Various thoughts (again)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, November 12, 2015

Various thoughts (again)

Sometimes I sit on our deck, quietly puffing on my pipe, and I think. What follows are some of my thoughts. They're somewhat disconnected and perhaps disconcerting—read at your own risk.

● The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba is asking the public for feedback on "Physician Assisted Dying." Here's a wee bit of feedback from me. Yes, I'm pretty sure we all want physician assisted dying: please don't abandon us as we die, please provide clean sheets, food, and morphine as death takes its course. Thank you. Oh, wait, sorry, I misunderstood: you're actually wondering if I'd like for you to kill me? Maybe the college should be asking the public for feedback on Physician Assisted SUICIDE. Just saying.

● The Supreme Court of Canada says physician assisted suicide (er, I mean, "dying") will be legal as of February 6, 2016. Doesn't this reflect poorly on all our efforts on suicide prevention? Are only some suicides worth preventing? National Suicide Prevention Week (revised): Monday to Thursday only?

● The survey from Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons tells us that "Physicians must not impose their moral or religious beliefs about physician assisted dying on patients." Hmmm. Isn't the college imposing the moral belief that life is no longer the default position and so the patient must choose to live or die? (Intellectual health warning: Somebody is having their philosophical cake and eating it too.)

● Physician assisted suicide imposes a terrible burden on the vulnerable. If life is no longer society's default position, then the most vulnerable—the elderly, terminally ill, disabled—must justify their continued existence. This is plain nasty—a kick in the teeth.

● "Progressive" is sometimes a euphemism for "slippery" or "slither."

● Glamour Magazine has named Cecile Richards "Woman of the Year." Yes, this is the woman in charge of Planned Parenthood, the organization that's been killing unborn babies and selling baby parts. And, yes, this magazine awarded the same title to the man Bruce/ "Caitlyn" Jenner. Clearly, glamour ain't what it used to be.

● IVF (in vitro fertilization) involves morally dubious practices and risks: (a) destruction of multiple human embryos (human beings) to get one that "sticks" (in the uterus); (b) possible abortion of excess children if more than one embryo sticks; (c) ongoing frozen "leftovers"; (d) egg harvesting at risk of women's health ("eggsploitation"); (e) increased demand for surrogate mothers ("breeders"); (f) severing of ties to one or more biological parents when anonymous donor sperm or eggs are used; (g) turning of children into commodities. IVF? LOL (lots of lament).

● Science and physicalism/ materialism should be distinguished. Why? Because science—a method (methods) of inquiry—and physicalism/ materialism—a metaphysical philosophical view—might not wholly overlap. We should be open to going wherever the evidence takes us. Maybe a non-physical entity or being (e.g., an intelligent agent/ mind) is a better explanation of the data?

● To dismiss historical investigation of Jesus' miraculous physical resurrection because one thinks that nature's regularities make such a special act by God maximally improbable is to assume that nature's regularities express the whole of God's intentions regarding God's actions, or it is to assume that God doesn't exist. But this is question-begging. (Question-begging is a mistake in reasoning: it's to assume as proven that which is at issue; it's to assume the conclusion in the premises; it's to assume the outcome of an investigation before doing the investigation; it's to put the cart before the horse; it's to commit a philosophical sin—an abuse of reason.)

● Enlightenment/ autonomous reason was an abuse of reason. The problem wasn't reason per se; the problem was the faulty, arrogant assumptions. Abuse or misuse is not a good reason for disuse.

● Jesus is the Logos and the Truth. Think carefully, for Christ's sake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Think, for baby's sake

Frank Nelson, BJ Barone, and baby Milo (June 27, 2014)
TheStar.com/ Lindsay Foster photo

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, August 7, 2014

Think, for baby's sake

Photos of two shirtless gay men holding a freshly born baby circulated widely on the internet recently. Commentators' emotions gushed, turning the baby into a poster child for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

Unnoticed, however, is IVF's moral nightmare.

IVF means fertilization "in glass," that is, fertilization in a test tube or Petri dish.

IVF involves these steps: (1) a woman's ovaries are stimulated to release multiple eggs; (2) 5-15 eggs are extracted via minor surgery; (3) sperm is obtained via masturbation; (4) eggs and sperm are placed in a dish where fertilization occurs; (5) up to three embryos are placed in a woman's uterus; (6) remaining embryos are frozen.

If IVF is successful, an embryo implants in the uterus and an infant is born nine months later. If not successful, leftover embryos are thawed and more embryos are implanted.

So far, so good? Nope.

IVF has huge moral concerns that shouldn't be eclipsed by the wants of wannabe parents, whether gay or straight.

