Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pro-choice’

All evil begins with a lie. To identify the lie is to unmask the evil.

One of the most efficient lies, a hand grenade meant to derail the debate, is that pro-lifers only care about the baby while it’s in the womb. Once it’s born, so the talking point goes, we have no use for mother and child. The punch line is that our love is cheap. So long as we don’t need to put out any money, we love babies.

It’s a lie straight from the pit of hell.

The truth is that liberal lies are easy to unmask. Simply turn the table. Think of the opposite of what they are saying. They constantly accuse us of that for which they are guilty. Take the current allegation into consideration.

Pro-lifers informally and institutionally provide cribs, clothes, toys, diapers, food, job training, tutoring, mentoring for single mothers. Add to that child care, baby-sitting, and life-skills training. For those not able to keep their child, we provide adoption services. Catholic hospitals provide free pre-natal and pediatric care to get mothers launched in the right direction. We dig deep into our pockets to help these women and children.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, prefer to use taxpayer dollars to kill babies rather than put themselves out there for women and children. In a nation equally divided over abortion, that means pro-lifers pick up half the tab of every abortion receiving government subsidy through medicaid or Planned Parenthood. Pro-choicers then assume the other half of the $450 bill through taxes.

So who puts their time and money where their mouths are? Pro-lifers.

Who are the ones who would rather see a child die than dig deep in order to help the mother who all too often is having the abortion because she doesn’t feel that there are viable options?

Pro-choicers.

In the years that I have attended the March and stood at the Supreme Court Steps, I’ve heard literally hundreds of post-abortive women give their testimony.

NOT ONE ever said that an abortion clinic employee ever asked if she was doing this because she felt there were no other options.

NOT ONE reported a clinic employee offering assistance.

NOT ONE reported the presence of a case worker or social worker trying to ensure that the woman knew all of the many services of government and private charity.

NOT ONE reported a clinic worker trying to ascertain if this was truly a CHOICE or the woman being threatened or coerced into an abortion.

NOT ONE!!!

What I did hear repeatedly was threats from family and boyfriends, of parents dragging the girl to the abortuary, of loneliness, fear, isolation, shame, guilt, and ignorance of the reality of a baby well along in its development.

No word on pro-choicers actually educating women about their choices, empowering women to choose life by offering access to the means necessary to sustain that life nutritionally, medically and socially.

It’s simply cheaper to kill a baby than to commit to mother and child post-partum-the very non-commitment of which they accuse us. That’s because the “choice” agenda is evil, and because such evil is non-love and anti-love at once.

Love gives life, nourishes hope, and is fed by faith. It is the fire that burns within.

Juxtapose that with the same word every woman at the Supreme Court has used to describe the abortuaries: COLD.

Cold is the absence of love. It is dead. It is also how some of the Christian mystics have described visions of hell. No fire. Just icy black cold. The total absence of love: God’s or anyone else’s.

So there is the truth behind the lie, the coldness of evil, the absence of charity on the part of pro-choicers.

We need to pray for them in earnest, for their conversion. Only the Fire of Love, that gift of the Holy Spirit, can melt an icy black heart. We pro-lifers will witness that to the extent we look upon our brothers and sisters in the pro-choice movement with love and not with malice or contempt. It’s hard at times, but it’s our imperative.

Read Full Post »

Human embryo having one cell suctioned off (R).

Why, in the face of hundreds of extant therapeutic applications from Adult Stem Cells (ASC), would researchers wish to pursue embryo-destructive research when Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC) haven’t made it out of animal trials because of their tumor-forming propensities?

As a Molecular Biologist, I am asked this question frequently by pro-lifers. Though I am adamantly opposed to embryo-destructive research, I’ll answer for them.

The answer is simple: They just want to know. Period. End of story.

A common misperception about scientists is that all of us are oriented toward therapeutic discoveries. Not so.

Many scientists are indeed oriented toward therapeutic applications, a great many are not. They practice basic research. That is, research with the sole purpose of discovering how things work. These are the ‘pure’ scientists, not oriented toward a given or serviceable outcome. Knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge.

Don’t knock it. It’s vital. Therapeutic advances grow out of the body of basic scientific research. In my graduate studies in molecular microbiology, I discovered quite by accident a whole new dimension of E. coli’s cellular physiology. It was genuinely exciting stuff for a new researcher, to unlock the secrets of nature through the rigorous and diligent application of the scientific method. It turns out that my discovery has all sorts of food safety and medical applications as well. Having presented the research at conferences, a few papers on it should get published this year.

Even if my work had no practical application, it is extremely gratifying to be able to offer the scientific community another piece of the puzzle. I am a basic researcher at heart. In the lab I live for this stuff.

So it’s not difficult to understand other molecular and developmental biologists who have the burning desire to know exactly how we are made in the womb. As a scientist who has studied developmental biology in grad school, I share that burning desire to know the awesome complexity and intricacy of the developmental process. It’s fascinating material.

As a Catholic Christian I’m not willing to kill babies in order to find out. Therein lies the dilemma.

Consider the picture with this post. Absent a Christian anthropology, it’s not hard to see where many of my peers do not consider the early embryo a human person. Without the eyes of faith guided by reason, all one sees is a clump of cells. We know, however, from work done on other animals that developmental pathways become extremely complex once one moves away from the simple cluster of cells seen here, and into the more advanced stages of growth and development

In the wiring-up of the nervous system, cells from the tail end of the spinal cord secrete chemicals that diffuse to the brain end of the spinal cord, inducing nerve cells to grow in that direction. Along the way the projection of the growing nerve cell, called the growth cone, is guided by molecules on the surface of other cells. This is precisely the developmental stage that will be needed to glean the information necessary in spinal cord injury repair therapeutics.

What will we do when we have deduced the answers at the simpler level of development, but now require an organism with a developing nervous system, the point where spinal cord injury repair can be tested? Having proceeded so far down this path, what rationale will be called upon for scientists to stop so much closer to potential therapies? The scientific community won’t hear of it. And really, at that point why should they? The principle that all human life is sacred will have long-since been compromised into obscurity. All we’ll be left with is an argument over the details. Dogs fighting over the carcasses of our own young.

I want to know these answers as much as the fiercest proponent of ESC research. I’m just not willing to sell out the innocent for my answers. If I don’t get them here, I’ll have eternity to get them from The Source.

In this battle over ESC and ASC, we do well to lobby lawmakers on where the entire source of therapeutic benefits resides, namely ASC’s. It’s even more important to educate the public in this regard. We also need to understand the lobby of university researchers who have a very different motive for this research. Money is also a major issue. When funding is set aside for a given line of inquiry, cash-strapped departments line up like refugees at an oasis in the desert. Promises of potential therapeutic applications are added to research funding proposals to gussy them up.

For the college, it’s the money. For the basic researcher it’s the money, the knowledge, and publications. For the applied researcher it’s the cure. For the politician, it’s cynically using the scientific community to lay down a noble-looking smokescreen in order to protect abortion by treating embryos as fungible laboratory substrate.

Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General under President Clinton, once famously declared:

“We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.”

In truth, America is just beginning a love affair with the fetus through advanced imaging systems. Had we a love affair with the fetus, abortion would be illegal, and there would be no debate over embryo-destructive research.

It seems that pro-choice politicians have seized upon embryo-destructive research as the means to realize Elder’s fondest desire.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: