<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

From The Circle Of Life Hang Many Rings

By Marvin Galloway



Forty years ago, I was a senior in High School. My graduated class is planning fortieth reunion festivities. Those facts, combined with a sprinkle of new facts that will be relevant in a moment, cause me to offer the following thought: the circle of life that is a lifetime (if you make it into the air world from the water world, and that thought will become relevant shortly, also) is hallmarked by rings of seemingly a causal events that are synchronistic in nature … somehow, events throughout a lifetime are connected to seemingly distant events one has witnessed during a lifetime but would not initially see as connected by cause and effect.



During my senior year in High School, I was sweet on a really cute girl. We will call her ‘Sweet Sue’ for privacy sake. In the spring of that year, Sue’s parents invited me into their house one evening, to ask if I would like to marry their daughter! Well, at eighteen, with independence and college in my sights, I had no intentions of marrying this lovely creature so soon. When I shared this sentiment with her parents, I was informed that she was pregnant. It was impossible for this child in the womb to have been my child. Besides being crushed to learn of implied conundrums such as fidelity and true love deferred, I reasoned out the parents’ offer as a means to ‘save Sweet Sue’s honor. It surely was all of that, but there was something far deeper, something I didn’t come to connect until recent events in my own household. And here’s where the rings dangling from the circle of life come in …



I have a twenty-years-old stepdaughter whom recently we learned is pregnant … and she’s no more married or committed than was Sweet Sue. Now THAT’S a stunner, but here’s how the synchronicity arises. Sue became pregnant a full decade before Roe v Wade. Three decades have passed since the Roe fiat ruling legalized society’s tacit acceptance and expedient reliance upon killing newly conceived human beings. In thinking through my own emotions and confusion regarding my stepdaughter’s sudden pregnancy, I came to realize a deeper reason for Sweet Sue’s parents offering their daughter for marriage to a boy not the father of their coming grandchild. [With that hint, many will already know the synchronistic connection, but I’ll muddle on, anyway.]



Because I abhor abortion and my wife has come to think likewise, we immediately conceived of that prenatal human as our grandchild … and so did Sweet Sue’s parents, and they didn’t want to lose that baby from their family just as today we do not want to lose the current little one in our midst. An eighteen-years-young boy can be forgiven for not grasping that concept so many years before our current horrific reality of abortion on demand and at the sole discretion of the pregnant female. Things are far worse, today.



Sweet Sue offered her baby for adoption (and with Sue’s beauty and normally good sense, it is likely that some couple has enjoyed decades of blessing from Sue’s ‘choice’). Sadly, my stepdaughter is strongly considering the same avenue. The parallels between Sue and my stepdaughter, though decades removed, are amazing … and of course the parallel between Sue’s parents and their conflicted hearts and our current sagging hearts is also notable, so allow me to offer a moral to this story.



Forty years ago, the stigma of bearing a child out of wedlock was foremost in my young mind; what concerned Sue’s parents more was the prospect of their grandchild not being in their lives. After thirty years of abortion on demand, there appears to still be a stigma to out-of-wedlock pregnancy, yet to go and hire a serial killer to ‘handle the problem’ has little or no stigma attached! America, something is really, really screwy in that reality. How did we reach the societal stage when killing a prenatal being is more acceptable than bringing that baby into our midst to share life, either in our home as a member of our family or as an adoptee?



It will tear at my old heart to see this baby adopted, but I refuse to attach any stigma to my stepdaughter given that she made the second ‘choice’ correctly, even if she’s fumbling the third or fourth choice. This baby will be a survivor in the abortion holocaust era … and for that I give thanks to Almighty God. Within certain sub-cultures of society, the stigma of out-of-wedlock child bearing is all but forgotten, yet these same peoples have the higher rates of abortion to their posterity. Something is terribly wrong with that, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tom Daschle, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, bill Clinton, hillary Clinton, liberal left-leaning media! Something is bloody wrong with THAT!



She's a child, not a choice.


Thursday, July 17, 2003

Another Tape From Saddam?

