"The Scourge" & Life

[Callum]

I don’t anyone has come across a problem proposed by Toby Ord (from Oxford’s mysterious-sounding Future of Humanity Institute) that he calls “The Scourge”. The link is here.

A rough summary of his argument runs thusly:

1.  Human life has full moral status at conception.

2.  The overwhelming majority of zygotes/embryos die before birth, most often at the point of adsorption to the uterine wall.

3.  If 1 *and *2, we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent natural embryo loss as it is a greater killer than cancer, war, famine, abortion, etc. at some 220 million natural embryo deaths per year.

I accept both 1) and 2), but why do Catholics and other pro-lifers not consider natural embryo death a problem?

I’m having a bit of trouble rebuffing this question. Any thoughts?

 

[GEddie]

I don’t anyone has come across a problem proposed by Toby Ord (from Oxford’s mysterious-sounding Future of Humanity Institute) that he calls “The Scourge”. The link is here.

A rough summary of his argument runs thusly:

1.  Human life has full moral status at conception.

2.  The overwhelming majority of zygotes/embryos die before birth, most often at the point of adsorption to the uterine wall.

3.  If 1 *and *2, we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent natural embryo loss as it is a greater killer than cancer, war, famine, abortion, etc. at some 220 million natural embryo deaths per year.

I accept both 1) and 2), but why do Catholics and other pro-lifers not consider natural embryo death a problem?

The Church does not consider natural human death a problem, generally. After all, it is currently the will of God for everybody. And “extraordinary means” are not required to stave off human death.

The Church does fight actions such as abortion, etc, because such deaths derive from human choicemaking rather than from nature simply taking it’s course.

ICXC NIKA

I’m having a bit of trouble rebuffing this question. Any thoughts?

 

[IrishRush]

I accept both 1) and 2), but why do Catholics and other pro-lifers not consider natural embryo death a problem?

I think the operative word here is “natural.”

 

[promethius]

I don’t anyone has come across a problem proposed by Toby Ord (from Oxford’s mysterious-sounding Future of Humanity Institute) that he calls “The Scourge”. The link is here.

A rough summary of his argument runs thusly:

1. Human life has full moral status at conception.
2. The overwhelming majority of zygotes/embryos die before birth, most often at the point of adsorption to the uterine wall.
3. If 1 *and *2, we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent natural embryo loss as it is a greater killer than cancer, war, famine, abortion, etc. at some 220 million natural embryo deaths per year.

I accept both 1) and 2), but why do Catholics and other pro-lifers not consider natural embryo death a problem?

I’m having a bit of trouble rebuffing this question. Any thoughts?

It’s a natural death, willed by God who is within His rights to ordain such a path. We have no extraordinary duty to preserve life against natural death.

 

[Evan]

A rough summary of his argument runs thusly:

1.  Human life has full moral status at conception.

2) The overwhelming majority of zygotes/embryos die before birth, most often at the point of adsorption to the uterine wall.
3) If 1 *and *2, we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent natural embryo loss as it is a greater killer than cancer, war, famine, abortion, etc. at some 220 million natural embryo deaths per year.

I’ve never seen anything that would backup the assertion 2). Yet I see it all the time. Where did this idea come from? Is it from the assumption that once a month, a woman produces 2 eggs and* usually* no children result?

We believe that the simple egg is not a Human Life. Human Life begins a conception, not at ovulation.

 

[promethius]

I’ve never seen anything that would backup the assertion 2). Yet I see it all the time. Where did this idea come from? Is it from the assumption that once a month, a woman produces 2 eggs and* usually* no children result?

We believe that the simple egg is not a Human Life. Human Life begins a conception, not at ovulation.

It’s actually true. I wouldn’t say it’s the overwhelming majority of zygotes (fertilized eggs), but at least half fail to properly implant in the uterus and as a result they fail to gestate.

Are they alive? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps because God wills that they fail to implant, He also decides NOT to imbue them with a soul. Perhaps He DOES imbue them with a soul, and their fate is known only to God, whom we trust to be just and merciful.

What we DO know is that every zygote/fetus/child who DOES implant and begins to gestate IS alive, and most certainly IS imbued with a soul, and thus should not be suffered of the indignity of being murdered

 

[Evan]

It’s actually true. I wouldn’t say it’s the overwhelming majority of zygotes (fertilized eggs), but at least half fail to properly implant in the uterus and as a result they fail to gestate.

Are they alive? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps because God wills that they fail to implant, He also decides NOT to imbue them with a soul. Perhaps He DOES imbue them with a soul, and their fate is known only to God, whom we trust to be just and merciful.

What we DO know is that every zygote/fetus/child who DOES implant and begins to gestate IS alive, and most certainly IS imbued with a soul, and thus should not be suffered of the indignity of being murdered

Could you direct me to a site or something that would substantiate that. I just wonder how it was established. Is it an urban myth? a hypothesis? the result of several studies that all agreed? did they use a large number of women from many cultures and of various ages? Was it before or after the wide use of contraception? Was it just married couples? Did it include fertility tests on the husband?

