timeimmortal

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

That’s not just some whimsical Catholic invention, mind you; it is right there in the Bible. Looking back at what we covered regarding hermeneutics, and reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we can see that Scripture itself justifies the belief that Mary is indeed the New Ark: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

Brant Pitre notes that “a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.”

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, let’s think about where we’ve gone before, up to this point. We noted that in the Book of Leviticus, even a sexual act between husband and wife would result in ritual defilement until the next evening, provided that there was a discharge of semen that resulted from it. We also know, from numerous descriptions and passages within the Bible, that Jews held the Ark of the Covenant not only in high regard, but in fearful esteem; the power of the Ark was well-attested, and in the common practice of the Jewish Religion only the high priest could enter into its holy presence. It was death to the enemies of the Hebrew people, and full of the power of God.

In short, the Ark ought to have inspired reverence, and yet a most dreadful fear, in the hearts of all who knew its purpose and power. And for the average Jew, it did just that.

We know from Scripture that Joseph was a faithful, righteous Jew who followed the law of Moses. For Joseph, the Ark would indeed have been the holiest of holies, something which he would be (rightly!) fearful to approach, if he beheld it. Of course, at the time that Joseph learned that Mary, his bride-to-be, was with child, the Ark had long been absent from the Temple. But the tabernacle was still present, and every Jew understood its meaning. Joseph certainly would have understood it.

And it is Joseph who provides us with our first hint, in the New Testament that Mary was indeed a virgin for all her days after the birth of Christ. Joseph feared to take Mary as a wife, and had to be reassured by the angel that it was the Lord’s will that he do so (c.f. Matthew 1:20). Why would Joseph feel fear? Granted, the passage appears in the context of Joseph suspecting Mary of adultery, and in our modern, sex-saturated culture it would be only too easy to eisegetically assume that this was the source of his fear; the law of Moses imposed a harsh penalty on any man who consorted with an adulteress.

But that isn’t really what the angel is saying, is it? The angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife — that is, Joseph is not to be afraid of Mary herself. And while it seems strange to our sex-saturated culture to think so, the view of Christians throughout history has been that what Joseph actually feared was Mary’s sanctity. The angel assured Joseph that the child within her womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to expect that Mary, once Joseph learned of her pregnancy, had shared with him the angel’s own words to her (c.f. Luke 1:35). Taken together, these facts would have surely given Joseph pause, and would certainly have made him piously fearful of the body of his wife-to-be, as surely as any faithful Jew would be afraid of the power and sanctity of the Ark.

Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself, knowing (as he would certainly have known) that for him to engage in even normal marital sexual relations with Mary would have brought about a customary, temporary ritual defilement upon both her and him?

Now, up to this point, O Reader, we haven’t directly examined the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity as can be justified directly from Scripture. That is coming up next, and will take us first into the Gospel of Luke. With a little luck, I’ll even get it written today…if not, rest assured that it will be the first thing I work on come tomorrow.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

Mark Shea has a powerful article up at Catholic Exchange, and I was particularly struck by this paragraph in it.

When we put it that way, we suddenly realize: Knowing that the baby is going to die sooner rather than later is no reason to kill the baby. It is, says Janet, a reason to love the baby for as long as you can while it’s here. That’s very painful, but that is the risk we take every time we choose to love because everything we love in this world is mortal. It may be objected that an anencephalic baby cannot appreciate our love. I would reply that a healthy baby does not appreciate our love either, because a healthy baby has no more mind than a baby born without a brain. The whole point of parenthood, especially in its earliest stages, is radical self-giving (like Christ) to a being who is wholly incapable of giving anything back besides a sucking reflex. It’s an analogy of the grace of God, the great wake-up call, enfleshed, that It’s Not about Me and What I Get from It. A short course in the life of the Blessed Trinity.