Well, another tape has surfaced supposedly issued from Saddam Insane, urging the Iraqi loyalists to commit more murder and mayhem. Yup, an Arab broadcast station faithfully airs it regularly on this the anniversary of Saddam's Baathists Party rise to control over Iraq 35 years ago.

Okay, it's likely Saddam is still alive. But what's with the 'Arab broadcasting station' aiding and abetting the chief among now deposed terrorists? I wonder, if the Mexican government began running spots on their television stations that encouraged murder and mayhem in America by the Mexicans in America on Green Cards (and millions not on green cards, just here because they can make it across the common border and people will put them to work doing what our teens and poor deem beneath their 'dignity') ... if Vincente Fox issued such calls, what would be our reaction?

Our reaction? ... Well, with Mexico it would be trade sanctions and perhaps severe tightening of America's Southern border. But we are an occupying army in Iraq. Why do we tolerate the aiding and abetting of an Arab terrorist seeking to murder and destroy not only his own people but the entire region if he cannot have his way? Why do we wink and turn our collective mighty heads when an Arab broadcast station blatantly assists terrorists? Are we not in a world-wide war against terrorism? At the very least we could slap severe sanctions on the country allowing such aiding and abetting.

Which brings us to the Arab assistance for homicide bombers and Osama bin Hasbeen. Why do we take zero action against an Arab broadcast system that gladly airs the instructions to 'faithful terrorists' of the Arab worldview? Are we so dumbed down that we do not see these people are not our friends, that these Arab extremists who air these calls for 'jihad' in fact want our destruction, want our demise, aid the spreading of evil designs, and gloat over the terrorists acts that kill our citizens here in America and, for a long time, all over the world?

If we are indeed in a world-wide war against terrorism, we shouldn't leave whole institutions of the pernicious terrorism cult so predominant in the Arab mindset completely untouched. Should we bomb them? Hell no! We should out propagandize the buggers! ... But there's the rub: the liberals in America, and the democrat party so afraid of becoming obsolete, would never agree to take up such a campaign, a campaign that could overwhelm the enemy in short order if the creativity and talent in Hollywood actually wanted to defend and preserve this nation, instead of secretly wanting to see us suffer for not continuing down the socialist highway.

By the time the Hollywood elite awaken to the perils, the nation will already be lost. Oh, to be sure, America will still exist, but the shell that will remain after the death and mayhem have destroyed our economy and ravaged our infrastructure will hardly want to spend a $100.00 night at the movies watching egotistical hedonists having casual sex, shooting guns and racing cars, tossing money about like water for daisies. ... And speaking of daisies, wasn't there a famous television ad run back during Goldwater's try for the White House that featured daisies? ... For those who remember it, that's how effective propaganda can be! But then again, perhaps not, the democrat ad with chains jangling behind a pickup truck didn't get Goreghoul elected.

Monday, July 14, 2003

Homosexuals Demanding Marriage Rights?

The trick question circulating from homosexual apologists is, 'How will allowing homosexuals to marry harm heterosexual marriage(s)?' To address this twisted query one must understand what marriage is, as an institution within society and thus a crucial institution for civilization. This writer is convinced that homosexuality is deviant behavior ... little more than twenty years ago, it was defined as aberrant behavior in clinical Psychology texts.

To open a vital institution to even more degeneracy than is already corroding the institution because of tacit acceptance for adultery, spousal and child abuse, and rampant divorce with 'no fault' is to deliver a final death blow to the institution most tasked with the safety and nurturing of our children ... and the maturation of our young adults. When one looks at the ancillary factors of the institution of marriage --as when divorce, custody, and child support monies are contemplated by courts/judges-- it is evident that opening the institution to membership of more deviancy does nothing to improve the institution and in deed does much to degrade the sanctity of the institution. To understand why, one needs to look at what homosexuality represents ... and I don't mean to focus upon the deviant acts.

While there is a hormonal influence traceable in a very rare percentage of homosexual behavior, the behavior is a complex mix of onset hormonal fires and choice in behavior patterns. But how to explain the homosexuals who actually turn their lives around and away from the debasement of homosexual behaviors? You can tell a homo-activist by their insistence that this is not a genuine turnaround.

As human beings are exposed to notions of God and salvation, there is a very real tug of war between the 'adamic nature' we're all born with and the longing to commune with God, to be pleasing to Him not abhorrent to Him. I think this desire to relate to/with God the Creator is generated because of the human spirit within our human soul. All life has a soul of life, but as far as we know only the human animal has a spirit, and that unique 'thing' was designed to need God's spark within it to truly be alive in spirit as opposed to dead in spirit.

As the homosexual community seeks society's full affirmation for their deviant behavior, they cannot resolve the inner whispers in their human spirit ... they cannot mollify that which Holy God calls them to, simply by forcing through their activism the acceptance and protection within this society or any society. If one believes God speaks to us through scripture, it is clear that God abhorrs, detests, loathes homosexual behavior.

Much of the activism of homosexuals is misdirected rage against God's still small voice calling them to reject the behavioral urges, in favor of spiritual growth. Deviancy in sexual matters (whether adultery, or homosexual behavior, or addiction to pornography ...) is an immaturity in sexual development, where sexual and social development run into the 'diety' needs of the maturing human being with a spirit that will not be at peace until a relationship with the Creator is begun. It is the source of so many homosexuals that rage against Christianity. It is the source of their demand to have marriage rights. It is also the source of the demand to be accepted within a church community, as if they are 'just like everyone else'. They are not like everyone else, unless everyone else is slave to outright defiance over what God has called abomination!

A recent net exchange on the topic included the following cogent thought from a reasonable poster: "He [God] wanted us to love him freely. Homosexual life is no life at all." As the poster explained later, in so many words, when our behavior impedes our free association with Him [God], we are in a state of unrequited spiritual love, deep spiritual longing if you will, thus such a state in bodily life is not 'aliveness', spiritually. I'm reminded of where Jesus said 'Let the dead bury the dead'.

And lastly, 'Many are called but few are chosen' and 'Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it'. Of the so many called (beckoned to, like the 'rich young ruler') to become the children of God, why are so few chosen? Because so few will let Him do the saving.

It is innate in so many to want to respond to God's still small voice by doing their own saving, being good enough to 'warrant' God's affirmation of them, not relenting to allow Him to grace them with eternal life in Him. As Cain railed at God when told to bring a specific offering, 'I can bring what I have produced by my own efforts and it will be good enough.' But it never was.

Achieving the 'right to marry, protected by the state' will not bring the Grace of God upon the unions of these deviants seeking affirmation ... or any deviants or their deviant behaviors for that matter. Adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should homosexuals assume they will, merely because they might have state protection while corroding even further that which God instituted? God instituted marriage for the purpose of man cleaving unto his wife and thus away from the worldly. God calls homosexuality an abomination. An institution under assault from so many corrosive forces already will not endure the further injection of deviancy into the structure.

From a secular perspective, the approval by the state for degenerates to take full advantage of institutions already corroded by over-liberalization may affirm the degenerates, but it nullifies the ability of the institution to function as a foundational good for the society and its children by overtly exposing both the young and the maturing individuals to degeneracy as an acceptable behavior pattern.
##########

The author may be railed against at MHGinTN@mindspring.com ... but don't expect a reply.


Sunday, July 13, 2003

In Vitro Fertilization: Is there such a thing as a pre-embryo embryo?

In the spirit of blogging, here's an entry for this day.

During recent research for a novel I'm working to finish, I read the on-line pages of several in vitro fertilization clinics. Too many included misleading and erroneous wording. Here's one example, the term 'pre-embryo'.

To be sure, not all sites used this incorrect term, but the ones that did use it compounded the obfuscation by using the term 'embryos' a few paragraphs later when describing what would be done with 'leftover' pre-embryos not implanted in a woman's uterus. Folks, the science of embryology is not so ambiguous as to allow a personal preference in terms like the specious 'pre-embryo' used to characterize the embryos conceived in a lab and not yet implanted in a human host.

