Tag: Ethics

Does ‘Mother Earth’ Have Human Rights?

~ Evan Lenow

According to a Fox News report,[1] delegates to the United Nations are debating today whether or not to extend human rights to “Mother Earth.” Bolivian President Evo Morales has led the charge to get this item on the agenda for the General Assembly of the UN. The official UN agenda[2] lists today’s discussion as “Interactive Dialogue on ‘Harmony with Nature.’” Fox News states that the goal is “to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.”

The first question is whether or not “Mother Earth” has human rights. From a strictly literal standpoint, the only answer to this question is “no” because the earth is not human. It is a logical fallacy to ascribe human rights to the environment because it is by definition not human. However, that is not the only question. We also have to consider what the UN intends to do for “Mother Earth” that it is unwilling to do for humans. The news report notes, “Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community—plants, animals, and terrain.” If these inalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as proclaimed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, then the United Nations will have to provide some interesting definitions. If plants and animals have an inalienable right to life, then why does the UN support abortion? If plants and animals have an inalienable right to life, then what do they serve in the cafeteria at the UN headquarters in New York? If “Mother Earth” has a right to happiness, how is happiness defined for the environment? If plants have a right to liberty, where should humans build their homes and communities?

An even bigger question related to this event concerns the other pressing issues in the world. Why is the UN debating human rights for “Mother Earth” when human rights for humans are being openly violated in countries around the world? While multiple countries are at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and much of the Middle East is in turmoil with political rebellion and upheaval, does it not seem more important for the United Nations to address human issues among its member nations?

Fox News suggests that there is a bigger issue at stake in this discussion—an effort to overturn capitalism. They report:

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding—an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

In addition, the report states that President Morales has a desire to see the end of capitalism. The report notes:

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet. Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6.

In the 10 minutes or so that I listened to some of the discussion, it was pretty easy to confirm this idea. One panelist commented, “The dominant economic system does not correspond to reality.” Others made comments about the evil nature of the U.S. economic system. Therefore, while Fox News may sometimes be guilty of spinning their news stories to a conservative angle, it appears to be justified in this instance.

The final question to be raised regarding this issue is whether or not the United Nations is actually a legitimate governmental authority qualified to enact such human rights treaties. Yes, the United States and other countries all over the world joined the UN by treaty to work as an oversight body to avoid the catastrophes of the two World Wars in the first half of the 20th century. However, does the UN able to exercise the power to grant rights to nature? Does the United Nations serve as the governing authority over creation? I dare say the answer is a resounding “NO!”

The only One with the power to grant rights to the creation is the Creator. We read in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Fast forward a couple of millennia, and Paul states in Colossians 1:16, “For by Him [Jesus] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

From Genesis 1–2, we see that God gave dominion over the earth—plants, animals, etc—to humans and that God told Adam to cultivate and keep the ground. By this, I do not believe that God was advocating a “scorched earth” view of environmental management. Just as in everything else, we are stewards of the earth to use it for our benefit and God’s glory. The earth does not have rights over humans because it was not made in the image of God. At the same time, we are to view the earth as a resource to be cultivated AND kept. I say to the United Nations, deal with problems you actually have authority to address—if you actually have any authority—and leave the earth to God.

The Bible and Race: A Book Review

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

In honor of Black History Month, I want to post a book review I wrote a couple of years ago on T.B. Maston’s classic volume, The Bible and Race. Maston was a long-time ethics professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This book was originally published in 1959, in the heat of racial tensions in the South. Within the predominately white Southern Baptist Convention, Maston’s words were years before his time.

In celebration of its Centennial, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has reprinted T.B Maston’s The Bible and Race as part of its Library of Centennial Classics. Maston held degrees from Carson-Newman College, Southwestern Seminary, Texas Christian University, and Yale University, and he taught Christian ethics at Southwestern until his retirement in 1963. The Bible and Race was written in the aftermath of the landmark Supreme Court school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education of 1954. As the birth pangs of the coming Civil Rights movement were certainly felt by the predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention, Maston authored this volume to provide a biblical perspective on the “various aspects of the race problem” (vii).

In contrast to many current books on ethical issues, Maston presents a straightforward, biblical approach to the problem of racism by discussing eight biblical passages and their implications for the race issue. In each of these, he takes a biblical truth gleaned from a particular passage, introduces related passages where appropriate, and considers the impact each of these have on the issue of race.