I think this hints at exactly what is wrong with abortion, both including and apart from the fact that an innocent life is take. What is seriously wrong is that the entirety of the act is marked by a profound lack of love, of a certain kind. Babies require unconditional, self-giving love from their parents if they are to have any chance of development, formation, and maturation; even a perfectly healthy baby will wither if it is not showered with affection to give it is first ever lessons about the existence of something that exists beyond itself.

Note, O Reader, that what I’m talking about is not the same as an inability to love; all human beings are capable of loving something. Rather like the question of Religion, the issue is not whether we love, but what we love. And in the case of abortion, all we demonstrate the capacity to love is ourself. And in so doing, we effect a most terrible destruction not only on human life in its most fragile and innocent state, but on the world around us as well.

Love is a terrible risk, and love of anything outside the self necessarily leaves us vulnerable to being hurt in a multitude of powerful, shocking, and terrifying ways. But that’s the risk we accept, because to love something outside ourselves is also an act of majesty and beauty that is unparalleled by anything else in this mortal, temporal world.

And love — that ability to love another — is what is truly lacking in the act of abortion and the desire to seek the service out. It is a depravity that is, quite frankly, horrifying. And here’s the rub: this is just as true in the case of a disabled/terminally malformed baby as it is in the case of a pregnancy due to rape. Whatever the deformity, and whatever the trauma, there is an innocent life there which we should only ever love and see brought into the world (if only for a few moments); any other response diminishes and demeans not only that new and innocent life, but us as well.

It speaks volumes about Canada that we saw fit to give a man a medal for his efforts in making such an abhorrent thing legal in this country.

Count Roland writes in with a commentary on this CBC article, in which birth control advocates claim that “millions” need access to “family planning” and safe access to information about contraception…and that in the absence of this information, the result will be millions of deaths.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/14/f-birth-control.html

“Millions of mothers” die because there are no birth control pills? The quoted figure of “one per minute” only yeilds 525K [deaths per anum].

And contraception is not necesarily a part of ‘essential health services’ — how about we make sure there are the antibiotics and other drugs needed, qualified health professionals, and sanitation services rather than ’safe contraception’?

That would, O Reader, be smart. Indeed, much could be done in e.g. Africa if the average African male could be persuaded to remain faithful to a single sexual partner (this would also do wonders, as has been seen in the case of Uganda, to reduce the spread rate of e.g. HIV and AIDS — two birds, one stone!).

But then, it might be too generous to label most birth control activists as “smart”, wouldn’t it? They are, at least, too ignorant to realize that they are solving (or attempting to solve) the wrong problem, as the good Count points out; adequate health care and access to effective medication would do as much — if not much, much more — to reduce the mortality rate associated with pregnancy in the poorer countries on the world than access to birth control ever could hope to.

Personally, I find this little quoted tidbit of information to be particularly odious, as it is reflective of a reasoning that is becoming more and more common in the birth control industry and lobby:

Birth control can prevent 2.7 million newborn deaths each year.

This is classic Screwtape. Okay, yes, technically it is probably true that birth control could prevent over two million infants from dying each and every year. But hidden in this vague truth is a more terrible truth: the method of prevention has nothing to do with properly caring for those infants and seeing that they are given adequate nutrition, and in fact has everything to do with preventing the infants themselves from ever existing in the first place.

And therein is the lie.

The other day, my wife was looking to buy some particle board (long story, don’t ask). She bought one sheet at a cost of just over $5, but had to go back for a second sheet. The second sheet didn’t have a price tag, and eventually the clerk must have found a product SKU he could use…and the sheet rang in at $34.99. Thinking this couldn’t possibly be correct, my wife followed things up with the store’s manager, and he actually let her have it for $1. I joked that were this a Dilbertian office, she could claim on her achievement report that she had just saved the company $33.99.

Of course, that would hardly be truthful…but that’s exactly the sort of logic that is being employed in the above argument for birth control: let’s prevent over two million deaths by preventing over two million births!

