Friday, April 18, 2008

Opposite Ends of the Spectrum


I promised that I would talk about a famous mother and child and of course, many of you guessed the identity of that mother. However, I’d like to comment on a recent article first.

Apparently, a Yale art student thought that her art project should include a commentary on “the ambiguity surrounding the form and function of a woman’s body.” (Please read the article, as I cannot do it justice: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html ). Whether the student actually did repeatedly impregnate herself and then take herbal extracts to “induce miscarriages” as part of her project remains to be seen, but even the implications of such actions leave many with an awful feeling.

There is no ambiguity surrounding the form and function of a woman’s body. This college student simply does not understand the beauty of the human form, male or female. To reduce our humanness to “form” only is ignorance at best. However, her statement should make all of us think. Is the concept of sex education working in our country? Our children have more STDS than ever in the history of this country, and yes, I did say our children. Is what we are “teaching” our children really working?

Moving on to the next absurdity (which I’m hoping it is true that this art project was a hoax) is the idea of the numerous embryos that this girl purposely miscarried.

Some will say that the embryo is just a bunch of cells, potential life. However, we need to remember that from the time the first cell divides (at conception), that embryo has his or her entire DNA set that makes them unique. Everything that makes that person who they are already exists. The debate about when a fetus becomes viable is moot. The debate about when exactly our Creator instills the soul also becomes obsolete. If everything exists from the moment of conception, that person’s soul is there too and they are a viable human being.

Now then, let’s return to the previous topic that includes a mother inheriting traits from her unborn child. That unborn child’s DNA is passed to the mother.

Last week we looked at the Zenit article that introduced the medical evidence revealing “when a woman realizes she is pregnant, an infinite number of messages pass from the embryo to the mother, through chemical substances like hormones, neurotransmitters, etc…Moreover, it has also been discovered that the embryo sends stem cells that, thanks to the mother’s immune system tolerance, colonize the maternal medulla, and adhere to it. What is more, lymphocytes are born from here and remain with the woman for the rest of her life.”

Do you suppose that the “art student” even considered that? If she had understood the implications of Dr. Mancuso’s research, would she have continued the theme of her “project”?

This is exactly where science meets faith. The vile nature of this girl’s actions isn’t just a faith question. It also becomes a science and ethics question as well. Science and faith are connected, whether we want them to be or not.

Enough about Yale art! Let’s consider an example of someone who understood the beauty of the human form. If I were to choose a woman who exists on the opposite spectrum from this Yale student, who could I choose?

The New Testament provides the following account of Mary’s child Jesus. Luke 1:35 says, “And the angel said to her in reply, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.’”

What if we use the scientific evidence that a mother inherits traits (cells that contain DNA) from her child and extrapolate that with what Christians believe about Jesus, what do we see? As the Son of God, he would have his Father’s “DNA” (whatever that might be).

It is interesting to consider the ramifications for the Christian philosophy. If Mary carried the Son of God, if Jesus was truly divine, then her body would have the complemented “DNA” of God. I say “DNA” with parentheses because God doesn’t need DNA to exist.

Christians do believe that Jesus was the Son of God. So did Mary inherit traits from her son? Does she have a touch of the divine? The Catholic term, “Mother of God” takes on new meaning. It makes for a challenging discussion, doesn’t it?

4 comments:

D. Gudger said...

Wow! I've never heard of the complementary DNA study. I know the whole cycle of how DNA from both parents combines and multiplies, but that is fascinating. Again, more evidence to our Great God.

The whole "form" thing is being pushed by Oprah and Eckhart Tolle in their Neo-new age rampage. Form is dysfunctional, therefore it is not real. To be truly Present, one must enter mentally into a space of nothing...

When people become their own gods, human life becomes expendable.

I subscribed to your blog via Google reader. I love scientific stuff - especially biology and genetics.

Loretta said...

Darci:

You are right on the mark with the whole Oprah thing. The good thing is that sooner or later all these people lose their effectiveness when their pride takes over. When we think we are bigger than God, that becomes our downfall one way or another.

Keep coming back for more science! Did you read the "Water is Love" series from February? You'll love that too.

Thanks for visitng.

Robbie Iobst said...

Fascinating! I have always thought that Catholics make Mary into a divine human being when she was just an ordinary girl placed in extraordinary circumstances. But your blog entries have made me question that assumption. I think every time I put God in a box, I am in arrogant territory. "A touch of the divine" through her baby in her womb. Wow, Loretta. You open up new paradigm shifts with your discussions.

Loretta said...

Robbie:

I think you're right! Every time we put God into our neat little box, we've totally missed the point. We can't! He's too big!

I wonder how many other things we are missing...

Thanks.

Loretta