The new movie “My Sister’s Keeper” deals with the phenomenon known as savior siblings. In the film, which was reviewed favorably by movie critic Roger Ebert, young Anna was brought into the world via in vitro fertilization, so that she would be a genetic match for her older sister Kate, who was diagnosed with leukemia at 2 years old. Now, when Kate’s kidneys fail, Anna is expected to donate one of her own, but she hires a lawyer to be medically emancipated from her parents and gain the right to make the decision herself.
Although “My Sister’s Keeper,” based on the best-seller by Jodi Picoult, is an effective tearjerker, if you think about it, it’s something else. The movie never says so, but it’s a practical parable about the debate between pro-choice and pro-life. If you’re pro-life, you would require Anna to donate her kidney, although there is a chance she could die, and her sister doesn’t have a good prognosis. If you’re pro-choice, you would support Anna’s lawsuit.
Uhm. I think Mr. Ebert is a little confused here. I’m not even sure where his logic stems from, or if it can even be called logic. I’m pro-life and I wouldn’t create a person so they could be used for spare parts. And I wouldn’t force a young girl to donate her kidney. In fact, doing so would seem antithetical to everything I do believe in.
In fact, the true pro-life perspective here I believe would be to not create a daughter with the intent of saving another.
Part of being pro-life is celebrating the miracle of every individual, which wouldn’t include using each other for spare parts. It’s odd that Ebert seems to think of that as pro-life as that sums up quite well the pro-embryonic stem cell research debate.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states
“A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”
We believe using other people for spare parts is evil. We believe killing other people to avoid inconvenience is evil. It’s not that difficult.
I think Roger Ebert is a smart guy but it goes to show the blinders people can have when it comes to issues like abortion. They just accept the cliches and don’t follow the logic of the issue. I guess what Ebert means is that those mean old pro-lifers force women into medical procedures to save others even if its against their own will.
I think Mr. Ebert hasn’t done his thinking. I’ll pray that he starts. I won’t force him to. I’ll just pray.