On one hand, it is good that the pro-contraception lobby can be shown up as liars without much effort. On the other hand, far too many people are being swayed by what are obviously flimsy lies that crumble under even the slightest analysis (remember: one death per minute does not yield millions of deaths each year: in a typical year, it yields 525,600 deaths…and arguably, most of those deaths are not due to a lack of access to birth control either — they are probably due to lack of nutrition and lack of access to normal, effective pre-natal medical care).

Update: Welcome, UnAborted readers!

I didn’t say anything about the Gloucester 17 last week, but I trust the Reader is familiar with the story, or at least the main elements of it. Seventeen girls more or less made a pact to get pregnant simultaneously (or as close to it as possible), and then prior to graduating from high school. Apparently, it was the “in” thing to do. None of the fathers seems to be, in any way, present or relevant to the scenario as it unfolds — men as sperm donors, nothing more — and most of the “men” involved were older than the girls themselves (which means, I think, that most of them would be up on charges of statutory rape if they were ever identified).

One of the girls was evidently in such a rush to get pregnant that she had sex with a 24-year old homeless man in order to meet the deadline, so to speak.

There’s so much wrong with this situation that it’s almost impossible to pick a point at which to begin. The absenteeism of the fathers is worrisome and them some, but from the beginning it hasn’t been something which has been lamented in any way. Indeed, the pregnancy pact seemed pretty much built upon the understanding that the fathers would not be involved at all in the pregnancy or the rearing of the resultant child — the dads were, in other words, just sperm donors, and nothing else. The implication that men are no longer expected to take responsibility for their sexual actions is staggering.

There’s also the matter of age disparity. I realize that were everyone involved a bit older, an 8-year age disparity between participants in a sexual relationship wouldn’t be that much of a shocker. It’s happened before. But we’re not talking 32- and 40-year olds here. And to be perfectly fair, I don’t know what the law in Gloucester says regarding the minimum age of consent — around here, some of the fathers would be facing charges. That none of the stories I’ve read on the matter have said anything about the issue of statutory rape is troubling, I find, because the silence seems to carry with it the implication that the whole issue of older people exploiting (or taking advantage) of young teens in a sexual manner is no longer an issue at all.

The response of the community and media has been laughable, as one story after another has carried the lament that more and better access to birth control, or more and better sex education, would have prevented this travesty. Such reasoning is absurd: I don’t think anyone could doubt that all these young women knew everything they would have needed to know about birth control and “protection” — and none of them had in mind a goal that could have been realized through the use thereof. Birth control and sex education mean nothing to someone who has set out to get pregnant, and no amount of sex education or free condoms would have prevented this pact from emerging or succeeding.

What might have helped prevent this mess would have been maintaining, rather than stripping away, the social stigma against teenage, pre-marital pregnancy. If you’re anxious to get pregnant at age 16, and if you’re willing to go to the absurd, and potentially very dangerous lengths of having sex with the guy who lives behind the dumpster near the corner store, a little shame over your actions is probably exactly what you need to feel. If you’re willing to essentially torpedo your future beyond high school because you’re so deluded you think a stroller is The. Hawt. High School. Fashion. Accessory. Of. The. Year, a little shame over your actions and choices might just be the tonic you need to drink.

But we don’t believe in shame anymore, nor do we believe in right judgement. Our post-Christian social attitude can only lead us to say one of two things about these girls: “Hey, don’t judge,” and “Do what makes you happy, baby.”

Of course, most of these young women — or, come to think of it, their children — won’t be “happy” in the end. One commentator asked a very disturbing, but probably accurate question: how many of these babies, once born, will survive even half a year? How many will, later on in life, suffer from shaken baby syndrome? Ace, whose article I link to above, asks what is probably an even more prescient question: “Anyone thinking these seventeen girls’ seventeen children (with many more to come in the next ten years, I’m sure) will have a happy lot in life? That they’ll grow up well-adjusted and well-parented and successful?” Personally, I think Ace’s high-ball estimate of three (out of 17, remember) growing up into well-adjusted adults is…well…too optimistic. Most of these kids will grow up in borderline poverty, and will be the “sluttified” kids at the day-care, the slightly chubby five-year olds wearing the “Juicy” t-shirts and cut-off pants.

