I am pressed for time and compelled to respond to Mario and Mervyn with some brevity.
Mario you pose very pertinent queries. The first poser about surplus in-vitro frozen embryos, a by product of modern science, is something that the founding fathers of our church never envisaged. For a religion that so closely follows Judaic precept and even condemns the sin of Onan, the fate of these frozen human seedlings is an unacceptable situation. The question of whether stem cell research using frozen human embryos should be permitted is unfortunately an issue that has to be viewed from two angles. The church having taken a principled stand condemns it out of hand and refuses to acknowledge the need for it. You have highlighted one of the reasons: huge numbers of these human embryos, every one of them a potential human being, awaiting undignified destruction. On the other hand I have read the anguished pleas of parents and family members begging science to proceed with haste and use all means at our disposal to find cures for presently incurable illnesses and afflictions. The use of human embryos, we are given to understand; will hasten the finding of cures. Confronted with these heartbreaking choices what will, or even more pertinent, what should I chose? Mario, forgive me, I cannot with any great certitude or rectitude, state my choice. I look at my lovely family and I know that if any one of them needed it, I would have absolutely no hesitation in taking recourse to any means whatsoever, to secure their wellbeing. Mervyn I know you live in a beautiful country. I too have read of the horrors that abortions entail, for both the mother and the destroyed child. It is a horrific ordeal. I understand your concerns for the mother compelled to take recourse to back alley practitioners. I am absolutely against ‘frivolous’ abortions. But then how does one decide the frivolity or seriousness of a given situation? What are the criteria that one can employ? Would the pregnancy of an unmarried mother jeopardise her well being and maybe even her life? Not a far fetched scenario bearing in mind the taboos still extant in our modern day world. I feel the solution suggested by you and Mario may be the best in these circumstances. Despite the drain on national exchequers, Governments of the world must spend to ensure unwanted pregnancies do not drive reluctant mothers into seeking terminations. A social infrastructure must be erected to take care of mother and child. And incentives must be given to coax the mother to carry on and bring forth another member of the human race. I realise this has never been and will never be easy. I just feel it is the only humane choice available to us. Jose Colaco has been very succinct, direct and correct in defining the straits that we are in and proposing the course of action that is the need of the hour. I also think he has hit the nail squarely in his assessment of Dr Santosh Helekar and Fr Ivo. Dr Helekar is an outstanding Goemcar who has devoted his life to science. Fr Ivo is a faithful servant of the Church. The laws of our Church are dictated by morality and faith. Science is driven by exactitude and evidence. The two strands, even though guided by a mutual desire for human betterment, operate on a very different plane. The scientist finds it hard to accept blindly the beliefs of religion. This is understandable. His professional integrity will not permit him the luxury. Religion on the other hand has an innate belief in GOD, driven by faith and hope. If we all accept this premise, there is no argument. Sincerely Xanno Moidecar