The most fundamental principle in embryology is that a lifetime begins at conception. If embryonic lives are conceived in a lab by bringing male and female human gametes together in a petri dish, the new concepti are individual human lifetimes begun! They are not 'pre-human lives' that will only become individual human beings when implanted in a uterus. And why is that important? Well, because the process of 'research cloning' seeks to conceive individual embryonic lives in a lab, then give these individuals life support until they age to a point in their lifetime when their tissues can be better identified and harvested, killing the individuals so conceived and 'farmed' for their body parts. And yes, embryonic stem cells are the body parts of the individual human alive embryonic individuals living within their self-constructed placental enclosure/encapsulation.

In a later entry, I'll offer some background on technological achievements in artifical wombs and artificial placentas. Perhaps manana ...

Saturday, July 12, 2003

When Is Human Life A Human Being?

By Marvin Galloway



Since 1973, when the Roe abortion decision was handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, science has advanced our understanding of prenatal (before birth) life to a depth few could have anticipated. Most of the discoveries are unexplained for the general public, as we wend our way through daily life unaware of the amazing truths being revealed through honest hard science. The entire spectrum of prenatal discovery supports a rejection of abortion on demand and reinforces the correctness of protecting prenatal life, the way our society protects an adult individual at the end of their life.



In a recent article for First Things, Maureen L. Condic, PhD, Assistant professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, presents a convincing argument for meaning of the death protocol (used when organ harvesting is anticipated) to also be used when contemplating prenatal life. She has stated accurately that, “… the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the defining legal characteristic of death.”



That is an accurate assessment of the meaning but there is confusion regarding this protocol because it addresses ‘brain death’, yet it doesn’t refer to loss of thinking ability. It should not be assumed that ‘being alive’ as a human being is solely a function of higher brain functioning, or even dependent upon the organ called brain.



To paraphrase Dr. Condic’s assertion: to be alive as an ORGANISM, the organism is functioning as an integrated whole, rather than life being defined solely from an organ, a form within the organism. The one organ defines alive notion was the perspective decades ago. People focused upon one organ when the heart was believed to be the center of function, before organ harvesting became a reality. When the heart stopped beating, the person was thought to be dead, thought to be no longer a functioning, integrated whole organism. Today, doctors routinely stop and start the heart, keeping the patient functioning for survival, viable as an integrated whole via artificial heart and lungs.



A person in an unrecoverable coma or vegetative state has no higher brain function, yet their body continues to function as an integrated whole. As Dr. Condic puts it, “Although such patients are clearly in a lamentable medical state, they are also clearly alive, [so] converting such patients into corpses requires some form of euthanasia. … Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells.”



Functioning as an integrated whole is far more complex than mere cellular structures, and the older the organism (in the first year from conception of the individual), the more the aliveness is spread out into sub-unit forms (the developing organs) of the alive yet integrated organism; the younger the human organism is, the less differentiated the sub-units are, the less spread out among forms is the integrated function.



A poster on an Internet discussion thread recently asserted that, “Unless you are looking at the issue [prenatal human life] solely from a religious standpoint, rational thinking minds would conclude that at 5-7 weeks, a fetus is not fully formed and is not a human life until at least 11-13 weeks.”



The first order in addressing such an assertion is the false comment that the earliest life of the conceptus is not human life. It is a human life, clearly, because the sex cells that conceived the new life are from human beings. The second glaring inaccuracy relates to the notion that at 5 – 7 weeks accepted definition holds the individual life to be in embryonic stage, not the fetal stage. [I prefer to use the term age as opposed to stage, since an age is but a segment along a continuum, and human lifetime is a continuum from conception until death.] Precise transition from embryo to fetus is not so easily assigned, however.



In order to accurately apply the meaning of the death protocol offered in Dr. Condic’s article, we will have to show how an embryo is more than a mere collection of cells. We will have to show how the embryo is in fact a functioning, integrated whole human organism. If the embryo can be defined on this basis, the definition of an alive, individual human being would fit, and the human being should be protected from exploitation and euthanasia.



