Abortion and Science

With the issue in the news again dealing with President Obama’s decision on what a health provider must do in relation to abortion, it is a good time to question why, when we have legal definitions for murder, theft, rape, and many other topics, why the issue of life has not come up as being something worth defining.

As a matter of principle I find it of no good use or value to bring religion or any other matter of faith, hope, or any other non-definitive source for such an important definition.  As a matter of the same principle, we should use science when possible and see if they have any good, solid information on the subject.   For that I turn to the study of biology.

Astrobiology Magazine has an article about this:

Living things resist entropy by taking in nutrients. This biochemical process of taking in energy for activities and expelling waste byproducts is known as a “metabolism.” If metabolism is a sign of life, scientists can look for the waste byproducts of a metabolism when searching for life on other worlds.

Another quality of all life on Earth is a dependence on water. Since water plays such a crucial role in all known life forms, many scientists believe that water-use will be a quality universal to all life. But Benton Clark, an astrobiologist with the University of Colorado and Lockheed Martin, says that water is really a side issue.

According to Clark, living organisms exhibit at least 102 observable qualities. Adding all these qualities together into a single – if exceedingly long – definition still does not capture the essence of life. But Clark has picked out three qualities from this list that he considers universal, creating a new definition of life. This definition says that “life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism.” The instructions are the DNA and RNA “letters” that make up the genetic code in all organisms on Earth.

Dictionary.com defines life (first definition) as: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

With these solid and agreeing definitions in mind we can look into what makes a human a human:  DNA.

Fertilization

When the sperm find the egg, the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm. The cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball. This ball of cells, called a blastocyst, slowly makes its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrows into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation), a process known as implantation. Even before the placenta and umbilical cord are formed, the cells of the developing embryo start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be’s uterine wall.

DNA

DNA is the carrier of our genetic information, and is passed down from generation to generation. All of the cells in our bodies, except red blood cells, contain a copy of our DNA. At conception, a person receives DNA from both the father and mother. We each have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Of each pair, one was received from the father and one was received from the mother. These 23 pairs of chromosomes are known as nuclear DNA because, with the exception of red blood cells, they reside in the nucleus of every cell in our body.

So, we have a scientific definition of life (as good as ti gets since a virus only has some of these and is a confusing concept, but for humans we have a good definition), we know when a human becomes a human (when 23 pairs of chromosomes combine at conception), and we also know that at conception there is growth, celular reporduction, and it requires nourishment.   This fits the definition of life as laid out by science.  DNA tells us this is a human life.  Not the life of the mother, not the life of the father, but an independent, unique life all of its own.   Even the sex has been determined via DNA at conception.   Conception creates a new life and that life is, without a doubt, human.

There are side arguments about this that I have heard like there is no heart and humans have a heart, so it is not a human.   This is not true.  Humans only need a heart when they are developed enough to need one in order to circulate blood to a variety of organs and parts of the body in a timely way.

Another argument is that the idea that killing that ‘group of cells’ (so called that because people have a hard time accepting the reality of the situation so euphemistically they refer to the fetus as anything but human) is nothing more than if someone cut off a chunk of finger.  No one would consider that to be ‘killing’.   Of course even cutting off a whole finger is not the same as terminating the life of a human since you would live through having a finger removed.   If however you sustained enough l damage that you could no longer heal, that cellular trauma would be considered death.   Human death.  If you destroy enough cells of a fetus, or if you make it so the fetus can not survive you are killing an individual human life.  Science says so, and it is not an opinion but a fact.

Another arguement is that many pregnancies are aborted by the mother’s body on their own, and if that happens did the mother kill it?   This thought process is confused in the idea that the mother has a choice what happens in her womb naturally.   This would be like saying someone who died in their sleep committed suicide since their body shut down.

Yet another argument outlines that a fetus is not a human because it can not live on its own outside the womb.  This sophomoric idea is folly for two reasons:  Science is making it so that babies can live outside the womb earlier and earlier, so this ‘moving target’ for a date when a baby becomes a human loses all value.  A second reason this is the argument of someone who has not given the subject great thought is to ask the person if a new born baby can survive for long outside the womb without maternal (or other human help).  At two months out of the womb, a baby is just a feeble as a baby with two months to go in the womb.  It still must be kept warm, fed, and protected — just like in the womb.

Science, not religion, can handle all of the answers one needs to understand what is going on.   The fetus is NOT part of the mother’s body since it has its own DNA, and it obviously is not part of the mother’s body if the fetus is male!  The baby resides inside the mother, but is not PART of her.

So now we have one side who knows that life begins at conception and understands that the life of children of any age is worth protecting going against a group who claim that killing such a human should be the choice of the mother.   It is almost as if the mother should be able to play the roll of Caesar and with the turn of a thumb life or death will be decided at Caesar’s whim.  Somehow this has been warped into a ‘woman’s rights’ issue, as if about of the abortions are not destroying females.   But since those females have yet to burn a bra or claim oppression at the hands of a man, they could far less.   They also can not give to the cause — neither money nor time, and as a matter of fact, pregnancy could take a feminist out of the picture while giving birth and that can’t help the cause.  Because of this they count less as humans, and as matter of fact for many liberals the life of a murderer is more valuable than that of an baby about to be born since they will fight harder to get someone off of death row than to keep a baby alive.

When thinking of this issue, do not let foolish arguments get in the way of scientific facts:

A fetus is alive

A fetus is an individual human

A fetus looks like this:

Human Fetus - 8 Weeks

Human Fetus - 9 Weeks

Human Fetus - 11 Weeks

Human Fetus - 22 Weeks

Human Fetus - 24 Weeks

Congressional Black Caucus in Love with Anti-American Castro

Politico has a number of good stories today.

In this one, it would seem that the Congressional Black Caucus is hugging Castro, “Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.”

Amnesty International, not exactly an organ for conservatives to quote at times has this to say about Castro’s Cuba:

One

30 March 2009

“Activist and political dissident Jorge Luis García Pérez, usually known as Antúnez, began a hunger strike on 17 February 2009, in protest at the human rights situation in Cuba. Since 17 March, police and State Security officers have surrounded his house, threatening him, his wife Tamara Pérez Aguilera, Carlos Michael Morales, Diosiris Santana Pérez and Ernesto Mederos Arrozarena who joined him in the hunger strike. All five are in grave danger.”

Two

19 March 2009

“The Cuban authorities took action on Tuesday to suppress peaceful demonstrations marking the 6th anniversary of a crackdown against dissidents. Several members of the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White) were prevented from travelling to Havana for activities marking the anniversary.
Some were blocked from leaving their homes and one of them was forced to get off the bus that was taking her to Havana and was driven back to her home.
“The Cuban authorities must stop this continuing harassment of activists who are peacefully attempting to exercise their freedom of expression and association,” said Gerardo Ducos, Cuba researcher at Amnesty International. he Cuban authorities arrested 75 men and women for their peaceful expression of opinions critical of the government in 2003. The 75 were subjected to summary trials and were sentenced to long prison terms of up to 28 years. Amnesty International declared them to be prisoners of conscience. Fifty-four remain in prison.”

Three

All print and broadcast media remained under state control.During 2007, the government refused to renew the visas of a number of foreign correspondents because “their approach to the Cuban situation is not one which the Cuban government finds appropriate.”

The practice of using the criminal justice system to silence political dissidents and critics continued. Many were sentenced for a crime known as “social dangerousness”, a pre-emptive measure defined as the “proclivity to commit a crime”. Behaviour such as drunkenness, drug addiction and “anti-social behaviour” is criminalized under this legislation. However, it was almost exclusively applied to political dissidents, independent journalists and critics of the government. Those convicted of “dangerousness” face up to four years’ imprisonment and can be subjected to “therapeutic treatment”, “re-education” or “surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police”.

Harassment of political dissidents, independent journalists and critics for carrying out dissident activities or reporting on the human rights situation in Cuba continued. Some were detained for 24 or 48 hours and then released; others were held for months or even years awaiting trial.

There is more; if interested please visit AI.  With that in mind, please read what members of the Congressional Black Caucus had to say:

“Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro’s later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.”

Shocking that none of the Black Caucus recall calling American society racist when publicly called out on it.   One of two things is true, and possibly both: They are too stupid to realize that Castro would use them to meet his needs and further his ends by promoting to his own people the negative aspects of the United States and having it appear that even black members of the US Congress agree.  And / Or, they will say one thing to Fidel to kiss his posterior and yet another to the American public.   Since they are willing to visit and be entertained by him they are obviously stupid, but they could also be duplicitous.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.
“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Bobby Rush either is not aware of how Castro survives (see above imprisonments, etc.) and should be thought of as a ignorant buffoon or he admires such tactics to stay in power and should never be thought of as a serious American again.

Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. “He looked right into my eyes and he said, ‘How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'”

All salesmen learn about their potential clients, all con artists get information on their marks, even fortune tellers pry out clues to make sure they something they think you want to hear.   But I guess making eye contact makes him honest.   How do such fools get put in office?   I guess other fools elect them.

I didn’t see a response from the Congressional White Caucus.  But that would be because our racist society does not have such an organized collection of people.

It is obvious that the CBC is about as anti-American as Reverend White, Castro, and so many other people who slander and bad mouth the US for their own gain.

Please stop electing these idiots into office.

The White House Thinks Us to be Fools

President Obama bows.

The White House says that is not so.

Did he slip?  Did he need to check his shoelace?

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

If this is the case, then bending so far forward to shake someone’s hand is as demeaning to that person as it would bowing  to a price be demeaning to the Office of the Presidency as being a subject of a prince.  We all know that President Obama likes to go out of his way to pay honor to those who deserve none, so this should not be shocking.

No surprise at all is that The White House’s website does not have any comments on this matter at all at this time.

President Obama’s Method of International Relations

Giving DVDs usable in North America to the PM of Britain, Obama’s State Department’s inability to translate a ‘Reset Button’, as well as stating that The United Kingdom is just another nation… nothing special there are all signs of his ineptitude and all within the first hundred days.

While pushing away from, and then trying to get back in favor with, Britain Obama has been busy giving town hall speeches to Turks declaring that the United States does not consider itself a Christian or Jewish nation.   Strangely, the US does not have to define itself, nor let any individual define the US either.   When the vast majority of a country is of one form of faith then it is structured as such. The President should realize, unless he is too to understand that values always get translated into laws, ethics, and morality, then we are completely influenced by the largest single moral guide:  The Christian Bible.  Why? Because the majority of the people in the US is Christian.   Why has Iraq colored its laws in an Islamic frame?   Because the vast majority are Muslim.   This is not an insult or some sort of indictment; this is just a simple reality.  Why would someone need to backtrack and act like this is not the case unless that person is not happy with the current standing.   After 20 years of having Minister Wright as a moral lighthouse, perhaps I’d be turned from Christianity as well.

Obama also wants to get in bed with Cuba, cater to Venezuela, and make threats to North Korea with no plans of following through what so ever.   His cowardice and willingness to reverse so many US positions is giving more power to those who despise us.  This charity for our adversaries does go into the idea of spreading the wealth, but int his case it the wealth of international power and that is at the detriment of the United States.   His foolishness weakens the US, his stupidity makes it impossible for him to realize it, and his naivety makes him willing to give more away.

How much longer will Americans tolerate this?