Time For Moderate Acceptance Has Passed

Self/FreeRepublic ^ | 1/25/2003 | MHGinTN

[MHGinTN]

Aren’t most Americans moderate in their views, falling somewhere in the middle on the issue of abortion?

It is true that the acceptance quotient for the vast majority of Americans falls somewhere between the notions of ‘legal protection for all conceived individual human life’ and ‘legal protection for partial birth abortion’. I was once somewhere between the two ‘extremes’, but the truth offered from persons who had dug deeper into the science and issues regarding nascent human life awakened me from my comfortable slumber. The realization that awakened my sleeping brain was that ‘with tacit acceptance of in vitro fertilization and then the apparent necessity for some abortion, our society too quickly arrived at acceptance of --no, DEFENSE OF, by powerful political forces-- infanticide.’ Apparently, the retired Democrat Senator from New York has had a similar epiphany, since he has characterized partial birth abortion as infanticide.

After thirty years of 'somewhere in the middle', abortion has lead directly to the maximum cheapening of individual human life, now defending infanticide for convenience and profit. But is that really the maximum corruption of our founding principles regarding the unalienable right to life? Perhaps we can and will degenerate further. Let’s explore such a probability.

The straight-line course ahead, from our current inhumane reality, will embrace actors in Hollywood insinuating that ‘exploitation of embryonic life is needed to bolster unencumbered lives of worthy pursuit’ … a notion made palpable by deranged feminists and their political champions who have insisted that in order to be 'fully empowered' a woman must have a legal right to commit violence upon her conceived children. Through tacit acceptance for the extreme treatment of individual natal life --forceful withdrawal of life support; abortion-- it is assumed by the societal engineers that we will accept ‘conception of individual human lives and then killing those individuals for their body parts.’ That’s cannibalism.

Stricken Hollywood actors and power-crazed politicians, in order to convince you that exploitation of individual embryonic life is right, must arrange your tacit agreement that ‘killing and harvesting embryos is not the same as killing an individual.’ But the scientists they would employ and fund with your taxes to carry out this medical marvel already know the truth. Here's the key to clarifying their duplicitous reasoning: those seeking your tacit acceptance of embryonic exploitation must have you first agree to a blatant lie ... or worse, have you agree that these are individual human lives being exploited in their earliest stage of a less worthy lifetime, defining a higher purpose for these embryonic individuals, sustaining others who were not stripped of life support to harvest their body parts. The first level of agreement --that embryos are not individual humans-- is based on a calculated lie; the second descending level of agreement is acceptance of cannibalism based on the specious axiom that embryos are not human individuals existing in the normal stage of a human lifetime.

Regarding the specious arguments of nihilist, I've given up addressing directly the bloviations of leftist dead-souls. Instead, allow me to elucidate the slippery slope many faithful people warned of way back when the outrage over in vitro fertilization was squelched ... a downward slope upon which we are now accelerating.

Having lost our hold on the goodness of supporting life (the humane necessity of life support), exploitation of nascent life is already a reality. The fetal tissue harvesting industry, with more than a billion dollars in business receipts each year, already influences ‘when a woman ought to have the abortion she seeks’ since the later differentiation of tissues makes ‘later rather than earlier’ killing and harvesting of the fetus more desirable to those who will profit from the killing. But that's just the beginning of the horror: 1) embryonic stem cell exploitation now demands the conception and killing of untold numbers of embryos; 2) therapeutic cloning is based on the in vitro fertilization/conception of human life, with killing and harvesting as the goal when the embryo has differentiated sufficiently to make specific target-cell identification reliable. Both of these 'scientific advances' require our nation to accept the specious notion that an individual human life doesn't begin with at least first cell division (onset of mitosis). The second methodology requires that you accept the wholesale exploitation of human life by conceiving it then killing it, harvesting the body parts.

Having read this far, some will insist, “But an embryo in a petri dish is not the same as an implanted embryo, not the same as a fetus, not the same as a born child, not the same as … “, yet the very science now hurrying to exploit embryonic life is convinced an embryo IS an individual human lifetime begun. “Outrageous assertion”, some will say. Let the goals of these scientific pursuits prove the case.

First, let us examine the goal of in vitro fertilization. With this procedure, a female gamete is fertilized by a male gamete (gametes are the ‘sex cells’ of the adult male or female). Once cell division is evidenced and the embryo reaches a desired number of body parts (the embryonic stem cells), the individual embryo is placed into the uterus of the target woman (and in most cases, several individual embryos are implanted at the same time, ‘running the odds’ so to speak; if ‘too many’ achieve life support, the attending medical personnel will advise on aborting one or more, to improve the odds for the escaping survivor).

The technician watching the product of fertilization (the conceptus) in the ‘petri dish’ is looking for cell division, to assure that an individual life has begun to express, to grow … the technician implants only the embryo proven to be building her/his individual body!

Additionally, the technician must achieve this transfer from ‘petri dish’ to human uterus at a specific stage in cell division, a specific stage in the lifetime already begun in a dish; if they try implanting too early, the embryo will not have the sticky coating it creates which allows for attachment to the uterine wall. Timing is crucial, timing that is based on proven growth processes of an individual human life. [If you’re wondering, this continuum concept of individual human existence is the exact same reasoning regarding the onset of puberty --for example, as a normal stage in individual human development. The scientist views individual human life as a continuum, having a beginning at conception and first cell division, and continuing through a myriad of differentiations and organ expressions.]

Let us turn now to cloning, for the methodology of a technician seeking to clone life has much in common with the in vitro fertilization process.

The clone is a genetic duplicate of a parent DNA donor. The in vitro fertilization technician conceives by bringing male and female gametes together, thus achieving the contribution of 23 chromosomes from female and 23 chromosomes from male, resulting in a conceptus having the normal 46 chromosomes. The clone technician seeks to use a mature female gamete from which the chromosomal nuclear ball has been removed and the 46 chromosome nuclear material of the ‘adult donor’ is inserted. [‘Adult donor’ refers to an organism with the normal compliment of 46 chromosomes, not to the age of the donor. In some procedures, the product of male/female conception is stripped of the 46 resulting chromosomes prior to first cell division, and the 46 chromosomes of the donor are inserted.]

If the cloning technician seeks to fully reproduce the genetic donor, the conceptus is observed for evidence of cell division, then, just as with in vitro fertilization/reproduction, the embryo is inserted into a woman’s uterus for continued life support … life support for a proven individual human that is a genetic duplicate of the donor, with none of the ovum donor’s chromosomes. [There is ‘from-the-female’ DNA material in the de-nucleated ovum, associated with the mitochondria units of the ovum, but developmental characteristics of the newly conceived individual will follow the parent chromosomal route through growth and development. This is the complicated ‘stuff’ too rigorous for discussion in a short essay.]

If, instead of reproduction for a fully expressed parent donor, the technician desires ‘therapeutic cloning’, the embryo is not implanted in a woman’s life supporting body; life support in the ‘petri dish’ is provided until a desired stage of cell differentiation is achieved and then the embryo is harvested for the desired tissue, killing the individual human life conceived for a tissue specific cloning purpose.

With first cell division, the newly conceived human life is constructing its own ‘space capsule’ (the placental bubble and the fluid that inflates it) and its own individual body and blood. The woman in whom an embryo resides does not construct the placenta or the body of the newly conceived individual human life. In fact, it is the newly conceived individual who commandeers life support from the woman’s body. It is the embryonic individual who initiates its own growth and development AND the life support from the woman’s body.

Cell division proves to the scientist that an individual human life is present.

The production of a sticky coating by the embryonic individual proves the desire for survival. Is that desire the same as the adult desire for shelter and sustenance? No, it is more akin to the hunger response, but it is unimpeachable evidence that an individual life exists. Is that life human? … If the parents are human, that’s always the case. If the embryonic individual did not construct the placental sac for its residence, the presence of a genetically foreign individual life in the woman’s body would cause her body to attack the ‘other’. This is yet another substantial proof of the individuality of the newly conceived human life and its miraculous effort to survive for a lifetime.

If our nation does not accomplish a paradigm shift, to hold individual human life as something not to be exploited for 'medical' purposes, the cannibalism of embryonic stem cell harvesting and therapeutic cloning will be our reality.

One further note: the ‘enlightened’ expect you to accept the notion that an embryo IS NOT an individual human life. That the scientist seeks to conceive 'designer' human life --with therapeutic cloning-- only strengthens the truth that they are conceiving an individual human life for exploitation and death. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie is bad enough, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far beyond moral and ethical dilemmas. If we do not, at this critical juncture in our national life, accomplish a paradigm shift in the nation's perception regarding individual human life, two very unpleasant leviathans will devour the remains of our national goodness. Only God’s mercy will continue our life support as a nation should we slip further down the slippery slope without ascending back to the goodness of life support for all individual human life, repudiating the cannibalistic exploitation now looming in our future.

[MHGinTN]

For discussion purposes only. All rights reserved to FreeRepublic.com

[babygene]

bump for later read...

[MHGinTN]

It is a little too long for a short essay, isn't it?

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling-a-ling

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling, ol' girl.

[betty boop]

Having read this far, some will insist, “But an embryo in a petri dish is not the same as an implanted embryo, not the same as a fetus, not the same as a born child, not the same as ….

Yes, exactly, MHGinTN. And yet -- the only reason the "harvesters" of embryos are interested in harvesting embryos is because embryos clearly embody the principle of Life, yet at the same time are conveniently in no position to object when they are being grotesquely abused, wantonly sacrificed, for purposes that do not seem to support, sustain, or advance Life.

Those of the Christopher Reeves school in this debate will argue that quality of life is what finally matters. God bless Mr. Reeves (and I hear that he has made enormous strides lately in recovering lost function, at least in swimming pools), but I have to say there can be no quality of life absent a life in which to mediate it. That is, life itself comes necessarily prior to the issue of quality of life.

Somehow, this suggests to me that the sacrifice of the preborn to restore lost function to the already living is a disastrously wrong and evil choice. For folks of the Mr. Reeves school of argument must hold that the sacrifices required to restore an injured human person to prior functionality justifies the destruction of "incoming life", which I don't know how to understand except as a decision to regard a human life as a means to an end, and not a end in itself.

But this goes to the very heart of Western moral philosophy, to one of the two greatest "sins" man can ever commit: No human being can be used as a means to an end. Every human being is a sacred end in himself.

This is Culture War! my friend. And it has recently been joined in a big way. Stay tuned, and keep up the excellent work.

Thanks for the excellent analysis, MHGinTN, and for the ping.

[philman_36]

It is a little too long for a short essay, isn't it?
Like the porridge, chair and bed...Just right.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you, bb.

In CR's case, he would have you agree with him that these are individual human lives being exploited in their earliest stage of a 'less worthy lifetime'; he would plead for a 'higher purpose' for these embryonic individuals, to sustain others who were not stripped of life support to harvest their body parts.

[philman_36]

An afterthought...Would there even be a story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears if Goldilocks had been aborted? How about Hansel and Gretel, The Little Dutch Boy and so many others.
I think not.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Bumpin' for later!!!!

[Victoria Delsoul]

Cell division proves to the scientist that an individual human life is present.

One further note: the 'enlightened' expect you to accept the notion that an embryo IS NOT an individual human life. That the scientist seeks to conceive 'designer' human life --with therapeutic cloning-- only strengthens the truth that they are conceiving an individual human life for exploitation and death.

That's right. Reproductive and therapeutic cloning are both an abuse and manipulation of innocent human life. They are immoral and should be rejected.

[MHGinTN]

Ker-ping

[MHGinTN]

Goldilocks? Hansel and Gretel?... What about my beautiful real granddaughter ... if my first wife's Mother had aborted her, then there would not be my son, or my ... Sobering, but my first wife's Mother was a saint.

[foreverfree]

bump

[cpforlife.org]

Hey MHGinTN,

Great job! Thanks for the ping.

Regarding your para: If our nation does not accomplish a paradigm shift, to hold individual human life as something not to be exploited for 'medical' purposes, the cannibalism of embryonic stem cell harvesting and therapeutic cloning will be our reality. I fully agree and want to add two things:

First, a plea for all Pro-Lifers and Christians to visit Christian Patriots For Life , and read THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

Second is regarding your prophetic warning quoted above: I participated at the American Life League’s conference in July 2002 and attended Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s symposium where he described some of the “objectives” for genetic research. Much of what he spoke of is at Priests for Life . It confirms your post and is very scary. Isle of Dr. Moreau scary. He also has a tape entitled: The Genetic Auschwitz (1998). This is SERIOUS folks.

God Save The Republic

[betty boop]

In CR's case, he would have you agree with him that these are individual human lives being exploited in their earliest stage of a 'less worthy lifetime'; he would plead for a 'higher purpose' for these embryonic individuals

Then I gather CR wishes to stand in God's shoes. So to speak. So as to judge the merits of worthiness as between individuals, and to sacrifice the "lesser interest" to the "greater."

Geez. But isn't that the very formula used to justify totalitarianism, in all of its forms?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[unspun]

Yes, just right - a taut fit - and we are fittingly taught, come to think of it, thank you. Hope to see the next version in an additional publication.

Just the right introduction, use, and frequency of the word "cannibalism," too.

It's not enough that we are engaging in human sacrifice to our lust-gods, just as the people in ancient, twisted cultures used to do, we now begin to nourish our bodies by those sacrificed.

[philman_36]

I was trying to be lighthearted on a very serious subject.
Sorry to have failed in the attempt. My apologies.

[Aarchaeus]

This is Culture War! my friend.

I know what you mean, but calling it a culture war is not really accurate. What is being called "culture war" os only one front (although a major one) in an overall war. We are in a spiritual war. If you are not already familiar with it, get a copy of the written word of God (aka the Bible) and read Ephesians 6:11-17. It gives the basic background that explains why such a subject as this even exists in our society. Make no mistake about it. There is an evil at work here that could only have been conceived by a being that passionately hates human life.