What is the focus of the transition from embryo age to fetal age are the organs of the fetus. It is generally held that the organs are all in place when the individual life is redefined as a fetus. The gestational process during the fetal age is a process of the already constructed organs growing larger and more functional for survival. But during the fetal age, the not yet fully functional organs are not the sole sustainer of the individual life. The placenta is still drawing nourishment from the woman’s body and protecting the individual from being rejected as foreign tissue. If we are to apply the notion of a functioning integrated whole to define individual aliveness, the organs necessary for survival must all be included. Since the primitive brain stem and other organs such as primitive lungs, to be relied upon at a later age in the individual’s lifetime, are not yet fully functional, some other organ will have to be responsible for the functioning whole.



The first organ that a conceived human individual builds for its own survival is the placenta. This first organ is so important to the organism’s survival that in vitro fertilization doctors will not attempt implantation of an embryo until the encapsulating structure is in evidence. The newly constructed placental barrier is the organ that sends chemical messages to the uterine lining, for attachment to the woman’s life support system. This newly constructed barrier organ continues to grow and thicken, and is also what tricks the woman’s immune system into not rejecting the implanting life. The placenta functions as a survival capsule in which the alive, individual human being builds the other organs for later survival when exiting the womb.



Because of this amazing placental organ, an embryo is alive, functioning as an integrated whole organism. Further, it is an already alive organism that builds the organs of the later-age human body. It is not the woman’s body that builds the second individual on life support in her body.



The newly conceived life is a distinct and very much separate individual human being from the woman in whom it resides and grows. The Mother does not built the placental organ, nor any of the organs of the new individual, though it is from her body that the new individual receives protection and nourishment during the first age of its own lifetime, while that new individual organism builds the form (organs and structure) it will use for survival in the air world.


There is a popular argument that the transition from embryo to fetus is an acceptable stopping point for abortion on demand ... prior to the fetal stage, the woman would have exclusive right to determine which embryos will continue receiving a woman's life support and which will be disposed of for whatever reason the woman chooses to cite. If our society is to go down that road, let us not be dishonest in assigning non-human being status to the embryos euthanized.


It is scientifically impossible to discover a precise point when the individual alive being transitions from only embryonic to fully fetal in nature. Because that topic is deeply dependent on not so easily explained scientific facts, allow me to move to the next objection to such an arbitrary assignment of value when contemplating euthanasia.


Prior to the fetal age of the individual lifetime, the organs necessary for survival as a fully functional human being in the air world are not present but are being built by the embryo and looped into the primitive brain, the brain stem. The lungs are not sufficiently developed to support breathing until as old as twenty-one weeks from conception.


If survival functioning of brain and lungs and heart is what will be chosen to define an alive, viable, individual human being, it is important to note that the first organ built by the newly conceived individual, the first and crucial organ for survival is cast off at birth! That is why the choice of fetal age is so arbitrary in the false assertion that fetuses should be protected while embryos should not (should not, based on the specious notion of an integrated whole organism functioning for survival and growth and development only when the fetal age--with the organ structures for future survival--is reached). A human embryo fits the protocol for an alive, functioning, integrated whole organism, the same protocol upon which organ harvesting depends when contemplating the death of a human organism.


In the not so distant future, science will devise an artificial chamber, in which an alive, functioning, integrated whole human being in early fetal age may be sustained, kept alive. Following that seeming miracle, the artificial means will be devised for supporting the embryo into the fetal age. It is vital that our society rightly defines an individual human being’s aliveness, before the weighty issues of personhood, right to life, right of privacy, and property rights run headlong into the dehumanization of individual lifetimes.


In science, it is often the simplest solution that is the most elegant solution to a problem. Since the embryo builds its own survival capsule (the placenta) to allow it to have shelter and nourishment, it is elegantly factual to assert that the embryo is an alive, integrated whole for that age of its lifetime begun at conception. The embryo is no less an individual human being with at least one functioning organ that allows the integrated whole to survive into the future ages of the lifetime already up and running.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?