And in due time, they’ll be the ones having babies at 16 years of age, making their mothers into grandmothers before said mothers see even their 35th birthdays.

Post-Christian sexual morality for the win!

A while back, Grace had her ultrasound done, just to make sure that our little one was healthy and growing. And as it turns out, our little one is doing just fine…and at least as far as the ultrasound tech was concerned, Grace is also pretty-much on track for an October 23rd or 24th delivery*. Her pregnancy seems to be going very well. And blessedly, she herself is doing just smashing, for the most part.

At any rate, we made sure to ask for pictures from the ultrasound exam. Here is, I think, the best one.

There is something amazing happening in Grace’s body. She do good work.

* Of course, in the end, that’s the little one’s to decide, so we’ll see how October progresses.

In the latest installment of what is becoming almost a weekly “proud husband” feature, here’s a few pictures of Grace modeling a new maternity dress she picked out for herself. We have a lot of weddings to go to this summer, and she needed to pick up something that would serve well week after week.

It really is a pretty dress, light but elegant — pretty much ideal, in fact, for summer wedding wear. And it fits her so nicely — doesn’t she look great?

This last picture also features an overshirt that she bought which goes with…almost anything, really. In particular, it does well as a complement to the dress.

Grace, honey? Wow, you look great.

Yesterday or the day before marked the start of the fifth month of Grace’s pregnancy. And God continues to effect the mystery of His glorious creation!

The “proud papa” feeling hasn’t quite hit me yet, but the “proud husband” feeling certainly has. I have an incredible, awesome wife, and a truly amazing thing is taking place in, and within, her.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sine Qua Non, that would be, the episode of Battlestar Galactica that aired not last night, but a week prior. Yes, this review is coming a bit later than one might expect, but I am at the mercy of those who tape the episodes for me, and either their ability to deliver the episodes to me or my ability to pick the episodes up from them.

Strangely, both vectors failed this week, until yesterday.

But be that as it may, this will be a fairly short review (by comparison, at any rate).

First, a bit of a note. Although the episode wasn’t structured according to a rigid understanding of this theme, the trinitarian issue of “faith, hope, and love” seemed to percolate through the narrative, popping up in the oddest of places (and faces). This was especially true in the case of William Adama, who displayed ample amounts of all three qualities in the wake of Laura Roslin’s abduction by the Cylon hybrid.

That’s not to say, of course, that Admiral Atheus suddenly found Religion, but it’s evident that he has tremendous faith in Laura Roslin personally, and in her ability to lead the people to Earth. Indeed, he believes that Earth can be found solely because of her, and her sudden abduction is a massive shock to his system. That he loves her is plainly obvious — he outright states that he “can’t live without her.”

It’s Adama’s sense of hope — something he hasn’t had much of lately — that really stands out, though. Faced with evidence of a mighty battle, nuclear detonations, and basestar wreckage (along with the wreckage of several of the Colonial vessels loaned to the rebel Cylon faction), he nevertheless persists in his hope that Roslin is alive, even going to the extraordinary step of ordering the fleet to leave him behind at the pre-arranged rendezvous point that Galactica and the rebels had agreed to; the episode ends with a scene of his Raptor aimlessly drifting in space.

Hope and faith also appear, visibly, in the person of Lee Adama, who even is threatened with murder at one point because he represents the best hope for the fleet’s leadership — with his attacker wanting to kill him because “hope is the last thing [the fleet] needs.” Lee’s rejoinder to the charge is that it’s all a choice — one can either choose to give up, or have faith that things will work out; his choice is to struggle with his every breath to see that they do…and it’s this conviction, this love for the flawed creation called humanity, that saves his life and sees him sworn in as interim president of the Colonies.

