The modern tenets of the Cell Theory include:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division…
-Wolfe, (1972) “Biology of the Cell”
The cell theory in it’s modern form – readily accepted by all major scientists, biologists, and medical professionals (at least in the USA) – openly, and unashamedly recognizes that the absolute smallest detectable unit of life is the cell. In all it’s mind-boggling complexity, the cell is one of the most amazing facets of creation. Tiny little machines capable of self sustaining process that contribute to their own heredity and the decimation of harmful organisms and molecules, these small factories preserve and replicate the coding sequence for every individual detail that makes a person, animal, or plant unique and one of a kind, even among it’s own species. I won’t even begin on the issue of why these imperceivable gelatinous blobs of ultra complex machinery could never have spontaneously come into being, that would take far too long, and is not what I intend to address here.
No. What I intend to touch on here is the issue of the scientific community’s recognition that the cell itself is the very essence of life on earth. If NASA was to find even one solitary mammalian cell on another planet, they would excitedly declare that they had discovered “life. At the same time, these same scientists would turn around to be found lobbying in D.C. for the “right” of women to dispose of something that is – by their very own definition – alive inside of them, dismissing it as simply a “blob” or “fetus,” lacking enough mental capability to sustain life on its own. They would willingly go against the very root of what they hold as their primary criteria for life on another planet as being nothing more than an inconvenient disposable mass of “tissue” simply because it would allow them to continue their lifestyle of self-gratification and greed.
I recently read an article about a baby that was born who was considered a “micro-preemie” because she was born so early and was so tiny. She was born at only 5 months gestation, the previous maximum gestation period allowed in which to have an abortion in Texas. I have heard arguments made in the past that the reason it is okay to abort a baby that far along is because a baby cannot be considered “viable” until after that point. Yet this child not only lived after being born so unimaginably early, but went on to see her first birthday. How is that child’s life any different from the millions of unborn children that are slaughtered in out country’s selfish attempts to go on satisfying our own selfish impulses? At what point then, oh great open-minded masses of mainstream media swill-drinking “scholars” of twitter and facebook, does life enter into the unborn child? At what point would it be considered “not okay” in your book to abort the child? 6 months gestation? 8? 9? Postpartum? At what point in your mind does it become a child? I dare to argue that there is little physical or even mental difference between a full-term birth baby and that of a child who is born even 4 months premature. Certainly, a baby who s born at 5 months gestation needs significant help even breathing on their own, and will likely stay in NICU care until it is deemed safe to do so, but does that deem that child not a child? What is the medical difference between a 4 month premature infant on life-support and a 94 year old on life support? I assert that the difference is that the newborn has a much greater chance of living a healthy, normal lifestyle than the 94 year old. So then would you be okay with terminating grandma or grandpa simply because they need a little medical assistance in the areas of breathing and eating? Because they are not “viable” according to your terms? Where does the conflict lie?
This is not a question of “women’s rights” or the artificial “right” to be able to dispose of a human life simply because it is inconvenient for you. At the very core I think maybe this is an issue of who gets to decide whether an unborn child is alive or not. The courts? A lawyer? A doctor? A scientist? You? Me? A society so overtaken by it’s quest for instant gratification with no negative consequences that we think every person who claims to have a different taste for something should be given the right to impose it on everyone else? If I had to choose one of those, I think I would be compelled to choose the scientists. They seem to be the only ones who – even if unintentionally – admit that the child in the womb is at least a living being. Sure most of them will twist it around and say something different and probably show you reasons why you should believe them. But at the very root of the argument, there can be no denying by any “open-minded” person that the very smallest unit of life, and all living things are made up of at least one cell. Anyone who chooses to accept this and then argues that there is no such thing as life in an unborn child does not deserve to be counted with the great minds that contribute so much to modern medicine. Nor should suuch a person be given the right to go out and take part in the activities that lead to the creation of life. If we agree that any living thing consists of at least one cell, and that upon conception, a baby has at minimal one cell, and even more than that by the end of the first week, before which point it is almost impossible to even detect, can we not agree that that “clump of cells” is, by definition, a person? Probably not right? Because to do so, even at the cost of your own morals, admitting that that life is a person would mean that he is entitled to constitutional protection under the 14th amendment. Even the supreme courts said so in the Roe v Wade case. That is, if they were able to determine when life begins.
I know, I know, “what about victims of rape and incest?!” I’m not denying that there is real harm done by these horrible crimes. But since when does falling victim to one crime give us the right to commit another? If we were to live by that code of morals, every time a gas station clerk is held up by an armed robber, should he be allowed to go and beat up an unsuspecting, undeserving victim? Should the families of the victims of the terror attacks of 9/11 be allowed to get away with any one major crime of their choosing, just because they were the victims of a horrible crime? While I don’t for an instant believe that the punishment for rape should be less severe than what is currently assigned by courts, however, surely murder by any means can be held to a higher level of “wrongness” than rape. Yet most people would call me crazy for making such an argument. Why is there such a conflict about this? If the rape victim gets to kill the undeserving child who is a product of her misfortune, why shouldn’t the family member of a murder victim be able to go kill someone else?
I won’t naively argue that God intends for certain people to be the victims of horrible crimes. It’s not up to me to determine why God does or does not allow certain things to happen. But if I truly believe that God is just, and more powerful and more awesome than anything I can ever imagine, I have to trust that what happens to certain people – either for good or bad, whether to decent or awful people – is all in His control, and i have no right too question that.
Is rape a real thing? you betcha. Do the offenders of rape cases deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law? You betcha.
Does being the victim of a horrible crime like rape justify the actions taken by so many who decide that it would be more convenient to dispose of the unfortunate child than to have the reminder of the traumatic experience than to give it up for adoption? Does any rape victim ever fully recovers from the horrible experience enough to justify the idea that somehow aborting the child will make a difference?
These are questions I cannot answer.
What I do know is this: God is almighty. God is eternal. God is the most just judge to ever exist. His very nature is just, and He justly punishes those who deserve it, and He justly rewards those who deserve reward. I won’t say that rape victims deserve to be raped for some reason, but in all things, good and bad, God is in control.