Homosexuals soon to have babies
Reproductive issues surfaced in the news
throughout the week, starting with a revelation that surely rocked the
underpinnings in the kingdom of heaven. Man's quest to "go where no
man has gone before" is taking him far beyond his attempt to
"build a tower to reach heaven" that is spoken of in Genesis
chapter 11. Perhaps God foresaw this very day when He said in verse 6
"...if as one people speaking the same language they have begun to
do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
Mankind's vain imaginings are on a collision course with serious eternal
consequences.
Humanity shook a perverse and sinful
hand in the face of God with the news on Monday September 25, 2000 that
male couples might soon be able to conceive a child. WorldNetDaily and BBC
reported the stunning announcement that genetic techniques first used on
Dolly the sheep could make it possible for two men to create a child.
Dr Calum MacKellar, a lecturer in
biochemistry at Edinburgh University, believes scientific advances could
result in a homosexual couple having a baby that combined the DNA of both
fathers. But as is always the case when humans stray from God's perfect
will--- there is a catch for those who would practice perversion. To the
chagrin of the homosexual, part of a woman's egg would still be required
and so would a surrogate mother to bring such a child to term!
Dr MacKellar explained that cell nuclear
replacement techniques used to create Dolly, the world's first mammal
clone made from an adult cell, might make it possible to create so-called
"male eggs" which could be fertilized by sperm from another man.
The new egg would then have male DNA and could be fertilized in-vitro by
another sperm before being implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother.
The doctor, who runs a non-profit
organization called European Bioethical Research, says there are
significant genetic obstacles currently preventing the idea from becoming
reality. The embryo of a mammal created using only paternal DNA lacks
imprinted maternal genes which allow it to develop normally, he said. If
"normalcy" is the goal, then the whole twisted project would be
scrapped, and children would indeed have paternal, as well as, maternal
DNA, along with the "imprint" of a loving, nurturing mother as
God intended.
The UK Parliament, leader in the march
to the perverse, is about to vote on a bill which, if passed, would permit
cloning techniques to be used for therapeutic purposes. It is only a
matter of time before a host of "Mr. Moms" looms over the
horizon with a generation of pseudo-children by their sides. God's
patience with His creation must be stretched close to the pre-flood days
of man's rebellion. Revelations such as this should sound an alarm for
Christians everywhere to rise up against this evil... and pray for mercy.
21 week-old Samuel Armas photo
deliberately spiked
In a blow to the abortion community, a
damaging picture that previously made the news in August 1999, came back
for round two. On Monday September 25, Just Facts again ran the picture of
Samuel Armas, a 21 week-old prenatal baby, sticking his hand out of his
mother's womb to grip the hand of the surgeon saving his life.
Michael Clancy, the photographer who
captured this amazing moment on film, had hoped to receive a Pulitzer
Prize, but instead was offered money by Life magazine only for the purpose
of eliminating the picture. Although Clancy had been struggling to earn a
living as a freelance photographer for 13 years, he chose his principles
over the money. He wanted the picture to be seen by as many people as
possible because it provided a miraculous glimpse of life in a mother's
womb. Prior to the photo shoot, Clancy considered a fetus to be purely a
part of a women's body, and felt that if she wanted an abortion, it was
nobody's business but her own. But what he saw that day in the operating
room changed his opinion immediately.
Baby pesticide
On Thursday September 28, FoxNews
announced that the Food and Drug Administration gave its approval to the
abortion pill mifepristone, once known as RU-486. Now, disposal of
children will be as simple as using mosquito repellant- or taking a
vitamin. With the added ease and comfort of ending an unwanted pregnancy
in a single gulp, contraception may soon become a thing of the past.
Studies show the pill is 92-95 percent effective in causing abortion when
taken during the first seven weeks of pregnancy — earlier than most
surgical abortions.
Women swallow mifepristone, which blocks
a hormone essential for maintaining pregnancy. Two days later they swallow
a second drug, misoprostol, that causes uterine contractions to expel the
embryo. Viola! No more baby. But the "fine print" requires at
least two, sometimes three, doctor visits to ensure the abortion is
complete. Then there is the added danger of complications, which can
be common with this drug.
Most women using the product will
experience some side effects, the FDA said, primarily cramping and
bleeding for nine to 16 days. In about 1 percent of women, bleeding can be
so heavy that a surgical procedure will be required. One of the chief
dangers that rarely makes the headlines is the mental toll that killing
one's own child extracts. Many women remain emotionally wounded and
bleeding long after the physical scars have healed.
This new "wonder drug" is
destined to polarize the right-to-life debate further than ever before.
Abortion-rights organizations were expected to hail the decision, which
they say will make abortions more accessible and safe for women.
Anti-abortion groups said they would continue to work against the pill by
educating women about its dangers, namely that it always results in one
death and one broken life.
Abortionists-2; babies-1
Sometimes in later term abortions, the baby does not
cooperate with efforts to extinguish its life, and insists on being born
alive. This has created something of a dilemma for medical professionals
who end up with a breathing, crying infant on their hands. Now, thanks to
a vote in the House of Representatives, doctors can rest easy, knowing
exactly what to do. Living babies will actually be treated as... living
babies. On Wednesday September 27, WorldNetDaily reported that the House
voted to ensure that a fetus that is breathing when it leaves the mother's
womb, even if during an abortion procedure, would be treated as a person
under federal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed
380-15, states that an infant would be considered to have been born alive
if he or she is completely extracted or expelled from the mother and
breathes and has a beating heart and definite movement of the voluntary
muscles.
The bill was needed to clarify several
recent Supreme Court decisions stating that the government's interest in
protecting the unborn child is related to "viability,'' or the point
at which the child can survive independently of the mother. This puts the
late-term partial birth abortion procedure on even shakier ground than it
was originally. Both the House and Senate passed bills banning the
abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth'' which involves
partially extracting the fetus through the birth canal before stabbing it
in the head with scissors and suctioning out the brain. Abortion rights
groups said the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was just another effort
to chip away at the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision making most abortions legal.
Drastic measures save the lives of
pre-term, viable infants every day, while many more are disposed of. This
nation, who moves mountains to save baby seals, spotted owls, redwood
trees and snail darters, slaughters its own children while in the
"safety" of their mother's wombs. God help us. Judgment cannot
be far away. V bm