Anyhow, some other notes:

>> The Final Five

One of two things is now possible: either the Cylons can actually reproduce, or only the Final Five are capable of reproducing with other Cylons, either from within their own number or with members of the Significant Seven. At any rate, Saul Tigh and Caprica Six have created another child, ostensibly the first Cylon-Cylon child (although I have an obvious doubt about this).

One interesting theory I tripped over — sorry, no link — was that the Final Five were like the original Cylon attempts at assuming human form, but that the five models ended up being somehow “too human” and so were mind-wiped and, in effect, exiled to the Colonies. There’s some merit to the theory, although it seems somewhat dubious to think that, in a span of less than forty years, such a comprehensive mythology could have emerged concerning the Five. This is especially true given that there haven’t exactly been a few subsequent generations of Cylons that have passed on between the creation of the Final Five and the creation of the Significant Seven — that makes it rather difficult for any sort of mythos to take shape, since a key component of such a thing is the way it is shaped as it is handed down from one generation to the next.

Also, the Cylons have shared databases, not oral traditions, which makes the formation of a mythology in almost any span of time improbably.

Personally, I think it comes back to love again. Tigh’s visions of Ellen when speaking with Caprica Six are, I think, significant here, in that Tigh learned how to genuinely love Ellen at some point (perhaps only after losing her to his own hand?). Perhaps the issue is not that the Final Five are somehow “more human,” but that by virtue of their ignorance of their nature were somehow able to…come to understand love on its own terms, through the relationships they formed.

This goes back, then, to something I said before: if love is such a necessary component of Cylon procreation, it stands to reason that it makes rather a lot of sense why the “in the lab” results of procreation experiments amongst the Cylons all came up negative. When one is reduced to taking a clinical approach to such things, or when one acts out of fear that by not acting one is committing a sin, one’s actions are not motivated by love. Guilt? Yes, probably. Inquiry and curiosity? Most assuredly. But love? No, probably not.

The Final Five have learned to love, something which was missing before. Perhaps, in the future (especially if the Resurrection Hub is actually destroyed at some point), the other Cylons will learn to love as well…and if so, it will be interesting to see what results (assuming Ron Moore will take us to that future).

> Returning characters

It was good to see Romo Lampkin again, although it’s a pity about his cat. Then too, he’s provided a home for Jake the dog (Hero of the Resistance!), so at least he’ll “have a new animal to loathe.”

I’ve a feeling we’ll be seeing Romo again in later episodes, but I’d just like to state here and now that I don’t think he’s the final Cylon; to those that are speculating that he might be, I can only say “red herring.”

>> The Quorum of Twelve

Can’t we just airlock them all? None of them is the Cylon, but their endless bickering is about as helpful to the people of the Colonies as a Cylon nuclear strike would be — and is far more agonizing given that at least the nuke would kill people quickly. Talk about presenting, by way of example, a convincing case for military rule.

>> Saul Tigh, father?

Grace threw up her hands at the revelation. On one hand, it wasn’t surprising — though the show didn’t really ever show a scene of Tigh and Caprica Six sleeping together, it was pretty much assumed that this was the case. I admit that the news of the pregnancy came as a bit of a surprise, although in retrospect I wonder if it should have.

At any rate, Grace was rather perturbed at the idea of Tigh abusing his power over a prisoner that way, and complained that he should have had self-control. I certainly don’t disagree. Sex does seem to be the biggest moral weakness of the characters on this show, which I suppose is reflective of the real world more than most of its other allusions.

One other note: Grace felt that the revelation of the pregnancy strenghtened the case for Helo — Karl Agathon — being the final Cylon. Certainly, my guess that the final Cylon would in some way be related to the issue of Cylon reproduction hasn’t yet been borne out, although I observe that I certainly wasn’t far off the mark (even if I am ultimately wrong): Cylon reproduction has re-appeared as an issue, and the Final Five (at least) seem to have some involvement with that plot aspect.

>> Saul Tigh, admiral?

I think Tigh put it best himself: the promotion to command didn’t work out very well last time around. What was Adama thinking?