Maston first attempts to reveal the biblical truths about man, and in so doing, dispel some myths that had been propagated regarding minorities. He lays a foundation in the first chapter with a discussion of the image of God from Genesis 1:27. Maston writes, “It is man, representative of all men, who is created in the image of God. The image is not restricted to red or yellow, black or white” (3). By laying the foundation that all men are created in the image of God, he is able to use subsequent chapters to dispel myths about minorities, including that God has limited where they can live (Acts 17:26) and that they are cursed by God (Gen 9:25). Finally, Maston asserts that many of the problems involving race have their foundation in a “we-you” mentality that is evidenced in the interactions between the Jews and Samaritans in Scripture (e.g., John 8:48).

Next, Maston reveals biblical truths about God to address racism. First, he declares from Acts 10:34 that God is not a respecter of persons and “does not look on or judge men by the color of their skin or by their general external conditions; he looks on the heart” (33). Maston’s greatest concern with this principle is that his readers would understand that salvation is open to all men, no matter what race, because God desires that all men should come to him. If Christians believe that God views men differently based upon race, Maston fears that the mission enterprise to other nations will be hindered.

Maston presents another truth about God as he writes about God and government from Romans 13:1–7. Since God has ordained government, men should obey it; however, no government has the God-given authority to prevent a Christian from proclaiming the gospel. The one significant shortcoming of this volume comes in the midst of this chapter, and is likely only painfully obvious in light of five more decades of tension in this area. Maston offers little practical application to the role of government and the response of the people to government as it specifically relates to racial issues. However, one must keep in mind that the work was written prior to the protests, demonstrations, and activities of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

Finally, Maston presents a biblical response to the race issue by discussing the key passages of Matthew 22:34–40 and Matthew 28:19–20. In the two chapters where he discusses these passages, Maston urges his readers to treat people of all races with love and to proclaim the gospel and make disciples of all nations. Maston believed that the race problem in America would have a direct impact on the spread of the gospel around the world. He asserts, “If Christians do not attempt honestly to apply the Christian spirit and Christian principles to race relations, how can they expect others to respect their Christian claims or to hear and accept the message they proclaim? The race problem is, in a very real sense, ‘American Christianity’s test case’” (95).

T.B. Maston’s hope was most certainly that in the fifty years after the publication of this volume, the strained racial situation in the United States would have been solved. While great strides have been taken to resolve many issues, racism is still a problem today. For this reason, Maston’s book is a crucial work in the field of Christian ethics. Although some of his terminology and applications are certainly dated, the ideas and concerns expressed in the text are just as relevant today as they ever were. For Southern Baptists, we should heed the words of one of our early pioneers in race relations as he writes, “We can safely imply from this statement by Paul [Col 3:10–11] that to the degree we have progressed in the likeness of our Creator, to that degree we shall be free from class and racial consciousness and discriminations” (10).

*This review was originally published by the Center for Theological Research. You can find it and other resources at http://baptisttheology.org.

The Blight of Abortion in America

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

Today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that opened the door for legalized abortion in the United States. It is one of the few Supreme Court decisions that most Americans know by name. While many of the more famous decisions represent crucial moments in American history for the rights of the oppressed (Brown v. Board of Education, etc.), Roe v. Wade stands as a blight on American history for the resulting carnage of the abortion industry since January 22, 1973.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. Eighteen percent of women who have abortions are teenagers, and more than half are in their twenties. Between 1973 and 2008 (the most recent year for reported statistics), 50 million legal abortions have taken place. In 2008 alone, there were 1.21 million abortions.[1]

The Guttmacher Institute also reports some of the reasons for abortion, stating:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[2]

The number of abortions in the United States is staggering—50 million in 38 years. These are 50 million lives that were ended. These were 50 million individual persons whose opportunity to develop, live, and thrive was taken from them all in the name of a right to privacy. Since when did my right to privacy allow me to take someone else’s life? These are precious little lives that have been exterminated, and our society has chosen to make it legal.

On this anniversary of a terrible day in American history, consider the following verses. Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I (A)formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” In Psalm 139:15-16, David writes, “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.”

