Science firmly on the side of the pro-life cause

I still haven't finished part II of my earlier blog, entitled, "Who Do You Work For, Good Or Evil? And How to Tell..." But if you've read that far, you know that I've said your first test is whether or not you are telling the truth. Good has nothing to hide; evil always does. So, telling the truth is the best indicator of who you're working for.

As the title of this weblog indicates, my objective here is to find scientific support for beliefs, conduct, moral values, etc., that are considered to be purely "religious." And I maintain that one need only look for the truth to find this support. Science should be firmly on the side of truth.

In matters of life - and abortion - it is.

The more people who find out the scientific truths about conception, pregnancy, gestation and fetal development in the womb, the more they reject the lies that the death advocates pump into the public consciousness. They refer to themselves as "pro-choice," but like everything else, this is demonstrably untrue; they systematically and categorically oppose any and all efforts to get more information into the hands of pregnant women considering abortion. But truth never sleeps, and science marches on.

In that vein, let's get some good news out on the table right away. There is a news article in the BBC today about a new ultrasound scanning technique that shows elaborate three-dimensional images of unborn babies in the womb.

Here is the link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm


As a follow-up, if you'd like to see some of these images, here is another BBC link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

These photos show quite clearly that unborn babies in the first trimester have what the story called "complex behaviors": they yawn, stretch, swim, "walk." Weeks earlier than doctors originally thought, we now know that babies in utero can open their eyes. Doctors have believed that infants could not smile until weeks after birth, and yet the photos produced by the London researcher show babies smiling in the womb.

Widespread access to this technology would - and WILL - have a dramatic impact on women considering abortion, especially those who continue to believe the lie that it's "just a clump of tissue" or "a mass of cells." (Ok, who ISN'T a 'mass of cells'?)

Abortion advocates will oppose the access to this technology. Indeed, with their characteristic deceit, they already have. Alison Herwitt, the Director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in response to a proposed bill that would distribute these "4D Ultrasound" machines to crisis pregnancy centers all over the country, was quoted as saying, "They don't want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where they'll get their full range of options. They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers' expense."

Fascinating. A curette, a suction vacuum tube, a pair of Metzenbaum scissors are just "choices." But a picture of a baby sucking her thumb in utero is a "weapon"?

Well, if the truth is a "weapon," then so be it.

Let's face it. Abortion advocates cannot tell the truth. They have to lie, dissemble, obfuscate, and (when all of that fails) scream obscenities to deflect attention away from what abortion really is. The callous and gruesome testimony [much more on this later] of abortion "doctors" in the recent federal cases challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Act stands as the best evidence of what they are really doing - butchering tiny human beings by the millions, not only in that particular procedure, but in all abortions. Which is precisely what they are afraid the public will find out.

So they lie. Here are just a few examples ...

The "pro-choice" movement says that the PBA Act is unlawful because it gets in the way of a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. Their first line of attack has been to say that the procedure is sometimes "medically necessary."

Lie.

Members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have testified before Congress and in federal cases that this procedure is never "medically necessary."

Then, they argue that so-called "partial-birth abortions" (the official name is "dilation and extraction") are "safer."

This is not exactly a lie. But it nevertheless begs the question: safer than what? This is a harder question to find the answer to, because they don't want you to know. They never tell you. Unless, of course, they are asked under oath and forced by Congress or a judge to answer.

The answer is, "safer" than the usual methods of abortion at that stage. The usual methods of dilation and curettage involve dilating the cervix and ripping the unborn baby's body to pieces with a sharp curved blade called a curette.

In the second trimester and later, the baby's body is more fully developed - the cartilege, bones and tendons are tougher to cut, and in addition to the butchery of the unborn child that is going on during this procedure, there are apparently risks of (amongst other things) perforation of the woman's uterus from bone fragments, and infection from piece of the baby's body that could be left behind - a real risk, since the doctors cannot really "see" what they are doing.

Obviously, this is not a problem if the doctor pulls the baby's body nearly completely out of the woman's body, pierces its skull with a pair of Metzenbaum scissors, vacuum suctions out its brains, crushes its skull and then pulls the dead baby all the way out. Much safer. Unless, of course, you're on the receiving end of the scissors.

More lies.

The "pro-choice" advocates scream about the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that its advocates are simply maneuvering to "take all abortion away from women." But what they are really afraid of is that by virtue of the testimony in the cases they themselves filed, women will find out what goes on in the other abortion procedures; in the abortion procedures in the first and early second trimesters.

Because as soon as women find this out, they may not make the choice for abortion.

