Eight is Enough?

Chuck Colson is one of my modern-day heroes, someone on my list of people I'd like to meet some day. I usually devour his BreakPoint articles with hearty enthusiasm. But not so today. Today's BreakPoint article (with the same title I have given my post) regarding the now-famous woman in Caifornia who recently gave birth to eight babies has me perturbed. It's not his observations regarding Nadya Suleman's story or regarding the devaluation of family today. And the article's explanation of the dichotomy between the devaluation of the family, even among those who seek so desperately to obtain it, is excellent.

It's the underlying tone of the article - what is read between the lines - that disturbes me. Merely by omission of a discussion of anything else, it seems to assume that all people who use assisted reproduction technology are those who flaunt traditional family values in favor of the "it's all about me" mentality that is so prevalent today. Seems to assume that all people who use assisted reproduction technology are those that wait until an unnatural age to conceive merely for personal convenience, irresponsibly pursue any technology that will give them a shot at pregnancy whether it is actually a good idea or not, run full-steam ahead without fully understanding all the tricky little ethical details no one is anxious to discuss, or otherwise put their own desires ahead of the concerns of the yet-unborn child(ren).

As it happens, this attitude is disturbingly common among people unfamiliar with the individual circumstances of those of us who are unfortunate enough to find ourselves in need of reproductive assistance. As if the mere fact of our need is not humiliating enough, we have to deal with people who assume the worst of us before we even explain ourselves. But what about the individuals who, through no fault of their own, are faced with a choice between remaining childless and pursuing a technological means of assistance? Is there any room in Mr. Colson's article for a God-fearing, responsible, married couple to take advantage of the miracles of modern technology to achieve a common dream that would have been impossible a mere 10 years ago? Even if it means taking advantage of a technology which is often misused and abused? Or must we eschew technology and remain in the dark ages, as shunned outcasts very likely to end up old and alone with no one to care for us? Is the God who created the very minds which developed such remarkable technology merciful enough to allow the redemption of the abused technology through responsible, moral usage? According to Mr. Colson, apparently not, as the article calls invitro-fertilization a "rejection of the natural order and the God who instituted that order."

For me, beyond highlighting the disgrace of infertility, the article begs the following question: where do unfortunate facts cease to be the proverbial mountain we must grit our teeth and climb and become an Everest which only the intrepid - only those who we do not know whether to call heroes or fools - will attempt? Regardless of Mr. Colson's article, at one point in time I would have automatically assumed that a God wonderful enough to create miracle technology which saves lives every day - and helps people achieve their dreams every day - is indeed merciful and loving and capable of transforming the ugly and abused (even when it is technology) into a blessing. At one point in time I would have known instinctively that God would allow us to embrace such technology - and would even bless us in doing so - so long as we do so responsibly and in accordance with the spirit of his law. But today I confess that I have no idea whether this is true. The fact of infertility feels so unfair, so punishing, so heavy and so oppressive that I can no longer imagine a merciful and loving God. I wish Mr. Colson had thought through his article more carefully so as to take into consideration an outcast like me. Maybe he would have given me some hope and a better perspective in the process.