Then too, Tigh’s expression was classic when Adama noted that Tigh was a different man than he was a couple years ago. This is…true, certainly, and perhaps Tigh won’t make a hash of things this go-round, especially since Ellen Tigh isn’t there to goad him on.

>> God

Natalie — the Number Six shot by Sharon Agathon — dies in this episode, and as she does she first envisions a forest, and then a progressively brighter light as she passes away. As to whether she resurrects, I’m not sure, although I imagine that she’s gone for good.

Which is interesting, because again we get to see the moment of death from the perspective of the dying character, and again it appears that the God of the BSG universe is very real, and that there is a definite crossing between life and death…and that death is quite a lot more than the nothingness that atheism posits waits for us all beyond the veil.

I might also note that as she is being wheeled to the operating room, Natalie prays a Cylon prayer, the same one used last season on the diseased baseship. It’s nice to see reverent faith get a half-decent treatment in a show on television these days.

>> Without which it could not be

The episode title, Sine Qua Non doesn’t appear to be an allusion to Andrew Jackson in any meaningful way, so I assume it can be taken on its literal meaning instead. And indeed, the whole episode focuses on those things which, for various people in the show, life isn’t worth living (or, at least, living well).

For Romo, it was his family and the cat, which was his only connection to that past. Lee Adama resolves this by giving him the dog, severing Romo’s ties to history and anchoring him in the present (and hope for the future) instead.

For Adama, it was Roslin. She was abducted, and he all but came unglued.

For Sharon, it was little Hera Agathon, and Adama realizes this in reflecting on his own actions. His last order, before he departs in his Raptor (using his old callsign, I might add), is for that family to be re-united, in spite of his previous declaration that the brig “is no place for a little girl.”

>> Predictions, of varying sort — do be mindful of possible spoilers

1) I still think Karl Agathon — Helo — is the final Cylon, obviously. I also would like to note one addendum to my theory: since the identity of the last Cylon is tied, in some way, to an act of great suffering, I wonder if there is any significance to the fact that in Colonial prophecy, the goddess Athena — whose tomb was discovered by, and whose probable place of suicide was noted by, Sharon Agathon (callsign: Athena) — despairs and commits suicide some time between the point of the twelve tribes arriving at “the home of the gods” and the arrival of the people of the colonies at their destinations?

We’ve already seen Helo’s agony at Sharon’s death even when he knew she’d be resurrected, after all. And now she’s betrayed Adama’s trust and has landed herself in the brig again. Added to what is happening with Hera, might she have cause for despair?

2) I still think the identity of the final Cylon is in some way tied up with Cylon reproduction, as the Final Five certainly seem to have something to do with that. The Resurrection Hub has probably been destroyed — there was a lot of wreckage in the one scene, more than one would think a single basestar was capable of being reduced to.

3) I still think Adama will not end the series an atheist.

Also, it’s interesting how reckless Adama is willing to be — and then with the fate of what’s left of humanity! — when someone close to him disappears.

4) The issue of Roslin’s cancer came under discussion, echoing my previous musings on the matter: Firstly, Roslin herself is in the end stages of her cancer; that far from the Galactica and its doctor, she may end up in very dire straits in the coming episodes. But given that Adama has now left to wait for her, I can’t see the writers not affording them an opportunity to meet again. I very much doubt that Roslin will die “out there” without making it back to Galactica.

Of course, if Roslin is the dying leader, she is supposed to pass on (pace Moses) before entering into the “promised land” (Earth?). Given that Earth is supposed to appear in another couple of episodes (according to rumour), this either means that Roslin a) will die rather soon, or b) might not be the dying leader at all.

5) With Adama sending the fleet off to find Earth again, I very much doubt that Galactica will attempt its own attack on the Resurrection Hub (especially since they don’t know where it is, by all accounts).

Grace is about 20 weeks along now (give or take), and the first hints of our little one’s growth are just starting to show!