I hope and pray for the day that abortion will no longer be legal and people will see the value of these little lives in the womb.

Who’s the Mother?: The Tangled Web of New Reproductive Technologies

~ Evan Lenow

“‘I’m the only mother,’ I’d correct people brightly, again and again. ‘Actually, there is no biological mother,’ I’d sometimes add, in a tone that I hoped suggested Isn’t this interesting rather than You are an insensitive fool. ‘You see, both the donor and the carrier contributed biologically to each child, so the term cannot encompass this situation.’”

That is the response Melanie Thernstrom provided when people asked who the mother of her “twiblings” was. Thernstrom told the story of her IVF and surrogacy experience in a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine.[1]

Like many women today, Thernstrom suffered from infertility that prevented her from being able to conceive children naturally. After five unsuccessful rounds of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, she and her husband began looking for other alternatives to have children. What they settled on was IVF with donor eggs and the resulting embryos to be carried by surrogates. To make their situation even more complicated, they wanted to have twins, so they had an embryo implanted in two different surrogates at the same time. Roughly nine months later, two babies were born—twins delivered by two different women five days apart. Since that idea of twins is so difficult to grasp, Thernstrom calls her children “twiblings.”

Before evaluating Thernstrom’s situation from an ethical standpoint, I first want to acknowledge that infertility is a devastating condition for many couples. It is not my point to cast stones at those who cannot conceive for that situation is the result of the fall; rather, I want to evaluate one particular aspect of Thernstrom’s specific scenario that should raise eyebrows.

The medical technology available for reproduction is almost the stuff of a science-fiction novel—babies created in a lab from donated material, carried in the womb of another woman and reared by yet others. While these technologies seem to be recent innovations, the most common procedures have been around for a while. Intrauterine insemination (IUI, also known as artificial insemination) was first used on humans in 1785 by British physician John Hunter. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) produced its first birth in July 1978. Surrogacy, in various forms, has been in practice at least since the days of Abram and Sarai, but its modern form has grown in popularity with the development of IVF.

Thernstrom and her husband participated in IVF with the use of donor eggs. Donors don’t have to be a part of the picture for IVF, but they are often used for either sperm or eggs when the couple seeking the IVF has weak or unusable reproductive materials. The use of donor eggs is most common in women over 40 years old because their own eggs tend to be weaker and less likely to implant if fertilized.

The issue I want to raise regarding this situation is one that Thernstrom mentioned in the article. It is the question of moral concern regarding the introduction of outside parties into a marriage for the sake of having children.

Thernstrom relates the story like this:

“I once felt a prick of an unpleasant emotion. It was the week the Fairy Goddonor came to Portland for the egg retrieval. Over tapas one night, I watched her and Michael laughing and suddenly felt unhappy. I poured myself more wine, but instead of dispelling the feelings, it made me feel more alone. ‘You were quiet at dinner,’ Michael said as we got into the car. He turned to look at me. ‘Are you not feeling well?’ ‘Is it weird that you’re having babies with her instead of me?’ ‘I’m not having babies with her. I’m having babies with Melissa and Fie [the surrogates].’ The conversation dissolved into laughter. That was the thing about our conception: there were too many players to be jealous of any one.”

So does Thernstrom’s “prick of an unpleasant emotion” actually point to something more egregious? Could there be a bigger problem underneath the surface?

Here’s the deal. From a biblical standpoint, procreation is only properly carried out within the confines of marriage (Gen 1:28; 4:1; Heb 13:4). In Genesis 16, we see the closest example of the scenario portrayed in the article. In this passage, we see how Sarai gave her maid Hagar to Abram so they could have a child. This would be the ancient form of donor eggs and surrogacy—just without the IVF. I don’t think anyone would doubt that the relationship between Abram and Hagar was adulterous even though Sarai was the one who initiated it.

So that begs the question of whether or not egg or sperm donation for IVF is adultery. Thernstrom admits that she had a moment of “unpleasant emotion.” Could that have been her conscience saying this isn’t right?

Every semester, I pose this same question to my students: Is IVF or IUI with donor(s) adultery? Each class struggles through the answer to that question. The general consensus is that it is difficult to define the situation as adultery in the literal sense of the word because there is no physical relationship between the donor and the spouse. However, my classes generally feel uncomfortable with the idea.

