ESH presents another guest column from Dr Dianne Irving, PhD, a former bench scientist and also a philosophy professor knowledgable and well trained in the classical areas including, but not limited to, embryology:
In considering the Hobby Lobby case, the “religious beliefs” of the plaintiffs just happen to match the long-documented and long-acknowledged objective scientific facts of human embryology. It is not that the plaintiffs are forcing their religious beliefs or subjective opinions on the rest of us, or simply arguing on the basis of their own “perceptions”. Their religious beliefs actually coincide with those objective scientific truths, and thus their position is both accurate and true. Indeed, it is the defendants and their pundits who refuse to acknowledge those objective scientific facts (because they have to) and are continuing to try to force their misguided subjective “beliefs” or “political ideologies on the rest of us, while attempting to claim that “no one really knows”, or “there are lots of opinions”, etc. Sorry. We know. And it is not an opinion or subjective “perception”. Nor are the objective facts of science to be decided by “consensus” of citizens or of politicians — or even by the Supreme Court — but by those who have the academic credentials, Ph.D’s and practical experience, in their respective scientific fields (a point well-taken in both the Nuremburg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki).
The “contraceptives” that the Supreme Court identified as “abortifacient” in the Hobby Lobby case are in fact abortifacient — not because of any religious beliefs of the plaintiffs. In fact, of the other 16 so-called “contraceptives” not touched by this decision, many of those are also probably abortifacient — and women especially have the right to know these objective scientific facts. Even many “pro-choice” women would not use such “contraceptives” if they knew that they could also, in fact, be abortifacient. Contraception is one thing; abortion is quite another.
But it would seem that there’s enough gobbledygook to go around. It doesn’t emanate from just the “pro-choice” side in these debates. Even though most “pro-life” pundits are arguing on solid ground and with good intentions, they often fall into the trap of using the same fake science perpetrated for so long (successfully) by the other side — obviously shooting themselves in the foot in the process. (The otherwise excellent rebuttals by Megan Kelly of FOX NEWS come to mind when she continuously employs the pro-choice fake scientific terms such as “fertilized eggs” that “implant in the woman’s uterus”!). No “eggs” ever implant in any uterus! And if such “pro-lifers” knew several other rather fascinating objective scientific facts about the early human embryo they’d have even more ammunition to use than they do now!
To that end, I am simply going to use a recent article about the Hobby Lobby case (copied at the end) that rather embodies the sort of purposeful “confusion”, “doubt”, and gobbledygook that continues to permeate the air waves and other media on both sides. Aside from any “legal” politics involved, there is no “doubt” or “confusion” about the objective scientific facts involved which have been known and documented globally for over 125 years. I’ll just list the points here, and bold in “red” the relevant statements in the article copied at the end. At least both sides would be able to proselytize with the accurate scientific facts — rather than “on their own (mistaken) perceptions”. Extensive, lengthy, even excessive scientific references from the real scientific experts in human embryology from around the world are available in some of my articles listed at the end. Hopefully both sides — including even “prolife” — will finally admit them:
It is scientifically objectively false to claim that “All human beings begin to exist at “conception” or “fertilization”. Not all human beings begin to exist at “conception/fertilization”. Only those who are reproduced sexually (fusion of sperm and “egg”) do. Human beings can also be reproduced asexually (without fertilization or the immediate use of sperm or “egg”) — e.g., naturally occurring human monozygotic twins reproduced asexually within the woman’s body, as well as human beings artificially asexually reproduced in IVF and ART research laboratories and “infertility” clinics — many of which are implanted into women and thus can also be aborted.
The term “conception” generally refers to human beings sexually reproduced at fertilization; however, there are many state laws in the United States that legally mis-define “conception” as beginning at “implantation” (5-7 days post-fertilization).
In normal human reproduction, a woman is “pregnant” when the new human being begins to exist in her fallopian tube (NOT in her uterus) at fertilization. It is only in artificial reproductive practices that a woman is “pregnant” at implantation when the technician inserts the already existing 5-7 day old human embryo into her uterus. Note, in that case, the embryo already exists in the petri dish, even though the woman is not yet “pregnant”.
The sexual reproductive process of “fertilization” — which takes place in the woman’s fallopian tube and does NOT take place in her uterus — is not a single point in time, but a process over time (as is “implantation” as well). Even when considering the term “conception” as involving fertilization, the new human being does not begin to exist at the end of the process of fertilization with the formation of the “zygote”, but rather at the beginning of that process upon first contact of the sperm and the “egg”. That earliest human embryo is represented by Carnegie Stage 1a; the “zygote” is represented by Carnegie Stage 1c. Most of the latest unethical human genetic engineering and human cloning is performed with the earliest human embryo before the formation of the “zygote” — convenient. And again, those asexually reproduced human beings are also being implanted into women as “infertility” treatments (or even just for pure “research” purposes), and aborted.
The product of fertilization is not a “fertilized egg”; it is a new single-cell human being. The “egg” is gone, just as the sperm is gone. No egg there! Note: it is just one cell big! There is no way that this single-celled human being could possibly implant into the woman’s uterus. Pundits on both sides need to stop using the absurd term “fertilized egg” and the absurd phrase “that implants into the uterus”.
It is not the “fertilized egg” that implants into the woman’s uterus; it is the 5-7 day old human embryo at the “blastocyst” stage of development, often consisting of over 200+ cells!
While some abortifacients work by changing the lining of the woman’s uterus so that the embryo cannot implant (thus causing that embryo to die), there are usually additional mechanisms involved in these abortifacients that also result in the embryo not implanting. For example, in order to implant into the woman’s uterus, the embryo itself must be at the proper stage of development — or else it can’t implant (even if the lining of the uterus is fine). These abortifacients function by either slowing down the embryo as it travels through the woman’s fallopian tube to try to implant into her uterus, or speeding up the embryo’s traveling. If the embryo is slowed down, then it is too far along in development and will not be able to implant — and thus it dies. If the embryo is speeded up, then it is not developed enough yet and will also not be able to implant — thus it dies.
IN SUM: Considering human beings who are reproduced sexually during normal human sexual reproduction, these human beings begin to exist at the beginning of the process of fertilization in the woman’s fallopian tube when the sperm makes first contact with the “egg”, resulting in a single-cell human organism/human being. This single cell human being begins to grow and develop as it travels through the woman’s fallopian tube towards the uterus where it will try to implant at about 5-7 days when it has reached the “blastocyst” stage of development, consisting often of 200+ cells. At least three mechanisms built into many chemical “contraceptives” can prevent the early human embryo from implanting: (1) the lining of the uterus can be damaged so that even a healthy blastocyst cannot implant — and so it dies; (2) the embryo is slowed down while traveling through the fallopian tube so that it is over-developed by the time it reaches the uterus and cannot implant (even if the lining of the uterus is fine) — and so it dies; (3) the embryo is speeded up while traveling through the fallopian tube so that it is under-developed by the time it reaches the uterus and cannot implant (even if the lining of the uterus is fine) — and so it dies. GIVEN that the four “contraceptives” identified by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case are in fact, objectively, accurately defined as abortifacients, what could be more “controversial” is how many of the other 16 “contraceptives” not identified by the Supreme Court are also abortifacient.
[Note: The definition of “pregnancy” as “beginning at implantation” referred to by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby decision is from the 45 CFR 46.202 federal regulations (URL in the article below: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/46.202), which in turn was legally derived from the 1981 OPRR federal regulations on the use of human subjects (mandated by the 1974 National Research Act, which also mandated the formal “birth” of bioethics) -- now referred to as the OHRP federal regulations. It was Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB who proudly and admittedly inserted two false scientific definitions in those 1981 OPRR federal regulations on which the OHRP and the CFR federal regulations are based: “fetus” was falsely defined as “beginning at implantation” (absolutely absurd; the “fetal” period doesn’t begin until 9 weeks post-fertilization; no definition of “embryo” throughout the first 8 weeks at all); and “pregnancy” was also falsely defined as ‘beginning at implantation.]
– “A One-Act Play: ‘Crippled Consciences and the Human Embryo’”, presented at Medicine and Human Dignity’s “International Bioethics Conference: ‘Conceiving the embryo’“, (re human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research), Brussels, Belgium, (and CD-Rom), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_178one-act-play1.html.
The TLM was made free to be celebrated and could not be taken away in perpetuity by Pope St Pius V with the Bull Quo Primum in 1570.
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that with Ecclessia Dei in 1984, further expanding a request (not a demand) for generous application of allowing the Holy Mass under the Latin rubrics in 1988. Even then, stingy, crusty, intolerant liberal bishops refused to make the Rite available or accessible for both clergy and faithful genuinely attached to it. The post-Vatican II liberal bishops though they could snuff the Rite out over time, hoping older people dying would do it by attrition.
They were wrong. God will not be mocked. The Rite is stronger than ever, even if Rome under Pope Francis persists in not reconciling itself with the reasonable demands of the likes of the Society of St Pius X. Young people are swarming to the Mass of All Times, they would were not even born when the Novus Ordo and its many de-Catholicized defects took hold in 1970 under Pope Paul VI.
Seven years ago this week, Pope Benedict would deliver the relief of my life. He declared that what we did in those days was legal. He affirmed what we told ourselves as we were chased out of that parish, that this form of worship had never been abolished and never ought to be.
On the very portentious date of July 7, 2007, he issued the document Summorum Pontificum, which liberated that Traditional Mass. By doing so he established his legacy as a brave pope. He also did a great service for culture and the arts, for the whole world — even for nonbelievers, those whom the TLM had converted by the thousands over a millenia of use, with the core of the canon of the TLM going back to the 6th century under Pope St Leo the Great.
While he too had many negatives, for Pope Benedict XVI this was one of the crown jewel moments for the German professor and intellectual during his 8 year pontificate.
May this light on a hill continue to shine forever.
Pope Francis struck again in an interview with his now well known foot in mouth disorder, and once again the helpertons and splainers have trotted out to state that the pope was misquoted.
