When one begins to survey those topics which polarize the public forum, there are few that have remained as charged as abortion. Likewise, I don’t think there is such a widely debated issue that is not fully understood by those on either side of the fence. Because neither side understands all of the intricacies involved, it quickly becomes oversimplified and the impact it has upon all those involved is understated. This, in my opinion, is where the greatest injustice has been done in regard to abortion. Abortion is a very complex topic. It involves mothers, fathers, children, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. Furthermore, it involves many complexities. Some of these are because options such as adoption are available. It also concerns the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the mother and father and those deeply connected and involved with the mother and father.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to address every subtlety due to the vast nature of this issue. Neither is it my goal in this post to argue for a specific position as being more right/wrong. I simply want to bring some awareness to the profound nature of this subject and spark some discussion that will lead to both sides better understanding one another. This is in the hope that we might be able to reach some common ground and quit treating those personally facing this in their life as though they are objective subject matter available to use as ammunition in the continued war which we have created.

How do pro-lifers oversimplify and understate?
This side of the fence is often characterized as the religious, right-wingers who protest and picket in front of abortion clinics. It is certainly true that a great many of those who hold to this position do so for religious reasons. Because this is the foundation for their view, they often make the mistake of painting this as simply a matter of “the sanctity of life.” The war cry was quickly stereo-typed as “abortion is murder.” When pressed about possible instances where abortion would be acceptable, the standard canned response seems to be, “There is never a time where it is ok to take a life—period.” This is a huge oversimplification when considering possible reasons for abortion.

When a woman is raped and then is impregnated by her attacker, it takes a callow individual to tell her she has no option but to carry the child to term and love the child with everything she has. A woman in this instance has gone through something which is emotionally traumatic on a level that those who have not experienced cannot fathom. Hear me out, I am not saying that this is a green-light instance for a woman to get an abortion, but I think those in the pro-life camp are displaying a callous heart when we don’t even consider the woman’s emotional state in a situation like this. Would it not be better to help her deal with the emotional trauma from which she is suffering? Doing so would bring more positive results (adoption?) as well as help her heal. All too often, what seems to be the prevailing story in this situation is those in the pro-life position simply state that she would be murdering this child and sinning if she has an abortion. Now some of you in the pro-life position are getting angry with me as you read this, but stop and take a breath for a moment. I write this because I used to be one of those who would have told her those very things. I would’ve heralded “abortion is not an option under any circumstance.”

I have since softened my approach. I still do not agree that abortion is okay, but I have been able to gain some understanding into the pro-choice position. For example, there are very rare instances where carrying a child to term would place the mothers life at risk. One of those instances is a condition known as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy.” This is where the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the fallopian tube. If left untreated, the embryo will continue to grow and eventually rupture the tube. When this occurs the woman is in serious danger of dying from the hemorrhage. Another condition which would place both the mother and the child at risk is preeclampsia. When a couple is faced with this, it is a hellacious decision. One that I know (as a parent) is not easily made. Why do I say this? Because it is a decision that results in the ending of a life. Either they decide to follow thru on the oversimplified pro-life position and not have an abortion and the mother dies (and possibly the child as well) or they end the child’s life saving the mother’s life. It is a no win situation for those parents and the public sector seems to forget this fact.

However, I also realize that not every person who could be categorized as pro-life hold to the extreme which has been painted. It still remains, however, that the vast majority of the pro-life camp does not give any consideration beyond that of preserving the life of the unborn. We must begin to move beyond seeing that as the only thing at stake here—it is much deeper than just the unborn child; it involves real people, facing real decisions, which affect more than just the unborn.

How do pro-choicers oversimplify and understate?
The biggest way in which those advocating this position have oversimplified the issue is by deeming it simply as a “woman’s choice.” This statement is naïve at best because it is not just the woman involved. There is, at least in the beginning, a man involved as well. It is ridiculous to me that when a child is born the father has rights to the child and the major decision which affect that child’s life, but when the child is in the womb a woman can abort the child even if the father wanted to keep the child. An even greater hypocrisy lies beneath the surface of the “woman’s choice” statement—partly because what is hailed as giving much support to the woman’s choice position is contained in two concurrent decrees from the Supreme Court. In the first of two decisions, Roe v. Wade determined that the fetus is not person and, therefore, not entitled to constitutional rights. This decision also determined that States cannot regulate an abortion during the first trimester for any reason, but could regulate the second trimester to protect the health of the mother and during the third trimester states could regulate/prohibit abortions to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus (save threatening the health or life of the mother). The second decision by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton outlined what constituted the “mother’s health”. It defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This expanded the “right to abortion” for almost any reason.

Consider this. A pregnant mother in her third trimester, one week away from her due date can go and receive an abortion because the fetus is not considered a person as defined in the above Supreme Court decision. However, if she were to wait one week and give birth to the child, she could no longer terminate that life because it is now considered a person. Does one week make that drastic of a difference in the development of the fetus? Of course not, that child could be born a week early and be completely healthy and survive outside of the mother. Here is the oversimplification. It is difficult by any means to try and define the point at which the developing embryo should be considered a person. My opinion is that the Supreme Court did not wish to delve deeply into the matter as they are supposed to interpret the law and not get into ethical considerations; so they simply took the plainest definition of personhood available to them—at birth. That, after all, is when we receive a certificate of live birth and are eligible for rights as citizens.

Even though we have made great advancements in the medical field, we are still learning a lot about the entire process of pregnancy. This is a difficult point, but one which is of extreme importance. We must begin open, honest discussions about when personhood begins. Why is that so important you might ask? Because history bears out that in order to oppress a group or mistreat them in any way, you must first deny them personhood. The slaves in America were not considered to be persons, but property. Native Americans were not considered persons, but savages. The Jews during World War II were denied personhood, leading to their horrific mistreatment. So the matter of personhood concerning the unborn is one to which we must give complete diligence because the unborn cannot plead their case. Before we can begin to move this discussion forward, however, we must remove all of the appeals to emotion, the politically charged language, and our own personal biases from the arena and begin to look at the issue honestly. Only then will we as a society be giving a fair handshake to the unborn. Always remember, you were a fetus at one time as well. Would you have wanted someone to plead your case openly, honestly, and fairly?

Likewise, those in this camp have understated the serious nature of the abortion procedure chalking it up to a routine medical procedure. As anyone who has undergone surgery knows, any invasive medical procedure brings risks with it regardless of how small the procedure. Abortion is no different. In fact, abortion is very invasive and traumatic on a woman’s reproductive organs. If you do not know what is involved in the abortion process during the three different trimesters, please take a look at this video. The video is produced by an OB/GYN to tactfully demonstrate what is truly involved in an abortion. This is also why the Supreme Court made the following statement:

“The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed.”

Both sides of the camp are guilty of making grievous errors when addressing abortion. I’m not claiming that I have the answer, but I am willing to talk about the issue with an open mind and to think through the issues surrounding it logically and reasonably. That is my hope for you after reading this—that you would be willing to modify your opinion as you learn more about abortion from engaging others in productive discussions.

There was an article in New York Magazine last month that addressed the topic of abortion. Specifically, the question was about whether or not America really has a pro-choice majority among its citizens. I would recommend that read the article and then stop by Al Mohler's blog and read his response to it. You will thoroughly enjoy both articles and learn a lot about the current debate around abortion.

The Pew Forum on Religion released the results of a new pole they conducted concerning the topic of abortion. The results are very interesting and give some insight on how Christians can better conduct themselves in the debate over abortion. One of the more interesting points of the article was:

There has been a lot of buzz again as of late about the Plan B or “morning after pill.” This is because a federal judge recently lowered the age-limit to purchase the drug over-the-counter from 18 to 17 years of age. I am somewhat conflicted about this drug, however. A part of me would like to support the use of this drug in order to reduce the number of abortions in the country. Another part of me is opposed to it because it may prevent an embryo from implanting itself on the uterine wall. It does not terminate an already implanted embryo, so it does perform an abortion by killing an already growing and healthy embryo.

My internal conflict over this drug arises from the fact that I cannot seem to find a clear answer to the question of whether or not this drug prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting of the wall of the uterus. I have found many stories out there that address the core purpose of the drug—to prevent ovulation from occurring. If the drug is successful to this end, a fertilized embryo would never form and the sperm would simply die off naturally before ovulation could occur. If this is how the drug worked 100% of the time, I would have to problem supporting its use to prevent pregnancies. I would put it on par with condoms and birth control aimed at preventing pregnancy from occurring.

Nearly every story I read concerning Plan B, however, mentions that the drug “may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)” [FDA Press Release]. Therein lies my problem. If the drug prevents a viable offspring from developing that would otherwise have done so, I have some qualms about it. This is because I believe an embryo is not a blob of tissue, but an actual person (click here to read about this position).

Sarah Kliff of Newsweek wrote an article entitled “How Plan B Works: Six Things You Always Wondered About Emergency Contraception.” She also wrote the article about watching an abortion being performed, which I posted on HERE. The Seattle Times wrote an article about Plan B being available over-the-counter to those 17 years of age and older. The article contends this will do nothing to affect the pregnancy rate among teenagers. It is a very interesting article that I would recommend. Newsy also published a video clip about this story, which you can watch below.

But I would like to hear you weigh in on this topic. Do you think Plan B is a good option like condoms or other forms of birth control? Or do you think Plan B should be placed on par with other forms of abortion? Even better, do any of you know of some more concrete research that answers whether or not it prevents fertilized embryos from implanting and how often does that occur?

Over the weekend, Newsweek magazine posted an article by Sarah Kliff entitled, "Watching My First Abortion." She is a journalist who has covered the abortion debate in America for some time now. The main focus of the article is her journey to Omaha, Nebraska where she visits and witnesses, first-hand an abortion being performed. I must admit, that I am impressed overall with her article. She seems to be genuinely reporting her reaction to witnessing this event that few people (other than those undergoing the procedure) will ever witness.

In the fifth paragraph of her article, she writes something I think deserves a little more attention. It is worth quoting in full.

A first-trimester abortion, from my vantage point behind the glass window, looked like an extended, more invasive version of a standard ob-gyn exam. A woman with her heels in stirrups, clothes traded in for a hospital gown, a speculum holding the cervix open. Carhart used a suction tube to empty the contents of the uterus; it took no longer than three minutes. The suction machine made a slight rumbling sound, a pinkish fluid flowed through the tube, and, faster than I'd expected, it was over. Women spent less than a half hour in the operating room. I'd anticipated some kind of difficulty watching an abortion; it wasn't there.

Notice her description of the aborted fetus…”a pinkish fluid flowed through the tube.” This brings up the point that many pro-choice supporters will point to—fetuses are only blobs of undifferentiated tissue. I know not all pro-choice supporters would agree with that statement, but it is a statement that I have regularly heard when encountering people of the pro-choice position. In fact, somewhat recently I engaged some commenters at Unreasonable Faith (an atheist blog), where one commenter described an embryo in the following manner: “embryos are not children, any more than blueprints are houses or my clipped fingernails are me. An early embryo is little more than a cell” and later “Embryos are not people. They might become people, but they are not people.” You can read that full post and comment stream here.

Is this understanding correct; are embryos just blobs of undifferentiated tissue? Part of understanding the answer to this question comes in understanding what a first-trimester embryo undergoes in the abortion process. The machine used to extract the embryo exerts some strong forces in order to pull the embryo down the tube. In fact, those forces are so strong they can collapse a paint thinner container. I witnessed this in a live demonstration by an ob-gyn as you can watch in the clip below (entire abortion demonstration can be viewed here and here). This doctor travels around the country presenting what he has entitled “God’s Miracle of Life.” It is an excellent presentation that details development up to birth and then presents the different methods of abortion during each of the trimesters. You can preview the abortion part of this presentation at the link above. If you are interested in him coming and speaking, you can contact him through his website prolifedoc.org.



With a full understanding of what the embryo undergoes during the abortion procedure, it is no surprise that it looks as though it is simply a blob of tissue or a “pinkish fluid.” However, Newsweek also produced a video clip (below or click here) of the same story for those who may prefer video to reading.



In the video, Dr. Carhart made some statements that are important to note. He made the statement that he would like to see the need for abortion to go down and go away, better contraceptives, an increase in sex-education, more affordable birth control, better empowerment of the women so that the “number of abortions would spontaneously reduce on their own.” I have some trouble with this statement by Dr. Carhart. I do not disagree with the points he made. I too would like to see better sex-education, more affordable and better birth control, and the reduction of abortions. However, I think he is being a little dishonest. Think about it, he is a doctor who makes his living from performing abortions. Does he truly want to see the number of abortions reduced and thereby his income? I have trouble believing that. It is possible that he genuinely means his statement, but I find it improbable. It’s like a coal company CEO saying he would like to see the use of coal reduced—any honest person listening to a coal company CEO make that statement would take it with a grain of salt. So I take Dr. Carhart's statement with a grain of salt.

Overall, the article is worth reading (or watching the video) because it resounds with the many people on both sides of the abortion debate. This is particularly the case since President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame University. There is a desire by many (pro-life and pro-choice) to move toward a middle ground on this issue—to find some common ground between the two camps. Before that can happen though, there needs to be clarity about the facts. To be fair, that was not her intention in this article; however, the story adds nothing to clarifying the facts concerning abortion (such as development, high-risk pregnancies, etc.). On the other hand, I commend her for finding out first-hand what truly happens during an abortion.

What is your reaction to her description of an abortion?

If more people watched an abortion, do you think it would change the tide concerning the abortion debate?

I have known for some time that there was discussion and hope to bring in a branch of the Bethany Christian Services into Pensacola, Florida. Bethany is touted to be one of the largest adoption agencies, if not the largest, in the United States. The services that Bethany provides truly are amazing. Not only does Bethany deal extensively with adoptions, but they also provide post-adoptive services only to families as well as churches and birth families. They also offer free counseling to pregnant women needing answers about parenting, adoption, and abortion.

There is something that makes Bethany stand out to me though—they are not afraid to tackle the tough topics. They also deal in embryo adoption and even have an infertility ministry to assist couples in working through their options. I wrote a post back in March entitled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Where will this road lead us?” In that I post I addressed a question I was asked. It was one of the questions that Bethany is talking about and doing their best to come to a biblical conclusion about. I know this because the man who asked me serves on the panel/board/committee (not exactly sure what he serves on, but I know he was brought on for his expertise) dealing with those tough questions.

I am excited to see this ministry coming into Pensacola. I am even more excited that they are not afraid to deal with the “hot-button” issues in our culture in order to continue carrying out their mission of “manifest[ing] the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting and enhancing the lives of children and families through quality social services.”

There appeared to be one underlying theme in Obama’s speech at the graduation of Notre Dame—common ground. He advocated that the two opposing viewpoints needed to come together to find common ground. To illustrate this point, he told a story about a doctor who had written him during the campaign and that was concerned Obama may not treat abortion with fairness, but that he would treat all those who oppose abortion as “ideologues.” Obama concluded that he changed the statement on his website that prompted the doctor to write him and then followed up with this statement about why he did so, “That I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the Doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that, when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe, that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.”

I think that this has now opened up the great possibility for the debate concerning abortion to move forward as Christians can now capitalize on the theme of “common ground.” For those who may not be sure about how to address abortion in a manner that promotes common ground, I encourage you to read a book entitled Common Ground. I wrote a review of the book some time ago, which you can read here.

This is an opportunity to advance the conversation concerning abortion that we, as Christians, should not allow to pass by. President Obama has injected the concept of common ground into the liberal atmosphere like never before and considering that there is no way of knowing how long it will remain in the atmosphere or if it will ever be promoted like this again, it is an opportunity that Christians simply cannot afford to let go by the wayside.

Below is a clip of Obama’s speech where he brings out the theme of common ground (click here if video does not appear).

There has been a lot of buzz of late concerning Christians and certain moral stances (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage). With Obama changing a lot of things about abortion, it has awakened a lot of religious groups opposed to abortion.

A story I heard about a month ago was back in the news recently. The big discussion was a way to let the White House know that there were a lot of Americans who were opposed to abortion and the recent executive orders coming from the White House. One man, named Christ Otto, believes that God gave him the idea to send some empty red envelopes to the White House. On the back of the envelopes he wrote, “This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. LIFE begins at conception.” The idea quickly caught on among Christians across the nation and quickly became known as the "Red Envelope Project."

World Net Daily and The Florida Baptist Witness both recently ran stories addressing the success of the project. The story in WND reported that a White House staffer confirmed that there were well over 2 million envelopes received.

Christ Otto, in an effort to continue the success of the Red Envelope Project, has started the website The LIFE Envelope Project It is still the same effort—to make clear the concerns about abortion to the White House—with some new ideas about envelopes. I think this is a great way for Christians to get involved in opposing abortion. It is not confrontational (like standing in front of an abortion clinic), it does not take great debating skills (like addressing the issue publicly), and it is something people of all ages can do. If you have been looking for a way to get involved in the abortion arena but haven’t really been sure how to do so, I encourage you to go over to Christ Otto’s site and take a look at how to get involved. It’s extremely easy and I don’t think you will regret it.

It appears to be that way. USA Today ran a story yesterday that announced Al Gore would be donating $20 million dollars (seems awfully small in the face of all the recent stimulus spending) to fund research on induced pluripontent stem cells (iPS). These stem cells are one of the alternatives to embryonic stem cell research and one that holds a lot of promise.

It is these stem cells to which Dr. Oz referred to recently on the Oprah Winfrey show. I wrote a post on this and linked to the video clip of Oprah’s show where Dr. Oz makes these statements. What I find interesting is that a political liberal such as Al Gore would break step with the rest of the Democrats and publicly fund an alternative to embryonic stem cell research. It is even more interesting that the White House has not publicly addressed whether federal funding is available for iPS research. Does anyone else know if this has been clarified? Because I haven't heard anything about it.

This is my third post on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). You may want to read Part 1 and Part 2 if you have not already. In this post, I will answer the rest of the questions I brought up in my original post, which I did not answer in my last post

(3) What is the best solution to the vast number of unused frozen embryos?

There are an estimated 500,000 embryos stored in cryobanks, which are no longer needed for many different reasons. The three possible solutions that have been offered to resolve this problem are to destroy (abort) the embryos, donate them to other couples wanting to have children, or donate them to “science.” There are pros and cons to each of these possible solutions.

The parents of these embryos often cannot simply “destroy” the embryos. They frequently make a statement along the lines that they see their current children and cannot help but to think of what those embryos could become. However, these same parents at times do not feel comfortable with giving these embryos up for adoption. They fear the unforeseen consequences of them someday meeting an unknown relative or that they may be brought up in a bad home. Furthermore, the process for adopting an embryo is more difficult than adopting a child and often costs thousands of dollars. The third option is even cloudier because no one has really defined what “donating to science” entails.

Everyday there seems to be another story in the news about President Obama and ESCR. It would appear that the government is pushing to use these “existing” embryos in cryobanks for current ESCR. The problem here, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a coherent policy about ESCR and what is or is not allowed. A recent post on Stand to Reason shows just how confusing the White House’s policies are concerning this issue. This brings me to the fourth question I raised…

(4) Is it ethical to use “embryos” for scientific purposes (whether from extra embryos or those purposely created for such purposes)?

This question is really about the status of embryos, regardless of whether they are extra embryos or embryos created for scientific research. If these embryos are human, then it is certainly unethical to allow unfounded scientific research to be conducted on them. Particularly, since we do not allow unfounded scientific research on adult humans. Even when we allow scientific research to be conducted on adult humans there are safeguards, regulations, permission must be obtained from the participant, etc. Furthering this problem of scientific research on embryos is the whole option of adopting embryos. If embryos are not human nor persons, then why have an adoption process? It makes no sense to have one position (adoption) that treats these embryos as persons and, at the same time, have another stance (science) that denies that these embryos are persons but are only cells. This debate over the status leads to the fifth and final question I raised…

(5) Are we killing a human when we destroy an embryo?

I think we are killing a human when we destroy an embryo. Partly because of my position that I believe we receive our souls at conception, but more so because I do not believe that a human’s position in reference to the birth canal determines our humanity. We are human whether born or unborn. I also think the Scriptures are clear that we are important and valuable in God’s eyes from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5).

My last post brought up the issue of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) and some questions to which Christians must find an answer. As a Pastor, I always ask myself, “What does the Bible say?” There are some, though, that would say the Bible does not address issues like these, that the authors of the Bible could not have possibly envisioned issues such as ESCR. I will agree that one cannot find a treatise on ESCR in the letters of Paul, Peter, or any other biblical author. However, I think that there are principles contained in Scripture that are timeless in their application to our lives.