Because up to three embryos are placed in the uterus, it's not uncommon for more than one implantation. Enter these problems: (1) too many children, thereby risking the gestational mother's health; (2) "selective termination," i.e., abortion of the extra child/ children.

Also, IVF usually creates more frozen embryos than needed. Enter the problem of what to do with the "leftovers." Garbage? Research?

But contemporary science—embryology, fetology, biology—tells us that the human embryo is a human being (not a dog being or a kitten). Surely, discarding or doing research on human beings—research that destroys them—is problematic.

Also, when donor sperm and donor eggs are involved, don't biologically based moral obligations to the IVF-created child accrue to the donors? We usually think that biological parents have moral obligations to their offspring—after all, we sue biological fathers for child support because they are biological fathers.

In fact, sperm donors become biological fathers via IVF, and egg donors become biological mothers via IVF. There apparently is, then, a nature-based moral duty to care for and raise one's offspring which gets violated. Isn't this violation unfair to children?

When sperm and egg donors—i.e., the biological parents—are anonymous, growing evidence shows that IVF children struggle deeply with personal identity. For a child, knowledge of his/ her biological mother and biological father is important. But anonymous sperm and egg donors obliterate this connection. Surely this (too) is unfair to children.

In the case of same-sex couples who create a child via IVF, a baby is deliberately deprived of (at least) one of his/her biological parents (solely because two adults want a baby). Surely, this is unfair to children (as well). And it's more unfair if sexual as well as gender differentiated parenting are important to the baby's well-being.

Furthermore, IVF creates markets for women's eggs and egg harvesting presents serious health risks to women. Enter the problem of "eggsploitation"—the exploitation of women for their eggs.

IVF also creates markets for surrogate mothers who face health risks. Women (especially poor women) are being exploited for their wombs. This contributes to the creation of a subclass of women—a.k.a. "breeders".

IVF-created people should be loved and respected, to be sure. But IVF threatens to turn children into commodities, especially if the children are the product of sperm and egg sellers and if relations between parents and surrogates involve financial transactions.

In other words, IVF may very well aid and abet human trafficking, albeit at the earliest stages of human being.

Finally, there are many already-born, non-IVF children who need parents. Surely, the adoption of these children should occur first and instead of IVF.

Whereas adoption is a rescue operation aimed at helping needy children already there, IVF steps into moral darkness with the aim of creating new children to satisfy adult wants.

Stop emoting over the baby pictures. Think (and act) like morally responsible adults, for the baby's sake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Further reading:

• "What's wrong with third party assisted reproduction?" (Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, August 2014).

In Vitro Fertilization unwise

Embryos float in a petri dish held by Dr. David Diaz,
 an Orange County, California, fertility doctor
 (Seatle Times, October 12, 2008)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, June 26, 2014

In Vitro Fertilization unwise

Is In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) wise? I don't think so. Let's examine IVF and its pros and cons.

IVF means fertilization "in glass," that is, fertilization in a test tube or Petri dish.

The IVF procedure involves the following steps: (1) a woman's ovaries are stimulated to release multiple eggs; (2) 5-15 eggs are extracted (via minor surgery); (3) sperm is obtained from a donor (via masturbation); (4) eggs and sperm are placed in a Petri dish where fertilization occurs; (5) up to three embryos are placed in a woman's uterus; (6) remaining embryos are frozen.

If IVF is successful, an embryo implants in the uterus and a baby is born nine months later. If not successful, leftover embryos are thawed and more embryos are implanted.

IVF pros/ "pros":

● IVF allows a woman and her husband to have a child if they otherwise have difficulty with getting pregnant. If needed, a donor's sperm or egg can be used.

● Older women whose eggs risk defects may use a donor's egg with her husband's or a donor's sperm.

● IVF makes it possible for women who can't bear children themselves to have their eggs fertilized by their husband (or sperm donor) and use a surrogate mother.

● Lesbian couples can have a child using an egg from one partner, sperm from a donor, then have the baby carried to term by the other partner.

● Gay men can have a child, too: egg from a donor, add sperm from one partner, add a surrogate mother.

● Conceivably (sorry) single men and women, gay or straight, could have their own children by using their own or a donor's sperm/ eggs plus a surrogate mother, if needed.

● Parents could find egg/sperm donors with specific qualities to create a child of their choice.

IVF concerns/ questions:

● Up to three embryos are placed in the uterus. But what if, as is not uncommon, there's more than one implantation? Possible problems: (1) too many children, thereby perhaps risking mother's health; (2) "selective termination," i.e., abortion of the extra child/ children.

● IVF usually creates more frozen embryos than needed. What about the "leftovers"? Garbage? Research? But science tells us that the human embryo is a human being. Surely, discarding or doing research on human embryos (research that destroys them) is a moral concern. Should embryo creation cease until the frozen leftovers have been implanted or adopted?

● Do biologically-based moral obligations to the IVF child accrue to sperm and egg donors? Biological parents have moral obligations to their offspring—we sue biological fathers for child support because they are biological fathers. So what about the sperm donors who become biological fathers? What about the egg donors who become biological mothers? Do egg and sperm donors violate a nature-based moral duty to their children? Is this unjust to children?

● When sperm and egg donors—i.e., the biological parents—are anonymous, their IVF children struggle deeply with personal identity. For a child, knowledge of and being loved by his/ her biological mother and father are important. But anonymous sperm and egg donors obliterate this connection. Is this unfair to children?

● IVF creates markets for women's eggs and egg harvesting presents serious health risks to women. Is this "eggsploitation"—the exploitation of women for their eggs?

● IVF creates markets for surrogate mothers. Are women (especially vulnerable women) now exploited for their wombs? Does IVF contribute to the creation of a sub-class of women—a.k.a. "breeders"?

● IVF-created people should be loved and respected. But do IVF efforts to create "designer babies" turn children into commodities?

● Finally, what about the many already-born, non-IVF children who need parents? Should they be rescued first? Should their adoption occur instead of IVF?

Is IVF wise? I think the cons outweigh the pros.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

False dichotomy fallacy

APOLOGIABy Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, July 1, 2010)

False dichotomy fallacy

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. Some fallacies are so common that logicians have given them names. Today we will look at the false dichotomy fallacy.

Logician Trudy Govier defines a false dichotomy as follows: “An either/or split that omits alternatives.” Govier adds: “to think that everything is either black or white would be to believe in a false dichotomy.” Of course, the truth of the matter is that there are shades of grey as well as shades of red, orange, yellow, green, and so on.

The false dichotomy fallacy is sometimes also called the false alternatives fallacy. Why? Because, as logician Edward Damer explains, “[t]his fallacy consists in assuming too few alternatives and, at the same time, assuming [mistakenly] that one of the suggested alternatives must be true.”

Some examples may be helpful.

Let’s say that I tell you it must be either hot or cold outside today. This is a false dichotomy because there are other alternatives that are omitted. It could simply be warm.

Or consider this. Years ago I heard a shrewd if not somewhat unscrupulous businessman speculate on how Orange Julius could improve its business. (Orange Julius sells delicious frothy fruit drinks which, in the 1980s, could be made even frothier and more delicious—and more expensive—by adding a raw egg into the blender.)

To boost revenue, the businessman (who, for the record, was not an OJ employee) suggested that Orange Julius staff should ask each customer: “Would you like one egg or two?” The hope was that customers would spend more money because of their failure to realize that there is a third (less expensive) option: No eggs.

The false dichotomy fallacy can be much more problematic morally.

In presentations of what to do with terminally ill patients we are often presented with only two options: physician-assisted suicide, or a lonely agonizing death. Sadly, often missing is a third alternative—i.e., palliative or hospice care—wherein a dying patient is given genuine comfort and pain is minimized.

Also, in discussions of stem cell research (which promises the almost miraculous healing of Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, etc.) we are sometimes presented with only two options: harvest stem cells from human embryos (which are human beings at their tiniest), or stop the research. Missing from such discussions is the realization that there are various other alternatives, such as using adult stem cells from human blood, bone-marrow, umbilical cords, and even fat—alternatives that are proving to be successful plus don’t involve killing human beings at their first stage of life.

(So not all stem cell research must be embryonic stem cell research. We can favour adult stem cell research, wherein no human being dies, yet be opposed to the morally-problematic embryonic stem cell research, wherein human beings are deliberately destroyed.)

In a conversation over what to do with frozen human embryos left over from In Vitro Fertilizations (which help infertile couples get pregnant) a scientist once presented me with two options: dump the frozen human embryos into the garbage, or do research with them.

My scientist friend was willing to do experiments on the human embryos—human beings—because, she argued, putting them into the garbage would be such a waste. We’re going to destroy them one way or the other, after all, so let’s do it in such a way that increases our stock of knowledge. Significantly, however, she neglected considering a third, more ethical alternative: i.e., making the frozen embryos available for adoption.

It turns out that such adoptions actually occur. Next time you’re online, check out the webpage for Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program, which is a part of Nightlight Christian Adoptions.

The false dichotomy fallacy – it really only takes some imagination and creativity not to be fooled by it.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches ethics and critical thinking at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)