Aiming High, Hitting Elsewhere

CNN takes on the topic of Mississippi’s personhood vote with the title “Mississippi amendment on ‘personhood’ divides Christians.”

The reporter finds one Christian couple who have had in-vitro fertilization for one child and wish to do it again for another. This couple is against the amendment because they believe it would curtail their rights:

The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.

“I don’t really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it,” said Robin Carpenter. “We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does.”

There you have it, folks. On the one side of the divide are the Carpenters and  . . . . well, I guess that was it.

Let’s look at the statement “We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does.” Really? I was unaware that having a family–through whatever means possible–was a right. Taking to its logical end, this would mean that if my wife and I wish to have children and cannot have them via the traditional means, then we have the right to buy one or more on the open market. Right? After all, my rights trump petty things like laws against selling human beings.

Allow me to say that I am grieved that the Carpenters were unable to have children via normal means. Though my wife and I have been blessed with children, I have friends and family members who cannot. The emotions are real. The pain, particularly if one loves children, is harsh. But should these emotions give one a pass on doing the right thing?

[W]hile the Carpenters consider themselves pro-life, they say their personal situation can’t bring them to support this amendment. They’ve decided to move up their next In vitro fertilization procedure.

“We’re trying to hurry up and get it started before all of this takes place,” Emily Carpenter said.

In vitro fertilization has “helped our family grow, and that’s what we want as parents. We don’t want anybody to limit our ability to have children,” she said.

This reminds me of President Bush’s statement that he “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” No, sir. You abandoned something because you didn’t really believe it to begin with. Likewise, if the Carpenters were pro-life, then that belief would trump their personal desires for another child. The very use of the word “situation” leads me to think that they are appealing to situational ethics–something which should result in massive allergic reactions for Christians.

The article (after failing to mention a single other Christian who has come out against the amendment) closes with the following:

[F]or the Carpenter family — despite their pro-life beliefs — voting for this amendment is just not something they can live with. Their in vitro fertilization attempts to have a brother or sister for their son, Luke, will soon begin. They fear that under the amendment, they could be labeled as murderers if their fertilized eggs die.

“It is a concern, but a bigger concern for us is to not be able to have children,” said Robin Carpenter. “If it means that I’m labeled a murderer, but I am able to have children, it’s a risk that we’ll definitely take.”

What brave souls. I’m sure Jochebed and Amram would be so proud of them.

2 thoughts on “Aiming High, Hitting Elsewhere

  1. In other words, they’re pro life for other people, but their own desires and wishes trump any standards or principles that might be applied to themselves.

    It’s kind of like the way Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, & Bill Clinton supported women’s rights…

    1. The Carpenters don’t seem to think God is part of the equation–at least not as displayed in the article. May their pastor have great wisdom in dealing with their “situation.”

Comments are closed.