It's not a tumor!

The other day at the dinner table my son asked about tumors. Specifically, what's the difference between a tumor and normal tissue growth. I explained that in a tumor, the growth is uncontrolled and the cells are undifferentiated and uncoordinated. If you have a tumor on your kidney, for instance, it is not more kidney cells that are growing. In fact, if you did organize the cells, and grew a third kidney, it would not be a tumor, but an organ. There is a biological difference between normal tissue and a tumor.

Which meshed nicely with an online discussion I had recently about fetal development. Some pro-choice folks put the embryo in the category of a tumor, and that is completely inaccurate, scientifically. They don't consider the baby to be human until it has developed the things that they consider make a being human - a heart, brain, fingers, etc. The discussion involved when does a human being begin to develop these things. Some pro-lifers gloss over the issue and say "heart beat - 21 days" and be done with it, but the reality is more complex. Just as a baby doesn't magically form from a mass of amorphous tissue as it exits the uterus, so there is no "bright line" where you can say there is a heart, or brain. Those organs develop over time.

So I began looking up information on fetal development. The information I'm about to present is available from embryology texts, although much of it is echoed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis and http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap13/Chapter_13B.html timetables can be found at http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html and http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html

Although most of us don't think about the development of specific features before the fetal stage, the zygote does indeed, have marked cellular differentiation. In fact, at fertilization the egg itself becomes asymmetric and the first two cells of the zygote are distinct, one going on to form ectoderm and mesoderm, the other to form the endoderm. So if we're using differentiation and organization as the criteria, then is it clear that from fertilization on these traits are present. The first cell of you was not a tumor.

Some people want to use something like the brain as a criteria for humanity. First off, note that the human species is quite accurately defined, scientifically. Any attempt to require more than membership in the species is an attempt to exclude some members of the species from attaining their legal rights. The question to be asked is "why is not being a human being sufficient to be treated as one?"

But let's talk about the brain anyway. How much brain is enough brain? The embryo begins forming the nervous system with the primitive streak at about 14-16 days. The nervous system has formed visibly at 21 days. The human brain isn't fully formed until about 21 years after birth. So those who argue on brain function don't really have a leg to stand on.

Some will argue on the basis of brain function, not brain development, but aside from the obvious "why" question, how much brain function is "enough" and how does one measure it?

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, in their paper entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” argue that a human has no rights until he can be "self aware". What does it mean to be self aware, and how can we know if someone is? Should we apply intelligence tests to everyone each day, and those who score below a certain rank lose the right to live?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no "bright line" in development from conception to birth, or after. Any point we choose, whether it be the beginning of brain development at 21 days heartbeat at 22 days, neural waves detectable with current technology at 42 days, "awareness" at two years after birth etc. is merely an arbitrary point on a continuum. Attempts to justify abortion (or in the last case infanticide) based on development is an attempt to say "I can kill these humans but not those humans." Why should we accept killing humans at all?

Read More

Goal!

Remember back, back to ninth grade. Try to remember what your goals were in life at that point. I know what mine were. If you asked me to list them, it would look something like this:

• Get married to the woman I love
• Have six to eight children
• Become a famous inventor
• Solve world hunger
• Live in a big house on a lake
• Spend time with my family
• Go on awesome vacations with my family to interesting places, like the Grand Canyon
Drive a cool car

Of course, although I knew exactly what I wanted to do, I had no clue what path to take to get there, and so I wasted a good 20 years. By that point many of these goals were unreachable. I do love my wife, we do have children (though not the quantity I expected), I do live relatively near a lake, and we have been to the Grand Canyon.

A friend shared with me a project her daughter did for school on what her goals were. But they weren't given a blank sheet of paper. I guess that would be asking too much of them, to know what they wanted. Instead, they were given a list of suggested goals and asked to prioritize them. What dismayed my friend (and me) was that the things that we would have chosen for goals were nowhere to be found. Here is the list:

• Making it on my own
• Getting an education
• Making a lot of money
• Getting along with my parent
• Having a romantic relationship
• Living according to my religious beliefs
• Staying out of trouble with the law
• Having a friend I can always count on
• Having a job I really like
• Having sex with someone I love
• Being in good physical condition
• Doing something that makes a difference in my community
• Having time alone with myself
• Becoming famous
• Avoiding HIV infection and other sexually transmitted disease
• Being successful in sports
• Being in style
• Having others look up to me
• Having children when I feel ready to raise them
• Having fun
• Write your own here

While I have (and intend to continue to) avoid HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, I'd hardly call it a goal. Yet this young lady put it as her number one goal. Likewise high on her list was having sex with someone she loves. I guess she'd better hope that person has the same number one goal.

What a sad commentary on our public schools when children have their goals handed to them by people with an agenda to deny culture and civilization.

Read More

Just for fun

recreational drug - any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes.

Read More

Virtually all

The interwebs (and TV, and radio) are abuzz with outrage the contraception mandate imposed by Health and Human Services (HHS). My response to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius' editorial on the contraception mandate is the following:

Today, virtually all American women people use contraception vitamin supplements at some point in their lives. And we have a large body of medical evidence showing it has significant benefits for their health, as well as the health of their children. But birth control vitamins can also be quite expensive, costing an average of $600 a year, which puts it out of reach for many women whose health plans don't cover it.

The public health case for making sure insurance covers contraception vitamins is clear.

You see, more people take vitamins than use contraceptives. And the health benefits of vitamins are long established and well documented. So, free vitamins, right? But wait, we don't want to force everyone to pay for free vitamins - that's too controversial. Let's force coverage instead for something much more healthy and not controversial, contraceptives.

After all, Sebelius' actual words were "And we have a large body of medical evidence showing it has significant benefits for their health, as well as the health of their children." So let's look at some of those health benefits.

First, there is the "morning after" "contraceptive". I put contraceptive in quotes, because the drug has two effects, one contraceptive, the other abortifacient. Yes, you will find pro-choicers debating the fact, but if you look at the insert that comes with the drug it specifically states that it functions as an abortifacient.

From the insert:

12.1 Mechanism of Action

Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Note that it says it does not affect an existing pregnancy (which is why some folks debate the abortifacient action). However, your government has redefined the definition of pregnancy in humans to begin at implantation (in all other species it remains defined as beginning at fertilization), specifically so that drug companies could lie about these abortifacients and market them as contraception.

So, what's the "health benefit" of abortion? Well, it has a very negative health benefit if you are not yet born. But even for the mother not so healthy. Again, pro-choicers will debate the issue, but to paraphrase Sebelius "we have a large body of medical evidence showing it has significant risks for their health, as well as the health of their children." It speaks to the politicization of the issue when women's health groups are willing to overlook study after study showing how women are harmed, like those found at abortionbreastcancer.com. Were this a different issue, they'd be screaming from the rooftops that we needed to make sure this was safe.

There are many other health risks, to abortion, such as a 500% increase in the rate of ectopic pregnancies, a 233% increase in miscarriage rate, psychological trauma on women, and on children.

Well, that didn't work out so well. How about health benefits of sterilization? For men it is increased risk of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, dementia and heart disease. For women there is tubal ligation syndrome. And, yes I know there are studies on both sides of the issue. My money is on the World Health Organization (WHO), who state that the studies that show increased health problems are significant enough to warrant further research before they conclude that it is safe.

And speaking of the WHO, and the other contraceptive method covered by the HHS mandate, the WHO has classified the birth control pill as a carcinogen.

Read More

As We Know It

I haven't had time to blog in a while. Still busy, but I wanted to let you all know I'm still alive and to pass on a quick message.

The HHS is forcing Catholics and others to violate their consciences. Proposition 8 lost its appeal (no pun intended). My state, NJ, is pushing through a bill to redefine marriage and narrow religious exemptions. The leading Republican candidate is looking more and more like the leading Democratic candidate, leaving little hope for change (pun intended). The US military is censoring Bishops' pastoral letters to their flocks. The NDAA has overturned habeas corpus. Susan G. Komen will continue to fund Planned Parenthood. Religious organizations are barred from renting space in public school buildings in NY.

Sounds like the sky is falling. My message is this. Take heart. the sky is not falling. Relax. Take a deep breath. And pray. As St. Francis said "Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society."

Read More

Sola Scriptura

This past week I began what will hopefully be a fruitful dialogue with a woman who is, by her definition a Christian (as opposed to a Catholic, which is what she used to be before she found Jesus). Make no mistake, I also call her a Christian (in that she believes in Christ) I just object to her claim that Catholics do not believe in Christ. According to her, she was "more" Catholic than I am, which begs the question of why she left. After all, if she was more completely devoted to the Church, more understanding of the truth, then why abandon said Church and truth.

Her position is that nothing can be said about the Bible except other texts in the Bible. In other words, the Bible is its own commentary, and one interprets it by reading different parts of it. She has requested that I use only the Bible to prove my points. The nice part about it is that I have not read the Bible as much as a good Catholic should, and this is a perfect opportunity to become more familiar with scripture. As St. Jerome said "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ."

So I was thinking about her claims as I did my research, and realized something. Totally by coincidence (of course), my friend Owen Swain posted a link on Google+ about Sola Scriptura which said the same thing I was thinking. Namely, if scripture alone holds the truth, and it is self-interpreting, how came someone publish a book on it? For that matter, how can one evangelize? This woman is arguing for me to accept her interpretation of scripture, but if scripture is its own interpretation than either (a) the Catholic interpretation is as valid as hers, or (b)we are both wrong.

In fact, by telling me how to interpret scripture, she is doing what she decries the Catholic Church for doing - preaching "outside" of scripture. And so I think the question I must pose is "who is more likely to have a correct interpretation of scripture?" A woman with no formal training who reads the Bible every day for 14 years, or a bishop who has at least two PhDs in theology and Philosophy, at least seven honorary PhDs, has been at the forefront of theology and Biblical studies for years, and who has written numerous books on the subject. Oh yes, and has read the Bible every day since (at least) 1951. My answer appears at the top of this post.

Read More

Ice Age (not the movie)

It's been over a year since I wrote Stupid Letters, The Global Warming Scam, and Science? I Think Not! As you may recall, I've noted that the best predictor of Earth's climate is not CO₂, but solar activity.

So, since a noble squirrel friend pointed me towards this article in the UK Daily Mail, I thought I'd make a quick post about it.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

of course, this can't be right, can it?

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

So we have the battle of astronomers and climate scientists using actual data, against climate "scientists" who cling to their computer simulations. The points I think are worth learning from all of the brouhaha are:

1. The Earth's climate is constantly changing. Global warming Climate Change is not something new.
2. Despite our desire to have everything about us, not everything is about us.

That's not to say that I don't think we should respect the environment or conserve energy (I do), but simply that alarmist propaganda is just that - a manufactured crisis in order to create an opportunity to push an ideological agenda.

Read More