Monday, January 14, 2019

The Science Of Life


 On January 22, 2019, it will be 46 years since seven members of the United States Supreme Court made murdering unborn babies legal in America with the decision in Roe v. Wade. Here in New York State (America's answer to Sodom and Gomorrah), our apostate, adulterous governor, Andrew Cuomo, has made one of his gubernatorial priorities enshrining abortion as a "right" in the NYS Constitution should Roe be overturned. Moreover, he is seeking to get a law passed in the meantime, the so-called "Reproductive Health Act" which will codify Roe, and make abortion legal by NY law during all nine months of pregnancy.

With the Democrats having taken control of the State Senate last November (and already having control over the State Assembly), it will surely pass.  If you think the Vatican II sect "bishops" have excommunicated Cuomo, or refused him "communion," guess again. Bergoglio has said and done nothing, just like when Ireland was trying to take its Constitutional protection away from the unborn last year. The formerly Catholic country declared war on unborn babies by passing a repeal of the Constitutional protection afforded pre-born children with 67% of the vote.

I have been involved with the pro-life movement since my conversion to Traditionalism in 1981. I know the ins and outs of the issue. All pro-abortionists call themselves "pro-choice" because they don't want to be called "anti-life." Everyone knows it's wrong to take an innocent human life. No sane person would even try to defend the morality of torturing an innocent baby to death. The whole case for abortion collapses if the zygote, embryo, fetus are recognized as the names designating different stages in the development of a human being, just like an infant, teenager, and senior citizen are different names for human development on "the other side of the womb." If the unborn are human beings, abortion is murder--and even the infamous Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe majority opinion, conceded the point. Those who advocate the "right to choose an abortion" must deny the humanity of the subject of their choice, just as the Confederates had to deny the humanity of African-Americans to justify their "right" to "choose owning a slave."

The abortionists began undermining the human status of the unborn by asking a simple question, "When do you think life begins?" It made it seem like the question was a subjective matter of opinion. You would receive numerous responses to that query, such as:

  • Life begins at conception
  • Life begins at viability
  • Life begins at birth
  • Life begins when there is social interaction
  • That is a matter of religious belief, no one knows the exact moment when life begins
All of these answers are wrong. Surprised? Thought the answer was "life begins at conception"? In this post, I will demonstrate that the question asked is ambiguous and improper, and that secular science proves beyond any reasonable doubt the humanity of the unborn. God's design, which can be known through the scientific method to which even atheists subscribe, compels one to acknowledge abortion as the taking of an innocent human life, i.e., murder.

A Trick Question and a Definitive Answer
"When do you think life begins?" is properly rephrased as "In human reproduction there is a point in time when life begins. When do you think that point occurs?" There is a false underlying assumption that no one knows the answer, but we can all agree that a newborn is human, so abortion on demand at any point in pregnancy should be allowed. If anyone believes life to begin at a certain point prior to birth, then that is just a religious belief, and we live in a pluralistic society. You can't impose your religious beliefs on others (thanks to Vatican II and the Masonic "separation of Church and State" God is effectively rendered irrelevant). 

Since Vatican II, and now with the advent of the Internet, we have a rise in ultracrepidarians,i.e.,those who express definitive statements and give opinions on topics clearly outside their scope of expertise. We see this in Traditionalists who think they can read Magisterial documents and fully comprehend them apart from the teaching of the Church's approved theologians. In daily life, we see people attempting to "diagnose themselves" on Web MD, and "give legal advice" based on something they read on a lawyer's website. We shouldn't have lawyers (judges) pontificating on matters of defining human life. The Church has been banned from the public forum in the United States, and virtually all other countries since Vatican II, so an appeal to theologians or Church authority gets you no place fast. 

Given this state of affairs, who is qualified to answer questions about human life? The study of life is known as biology (literally "the study of life"). Biologists are uniquely qualified to answer this question, and their findings are not based on theological teachings.  My sources in biology date from before the time of Roe, to just after, demonstrating that these facts were known back then and before. They are not recent developments in the field.

The answer to "when do you think life begins?" when analysed and properly rephrased as above is simple: In human reproduction, biological life does not begin---it is continuous. There is no period when life stops and then starts up again. Cells can only come from other living cells. If the ovum were not alive and mature, it could not be fertilized. If the sperm were not alive it couldn't reach the ovum, let alone fertilize it. According to biology professor Dr. Garrett Hardin, "But when does life really begin? The true answer is simple: Never. Life ends, often, but it never begins. It is just passed on from one cell to another. All biologists...are in agreement on that answer. (See Psychology Today 8: No. 6, 42, November 1974; Emphasis in original).