If you consider yourself pro-choice, don't you find it curious that the so-called "pro-choice" movement doesn't want you to have any information about abortion except for its availability? Don't they have any confidence in your ability to make an informed choice? If they are all in favor of choice, why do they oppose informed choices? If truth is on their side, why are they so afraid of it?

(1) Doctors - even "pro-choice" doctors - have demonostrated a link between abortion and breast cancer. Lawmakers try to pass laws requiring doctors to inform their patients about these risks. "Pro-choice" advocates oppose this.

(2) Lawmakers attempt to pass laws requiring a minimal waiting period, so that women will consider the decision they are making, which is permanent, irreversable, and fatal. Thounsands of women attest to the regrets they have about their abortions. Who could oppose taking 24 hours to consider taking the life of your unborn child? "Pro-choice" advocates, who say, "women don't need any more time."

(3) If "every child should be a wanted child," as "pro-choice" advocates claim, then there should be punishment for killing a wanted child, should there not? And yet, when Congress was endeavoring to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Connor's Law"), "pro-choice" advocates opposed it.

So, the "pro-choice" advocates oppose any and all information, laws or technologies that might provide women with:

(a) information about what their unborn children really are, can do, look like in the womb;

(b) facts about what is really being done to these children in the name of "choice";

(c) time to consider the decision to take the lives of their unborn children

(d) punishment for those who commit acts of domestic or random violence that take the life of their unborn child.

And these people claim they're for "choice"? As I said above, demonstrably untrue.

Oh, but this latest technology will throw an even bigger wrench into their works. If you go to this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/03/special/politics/sp_politics_herwitt060503.htm

You will be able to read the transcipt of an online interview with Alison Herwitt of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In this discussion, she says, "When considering this debate, it's important to remember that most abortions happen very early in pregnancy. Ninety-nine percent take place before the 20th week."

The 20th week is halfway through the pregnancy, and two months into the second trimester. These are the abortions that Herwitt and others want the public to believe are less troublesome than the nasty, gory, bloody, ugly partial-birth abortion that is the subject of so much debate at present.

But, as I indicated, it is precisely because the advocates of death do NOT want anyone to know what happens during any abortion that they dissemble on these issues. "Dilation and extraction almost never happens," they say (as if that somehow makes it acceptable). "It's dilation and curettage that is used 99% of the time."

So - go take a look at the 4D Ultrasound pictures in the BBC article above. Then ask yourself - is it any less bloody, gory, gruesome, monstrous or murderous to take a curved blade to those tiny babies in utero and cut them apart limb from limb?

Of course not. But you don't have to take my word for it. The proof is right there before your eyes. And that's the scientific truth.

On sex education in the public schools

Here is an article some of you may find interesting...

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/1684_0_2_0_C/

I saw the Oprah show in question. (I hasten to add that I never watch Oprah, but I was at my health club on the treadmill, and it was on.) The description is right on the money. Isn't this great? Someone or something creates a sense of sexual or gender confusion in your child, and instead of getting to the bottom of the trauma/problem, you'll have government officials, school administrators and media celebrities advocating that you get your child a sex-change operation. (And here I thought it was rather scandalous that people are buying their teenage daughters boob jobs!) Watching the show, it was so clear how desperate the parents were. They would believe and do anything at that point.

Those of you with your children in public schools had better pay close attention to what they are being taught. Not what they tell you they are teaching the children; what is actually in the materials themselves. And what those who write and espouse these materials really have as their primary objectives. It is not education, it is indoctrination, brainwashing and yes, recruitment. Sad, but true. And we have proof, although no one wants to talk about it.

Much of what has passed for "sex education," in this country in the public schools for the past 30 years, has produced little besides precocious promiscuity, teen pregnancy and abortions, the rapid spread of STD's among teenagers, and a staggering rise of infertility in women in their 20's and 30's that is directly related to sex with multiple partners at a young age. (When was the last time you read an article by an OB-GYN describing this? But it is true, nevertheless...)

It was bad enough when these self-proclaimed experts were arguing in favor of distributing condoms and demonstrating their use to high schools students. Remember that at the time (and still today), the argument was that, "They are doing it anyway, so we need to teach them how to do it safely." Uh-huh. Sure. And now, it has moved to middle school. And why? Because, of course, "they are doing it anyway." How many of us have NOT heard a horror story of an 8th grade co-ed party involving alcohol and fellatio (just to give one example), or the exploitative sexual experimentation that someone comes across in a public school bathroom? (If you haven't heard anything like this yet, you are either very lucky, you have no friends with middle-school-age children, or you live in the woods and homeschool your children.)

If "they are doing it anyway," it is because they live in a culture that does nothing but advocate irresponsible sexual conduct, and then abortion to pick up the pieces (if you will excuse the extremely ugly and unintended pun). Isn't it ironic that all across the country, middle-school-age children are engaging in oral sex, and telling those who catch them in the act, "we thought it wasn't sex"? Remember where that one came from?

In the 1960's and 70's, the "sexual revolution" was for adults and college students. But that wasn't enough. In the 1970's, and 80's it was high school students. But that wasn't enough. In the 90's and today, this insidious mindset has moved into middle school.

And they will not stop there. As those on the Oprah show and the sex education experts argue, it is time to move into the grade schools.

What I am telling you, my friends, is that there are people out there with their sexual sights set on your children - the younger the better - and if you think this isn't true, you are deluding yourselves. It is NOT about educating them or making them "safe," despite all that obfuscating blather to the contrary. (Check out the journal Paedika if you don't believe me or think I am exaggerating. That is, if you can stomach knowing what the paedophiles' social and political agenda really is.) It is about increasing social tolerance for deviant and destructive conduct by indoctrinating the youngest among us. You may say, and with good reason, that this does not describe your beloved teachers, or your trusted administrators. And this is probably true. But if your beloved teachers or your trusted administrators buy into the whole, "they're doing it anyway, so now we have to teach them how to do it safely," or "we have to teach them not to discriminate," shtick, then they are the sexual predators' and social "engineers" unwitting pawns.

You cannot depend upon the schools to keep your children safe. You have to do it yourself. We all do. And it is getting to the point where school is what we have to keep them safe from. God help us.

In support of and response to Ben Shapiro

I am still working on Part II of the "Who Do You Work For?" blog. The rest will come. But in the meantime, I have other things to say. As you can tell if you've read what I have written so far, it's clear that I am setting up a scientific argument in opposition to abortion. Or, more specifically, an argument that demonstrates that the theological arguments opposing abortion have a scientific basis.

So, with that in mind, any chance I get to write something about abortion, I will do. With that in mind, here's today's post:

I always read Ben Shapiro's columns on www.townhall.com. (Actually I read ALL of the columns on TownHall.com. Even Bruce Bartlett's.) And I am constantly impressed with his cogent analyses. So impressive for someone so young! His recent column , posted today (June 16, 2004) on TownHall, piqued my interest.

Please read his article. Here is my response...

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

I am an administrator and lecturer in law at [a university somewhere in the midwest], I appreciated your recent column on the issues that the American Jewish population needs to address and be realistic about. As a Roman Catholic and a strong Israel supporter, I was gladdened to see an Orthodox writer speak out for the support American Christians give to Israel and the Jewish faith generally. I was also glad to see one Jewish person tell so many others that the political party American Jews seem best to identify with - the Democratic Party - has long since abandoned the principles that drew people to it in the early part of the 20th century.

But the problem, it seems to me, is in the distinction between persons practicing the Jewish faith, and those who have identified themselves as "cultural Jews," (as my non-practicing Jewish colleagues have termed it to me).

I feel as if I am watching the same sort of divide take place among Jews in America as I am seeing among Roman Catholics. There are those who continue to adhere to precepts that are thousands of years old, which take their meaning from Scripture. And then there are those who want to define their beliefs for themselves, even when this means accepting conduct that is abhorrent and clearly contrary to common decency - much less Scripture. There are any number of examples, but I am referring specifically to abortion.

As you know, the official position of the Roman Catholic church is and always has been in opposition to abortion; that it is a grave evil, justifiable only when so doing would be necessary to save the life of the mother (which is extraordinarily rare). But many Catholics are abandoning this position, calling for "choice." How many other Christian church leaders/members are still staying strong on this position? Many of the mainstream Protestant denominations are going to an official or unofficial "pro-choice" position.

Where is the Jewish leadership on this issue? Where is the American Jewish voice on this issue? What is profoundly disturbing to me is to see the number of American Jews who are intimately, integrally, visibly, vocally involved in the abortion business. How many ACLU lawyers suing on behalf of Planned Parenthood are Jewish? How many abortion practitioners, or clinic owners? How many so-called "feminist", pro-abortion spokespersons? (At least, as they might say, "culturally.")

This is heartbreaking to me, to see so many of the children of Abraham; so many who have inherited the mantle of Holocaust survivors, bathed in the blood of innocent unborn children. Abortion is America's holocaust; where are the Jewish voices decrying it?

There are some, thank goodness. You and Dennis Prager, just to name two. I receive the World Jewish Digest (based out of Chicago) and read it faithfully - there are many Jewish commentators in it who support life.