What an exciting time this is! My lovely wife is simply amazing, and this whole chain of events really feels like it is what was meant to be, as though it was in store for us from the moment we met. There is life there, and it is a beautiful thing.

I remember still the article that moved irregular correspondent Nicholas to first comment on the site here — it centered on a young girl from Ireland who was seeking the right to obtain an abortion in England. Apparently, her unborn baby had been diagnosed with a rare genetic condition that would not allow it to survive more than a few days once born.

Such things make for heated discussions, and there is no way to deny that such issues are, to say the least, charged. At the same time, though, one issue that doesn’t always make its way into the discussion (thus rendering such discussions “less than accurate”) is the issue of how often doctors, and other medical professionals, make mistakes — how often, basically, is a diagnosis made incorrectly?

Grace and I recently declined an elective diagnostic procedure concerning her pregnancy. The name of the procedure eludes me at the moment, but basically it’s a passive test for indicators that might point to our baby having certain genetic conditions, e.g. . The problem with the test, though, is that its false positive rate is absurdly high — 50% or so, if I remember the literature correctly. Hardly a…reliable indicator, and yet I would guess that more than a few babies have ended up being aborted in Edmonton on the sole basis of that single positive outcome.

Now, obviously, the condition that the young Irish girl’s baby was diagnosed with is more severe than Down’s. But does the reader remember what I said above? Yes, the diagnosis was grave…but one wonders if the question was ever asked concerning whether the diagnosis was accurate.

When Leeann Phelan was told her unborn baby had an incurable brain abnormality, she faced an agonising decision.

Doctors said he would be stillborn or severely disabled and advised her to have an abortion.

But Miss Phelan and her partner Stephen Crane stoutly refused and carried on with the pregnancy.

Now at six months old, tests have proven that little Jayden was wrongly diagnosed and is a fit and healthy little boy.

Due to pregnancy complications he had to be induced 13 weeks early, and bravely fought for life.

At 23 weeks, he was one week short of the current abortion limit of 24 weeks, which was set with the received medical wisdom that babies born that premature do not survive.

If there’s one thing that holds true in regard to children, and then especially infants, it is that they often seem — through no direct intent of their own other than the normal will of all human beings to live, thrive, and be loved — intent on spitting in the face of received wisdom and the knowledge of their elders. Little Jayden Phelan not only emerged from the womb in defiance of a diagnosis that mandated a grim fate for him, but he did so at a point in his development that most doctors say affords the infant no real chance of survival…and he lived.

The kid has spirit, to say the least. And his story makes one wonder: it is obvious that many babies have been aborted because doctors told the mother that their child had any of a host of abnormalities or defects. How many of those diagnosis were incorrect? How many babies died needlessly?

Phelan and Crane deserve more than a little bit of praise, methinks, for bravely sticking it out in the face of received medical wisdom, and for choosing the life of their child over their personal convenience. It is hard to bring a disabled child into the world, harder still to face the prospect that one’s child might be dead at the moment of its birth…and it takes real courage to face such things.

Such courage is often in short supply these days, and it is good that Phelan and Crane not only had it, but had it to spare, and passed it on to their son.

It turns out that the pill — that ubiquitous birth control method — is responsible for a potentially massive number of pregnancy terminations every year.

And yes, I realize that the point of taking the pill is, in most cases, to avoid getting pregnant. That doesn’t change the fact that a potentially massive number of implantations are being prevented, in essence aborting perhaps millions of unborn children at the very earliest stages of development.

Women on BCPs [birth control pills] have 28-day cycles and thus have 13 cycles/year (365/28 = 13.3).

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute , 10,410,000 U.S. women are current pill users, a figure that constitutes 26.9% of all those using some method of contraception.

Gambrell notes that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x .14 = 1,457,400 ovulations each cycle). (1)

1,457,400 x 13 cycles/year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year.

Since the normal fecundity rate (chance of pregnancy without using contraceptives) for the average couple is 20%, and if we were to suppose that the cervical mucus change cut down the sperm reaching the ovum by 50% (a very generous allowance), that means that there would be 20% x 50% x 18,946,200= 1,894,620 fertilized ovums that would have otherwise implanted in the walls of the uterus.