Following I will restate the questions I listed in my previous post and include my thoughts as to how we might answer them biblically:

(1) Are frozen embryos dead or alive? This question is of some importance. If the frozen embryo is in fact dead and not alive, we cannot argue that we are mistreating a living thing. Our argument would have to change to something along the lines that we are not treating the dead with respect (if you think the dead should be treated with respect). However, I think too many people answer this question too quickly in the affirmative, that a frozen embryo is alive, because there is a problem with this position. Would we consider a human adult who is frozen as being alive?

The scientific and medical answer is that when any living thing is cryogenically frozen, as the embryos are, that it is not alive while frozen. This is because there is no cellular growth or reproduction. It is as though the “clock” for that embryo has been paused. The problem the medical community is having is that cells often rupture from ice crystals that form from the freezing process. Therefore, the cells die before they are even “thawed out.” The second problem is that they have not exactly figured out how to properly thaw and revive an organism. So the short answer is that embryos are considered to be dead while frozen (often referred to as cryonic suspension). There is a short, but rather detailed article about cryogenics here.

(2) Are we “torturing a person” when we freeze an embryo? You will remember that this question arose because I hold the position that we receive our souls at conception. So the question was really wondering if the soul remained with the embryo while frozen. However, my intuition (as well as science) is that an embryo is not alive but is dead. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that when we die, our souls depart from our bodies. The apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord… We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it (2 Corinthians 5:6, 8-9, NIV).”

There is also an understanding that the body and soul do not die together or are inseparable. Jesus stated, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28, NIV).” From this statement, it is clear that we as humans can kill one another’s bodies, but not each other’s souls. There is also an understanding in Scripture that the soul can depart from the body and then later return to the body (Jesus’ died, was buried, and was resurrected; Lazarus resurrected [John 11:43-44]; Jairus’ daughter resurrected [Luke 8:53-56]; etc.). Particularly note of Luke 8:55 which states, “Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up.” So it becomes completely evident to me that we are not “torturing” these souls contained in a frozen embryo because I believe they die when frozen and so the soul departs. If you, however, believe that we receive our souls at birth or some point later in embryonic development, then this question is probably a moot point for you.

These are just some of my thoughts about how to biblically answer these questions. I am do not claim that I have got these things figured out. I would love to hear some different thoughts or perspectives on how to answer these questions. What I do think is important, though, is that we are working through these things as Christians and not ignoring “the problem” and hoping it will be resolved without us having to be involved. I will be making some follow-up posts because I didn’t address all the questions that I listed in my initial post.

President Obama’s recent repeal of Bush’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) has brought out a major discussion point about a problem that is gaining momentum in the public eye. That problem is what do we do with cryogenically frozen embryos? There are more articles everyday that are addressing the issue that there is currently hundreds of thousands (the latest estimate I have seen is 500,000) of frozen embryos sitting in cryobanks. The three options for people who have frozen embryos is to have them destroyed, allow another couple to “adopt” their embryo(s), or to donate them to “science” (i.e., ESCR). These issues are not as cut and dry as we would like them to be. People are struggling to answer the question of what to do with their unused frozen embryos as well as what do we do with those of people who have died or fallen off the grid.

A few months ago I was asked about cryogenically frozen embryos by a deacon in my church (who is also an OB/GYN). He specifically asked the question, “Do you think we are torturing embryos when we freeze them?” Now I must preface this with the understanding that this question was asked following the question about what I thought happens to babies who are still born, die at birth, or are aborted—did I think they were granted salvation or were they sent to hell (which is a completely different matter I am not going to address in this post)? Part of my answer included my belief that we receive our souls at conception. This is why the follow up about torturing embryos—because I believe they have a soul.

I think as Christians we cannot hastily jump to a conclusion about this issue. The nation as a whole is struggling with this topic and if we act like we have got it nailed, they will view our answer with skepticism. But here are some of my thoughts and some questions to which we must look for some answers: (1) Are frozen embryos dead or alive? (2) Are we “torturing a person” when we freeze an embryo? (3) What is the best solution to the vast number of unused frozen embryos? (4) Is it ethical to use “embryos” for scientific purposes (whether from extra embryos or those purposely created for such purposes)? (5) Are we killing a human when we destroy an embryo? There are numerous other questions about this issue, but these are a few that are fast arising to the forefront. I will share my thoughts in a post later this week about how I have answered some of these questions.