But on the whole, it appears that far too many American Jews - whether because of their loyalty to the Democratic Party (which has become a one-issue party; they will brook NO disagreement on the abortion issue), or for some other reason - seem not only comfortable with the deaths of 40+ million unborn children, but committed to it.

I hope, Mr. Shapiro, that you will continue your vigilance on this issue, as well as the others you address so articulately.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
[my name]

Who Do You Work For, Good or Evil? And How to Tell....Part 1

All of the recent legal activity surrounding the Partial Birth Abortion Act has had me thinking. (I am a lawyer and a professor; I think about things for a living...)

Abortion is bad law because it is bad science. And of course, because it is bad science, it is horrendously bad morality. It is evil, pure and simple. And in my opinion, it is the single greatest evil facing American civilization. Yes, worse than poverty, worse than illiteracy, worse than racism or discrimination - all of which abortion supporters throw up as straw men to distract from the real, more basic issue. And none of which even become relevant unless one is allowed to live. You can bring yourself out of poverty. You can overcome discriminatory preconceived notions others have about you, your race, your color, your culture. But you can't do any of this if you are dead.

The writers of our Declaration of Independence knew this, and said so explicitly. That is why the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Note how this has been phrased:

1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident" In other words, the rights that are described in the D/I are not subject to debate and not in need of proof. The writers wanted to eliminate the possibility that anyone could come behind them and argue that some people are not entitled to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

2) "... that all men are endowed by their Creator..." "Men" here means mankind, despite what some have tried to argue. And the fact that the rights articulated in the D/I are "endowed" by a "Creator" means that we are not permitted to take these rights away from other people without grave justifications. Furthermore, note that although the writers mention a "Creator," they do not name any specific deity. Whether they believe in one (or many) or not, all persons are deemed to have these same rights and protections.

3) " ... and among these..." This is terribly significant, and often overlooked. Lawyers use language like this a lot. This is to say that the rights articulated (in this case, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of the rights to which human beings are entitled; merely that these are the most important ones we can identify at the moment.

4) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The order here is critical. LIFE IS FIRST. Liberty is second. And neither the Declaration of Independence nor any other document or law guarantees happiness. But the D/I at least acknowledges that we have the right to pursue it. As long, of course, as in so doing, we are not infringing someone else's right to life, or liberty.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence maintained that the above statements are TRUE. It stands to reason, then, that the test of whether a law is a good one or a bad one, depends upon whether it is consistent with this TRUTH; with the nature of humanity and the proper role of government.

In law, as with every other science, the objective should be the pursuit of TRUTH. And to pursue the TRUTH is to pursue God, whether that is one's intention or not.

So, in order to answer the question, "Who do you work for?" the first thing you need to ask yourself is whether you are telling the truth.

More about this in Part 2.

/Prairy P.

On science, faith and miracles - a response to Simple Simon

I received a lovely, thoughtful response to my second post. Many thanks to that first visitor! They identify themselves only as Simple Simon. Here is what they said:

****************

At 12:33 PM, Simple Simon said...
"I don't want to call into question the entire premise of your forum here, but where do you go in your specific pursuit if your faith leads you to the conclusion that, with the appropriate faith, you can suspend the laws of nature and science -- (to quote Christ) with faith the size of a mustard seed you can ask a mountain to get up and move and it will obey you?

If a law of science that is discovered or proven in 2004 confirms the faith held by people for 2,000 years, and then a prophet or other messenger of God asks God to suspend that scientific law for some purpose (say conversion) and God grants the prayer, then what is the ultimate value of the particular scientific law in your ultimate pursuit?

Have you considered whether it is an unproven scientific fact that all laws of science can be suspended with the appropriate faith?"

/Simple Simon

*****************

And here is my response...

Dear Simple Simon:
I suspect that many who might visit here would call into question the entire premise of this weblog. That's okay.

I do not have a simple (if you'll excuse the expression) answer to your query. But what I'll try to do here is to craft an answer consistent with my theory that science and religion can be reconciled.

I don't purport to be able to translate Christ, but it has often occurred to me that much of what He said two thousand years ago has a scientific foundation that is demonstrable today.

Take, for example, His statement that "the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons until the fifth generation." This statement disturbed me profoundly as a child. I could not understand why God would punish children for things their parents or grandparents did.

Later, when I was studying psychology in college, I came across the established research showing that children who are abused are much more likely to become abusers themselves. Just to use one example.