Of this number, the accepted rate for “pill pregnancies” is 3-5 per 100 women years i.e 3%-5%. (2)

This means that 95-97% of these unborn babies were prevented from implanting in the lining of the womb because of the oral contraceptive’s thinning of the endometrium (#3 above).

In other words, approximately 1,800,000 (95% x 1,894,620) babies die every year through the use of oral contraceptives.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legally induced abortions in the US in 2003.

Therefore the ratio between BCP abortion vs. conventional abortions is 2.2:1.  This means that for every  ONE women aborting through conventional means in the U.S., more than TWO women are aborting through the use of oral contraceptives.

Culture of death, indeed. God help us.

Grace had her monthly appointment with the doctor this morning, to monitor the progress of the pregnancy. I went along, just because…I happen to think that being involved in my wife’s health is a good thing anyhow, and this latest development only reinforces my desire to do so.

The doctor didn’t do a full ultrasound, but she did use a miniature unit to monitor and record the baby’s heartbeat, which was a healthy 148 beats/minute (Grace tells me that it should be in the range between 120 and 170 if the baby is healthy).

Honestly, it was one of the most incredible things I’ve been fortunate enough to witness. One minute, there was nothing — the next, from just below my wife’s stomach (she’s not “showing” at all), there was this strong, fast heartbeat echoing through the room. Our little one is going strong. And so too is Grace, with nary a bout of morning sickness or any of the other “typical” symptoms one is apparently supposed to expect of a pregnant woman. I’m proud enough that I’m a father; I’m substantially more proud of my lovely wife, and I am so grateful for her and all that she is.

Hearing the ultrasound also reinforced my pro-life stance: it would take a measure of heartlessness that I find, quite frankly, frightening to contemplate, to think it permissible, under any circumstance, to make that heartbeat stop before its time. A truly horrid thing, abortion.

Talulah writes in with a comment concerning this article.

While I agree that abortion is murder, arguing that abortions equal sexual dysfunction is not a particularly compelling argument. If you argue this point, you must also point to post-partum studies that indicate 60-95% of women who have children report sexual dysfunction six weeks, three months, and six months after giving birth. In essence, you would be arguing that women shouldn’t have children because it causes a decrease in sexual enjoyment.

I realize the inherent flaw in the argument, and fortunately do not typically make the argument my own. Indeed, there was a measure of facetiousness to the posting.

The important point, I think, is the observation that it is kind of an open secret, now, that most abortion service providers, and most abortion lobbyists, tend to let the reality of the psychological impacts of abortion get pushed to the sidelines. Much of the abortion regime is predicated on a series of calculated lies, or distorted truths.

And yes, obviously many of the same problems exist in regard to pregnancy and post-partum depression. But there’s the difference: people are talking about those issues and confronting the reality that they exist. One could be forgiven, however, for thinking that many of the same psychological implications do not extend to abortion, because far fewer people are discussing that reality.

Oh, don’t get me wrong: I think it’s important for young children (i.e. younger than “school age”) to be raised by a parent — mother or father, doesn’t matter which — rather than shipped off to a warehouse for measles and the common cold (i.e. a typical day care). With a little one due to be born in a few months, my thinking on this matter has become somewhat concentrated, in fact, and I am less enthusiasitc than ever about sending any child of mine off to be in the care of a disinterested other; it would be infinitely preferable to set up a system whereby either Grace or I stayed home to look after the young’uns while the other went out and worked.

You know…the “traditional” way of doing things, more or less.

Admittedly, however, a small part of my desire to see that my kids never set foot inside a day care centre does stem from the fact that by my doing so, people like the hypothetical “Doris” in this article would be shocked and dismayed.

But then, some people need to be shocked occasionally — the jolt might be the only thing that shakes them free of their destructive (and just generally incorrect) world-view.