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.

 

 

 

 

Abortion via Exception

I’m not a real Republican, but I play one on the blogosphere. Out of all the organized political parties that exist, which one is most likely to pass anti-abortion legislation? I always like to go where the data leads and the data for this question would lead to the GOP. Democrats have enough political power, but no will; in fact they will the opposite. There may be a third party (or parties) out there with plenty of will, but they are impotent in terms of political power.

Speaking of will and power, the Republicans had the political power early this month to pass a bill that would have basically banned abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy, but dropped the bill in a shameful display of cowardice in the face of some protests. How many pro-abortion bills have ever been dropped by democrats due to pro-life protests?

Some of the objections to the bill revolved around the rape/incest exceptions according to this article. The bill would have offered an exception for rape victims who already reported the crime to authorities. “But some Republicans, including female members of Congress, objected to that requirement, saying that many women feel too distressed to report rapes and should not be penalized…We have to be compassionate to women when they're in a crisis situation." What about the babies facing a pending abortion? Isn't that a crisis situation for them?

You may be familiar with common argument fallacies like in the graphic below, but I wonder if accepting legal abortion based on exceptions is a kind of exception fallacy.

Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, therefore we must be able to legally kill ALL unborn children? The objection to the house bill seems to take this kind of exception to a new level. Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, and some small percentage of those women are too distressed to report the rape, therefore let’s drop this bill and continue the status quo killing just as we do today.

This arguing via exception fits well for those who want to make us think they are pro-life, but are really pro-choice.

• Premise: Killing unborn children is wrong.
• Exception: Some women become pregnant via rape or incest.
• Conclusion: We should be able to legally kill all unborn children.

If this makes sense for abortion, it should make sense for other things too.

• Premise: Stealing is wrong.
• Exception: Some are starving and they have a right to food.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to take food without paying when you feel you need to make that choice.

 

• Premise: Killing is OK in self-defense
• Exception: Some feel too distressed to report they were attacked and should not be penalized. We have to be compassionate to those in a crisis situation.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to kill whenever you feel you need to make that choice.

Those who display their pro-choiceness without deception will hide behind the made-up, non-scientific and nonsensical term of “non-person”. Scientifically, human life begins at conception as an objective fact. To say the first stage of one’s life or “personhood” begins at some other threshold of viability or consciousness is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational (and devious), especially when an objective and observable beginning point clearly exists.

Basing common law on exceptions is incongruous and becomes diabolical when done to justify killing. To say unborn children MUST be declared “non-persons” because of certain exceptions is like saying oranges must be declared “non-round” because we have found some oval shaped ones.

As a side, one wonders how supposedly educated people can be BOTH pro-choice AND acknowledge science, reason & human rights all at the same time.

 

Baby at 20 Weeks
We have to be compassionate to BOTH women AND babies
when they're in a crisis situation.

 

The Outside System

It was around the age of four or five that our children began to speak to me and my wife on the topic of “fairness”.  The normal emphasis would be on the things they deemed unfair. As they explained themselves, I noted an astonishing correlation. All that they disagreed with also happened to be “unfair”. As we questioned them further, a second amazing correlation revealed itself; all which they agreed with also happened to be “fair”.

I’m afraid our children, if left alone, would determine right vs. wrong on their own via their own internal passions as opposed to any outside system. By the way, if you doubt the existence of original sin, spend some time with toddlers or small children. You will note that there is no need to teach them how to be “bad”. It just comes naturally.

Unless guided, children will not use an outside system to judge things and adults are not much different, other than perhaps they will more readily yield to the majority. For many, cultural consensus has become the guarantee of truth. If enough people told you that up is down and right is wrong, you’ll cave unless you have an outside system to refer to.

If this seems ridiculous, ponder the insanity of abortion. If educated people can actually be made to believe that an unborn baby is a “non-person” with no right to be alive, what else can they be convinced of? If said persons were to ask, “When did we become persons?” They would accept subjective thresholds of viability or conscience as dictated by the majority, instead of the observable and scientific point of conception. We often fail to live up to the edicts of the obvious.

Reflect on the unintelligibility of same-sex marriage as well. Too many have been easily duped into thinking that marriage has no rational basis in procreation; that marriage having been defined the way humans reproduce is somehow a trivial coincidence. If humans did not reproduce the way they do, marriage would never have been defined the way it has (male-female) around the world and throughout history…but back to outside systems.

Consider a Compass:

Allegories to a moral compass are just about perfect for describing a moral outside system. The compass uses the earth’s magnetic field to determine which way is north. It does not matter what direction a group of travelers believes is north. The way the magnetic field and the compass needle react to each other is completely independent of the minds of the travelers.

What happens if a large group of symbiotic travelers refuse to use the compass? They will go “somewhere” based on their beliefs and experience about traveling.  They may split up into smaller groups, but even the smaller groups need to decide what to do. The strongest will rule eventually, whether by physical force or via other kinds of peer-pressure, coaxing or bullying. It’s the same in societies. Even for the most stubborn and independent of individuals, the strongest will rule eventually, whether it’s a dictator by physical force or just a majority via lawyers and laws.

Consider Industry:

If a customer complains that a product or system is not working right, one of the first questions the vendors support team should ask (internally) is… “Is there a deviation?” In other words, is the product/system working within its normal operating limits or not? There are many situations in which a product is working within in its established parameters, but the customer still doesn’t like it. Here we have a situation where the customer is saying “it’s wrong” and the vendor says “it’s right”. So what should they do? Is the customer ALWAYS right?

Many times they will refer to industry standards as the outside system (like ISO). The data comes via an outside body of industry experts. They establish widely accepted benchmarks which are independent of the opinions of both the customer and the vendor.

What of morality then?

If you’re a true a relativist, then this post is not really for you, since pure relativism cannot plant a stake in the ground for anything to be truly right or wrong; there are only opinions. For those of us who think right and wrong actually exist objectively, where do we look to? Should moral standards be left to some “body of experts” like in industry? If humans look to other humans to know what is moral for humans, I would say it is still an internal system, like the travelers looking to other travelers instead of a compass to find which way is north. Humans would need to look outside of humanity, but also higher than humanity, so animals would not suffice.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Bonobo chimps are most similar to humans genetically and are known for their sexual promiscuity. They do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age. In addition, communal sex seems to decrease tension and keeps the peace. I’ve heard it argued that if we could be more like the bonobos, we would all be happier. Wanting to use animals as our outside system for sexual morality shows just how far the human intellect has fallen.

Shameful!

Many believe that God is the outside system for human morality. God would act as the unchanging magnetic field in the compass allegory, but what would act as the compass itself, the visible and universal thing that points the way?  Some may point to sacred writings like the Bible as a kind of travelers guide or map, but written words do not “interact” with people the way a compass interacts between the earth’s magnetic field and the travelers. A map would be an irreplaceable tool, but maps will not orientate you in the right direction like a compass will.

If God really does exist and really does care that we know “The Way”, it seems reasonable that He would provide a reliable compass that was visible and universal for each new generation of travelers to navigate life with. We call this “compass” the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The idea of this kind of outside system is not new; the earliest Christian writers understood its importance…"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4:3)


Life without an outside system...

Stanford Nutting

 

 

I Issue a Challenge

I issue a challenge to pray for Kermit Gosnell (prefix “Dr.” intentionally left out) and all abortionists. Call them evil or blind or some combination of both, but Jesus died for them as much as anyone.

We tend to pray for the things that we want and the people we like. While this is not objectivity wrong, we should challenge ourselves to remain vigilant in asking God’s will and consider who needs our prayers the most, regardless of our feelings. In this way we can ensure our prayer life is not linked to our own selfishness.

Consider it like “fasting” from our favorite and most comfortable prayers to try a narrower path. I’ve heard it said that it is impossible to truly hate someone if you pray regularly for that person. Try it sometime as an act of the will. Of course, we should pray for all the victims too, who include the mothers as well as the children, but this is not very challenging to do. Prayer for the killer is uncomfortable, but being comfortable is not what Jesus promised us and is not the purpose of our life. I’ve also heard it said that a good Catholic will make many people feel uncomfortable.

Challenge Your Comfort Zone



O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.

An Election Appraisal

Here is one more election related post that may have little to do with faith, but a lot to do with reason. There is a logic method I teach where I work called Situation Appraisal. Its purpose is to sort out priority concerns and it answers the question “What is going on?” It can help a confused Catholic voter sort out and prioritize many issues at once (at least for themselves). Here is how it works with an everyday example:

Step 1: List any concerns as vague as you want.

Ø  Every day example: I hate my car

Step 2: Separate & Clarify:
We ask questions to restate unclear concerns into specific elements to help minimize/alleviate over-generalizations and rationality overloaded by feelings. Whether questioning another or yourself, remember that the goal is NOT to solve a problem; the goal is to bring clarity. Any concern should be questioned until it is difficult or even impossible to give it more than one meaning. This is done with probing, open questions like “why”, “what do you mean by”, “what concerns you about”, “what else”.

Ø  I hate my car (this can mean many things)

- Why?

            - It doesn’t work well.

- What’s wrong?

            - It vibrates at highway speeds

- What else?

            - It’s bad on gas mileage

- What else?

            - That’s it.

“I hate my car” was separated & clarified in to two specific concerns; a vibration that happens at highway speed & poor gas mileage.