What if Christ was not making a statement about God's punishment, therefore, as much as he was telling us about human nature? It would seem to be an admonition to (amongst other things) raise our children properly, to avoid the emotional damage and psychological disease that could take generations to eradicate. According to my theory, Christ would not have told the people of that era anything about human psychology, or the "hard-wiring" of the neural network in a child's brain, or behavioral patterning - this would have made no sense to them.. What he COULD do, however, was to put it in terms that they could understand - sin. His phraseology is significant, to that end. He says, "the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons." It is a statement in passive voice. He speaks of an effect.

Christ does this in other places as well. Recall the story where the crowd brings a crippled man to Christ. (I am going to have to paraphrase here…) He says to the man, “Rise – your sins are forgiven.” The crowd begins to mutter in astonishment, and Christ hears them saying things like, “Who is this man, that he thinks he can forgive sins?” And Christ says to the crowd and to the man, “Which is easier, to say ‘your sins are forgiven’ or ‘take up your bed and walk’? But, so you will understand that I have the power to forgive sins, Rise – take up your bed and walk – your sins are forgiven.” And of course, the man does in fact pick up his mat and leave the crowd on his own two legs.

Thus does Christ show us the connection between the spiritual and the physical. The people gathered there cannot understand how a “sin” – which is unseen – can be forgiven. They can, however, see the “miracle” of a man physically cured of a visible disability. By showing them things they can see, Christ wants to get them to believe in the things they cannot see.

So, let us turn to your quote about having faith the size of a mustard seed, and moving mountains with it. Is Christ speaking literally? Is He speaking metaphorically? Is He using terms or expressions that make sense in the context of the culture in which He appeared, but which we might understand differently?

My short answer to your question would be that if "faith" can "suspend" natural laws (or science, as we know it), then there is some scientifically demonstrable scientific law behind that suspension that we do not yet understand.

Some of Christ’s other comments are instructional in this regard. He says in one place, “All things will be revealed,” and in another, “Be not afraid.” And how many times does He say, “Love one another”?

We must put ourselves in the position that Christ’s contemporaries were in. Would they have thought it was possible for hundreds of thousands of pounds of steel and fuel to fly? What would they have thought if they had seen a commercial airliner? And if a “prophet” in their day were to have said to them, “Believe! If you only have faith the size of a mustard seed, you shall one day be able to fly like birds” would this not have sounded like an absurdity? Would people not have fallen into two groups – those who thought this “prophet” was mad, and those who thought that flying was physically impossible, but with enough “faith,” they could do it anyway?

But both groups would have been wrong. Flying isn’t physically impossible. Two thousand years later we see it every day, and do not much marvel at it, because we understand aerodynamics. How many other commonplace things in our culture would the people of Christ’s time have thought were suspensions of “natural law”? Laser surgery? Space flight? Antibiotics? Robotic machinery? Roller-ball pens?

Never did Christ say that our faith was to be separated from our study. Did he ever tell the scholars in the temples not to study? Or the doctors to stop trying to heal their sick patients?

To come back to the present day, then, is it not plausible that there are phenomena today that we do not understand, only because we still do not have the technology to see, identify, measure them? I would draw your attention to recent studies that have been discussed extensively in the medical community, looking at the effect of prayer on healing. These studies compared the healing and cure rates of patients who were not being prayed for by others, with rates for patients who WERE being prayed for. The study's results were interesting in at least two respects:

First, the patients who were being prayed for healed faster or were cured at a higher rate than those who were not being prayed for. And secondly, this was true even when the patients DID NOT KNOW they were being prayed for, and when those praying for them were at a great distance (physically) from them.

We have just begun to scratch the surface of things like nanotechnology and the study of different types of energies. What will the future bring in these sciences? Isn’t it possible that the things we call “miracles” today – inexplicable things like spiritual healing, or extra-sensory perception are just types of energy, the properties and functions of which we do not understand?

I want to be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that if something is explicable, then there is no God, or that Jesus Christ was just a really nice man. To me it is not inconsistent to believe that God would take human form to show us who He is, who we are, what we are capable of, meant for, and that death is not the end.

Would I be skeptical of anyone who claimed to be a messenger of God, and who wanted to show it with “signs?” Yes. Would I pay attention to what he or she said and did? Of course. “By their deeds ye shall know them.” My standard operating line in this regard is that God gave me a brain and He expects me to use it. You must use your brain and your heart. Faith and reason. Fides et ratio.

A thousand years from now, we may be able to heal with a touch, as Christ did. We may be able to move large objects with our mere thought. If we believe. If we are not afraid. If we love one another. And if we don’t destroy each other first. Particularly in the name of our religions – a fate looming before us these days. But that is a blog for another day.

And that’s My Take On Things.

******************

On a completely different note, I have much to say about recent events. I hope to start blogging about those this weekend.

More later!
/Prairy P.