 

[promethius]

Could you direct me to a site or something that would substantiate that. I just wonder how it was established. Is it an urban myth? a hypothesis? the result of several studies that all agreed? did they use a large number of women from many cultures and of various ages? Was it before or after the wide use of contraception? Was it just married couples? Did it include fertility tests on the husband?

Actually, it’s a soft result… meaning that it is only available on the basis of limited testing, since any testing of a pre-implantation embryo (zygote/blastocyst) is a VERY fragile area to observe, and thus runs high medical ethics risks… but here is a source which discusses the phenomenon and cites the work of several researchers:

discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

As I said, however, even if it is true that more than half of all zygotes spontaneously abort before implantation, it is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion (an unnatural process) is morally acceptable.

 

[TimothyH]

The Church does not consider natural human death a problem, generally. After all, it is currently the will of God for everybody. And “extraordinary means” are not required to stave off human death.

The Church does fight actions such as abortion, etc, because such deaths derive from human choicemaking rather than from nature simply taking it’s course.

ICXC NIKA

This is a very important post.

The Church does not teach that “extraordinary means” are required to prevent someone from dying, nor are extraordinary means required to keep someone alive even temporarily. We are always required to provide basic care - food, warmth, comfort, and this includes pain medication when necessary - but we are only required to provide ordinary care. We are not required to go beyond what is ordinary and normal medically.

From the Catechism…

**2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.**

As a father who has had to put his four year old daughter into hospice caredue to Leukemia, I have had to deal with these issues personally.

-Tim-

 

[Evan]

Actually, it’s a soft result… meaning that it is only available on the basis of limited testing, since any testing of a pre-implantation embryo (zygote/blastocyst) is a VERY fragile area to observe, and thus runs high medical ethics risks… but here is a source which discusses the phenomenon and cites the work of several researchers:

discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

As I said, however, even if it is true that more than half of all zygotes spontaneously abort before implantation, it is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion (an unnatural process) is morally acceptable.

Dubious reference at best. It cites a study where “an estimate of 31% of implanted embryos later miscarry”.

It also refers to

President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.”

No reference is given for this ‘estimate’. Is there a study for this or is this a job for SNOPES.COM?

I would never posit an Obama administration council for not taking worst case estimates (or rumors). After all this is the administration that came up with “98% of Women Use Birth Control” when it actually subsequent investigation by Mollie at Ricochet(ricochet.com/main-feed/Lies-Damned-Lies-and-98-of-Catholic-Women/) showed:

So I guess we could say that among women aged 15-44 who had sex in the last three months but aren’t pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant, 87% of women who identify as Catholic used contraception. It’s worth pondering just who is left out of this 87%, other than, you know, everyone who doesn’t use contraception. Great stat, team journalist! I mean, the study was designed to find only women who would be most likely to use contraception. And it did.

I’m not arguing the truth or falsity of the inability of a high rate of conceived children to implant, but I’ve never seen a study that supported the ‘estimates’ in a pro-choice culture.

 

[promethius]

Dubious reference at best. It cites a study where “an estimate of 31% of implanted embryos later miscarry”.

It also refers to
No reference is given for this ‘estimate’. Is there a study for this or is this a job for SNOPES.COM?

Meh, like I said, this is a relatively new field of study which requires a high degree of standards and a large number of restrictions to even launch any sort of investigation into.

The article even states this

However, what you won’t find is a single source of any level of credibility, even a “dubious” one, that supports the idea that embryos successfully implant anywhere 100% most of the time.

I would never posit an Obama administration council for not taking worst case estimates (or rumors). After all this is the administration that came up with “98% of Women Use Birth Control” when it actually subsequent investigation by Mollie at Ricochet(ricochet.com/main-feed/Lies-Damned-Lies-and-98-of-Catholic-Women/) showed:

What would be the political motivation here??? It’s not a relevant fact to any sort of social debate AT ALL…

I’m not arguing the truth or falsity of the inability of a high rate of conceived children to implant, but I’ve never seen a study that supported the ‘estimates’ in a pro-choice culture.

You haven’t seen it in pro-choice culture because it’s irrelevant to the abortion debate. Sure, some people cite it as a reason to allow abortion… but that’s because they’re insane enough to be an abortion supporter… thus it doesn’t surprise me that they would grasp at straws like this to try and build support for their position.

 

[Evan]

You haven’t seen it in pro-choice culture because it’s irrelevant to the abortion debate. Sure, some people cite it as a reason to allow abortion… but that’s because they’re insane enough to be an abortion supporter… thus it doesn’t surprise me that they would grasp at straws like this to try and build support for their position.

I agree, but they are out there. So some people try to get it in under the radar and then, once everyone believes, they tell us it’s common knowledge, everybody knows.

Like “high salt intake causes high blood pressure”
Instead is should read, “in people with high blood pressure, reduced salt intake can help reduce high blood pressure.”
{BTW… in 25% of people, increase salt lowers blood pressure, and 25% no effect in the original studies}