Step 3: Consider Current Impact, Future Impact and Time Frame
For each clarified concern we ask, what is the current impact or seriousness? What is the future impact or growth (or what is likely to happen if nothing is done)? What is the time frame or urgency (when does it become too late)?

Concern	Current Impact	Future Impact	Time Frame
Car has vibration at high speed	It’s annoying	Vibration will destroy my new tries	A few weeks until the tires are destroyed
Car has poor gas mileage	Spending $40/mo too much on gas	Going into debt $40/mo	6 months until out of extra money

Step 4: Make a Comparative Evaluation.
Compare & prioritize each column one at a time, and then look at all three columns at once for the big picture.

Concern	Current Impact	Future Impact	Time Frame	Result
Car has vibration at high speed	Annoying LOWER	New tires destroyed HIGHER	A few weeks HIGHER	2 Higher 1 Lower
Car has poor gas mileage	Spending $40/mo too much on gas HIGHER	Going into debt LOWER	6 months LOWER	1 Higher 2 Low

The car vibration issue becomes the top priority concern since it was given 2 highs and 1 low, so we address this concern first.

This same kind of logic can be applied to a Catholic considering election issues:

PLEASE NOTE: This is only an example of hypothetical voter opinion.

Step 1: List any concerns:

Ø  Life Issues

Ø  Religious Liberty

Ø  Social Justice

Step 2: Separate & Clarify:

Ø  Life Issues

- What specific life issues concern you?

            - Abortion & Death Penalty

- What else?

            - That’s it

- What’s concerns you about abortion?

            - That it is legal. Abortion should be illegal.

- What concerns you about the death penalty?

            - God is the author of life, so the death penalty should be outlawed.

Ø  Religious Liberty

- What is your religious liberty concern?

            - HHS Mandate will cause Catholics to violate their conscience or be fined.

- What else?

            - That’s it.

Ø  Social Justice

- What concerns you about this?

            - Healthcare

- What about healthcare?

            - Many Americans can’t afford insurance.

- What else concerns you about Social Justice?

            - Nothing else.

 

“Life Issues” was separated & clarified into two specific concerns; legalized abortion & the death penalty. “Religious Liberty” was clarified to the HHS mandate. “Social Justice” was clarified to healthcare coverage for those who cannot afford it.

Step 3: Consider Current Impact, Future Impact and Time Frame

Concern	Current Impact	Future Impact	Time Frame
Legalized Abortion	Over 1 million babies killed per year (U.S.)	Over 1 million more killed per year, every year	No specific time limit
Death penalty	<50 executions per year in recent years	About 50 more per year, every year	No specific time limit
HHS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money	Many Catholic Institutions forced to close. Higher cost to government to fill the gap	A few years for the full impact
Healthcare for the poor	Tens of millions do not get basic care	Preventable sicknesses left unchecked cause suffering & higher healthcare cost	No specific time limit

Step 4: Make a Comparative Evaluation

Concern	Current Impact	Future Impact	Time Frame	Result
Legalized Abortion	Over 1 million babies killed per year (U.S.) HIGH	Over 1 million more per year, every year HIGH	No specific time limit LOW (none)	2-High 0-Med 1-Low
Death penalty	<50 executions per year MEDUIM	About 50 more per year, every year LOW	No specific time limit LOW (none)	0-High 1-Med 2-Low
HHS Mandate	Law suits taking time & money LOW	Many Catholic Institutions forced to close. Higher cost to government to fill the gap MEDIUM	A few years to feel the full impact HIGH	1-High 1-Med 1-Low
Healthcare for the poor	Tens of millions do not have health insurance MEDUIM	Preventable sicknesses left unchecked cause more suffering & higher healthcare cost HIGH	No specific time limit LOW (none)	1-High 1-Med 1-Low

So for this hypothetical voter, abortion becomes the top priority concern, followed by the HHS mandate & healthcare coverage with the death penalty coming in last. The voter can then compare a candidate’s position to these priorities.

A full list of clarified election issues would be much longer than in our example, but it is hard to imagine any concern that has a greater current & future impact than the slaughter of over one million innocent lives this year and every year. Even if we added in the concern of over 20 million unemployed people, at least they are alive and have the legal right to remain so. Of course, the spiritual impact of a nation that allows this kind of killing is difficult to measure even in a detailed appraisal like this.

Remember that the purpose of Situation Appraisal is NOT to actually solve the concerns; it is meant for clarity. Clarity of thought and prioritization brings focus to any state of affairs, no matter how complex. Using an appraisal like this in the context of our faith can give us true clarity to act by the reality of things, and there is a word that describes acting by the reality of things very well; that word is…“sanity”.