I agree with my classes on the level that adultery cannot be proven in the literal sense because IVF and IUI with donors do not meet a technical definition of adultery. However, has technology provided another means by which an adulterous relationship can be undertaken? Before social networking sites, few people talked about emotional adultery, but now an intimate relationship expressed over social sites and conversations that never produces a physical relationship is generally accepted as emotional adultery. Could it be that the technological advances in reproductive medicine have created another category of reproductive adultery? While the definition is hard to pin down, I believe that the elements are present for such a category. For this reason, I believe it to be the wise choice to avoid the introduction of donor sperm or eggs into the reproductive process.

[1] Melanie Thernstrom, “Meet the Twiblings,” New York Times Magazine. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02babymaking-t.html?ref=magazine.

Free Contraception: What are the Implications?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 5 Comments

The Associated Press released an article over the weekend about a proposed provision in the new healthcare legislation that passed through Congress. Part of the healthcare overhaul was a proposal to provide preventative care to patients at no cost. According to the article, “A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventative care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient.” The question before the panel is whether or not various contraceptive methods should be included as “preventative care.”

There are a couple of ethical issues at play in the work of the panel and the government in general. I will not deal with all of them, but some of them include: 1) Is it the government’s role to provide free healthcare? 2) What is the definition of preventative medicine? 3) Is contraception preventative medicine? 4) Do certain types of contraception violate matters of conscience for which taxpayers should be exempt?

I will not deal with the first two questions, but I want to address the final two. Dr. David Grimes, an OB-GYN and professor at the University of North Carolina, is quoted in the article stating,

“There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health. Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventative medicine.”

The questions to ask Dr. Grimes are: 1) What is improved health? 2) How do you define “optimal pregnancies”? 3) What is “optimal child rearing”? My guess is that he would define improved health as avoiding any medical condition that is viewed as undesirable in the eyes of the patient. He would probably say that optimal pregnancies are only those that are carefully planned and spaced at previously determined intervals. Finally, his definition of optimal child rearing probably has something to do with caring only for children that are the result of planned pregnancies and not being burdened by too many children.

I certainly do not desire to go back to the Middle Ages for my medical technology, but viewing pregnancy as a medical condition against which you can “immunize” is medieval at best. We are talking about the creation of life, human beings, babies, not the measles. Contraception is a bigger issue than merely the prevention of a medical condition.

In Psalm 127:3-5, Solomon writes, “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.”

We need to evaluate our own motives and perspectives on the use of contraceptives so that we are in keeping with God’s desires. If we view children as a burden or another line item on the expense chart, we are not in keeping with God’s perspective on children. God is very clear—children are a blessing.

When looking at the various types of contraceptives that are being considered as a free service, we must consider how they function. The article notes that this initiative “would remove a cost barrier that may be keeping women away from more reliable long-acting birth control.” This more expensive form of birth control includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) which function, in part, to change the endometrial lining of the uterus to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.[i] In addition, some forms of the IUD depend on copper wires to prevent fertilization or implantation. Thus, a woman is placing copper in her uterus for up to ten years at a time, running the risk of developing other medical problems as a result of the IUD.

Another form of birth control that will create controversy regarding this proposed initiative is the so-called “morning after pill.” This is a pill that can be taken within a few days of sexual activity to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. This method of birth control has generated much controversy through the years and many states have made allowances for pharmacists who have conscientious objections to dispensing these pills.

In both the case of the morning after pill and IUDs, the question comes to when life begins. If you believe that life begins at conception (as I do), then these methods of birth control are of serious concern. If you believe that life begins at some other point, I would challenge you to try to specify at what point after conception life actually begins. Does it begin at birth? What about viability in the womb (which seems to get earlier and earlier with progressing medical technology)? What about brain activity, motion, etc? The clearest point at which a change of state occurs and something new exists is conception. And if new life begins at conception, then these methods of birth control raise serious ethical concerns.

At the end of the day, we may not have any say in what the healthcare reform looks like, but we need to express our beliefs to our elected officials and inform them that we have a problem. Unfortunately, the article states that aside from Catholics, “most other religious conservatives have stayed out of the debate.” May we not repeat our folly from the abortion debate of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Let’s make our voice heard and protect life.