Monday, May 11, 2015

Month of Mary - Month of Mothers - Month of Life

I wonder if the March for Life in January each year might be more conducive to its ultimate end in the month of May, since May is the month of Mary and the month of mothers and the month of life. As new life springs up in the northern hemisphere and we forget all about the cold and dead winter, could thoughts about the sanctity of human life flow more naturally in the month of May?

In any case or in any month we can always say that human life beings at conception as an objective fact. My blog partner Joe recently sent me this link from Lifenews.com about 41 quotes from the medical profession that prove human life begins at conception. Here are a few of my faves:
  • “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
  • An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life. “It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi
  • “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1 
  • National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization. The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
     
  • “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council 
  • Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86 “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….
  • The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18: “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
Sounds pretty clear, but what do people who write medical text books know about anything anyway? From here the discussion may often turn to “personhood”. The unborn “entity” may be human, but it is not a person. I remember someone telling me that life begins when you’re born. I asked, “If your son was born yesterday at 1:00PM, what made him not a human being or not a person at 12:59PM? What would be the distinction other than time and/or the surrounding environment?” He could offer no clear answer because he was simply making-up a threshold of his own liking.
 
 
When pressed under questioning, one wonders how supposedly educated people can be both pro-choice and recognize science & human rights all at the same time. This is such a harsh contradiction that one can see a need for a diabolical force to help the pro-choice movement along.

As the Lifenews article shows, it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception. To say the first stage of one’s life or one’s “personhood” begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational when something objective is clearly available. In fact, irrationality is not a strong enough expression; it’s more like an invincible blindness.
Sorry, I can't see your personhood.
 

 

 

 

8 comments:

  1. This is why discussing issues is so infuriating. When someone refuses to acknowledge fact and instead substitutes opinion as fact then it becomes impossible to debate with that person. It is worse than debating with a brick wall. At least one does not expect an answer from a brick wall. While some may, as you wrote, acknowledge life beginning at conception, the idea that personhood is something separate from a human life is wishful thinking. Personhood has always been referenced to a human being unless some wacko thinks that animals are people too. When we speak of a person it is always as a human being. Characteristics do not define when someone becomes a person. Humanity does. And the Catholic Church is the one at odds with science? Deep breath....Bobby...deep breath.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I commiserate.
      When one presses for the rational basis for "personhood", the discussion may shift yet again to something like this, "Even if it is a 'person', no person has the right to use my body as a life support system against my will."

      This is true to a point, BUT when forced to decide if one life should be killed (permanently) vs. another life to be pregnant (temporarily), the reasonable course of action based on priority is to spare the life, because the right to be alive is the derivation of all other human rights and has the highest priority.

      Delete
  2. Funny you should mention that the right to be alive is the derivation of all other human rights...I believe I read somewhere that we have the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I always wondered how you get the last two without the first one. We've entered into a very dark place, at least in our country, where the use of reason is jettisoned and the rational is no where to be found. Doesn't it seem at times that God has backed away a bit and let our society guide itself without His providence in order for us to see first hand what life on earth would be without God? I feel this very deeply. Very good post Ben.

    Bobby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!
      God backing away, or is it us backing away, or some of both? That is thought provoking.

      Delete
  3. "Even if it is a 'person', no person has the right to use my body as a life support system against my will."

    Translation:

    Woman: "You have no right to use my body as a life support system against my will even though I am the one who conceived you by acting on my own free will, without your knowledge or permission. Because of your audacity I have to have you killed."

    The reasoning or lack thereof is demonic.

    Bobby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conceiving with free will would not apply to rape. We should be loving to both mother and child and killing the child is never the loving thing to do. It's misguided compassion.

      Delete
  4. "Conceiving with free will would not apply to rape."

    I absolutely agree Ben and I never meant otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't think you did actually. I just wanted to make sure any others who may be reading are clear.
      Take care.

      Delete