Good for Douthat--refusing to look away. Letting Siddiqui present Orchid's case, then pressing her with difficult questions, surfaces unease too often finessed with techno-utopian rhetoric. What Orchid risks normalizing, while promising health and choice, is the erasure of lives judged less worthy before they ever begin. Tension between what technology can do and what it ought to do won’t be resolved by ignoring the conversation. Hearing Siddiqui’s blank smile in response to Kinnell’s poem shows much is lost when the language of gift is displaced by the language of design. - Thanks for referencing Heidegger and especially Michael Sandel's long essay against perfection. Thanks also for this post on a matter critical to us all these days!
"Hearing Siddiqui’s blank smile in response to Kinnell’s poem shows much is lost when the language of gift is displaced by the language of design."
That was disturbing to watch, and as someone who normally listens to podcasts rather than views them, I'm glad I watched this one to see her body language.
That we play so carelessly with precious lives-all of them even the imperfect and try to be God fills me with anger. The casual desire to have a 'perfect 'child is just laughable and horrific. Man could never create a life that without sin.
I have always thought IVF and its like is just wrong and should be banned.
Adopt an embryo. Our young pastor and his wife, unable to have children of their own, adopted an IVF embryo she carried to term. Then they did it again. May the Lord bless them and their two children.
Something that really haunted me about the interview was the way she talked about how every embryo was precious. It immediately reminded me of a twisted and perverse version of Psalm 116:15 "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints," (NKJV) with very dark implications about the sort of godlike control her company helps people attain. Her worldview would be less ghastly if she just viewed them disposable non-human life products like books or groceries in the fridge.
The other thing that was disturbing was how she completely treated and regarded sex during minimal fertility periods as exactly the same as choosing to discard embryos. Yes, countless pregnancies do end in ultra-early or early miscarriage but there's a critical difference between volitional action that might result in a non-viable pregnancy because of timing vs it's time to send these embryos that already exist on a trip they're almost guaranteed not to survive.
Also, I feel extremely sorry for her children, the 12+ who will not survive and those who are born after being so carefully bred like livestock. I pity the child of theirs that has a disorder or disease they couldn't screen for yet but "now in version 5.0, we're screening for condition X!" "Mommy, would you have chosen a different embryo than me if you'd been able to screen for X that I have?" She's blind to the implications regarding her own mother, but her born children sure won't be.
I'm not sure who this was directed at. If me, confessional Presbyterian, with Dutch Reformed seasoning and a soft spot for confessional Lutherans and JC Ryle-type Anglicanism.
Good for Douthat--refusing to look away. Letting Siddiqui present Orchid's case, then pressing her with difficult questions, surfaces unease too often finessed with techno-utopian rhetoric. What Orchid risks normalizing, while promising health and choice, is the erasure of lives judged less worthy before they ever begin. Tension between what technology can do and what it ought to do won’t be resolved by ignoring the conversation. Hearing Siddiqui’s blank smile in response to Kinnell’s poem shows much is lost when the language of gift is displaced by the language of design. - Thanks for referencing Heidegger and especially Michael Sandel's long essay against perfection. Thanks also for this post on a matter critical to us all these days!
"Just because your scientists told you you COULD..."
"Hearing Siddiqui’s blank smile in response to Kinnell’s poem shows much is lost when the language of gift is displaced by the language of design."
That was disturbing to watch, and as someone who normally listens to podcasts rather than views them, I'm glad I watched this one to see her body language.
Agreed, rare that visual adds significantly but Douthat's podcasts are proving exceptional.
That we play so carelessly with precious lives-all of them even the imperfect and try to be God fills me with anger. The casual desire to have a 'perfect 'child is just laughable and horrific. Man could never create a life that without sin.
I have always thought IVF and its like is just wrong and should be banned.
Adopt an embryo. Our young pastor and his wife, unable to have children of their own, adopted an IVF embryo she carried to term. Then they did it again. May the Lord bless them and their two children.
Yes, I've met someone who did that. It's a beautiful form of adoption.
Something that really haunted me about the interview was the way she talked about how every embryo was precious. It immediately reminded me of a twisted and perverse version of Psalm 116:15 "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints," (NKJV) with very dark implications about the sort of godlike control her company helps people attain. Her worldview would be less ghastly if she just viewed them disposable non-human life products like books or groceries in the fridge.
The other thing that was disturbing was how she completely treated and regarded sex during minimal fertility periods as exactly the same as choosing to discard embryos. Yes, countless pregnancies do end in ultra-early or early miscarriage but there's a critical difference between volitional action that might result in a non-viable pregnancy because of timing vs it's time to send these embryos that already exist on a trip they're almost guaranteed not to survive.
Also, I feel extremely sorry for her children, the 12+ who will not survive and those who are born after being so carefully bred like livestock. I pity the child of theirs that has a disorder or disease they couldn't screen for yet but "now in version 5.0, we're screening for condition X!" "Mommy, would you have chosen a different embryo than me if you'd been able to screen for X that I have?" She's blind to the implications regarding her own mother, but her born children sure won't be.
Brrr, I must have blown past that part. You're right, how sinister!
Fully agree! Remind me are you Catholic? I'm afraid some Protestants really are lagging badly here. (Not all though!)
I'm not sure who this was directed at. If me, confessional Presbyterian, with Dutch Reformed seasoning and a soft spot for confessional Lutherans and JC Ryle-type Anglicanism.