Things do happen in this world, other than Donald Trump talking…
One of them is this: The Roe v. Wade of Costa Rica has begun to break the pro-life backbone of the Latin-American legal system.
In the year 2000, the Supreme Court of Costa Rica declared in-vitro fertilization illegal. As currently practiced, IVF always involves the destruction of human embryos. The American Convention on Human Rights (Latin America’s Bill of Rights) holds that human life begins at conception, and the right to life cannot be violated.
Infertile couples sued Costa Rica in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Some American pro-life organizations submitted an amicus brief.
Like our Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos discovered rights that don’t exist. In Artavia v. Costa Rica, the Corte IDH decided in favor of “rights” which justify killing innocent unborn children.
Click HERE to read how the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics celebrated the triumph of the IVF industry over the unborn child in this case. This irony-laced sentence says it all:
This points to the risks to women’s and newborns’ health when laws on human reproduction are modeled on the values of theologians, rather than on evidence-based science and respect for and protection of the human rights of women.
…The evil “theologians,” who have the effrontery to point out that human zygotes never grow up to become dogwood bushes. Dear doctors, show us the “evidence” that human embryos sometimes develop into Volkswagens, and we will shut up like you want us to!
Pro-life lawyers, doctors, and bioethicists responded to the Artavia decision with the Guanajuato Declaration, which points out, among other things, that Artavia is riddled with scientific errors.
The “bloque pro-vida” in the Costa Rican legislature fought to defend the unborn child. The Costa-Rican constitutional court fought back against the Corte IDH ruling. Last fall, El Pais called it all a “circus.” Tragedy is a better word. My new heroine Ligia M. DeJesus has thoughtful analysis HERE and HERE.
(I do not claim to understand the entire legal and political system at work in this matter. Bastante compleja!)
…When a couple experiences infertility, they face one of the greatest spiritual challenges human beings can face. It involves a deep entry into the mystery of the cross. No one can make light of the pain involved.
But the Corte IDH declared things about infertility that no honest gynecologist could really live by. No one has a “right” to become a parent. First of all, it can’t be done justly without the consensual co-operation of a member of the opposite sex.
Secondly, infertility itself is not a medical condition, nor a disability. It can be a symptom of a medical problem (which a doctor might or might not be able to address). Or it could be the natural effect of age.
To declare a “right” to something over which we human beings simply do not have decisive control–that’s a prescription for both government totalitarianism and widespread heartbreak, not to mention impoverishment: many Lexus models cost less than IVF. The idea that the taxpayer must pay for it, because everyone has a “right” to it? That’s not just immoral, but also fiscally insane.
The part of the Corte IDH’s decision that most deeply galls my kibe is this: The court insists that, since nature herself prodigally “wastes” embryos, then who can blame IVF for wasting them?
Indeed, miscarriages occur. We know not how many. The idea that nature plays as fast and loose with her embryos in the womb as IVF plays with embryos in the petri dish–I think that’s a stretcher. But it could be true.
The reasonable response to this scientific point, however, is not: So then let’s try to kill as many embryos as Mother Nature does! No, the humble soul faces the matter of miscarriages and says: Let Mother Nature answer for it. Let Her face the judgment for it.
The whole point of morals is: What must I do? What must I not do? This “me” floats on the main like a well-trimmed clipper ship, seeking the harbor of true interior peace. How do I acquire an untroubled conscience? By doing the good and avoiding the evil.
Many options stare us in the face, all the time. We have no greater friend than the definitive conclusion: “This particular option is impossible, because it is immoral.” Eliminating immoral options from consideration gets me much closer to the goal of making a truly good choice that will give me peace.
Let Mother Nature answer for the miscarriages. The right to life enjoyed by the innocent and defenseless unborn child offers mankind one of the most important beacons we have for guiding our clipper ships to the harbor of tranquil consciences.
Prayers for Costa Rica, please.