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.
Ebert writes:
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.
June 29, 2009 at 5:45 am
Is Ebert still alive??? wow. Surprise surprise. Oddly, he went to Catholic school so he should know better.
June 29, 2009 at 7:51 am
Actually, I haven't seen the movie, nor will I. The premise seems entirely like a mind-game ploy for the pro-abortion lobby. The jump made by Ebert will not be lost on the majority of viewers; it's HER body and HER choice! Ergo, taking ANY personal choice about one's own body will be equated with taking away the choice to abort a baby. So, the pro-abortionists will be able to convenientely lump those who condone forced female circumcision, organ harvesting, birth control etc along with those who would "force" a woman to carry a baby to term, since in all cases the "choice" is being taken away from the woman.
Can you not hear the talking points? "you wouldn't force your child to donate an organ, would you? So, why force her through an unwanted pregnancy?" Sneaky, subtle and just plain wrong.
June 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm
"I think Roger Ebert is a smart guy…." I hope that now you will have second thoughts!!
We all wish Mr. Ebert well with his health problems and pray that God will grant him both healing and peace. But let's not credit the man with something that he has lacked during his professional life…smarts.
June 29, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Okay, he might have derived his idea of pro-life and pro-choice from the well known pro-choice argument by Judith Jarvis Thompson violinist. Its not the same exact analogy but similar idea, give it a read:
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment… They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. … To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months…"
Its not the same analogy as its not just for nine months and she's not attached to her sister's body, but it must be where Ebert gets his half-baked idea.
June 29, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Good thoughts.
I agree with you, however after actually watching the movie there are other questions that arise surrounding the concept of bioethics and pro-life stance. I'd get more specific, however I feel people should see this movie and I'd hate to ruin it for them.
Peace and all good,
Br. Vito
P.S. I'd like to add you to my blogroll if that's ok.
June 30, 2009 at 2:19 am
In medicine if you only treat the symptoms but never address the underlying cause of a problem you will never really change things for the better on a permanent basis. The real crux of the issue and why human thinking has become so distorted is we no longer view children as the natural outcome and gift of an intimate union between man, woman and God.
In society children are viewed as a right which can be procured by money and technology and the concept of unconditional love is often absent from the equation the child has to meet citeria or it might be destroyed in the womb. It is no longer the miracle of creation that is sacred but a possession that can be aquired and discarded.
June 30, 2009 at 6:52 am
Consider the possibility that Mr. Ebert is a smart guy and that this is a gross distortion of the truth. The pro-aborts have long argued that pro-lifers who want to control women's bodies and not allow them to choose their own paths. If the film portrays the parents actions as contemptible as they are, is it not possible that the reversal of truth is intended to make pro-lifers look like bad guys?