Basic HTML Version
immense. How can a person con–
ceived artificially ever find his true
"roots"? Who is he really? Exactly
who is
a baby boro from a surrogate
mother? Who is legally responsible
for the child?
Many feel that mechanical tinker–
ing with conception dehumanizes the
moment of creation. Abortion and
the pill have been decried by sorne
because they allow sex without hav–
ing children; the present interest in
artificial conception and/or birth is
viewed by others as a design for
producing children without having
sex! Both approaches are seen as
posing problems for the beleaguered
family unit.
Again from Dr. Marlow: "I think
what has been done in Britain [test–
tube fertilization] poses many prob–
lems to society, and sorne of our
traditional and very important con–
cepts of mother, father , child will be
challenged"
(ibid.) .
"We're on a slippery slope," cau–
tioned geneticist Robert J. Berry.
"Western society is built around the
family; once you divorce sex from
procreation, what happens to the
family?"
(Time,
July 31 , 1978).
Regarding the effect surrogate
rr\others would have on the family
institution,
U.S. News and World
Report
(Aug. 7, 1978) stated:
"Beyond the legal entanglements are
fundamental questions about how
this will affect the mother-child rela–
tionship and the early bonding that
social anthropologists have consid–
ered so important to child develop–
ment.
"At the same time, surrogate preg–
nancy is seen as a final step in the
biological liberation of woman. This
could have a widening impact on the
role of women in terms of jobs and
education as the sexual gap between
men and women narrows. Like roen,
women could 'sire' children without
the responsibility of pregnancy and
childbirth."
ls Restraint Possible?
Advocates of continued research and
experimentation, however, are quick
to point out that they are interested
only in bringing about progress for
mankind.
Discoveries have already been
28
made that, it is hoped, willlead to the
elimination of presently incurable
genetic diseases, help to conquer can–
cer and even slow down the aging
process. New, more productive
strains of livestock and plant life
could be created. And, of course, we
must not forget the already achieved
goal of providing a child toa childless
couple.
All of these aspirations seem so
right. Admittedly, there is a calcu–
lated risk. But can't science regulate
itself? Won't it know when and
where to stop?
Dr. Leon Kass, biochemist and
professor at the University of Chica–
go, has expressed misgivings tha t so
many steps have already been tak–
en-with the best of intentions. "At
Jeast one good humanitarian reason
can be found to justify each step," he
says. "The first step serves as a
precedent for the second and the
second for the third, not just techno–
logically but also in moral argu–
ments. Perhaps a· wise society would
say to infertile couples: 'We under–
stand your sorrow, but it might be
better not to go ahead and do this' "
(Newsweek,
Aug. 7, 1978).
But he has noted, " It is hard to
speak about restraint in a culture
that seems to venerate very little
above man's attempt to master all."
Man's attempt to master all. That
is what we are really dealing with.
Notice this: " To restrict cloning–
related research would mean closing
the door ón an important area of
knowledge. To continue to probe the
secrets of the cell, however, is per–
haps to uncover the secret of human
cloning. And, given the nature of
man, if it can be done, it will be
done" ("Clones: Wi-11 There Be 'Car–
bon Copy' People?"
The Reader's
Digest,
March, 1979). Compare that
last sentence with Genesis 11:6:
"Now nothing will be restrained
from them [mankind]."
"The issue is how far we play
God," complained Britisb MP Leo
Abse at the time of Louise Brown's
birth .
The World's First "Human Experi–
mentation"
The Bible records the very first
experimentation by humans. God
had provided in the Garden of Eden
for the first humans' every need–
physical, material and spiritual.
It
was not necessary for them to experi–
ment for themselves in order to find
the best way to ·Iive. All they had to
do was obey His Iaws and they could
have lived abundant lives, free from
want, unhappiness and suffering.
The "tree of life" symbo1ized God's
way- the way that leads to eterna!
life.
Also growing in the Garden was
the "tree of the knowledge of good
and evil." To eat of this tree symbol–
ized rejecting God's revelation of the
right and good way to live and choos–
ing instead to come to "know" good
and evil by personal experience and
experimentation.
It
was the hard
way- the "school of hard knocks"–
the way of suffering, sin and death.
God had warned Adam and Eve not
to eat of that tree.
Satan, however, carne along and
lied to Eve, telling her that if she and
Adam chose the way of experimenta–
tion, they would be as gods. They
would be able, Satan said, to judge
for themselves what is right and what
is wrong. They would, using the
expression of Mr. Abse, be able to
"play God." So they experimented:
they tasted the forbidden fruit to see
what would really happen . The
experiment brought forth immediate
results-all negative!
The disobedience of Adam and
Eve cut them and all their descen–
dants off from God. Ever since that
time, blinded mankind has been try–
ing to find the way to true happiness
by experimenting-with very little
· success.
Not only has mankind not found
happiness after nearly 6,000 years of
experimentation, but as a result of
man's experiments, he is about to reap
the whirlwind in the forro of a cata–
clysmic time of tribulation that will
come
el
ose to annihilating alllife from
planet Earth (Matthew 24:21-22).
Out of control biological experi–
ments may well play a part in the
final cataclysm. The Bible does fore–
tell a time when swiftly moving dis–
ease .epidemics will wipe out millions
of lives (Deuteronomy 28:21; Ezekiel
5:12; Matthew 24:7) . It doesn't take
(Continued on page 39)
The
PLAIN TRUTH