There is no point between fertilization to birth where the human offspring is not alive. All biologists accept this fact, and it holds true regardless of religious belief.

Another Trick Question and Another Definitive Answer

 Undaunted, the abortionist will now complain, "That's not what I'm talking about. OK, the cells are living, but when does it become human life?" 

The Answer: Human life, like cellular life, is transmitted. At fertilization, the zygote is a complete (though not completed) human being. It is a unique human organism having 46 human chromosomes with DNA different from every other human, including his/her own mother and father. It has an information content equivalent to 1,000 volumes of a hard copy encyclopedia. All the cells, tissues, and stages that arise from the zygote are human. None of them can ever be characterized as belonging to any other species. According to biologist Dr. Leo Schneider, "You are composed of trillions of cells now, but at one time in your life you were just a single cell." (See You and Your Cells, Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. [1963], p. 205; Emphasis in original).  Even the notorious baby-killers, Planned Parenthood had this to say in 1963: "An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of the baby after it has begun." (See Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness [pamphlet]).  These facts are not matters of religion, opinion, conjecture, or theory. They are expressions of reality as determined by scientific observation and analysis. A unique human individual is present from fertilization onward.

How do the abortionists respond? The only way they can: it's not enough to be a unique biological individual, you need to be a "person." In other words, they will add additional qualifications to be considered human, besides the biological necessities. You now need to acquire "personhood." There are myriad problems with that as we shall discover.

A Person is Simply a Biological Human

 The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868) says the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the unborn are not "persons" then they can be deprived of life without due process of law. What, precisely, is meant by the term "person"? Under Federal law, corporations are considered "persons" but unborn babies are not! This "person" is a legal fiction, and it simply makes things more nebulous. Questions arise, such as: Do you have rights because you are a person, or are you a person because you are given rights? Is the term "person" one that corresponds with objective reality, or is it a term in search of a subjective definition? 

A "human person" is nothing more than a biological human individual. Does anyone really think (or have any evidence to support) that the Founding Fathers of the 18th century understood a "person" as being anything more? Personhood=Biological identity as a human. Anything else (like a corporation) is a legal fiction. While personhood may indeed have a theological or philosophical definition, the biological definition is the one upon which all must agree, and secures the right to life--even in a pluralistic society. 

Objections Answered
1. Death is the permanent cessation of all vital functions, such as a beating heart, brain waves, respiration, etc. even though cellular life continues. Why should cellular life without these functions be considered life? 
Answer: The absence of these functions at early stages of development is neither permanent, nor irreversible. All the cells are alive and functioning in their own way. The vital functions in the early stages of life are merely different, not absent. The vital functions of the zygote are metabolism and cleavage. You are no more justified in asserting the zygote isn't alive because it doesn't have a beating heart, than in asserting that an infant isn't alive because it can't chew, crawl, reason or procreate.

2. The zygote, embryo, fetus, are all dependent upon the mother for life. It's part of the mother's body to do with as she pleases.
Answer: Wrong. Unlike a tooth or an appendix, the zygote has its own unique DNA code, marking it different from all other humans, including his/her own parents. As far as dependency is concerned, are newborn babies not human because they also depend on the mother for sustenance? Does a man who needs an iron lung to live cease to be human, and now is "part of the machine" because he cannot live independently from it?   If a mother refuses to feed her baby, or the hospital turns off the iron lung, is that not murder? 

3. There is no person until the unborn has a soul. Religions differ on when this occurs. No one knows when life begins.
Answer: As stated before, human life is a continuum. In a pluralistic society, we are using biology, not theology to determine human life, and that can be accepted by all. Even if, ad arguendo, "no one can know" when life begins, this demands the same result as the biological definition. If someone goes hunting and isn't sure if what he sees moving in the bushes is a deer or a human, shouldn't you refrain from shooting because it could be human and you must err on the side of caution? 

Conclusion
As the fight against abortion continues, we must make the case that it is biology, not any other discipline, that compels us to protect the unborn. Biology and true theology are both from God and can't contradict each other. This is a perfect case in point. In the early 1980s there was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that we should all remember and work towards. It perfectly protects all human life from the twin evils of abortion and euthanasia. It stated, "The paramount right to life is vested in each and every human being from the first moment of biological fertilization until a natural death." May God hasten the day this becomes reality for all countries. 

23 comments:

  1. Hilaire Belloc says in his book The Great Heresies that one of the signs of the return of paganism is cruelty. And what greater cruelty is there than to kill an innocent baby within his mother? The Vatican II Sect has full responsibility for this! Can God have mercy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Junior,
      You’re 100% correct!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. What's even more sick is how cell strains of aborted foetuses are used in vaccines. Examples are the MMR vaccine, the shingles vaccine and the chickenpox vaccine, along with others. While the Vatican II religion addressed this problem in 2005 as immoral, evil, etc. it did state "However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis." link here http://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm

    In other words, as pope Leo XIII pointed out in Satis Cognitum “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition... For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others... ”

    While many in the world are cruel, many naturally good people don't realize how this cruel world uses them as an accessory to complete their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awhile ago I bought a moisturizer for my face. After I used the moisturizer for a short time, I happened to read the ingredient listing one day. To my shock and horror the label listed “placental extract” as an ingredient. I was furious and nauseated and threw the jar in the trash. I have since learned to read the ingredient list before purchasing anything! I have also discovered that the use of placental extracts in the cosmetic industry is widespread and rampant. The placenta can be found in skin creams, shampoos, face masks, etc. See link below:

    https://www.babygaga.com/10-shocking-uses-for-human-placenta/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the warning Joann. What a depraved world!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist who was looking for an excuse to kill "sub-humans."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margaret Sanger was indeed, a loathsome racist and eugenicist. One of the most evil people in history.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for everything Introibo!

      Delete
    3. Glad I can be used by God to help my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Abortion legalized what the Aztecs did on top of their pyramids.
    May God have mercy on us all,
    especially the babies murdered by abortion before & after 1973.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  6. Introibo,

    Just curious as to how many Supreme Court Justices were women in Roe v. Wade? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Zero. Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. The first woman to be nominated to the US Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981. President Ronald Reagan’s nominee was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. She retired in 2006. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the second woman on the Court in 1993, nominated by Bill Clinton. The third woman was Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and the fourth was Elena Kagan (2010) both nominees of Obama. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, And Kagan all currently sit on the Court and are rabidly pro-abortion. O’Connor was thought to be pro-life, but disappointed Reagan and pro-lifers by voting pro-abortion as well, but not as strongly anti-life as the other three women.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ironically women are constantly being bashed for Roe v. Wade when it was an all male Supreme Court which determined Roe v. Wade.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      Abortion is the result of evil people—both male and female agitated for it.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      Both male and female agitated for it, but the end result was determined by an all male Supreme Court. How is the determination by all males explained? Thanks.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Abortion was never about “a woman’s right” to do as she wants with “her body.” It’s a separate life created in the image of God. That’s what this is about—the destruction of innocent life in God’s image.

      Four of the seven members on the Roe v Wade majority were Freemasons: William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F Powell, and Potter Stewart. Chief Justice Warren Burger, once admitted he went along with the decision because he didn’t want to be in the minority on such a landmark case. Harry Blackmun was a de facto atheist, and William Brennan was an apostate Catholic.

      The author of the pro-life dissent was Byron White, the last non-Judge appointed by President Kennedy the only Catholic President—even if a bad Catholic. William Rehnquist, the future Chief Justice (1986-2005), joined White’s dissent as he did not believe in the manufactured “right of privacy” as well.

      Men made the decision because women were not in very powerful positions (for the most part) in 1973. The public also was pro-life. God’s enemies knew that a law favoring abortion would never get passed—the legislators would get voted out of office. They needed to have the Court enforce their wicked ways to get them accepted.

      The same was done with sodomite “marriage.” There was a strong push back. When California legalized it, the people made it illegal again in 2008 by Proposition 8–a ballot initiative. After the Supreme Court legalized it in 2015, public opinion swayed dramatically in favor.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      Thanks for the explanation. It would figure that Freemason’s were involved.

      JoAnn

      Delete
  7. So sorry to hear about the NY abortion law.
    Do you know why the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement was named after Andrew Cuomo's father Mario? Wondered if dad was any better than his son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barbara,
      Mario was the poster boy for “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but others should be given a right to murder.” The bridge was renamed because of the political power of the son. They are both arrogant, egotistical, baby-killing, sodomite supporters who pretend to be “Catholic.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have noticed that the so called “Bishops” of the Vatican II sect were silent in the media on the Cuomo abortion matter, but were all over the news condemning the Covington High Schoolers who attended the Pro-Life March. The high schoolers were falsely accused of wrongdoing and the Vatican II “Bishops” were on the TV bashing and condemning the teenagers right from the beginning before a thorough investigation took place. Not one “Bishop”, that I am aware of, was on the TV condemning Cuomo. These so called “Bishops” are beyond reprehensible.

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      They are the worst. Successors of Judas.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete