There’s no such thing as a fertilized egg!

220px-married_bachelor_filmposterI’ve got a longer article in progress on the subject of abortion, but today’s post is an extremely short entry on a point I’ve been wanting to mention for some time…

Whenever you see an abortion debate, either in a formal setting or on Facebook, it’s not long before you hear someone, typically from the pro-choice side, talk about “fertilized eggs”. I only note this because I think it’s always worth pointing out that “fertilized egg” is something of a misnomer…

I say this because once an egg is fertilized, it ceases being an egg. It is now a new, distinct human organism. Calling it a “fertilized egg” is rather like referring to a man as a “married bachelor”. It’s nonsensical since, once married, a man ceases to be a bachelor. Likewise, we would never refer to someone being a “born fetus” because once the child is born it ceases to be a fetus.

That’s all for today 🙂

 

The name “Jehovah”

Since I haven’t written about Jehovah Witnesses in a while, I thought that today I would address the origin of one of this group’s distinctive practices – exclusive use of the name “Jehovah”.

watchtower

If you ever come across Jehovah’s Witnesses, either on the street or if they come to your door, it’s not unusual for them to emphasize that God’s name is “Jehovah” and the only appropriate name to be used in reference to Him. They might even go further and claim that other Christian groups have “hidden” the name of God despite, as we will see, that this word was first invented inside the Catholic Church.

Read more

Catholic Answers Summer

summer

As many of you know, I recently moved back from Seattle to my old stomping ground of sunny San Diego. Unfortunately, I didn’t manage to get back in time for the Catholic Answers Summer Series where the speakers from the local apologetics apostolate give talks at different parishes around the Diocese. Fortunately, they’re available online!

Tim Staples: Behold your mother, Defending your faith
Jimmy Akin: Understanding the Book of Revelation
Karlo Broussard: Defending truth in a relativastic culture, God still matters
Patrick Coffin: Apologetics for chickens
Christopher Check: The Galileo Affair

Identifying Humanity

Last January I had a discussion on Facebook in which the person with whom I was speaking made the bold claim that the unborn “aren’t human yet”. An interesting assertion! I responded with two questions:

Question #1: “What kind of offspring do human parents have?”

Question #2: “What do you call an organism with human DNA?”

Of course, the answer to both of these questions is “human”. Unfortunately, my friend chose to ignore both of these questions, so I asked another:

“If a fetus in his mother’s womb isn’t human…what is he? To what species does he then belong?”

Once again, this question went answered. To assert that the unborn aren’t human requires that they be something else. I asked repeatedly what that “something else” was, but I never got an answer…

The Line Up

Eventually, my friend posted the following image:

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 5.04.48 PM

From left-to-right, this picture shows embryos from different species: zebrafish, chicken, dog, human and skink. Although he didn’t articulate it, it appeared that he thought that being unable to visually identify the human fetus somehow proved that the it wasn’t human.
This is, of course, terrible logic. If I don’t know the answer to a question on a quiz show, does that mean that no answer exists? Of course not, it just means that I don’t have the right information at my fingertips.

Ocular Pat DownThere are lots of things which aren’t easy to identify with the naked eye.  An unmarked bottle of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) can look very similar to a bottle of water (H20). If I placed an unmarked bottle of each liquid in front of you, would a visual inspection be enough to convince you to take a drink from one of them? Of course not! What would need to happen in order to make you drink with confidence? You’d want to run more conclusive tests than a simple visual inspection.

In the same way, just because I can’t easily see from an image whether or not a fetus is a human fetus, doesn’t change the fetus’ species. It’s true that the naked eye can’t easily give you the answer to that question, but appropriate scientific examination can! In this case, a simple DNA test could give you a conclusive answer as to the species of each of the above embryos.

Biologically speaking, it is impossible to declare that the unborn are anything less than human. If they are indeed human, it would follow that, as such, even the unborn should be treated with respect and dignity.

Quick Apology: Potential Life?

In January there was the annual “March For Life” in Washington DC. Unfortunately, I couldn’t go this year, but thanks to Facebook, I got to defend life in a different way, through Facebook. Many of my pro-life friends posted about the March on Facebook, and these posts were not without their detractors…

unborn

The Objection

As I browsed my newsfeed, one objection which was made repeatedly was some variation of the following:

“The fetus is a potential life”

Is this true? How might we respond to this statement?
Read more

Protestants Reformers on Contraception

When Catholics argue against contraception from Scripture, they typically cite Genesis 38:9, where a man named Onan chooses to consummate his marriage, but purposefully prevents conception when he “spilled the semen on the ground”.

Since contraception is virtually universally accepted within Protestantism, most Protestants strongly criticize the Catholic analysis and use of this passage. However, in so doing, they must also reject the exegesis of some of the founding members of Protestantism…

Martin Luther: “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”
– Luther’s Works 7, 20-21

John Wesley: “Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord – And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”
– Wesley, Notes on the First Book of Moses, comment on 38:7

John Calvin: “I will content myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born.

The wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the see of his brother out the womb, and as cruel and shamefully was thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime*. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth was his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.”
– Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

luther-and-calvin 

* Don’t worry John, there’s always the Sacrament of Confession 🙂

1 28 29 30 31 32 57