that protect the lives of the embryos and even gives infertile couples
the opportunity to give birth to a child.

You made an interesting comment that has value in this debate.
Infertility treatments are designed to bring new lives into this world.
The "success" of IVF has produced many more embryos than are needed by
those infertile couples, but that success should be used to benefit
others who want children. It seems rather illogical to destroy those
embryos rather than use them for their intended purpose.

The truth is that you need to do some educating. Embryos are young
lives that should be allowed to continue their existence. The intent of
infertility treatments is to bring children into the world. There is no
other reason to go to an infertility specialist and no other goal other
than the birth of children. For some people to step in and say that these
embryos should now be used for some other purpose is contrary to the
entire process and intent. If your friends are wishing that science
would find a cure or treatment for Parkinson's through embryonic stem
cell research, then they should look at the work being done to establish
embryonic stem cells without destroying human lives. Such research is
currently being done at Harvard, MIT, University of Minnesota, and
others. In those cases, the stem cells are intended for treatments and
are formed in ways that are more ethically acceptable. I would ask your
friends if they see the benefit of splitting this technology so the
infertility clinics remain focused on bringing babies into the world and
researchers are focused on finding cures for diseases. This approach
protects the value of human life, but does not limit the potential for
success with embryonic stem cell research. If your friends cannot see
the logic in this argument, then you probably are not going to get
through to them. Some people are so hardened in their opinions that
even facts and logic are not going too change their minds.

You also raised another interesting point. Should science be limited or
censored in any way? Yes, of course it should be and it is in virtually
all countries in the world. Science without limits was practiced in
Germany in the early and mid 20th century and the world has condemned
them soundly for it. Science, by its nature, is a field of study and
discovery. We often think that discovery should be free and unlimited
because it will benefit mankind in the end. The truth is that
scientists must be limited because free discovery is not usually
beneficial for mankind. Currently in the United States, we have
government agencies and scientific organizations that oversee the fields
of science. This is appropriate for two reasons: (1) scientists are
not, and should not be, capable of self-limitations. It is not fair to
the field of scientists to expect each one of them to hold to a
consistent ethic and universal standards, if no such standards have been
established. (2) such limitations are often based on a combination of
religious beliefs, ethical standards, and general public opinion. Our
government is specifically designed to represent the general public and
reflect the opinions and standards that are felt by the majority of its
citizens. Therefore, the government is rightly responsible for setting
those standards and enforcing them. Quite honestly, my perception is
that the government has accomplished this role very effectively. We
have continued technological advancements, and for the most part, we
aren't creating a bunch of research that is unacceptable to the general
populace. In summary, the argument that scientists should be free to
pursue their research is simply not thinking this through very well and
coming to a conclusion that is based on shallow emotionalism rather than
reasoned logic.

In the end, Vicky, remember that your role as a Christian is to live
your life as a shining example of faith (Matthew 5) and to always be
prepared to give the reason for the hope that you have for your
salvation (1 Peter 3). You are struggling with ways to win this debate
with your friends, but the greater challenge is to use this debate as a
way to reflect your faith and the truths of God's Word. The arguments
they are giving you are all based on emotionalism and humanism. Your
responses should always be based on Biblical principles and spoken in
love (Ephesians 4). In your responses I would encourage you to provide
some of the information and facts that I listed above. Let your friends
know that you are informed on this topic and not making blind
assumptions. Your strongest argument, however, is found in God's Word.
We know that those embryos are human lives (Psalm 51), we know that we
do not have the right to intentionally kill human beings (Exodus 20) and
we know that God holds us accountable for the lives of our fellow human
beings (Genesis 9). At the same time, we are responsible to preserve
and protect human life and treat our neighbor in love (Luke 10).
Putting these Biblical truths together, it is easy to conclude that we
should support and encourage advancements that are able to treat people
with illnesses or diseases. Yet, we cannot justify procedures that
intentionally destroy human lives for the perceived hope that we might
find a cure to save others. It simply is not consistent with God's
Word.

Lord's blessings on your efforts, Vicky.

Paul Snamiska
Program Administrator
Christian Life Resources

I have asked for the Christian Life Resources to state my beliefs in a non-judgental way as many on this site find me too sure of the rightness of my beliefs. That is what Faith is. Faith is not an emotion. It is the sureness that God requires nothing from us to save ourselves, nor does he believe we are able to life our lives without breaking the ten commandments. He gave his only son for our sake, so by his grace we can be saved. We cannot save ourselves or pray our way into heaven. We can only read his word, attend his church to receive his word and the lord's supper and try to do his will to the last.

If you are an athiest, please ignore this post. But if you consider yourself a Christian please give the Program Admistrator of Christian Life Resources serious thought. I believe that reverence for life was one of Jesus top priorties when he was on this earth, as he showed mercy on even those whom cursed and crucified them on the cross.

Sincerely,
Vicky Lynn