About 2% of Roman Catholic clerics are sexual abusers, an Italian newspaper on Sunday quoted Pope Francis as saying, adding that the pontiff considered the crime “a leprosy in our house”. What!?
But the Vatican issued a statement saying some parts of a long article in the left-leaning La Repubblica were not accurate, including one that quoted the pope as saying that there were cardinals among the abusers. What it didn’t say was that most of the abusers are in fact homosexuals and pederasts going mostly after young boys who are not yet the age of majority (18 in most countries).
The article was a reconstruction of an hour-long conversation between the pope and the newspaper’s founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist who has written about several past encounters with the pope.
“Many of my collaborators who fight with me (against pedophilia) reassure me with reliable statistics that say that the level of paedophilia in the Church is at about two percent,” Francis was quoted as saying.
“This data should hearten me but I have to tell you that it does not hearten me at all. In fact, I think that it is very grave,” he was quoted as saying.
Pope Francis went on to say that, while most pedophilia took place in family situations, “even we have this leprosy in our house”. So, now we throw lepers under the bus, even though Christ healed many of them and instructed us not to treat them as, well, lepers. How insensitive and un-Vatican II for the Pope to diss lepers. ESH wonders what St Damien thinks, and the 1000s of lepers he ministered to in the Hawaiian islands?
ESH apologizes to lepers everywhere for this crass remark, equating a form of demratological tuberculosis and the voluntary act of the will (in most cases) of perverts seeking sodomite pleasures with an underage child. Let us pray lepers everywhere will forgive Francis once he commences on a worldwide apology tour.
But no apologies for the indifferentist meeting with Jews and Mohammedans in Rome recently!
Another satanic black mass has been booked at the Civic Center of Oklahoma City for Sunday (The Lord’s Day) September 21, 2014.
Here is where you can call in your protest and thoughts against the satanic “black mass”:
Oklahoma City Civic Center
Mr. Stephen Sharpe, event coordinator
Jennifer Lindsey-McClintock, Public Information at the Civic Center
Contact form here
Also ask the mayor and governor to stop the “black mass”
Contact Mr. Mick Cornett, Mayor of Oklahoma City
Contact the Governor of Oklahoma, The Hon. Mary Fallin
Or use this contact form
The satanist love all the publicity and conflict this is causing. Adam Daniels, who is organizing this and who is a satanist high priest and a registered sex offender, stated that; “It’s definitely a positive for us, we continue to have an issue with Christians trying to shut us down, and this highlights that.”
Encyclopedia Britannica definition of a black mass is: “a blasphemous and usually obscene burlesque (mockery) of the true (Catholic) mass performed by Satanic cults. The naked back of a woman often serves as an altar, and a validly consecrated (Catholic) host is generally used to intensify the mockery. The rite commonly incorporates other elements of Satanic magic.” Words in parenthesis are mine.
We need to let everyone in Oklahoma City know that the sacrilegious satanic black mass is not a form of free speech, but is instead, a worship of satan by desecrating a consecrated Catholic Host, which truly is the Body of Jesus Christ. Also that this is not educational, nor is it American. It is offensive to both God and man.
For those seeking that magical list from the recent Hobby Lobby case before SCOTUS, here is general treatment of the subject previously from ESH.
While the drive by media mentioned Hobby Lobby objects to “4 out 20 methods” of so-called “contraception”, the truth is all those items are abortifacient at one time or another except for true “barrier” methods such as condoms.
Regardless, all of them lead to death of the soul, since they are intrisically evil by their nature and cannot offer any reparative or redemptive uses, even in bona fide medical treatment since so many other alternatives are available for those who have a medical condition that does not include destroying or chemically poisoning preborn babies with these high dose potent steroids.
Meanwhile, Dingy Harry Reid and his Dem buddies in the Senate are trying to cook up a bill to overturn the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby against the illegalities of socialized medicine by the Regime and the HHS diktat. It’ll never fly and it will never see the light of day in the House. This is purely political stunt to use as fund raisers in the fall elections.
A crazed, frothing at the mouth, violent, F-bomb laced female went on a violent attack against the peaceful educational group Created Equal in downtown Columbus, OH yesterday. The group often does bus tours near college campi, and sometimes at state capitols, as they did yesterday on the epicenter of town, the corner of Broad and High Streets.
The woman, obviously in need of dental care and a wider vocabulary, was later arrested by Columbus police for attacking the peaceful pro-life group based in Columbus. Her diatribe was laced with repeated slurs, slanders and obscenities.
During the video below, it is apparent she is (likely) on the way to catch a bus to work at the Burger King locale where she ostensibly is employed. Wonder if they had it their way when she got there? Was that the kind of free advertising they seek? Is she likely employed there today?
The woman goes on for some time kicking and attempting to destroy two truthful placard signs showing the effects of “choice” aka baby killing.
ESH and others can only pray for this mentally disturbed woman, wondering if this is the net result of decades of liberal public education which promotes the leftist, anti-life agenda. Have a look see for yourself: