Sound Teaching  This is the teaching site of the West Side church of Christ in Fort Worth, TX. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials were written and prepared by Stan Cox |
By Stan Cox, on August 28th, 2005
A human fetus is unlikely to feel pain until the final months of pregnancy, according to a new medical report that is bound to stir up the public debate over abortion.
“Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus,” write the researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.
This consciousness is created by nerve connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex of the brain — and these connections do not begin to develop before the 23rd week and possibly not until the 30th week after gestation, say the researchers. That means “functional pain perception . . . does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”
The report, in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, is being published just as anti-abortion groups are pushing for fetal pain laws. The U.S. Congress and several states are considering legislation that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after conception that a fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia for the fetus.
via Globeandmail.com
Analysis:
I have often stated that there is an extreme amount of illogical thought being expressed by supposedly educated people on the issue of abortion, as our society debates the ethicality of the practice.
For example, the primary issue regarding the ethicality of abortion is the question, “Is the fetus human?” An ability to feel pain has absolutely nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus. To illustrate, we could use the example of a quadriplegic. Whether by injury or deformity, some individuals do not have the ability to feel pain. For some, such an inability covers the entirety of their body. In their case, it is because of a disconnect between their brain and nerves. If the scientists who produced the aforementioned study are to be believed, in the fetus it is because the brain has not sufficiently developed to process the “noxious stimulus” as painful. Regardless, the same state exists. So, do we proclaim the quadriplegic non-human, and reserve the right to extinguish their life? The absurdity is obvious.
What is more absurd is the logic of the proposed law concerning giving fetus’s beyond 20 weeks in development an anesthetic before abortion. It says, in effect, “We are going to kill the child, but don’t want the child to suffer unnecessarily during the killing.”
The fetus is alive. Further, it’s not an animal (though treated as such in this law, as it calls for the “putting down” of a fetus in the same “humane” way that is done with pets). A question to pro-abortion advocates… “What is it?” The only answer… It is a human being!
By Stan Cox, on July 17th, 2005
Promising but still unproven new approaches to creating human embryonic stem cells have suddenly jeopardized what once seemed to be certain Senate passage of a bill to loosen President Bush’s four-year-old restrictions on human embryo research.
The techniques are enticing to many conservative activists and scientists because they could yield medically valuable human embryonic stem cells without the creation or destruction of embryos.
Embryonic stem cells are coveted because they have the capacity to become virtually every kind of body tissue and perhaps repair ailing organs, but they are controversial because days-old human embryos must be destroyed to retrieve them.
”The new science that may involve embryo research but not require destruction of an embryo is tremendously exciting,” Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said recently. ”It would get you outside of the boundaries of the ethical constraints.”
Ceci Connolly and Rick Weiss
Washington Post
Analysis:
We have written about the morality of stem cell research in the past. While there is some evidence that the research can benefit and potentially cure some individuals suffering from paralysis and a number of other diseases, the process of extracting stem cells from human embryos results in the destruction of the embryo.
Continue reading » Stem Cell Legislation at Risk
By Stan Cox, on July 10th, 2005
Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, noted that the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He praised O’Connor for her role in lifting state sodomy laws, “Which confirmed that the principle of individual liberty extended to gay and lesbian families.”
“Justice O’Connor’s retirement is a clarion call to every American that our rights are in grave dangers,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “The loss of [ her ] moderate voice is a serious threat to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, to women’s right and to protections for racial, ethnic and religious minorities.”
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called O’Connor’s retiring “a sad day for the Supreme Court and for America.” He urged the President “to honor the advice and consent role the Constitution gives the Senate” through a meaningful interaction with that body.
Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, expressed her shock and fear “about the direct impact Justice O’Connor’s retirement will have on each of our lives. Despite her very conservative philosophy, she has been a powerful swing vote on critical reproductive, women’s and LGBT issues.”
Some groups are even taking action in response to the resignation. The state and local chapters of the National Organization for Women ( NOW ) planned to stage rallies July 5 throughout Illinois to call for the nomination and confirmation of fair justices on the Supreme Court. Terry Cosgrove of Personal PAC, an Illinois pro-abortion group, added that concerned citizens should contact President Bush and urge him to select a nominee who will protect abortion rights and Roe v. Wade. Cosgrove also suggested contacting U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and ask them to support only a nominee who believes Roe should stand.
by Bob Roehr 2005-07-06
Analysis:
The news that Sandra Day O’Connor will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court has panicked social liberals who now have to contend with two new, potentially conservative appointments before President Bush’s second term as President expires. The above article appeared in the Windy City Times, which bills itself as “The Voice of Chicago’s Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Trans Community Since 1985.”
It is doubtful that any individual picked by the President will please the ungodly. However, it would be a shame if Bush bowed to pressure, and appointed someone who would not protect the family, and the morals upon which this country was founded and has thrived for over two centuries.
We should pray to God for Bush, as our country’s leader, as per 2 Timothy 2:1-2, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.”
By Stan Cox, on October 31st, 2004
For Catholics to take a “pro-choice” view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The “choice” in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.
The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.
Continue reading » No Such Thing as Separation of Church and Politics
By Stan Cox, on October 17th, 2004
Below is an exchange from last Friday night’s presidential debate between Senator John Kerry and President George Bush. In the exchange we have a statement from the moderator, a question from a citizen, and the beginning portion of Kerry’s response to the question:
GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.
Analysis:
Actually, there is more reason to respect those who take the position that a fetus is not human, than the position stated by Senator Kerry and his ilk, as related in the quote.
Continue reading » Senator Kerry on Abortion
By Stan Cox, on August 6th, 2004
A few mornings ago I was listening to a radio talk show, where a discussion was being held regarding the ethics of fetal research. A man had written a book, apparently defending the use of fetal tissue harvested from aborted fetuses, for research and medicinal purposes. It is believed that the injection of certain cells of a fetus can be beneficial in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Continue reading » Murder and Human Experimentation
By Stan Cox, on May 30th, 2004
Since the medical practice of abortion was legalized in this country in 1973, literally millions of women have undergone the procedure to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Depending upon who you talk to, the legalization of this particular surgery is either a landmark victory for the rights of women in the country, or the greatest sign of the immorality and decay of our nation.
There is very little gray area regarding this procedure, and rightfully so. Your perceptions regarding abortion depend mainly upon one simple question, Is abortion murder? If you believe it to be murder, then there is absolutely no justification for abortion. If you believe it to be a medical procedure that results in the simple removal of fetal tissue, then you have no more qualms at the practice than you would the removal of your appendix. Continue reading » Is Abortion Sinful?
By Stan Cox, on May 27th, 2004
Recently I was listening to a radio talk show, where a discussion was being held regarding the ethics of fetal research. A man had written a book, apparently defending the use of fetal tissue, harvested from aborted fetuses, for research and medicinal purposes. It is believed that the injection of certain cells of a fetus can be beneficial in the treatment of Parkinsons disease.
The host of the show very quickly revealed his bias concerning the subject. To encourage discussion and response from listeners he asked, “Do you believe that a fetus, obviously on its way to becoming a human being, should be used for these purposes?” The host assumed what had to be first settled, whether or not a fetus is human. It is precisely upon that basis that we object to such a usage. Since by far the majority of fetuses are made available through abortion, this question of what the fetus is must be settled, for it leads to two very different questions.
If the fetus is not human, not a baby, then the question would be: After the medical procedure called an abortion is completed, should the mass of tissue be used for medical purposes? However, if the fetus is a child, the question would be: After a doctor murders a child by the immoral procedure of an abortion, should he further be allowed to benefit from the murder by experimenting on the dead body? Obviously, a very different picture is presented.
Two things stated during the discussion were revealing. One was the question of consent. The very fact that some are advocating that the mother’s consent be obtained prior to the usage of the fetus reveals our understanding that it is a child. A parallel was given to the organ donation of one who has died, that family consent must be obtained before organs can be donated. Nevertheless, the host and his guest did not see the obvious parallel. The fetus is a baby! Imagine, asking a woman who has just allowed her child to be murdered if it will be acceptable for the body of the murdered child to be used in science. Such consent given would be a prime example of a mother devoid of any natural affection.
Second was a mention of a scientific fact. Did you know that a female, unborn child, has fully developed eggs very early in gestation? In fact, all of the eggs a woman has in her life, which is her contribution to the formation of human life, are present very early in the womb. Some are advocating the harvesting of those eggs, for use in “in vitro” fertilization. In effect, a woman who has no healthy eggs could utilize those taken from an aborted fetus, and thus bear a child. Isn’t the ridiculous position of the pro-choice crowd obvious? They are contending that you can take the eggs of something NOT HUMAN, and by fertilizing those eggs, and giving them a host, cause a human to be born! I have heard of science fiction, and horror show plots where a woman carried the eggs of something not human, but I never thought that people of reason would believe such possible. Only humans begat humans! Why is it we accept that a female without the ability to produce eggs is nevertheless human, while we deny that a female who has that ability, though very young and still in the womb, could be?
We must as a society recognize that abortion is the greatest horror our nation could possibly sanction. It is the wholesale murder of unborn children!
“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb…” (Luke 1:41)
|
|
Comments are closed 