Skip to main content

In Vitro, In Utero, In Trouble

I am a Catholic, yet am concerned by the Vatican's statement tonight that the awarding of the Nobel Prize for a "father" of "test tube" conception is "unacceptable".  Theologically, it may well be - but surely, the jury in selecting its winners should be guided by scientific criteria alone.  Ironically, there is a sense that the "Literature" Nobel often goes to persons for extra-literary reasons, reasons of moral or socio-political nuance.  So perhaps the Church feels that the same moral conditions should be considered when deciding on the scientific and medical awards.  Yet, it seems the Church is making a cardinal error  - it should continue to feel able to express its own position on IVF treatment (which could change in time, and under renewed leadership later in the 21st century) - yet not propose to question the secular authority of a body like the Nobel committee.  In another paradox, Dr. Edwards has brought four more million souls into the world, with his work, than might have been otherwise.  Infertility affects 10% of all couples, and is a heart-breaking and life-changing experience.  For those millions of couples helped to have a biological birth child through this process, the joy and relief brought to them, the lifting of great sorrow, cannot be considered a moral evil.  On the other hand, the Church's position - that the infertile should adopt - is also, in some ways, admirable - and many of those for whom IVF fails, will turn to that option.  In terms of the concerns of the misuse of conjugal conception via the petri dish, as it were, I am unable to speak, as I am neither a priest, nor a scientist.  I personally feel that science and religion should work more closely together, to help shed light upon the confusion of our lives in what is still a hugely strange world of wonders, rather than divide the darkness of ignorance between them - one side morally blind, the other blind to the benefits of medical advances.  Always, though, the tension must be between "playing God", and respecting the individual's sacred self.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more