Last night's CSI episode included a confrontation between Catherine Willows and the head of an organization that finds surrogate mothers for leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization. Willows tends to be arrogant and snappy, and this episode followed suit.
Two obsevations about the encounter:
1. Willows had the upper hand in the confrontation. She referenced a Pope from the 1600's who stated that life begins when the mother can sense movement. The other woman (I will call her the nurse) could only resort to the weak post modern retort, "Thats just your view." When the nurse had clearly lost the arguement, she was unhelpful to the investigators because Willows' statements were stated disrespectfully.
2. When Grisom reprimanded Willows for her conduct, he actually gave her advise for a stronger argument. He quoted a verse from the Bible about blood being the determiner of human life.
Basically, this episode manipulates the viewer into thinking that the normal, and intelligent people have no problems with killing embryos, and that those who are against it are unintelligent and have no basis for it beyond their faith. They also use strawman arguements which give a very slanted presentation of the issue. It may well be that the writers have only had confrontations with prolifers like the nurse, but this still sets back the prolife movement since many people who watch CSI will never hear the real prolife response to Willows' and Grisom's arguments.
What are those responses? Well, basically, I don't give a lot a weight to the pope. And, if I remember correctly, the life blood verses in scripture refer more to a means of seeing who has died, or to dietary laws. The reason to oppose stem cell research is that the embryo is a human in an early form of development (this cannot be refuted successfully) and should be respected of its right to life (this is what is disputed here). I do not see how one can come to the conclusion that killing a human at a particular age is moral without drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. They may be informed lines, and there may be reasons behind it, but they are not difinitive. It is a prefrence to think that human life is only worthy if brain waves are flowing. It is a prefrence to think that we can kill humans if they have yet to get blood pumping. Why can I not then prefer to kill my two year old for the reason that his sexual organs are not yet developed? For this reason I think those artificial lines in the sand are absurd.
1 comment:
John,
Well done. I can't say that I'm surprised—probably because I'm already rather cynical of most of our entertainment culture. (Though less than I used to be, if you haven't noticed.)
The most interesting thing to me in what you describe of the episode, however, is the nurse's "weak post modern retort." Yes, that's exactly what it is—but I'm almost shocked that it is so flagrantly mocked on the show. It seems as if it is one of the largest critiques of Christianity out there—and CSI mocks it as foolishness? Perhaps that really betrays their opinion of Christians more than anything else.
Sad. Immensely so—for how many simply never hear not only a better presentation of pro-life ideas, but a better presentation of the Gospel? May God forgive us!
Post a Comment