Abortions, movie reviews, big government

Well, you couldn't have avoided it on the news. A baby born in Saudi Arabia was pregnant with the fetus with whom she'd previously shared her mother's womb. The Saudi doctors interviewed for the Pravda article I read weren't sure how common, or uncommon this was, but they were sure it was the first time they'd seen it.

Turns out, according to that same Pravda article, it's more common than we might think. By that, I mean the article listed a few other examples of it happening in the recent past - which makes the phenomenon more common than I thought, anyway!

So the natural question that follows, on this blog anyway, is whether or not aborting this "baby" is murder. It's been conceived already so it's a life, but that's not how the medical experts in the Pravda article describe it. Here's a paragraph from the article:

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor. In principle, its cells must have some degree of normal metabolic activity to have remained viable. However, without the gestational conditions attainable (so far) only in utero with the amnion and placenta, a fetus in fetu can develop into, at best, an especially well-differentiated teratoma; or, at worst, a high-grade metastatic teratocarcinoma. In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. Accordingly, while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin. Moreover, it poses clear threats to the life of the host twin on whom its own life depends.

It's alive, but only in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. In addition to posing a threat to its "twin host" it is described as a tumor. Which leads me to wonder... how different is that "tumor" from a single fertilized egg in a normal pregnancy? (alive, in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated) How about in a pregnancy resulting from rape... in a 12 year old? It poses very similar immediate physical threats in addition to the lifelong less physical threats of raising the child.

It's been explained to me by some very intelligent Catholics that the miracle of conception is the precise moment at which this mass of cells becomes a life worthy of protecting. That's when the soul is... well, whatever... you need faith, not science to follow that part of the explanation. Prior to conception, no problem, but once conceived, whole new ballgame. So the doctors who saved the pregnant Saudi baby's life are murderers. Likewise the doctors who removed the very human remains from a 36 year-old Indian farmer or the 6 month-old Indian boy noted in the same article... murderers all. Well, actually the farmer was the murderer in that case since his body refused to host his former twin for 36 years. His doctors can only be accused of removing the "still-born fetus" from the farmer's abdomen after he finally complained of stomach pains. But enough about that from me... for now.

MOVIES

Took a break from Christmas shopping/holiday travels to see Four Christmases with the Mrs. Luth this weekend. This in spite of a review that said something like: "their difference in height far surpasses their chemistry" referring to Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon's characters. This kind of blather is exactly why I continue to spew my nonsense here. At least I don't expect to be paid for it. While I will agree with that particular reviewers 2.5 of 5 stars overall, I have to wonder if the the reviewer even watched more than about ten minutes of the movie.

Initially, the two main characters offer little more dialogue than the practiced lines about why they've been together for three years but have no plans to get married or have children. They've delivered the practiced lines so many times that it's clear neither of them really believes them anymore. They're just reading from the anti-marriage script and flaunting their selfish crap about not wanting to get bogged down in the legality or the labels. Mistaking that for a lack of chemistry was a pretty clear indication to me that this reviewer didn't know what he was watching.

Two of the four Christmases portrayed could have been shortened considerably, but they had their moments and the other two were downright funny. One in particular relied too heavily on a ridiculous send up of a mega church Christmas eve service. (the warm up music was Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll part 2) That's only funny if you don't already find all that pomp and circumstance ridiculous to begin with. Vaughn is the guy you expect - funny, vulnerable, macho, stupid, clever, tough and wimpy at the same time. Witherspoon is pretty much the same character from Legally Blonde without so much over-blondeness, which is to say, mildly attractive and funny too, so what else did you expect or want from them?  I mistakenly assumed Jon Favreau cast himself in a larger role than usual in the movies he directs, but he was hilarious as the not quite professional cage fighter brother in two of the Vaughn family Christmases.  The scene where he and his equally red-throated wife dominate a game of Taboo was a highlight, but the actual director was Seth Gordon, who, unlike Favreau, resisted the temptation to insert himself as a character.

As a break from the holiday hustle and bustle, it was well worth the money and it made for an enjoyable and rare night out without the kids. I'm not sure it would have fared too well had it had any real competition though. I wasn't really surprised to hear that it took in nearly 40 million in its first weekend, beating out only a kids movie and a vampire movie.  Although it did manage to top a James Bond movie and a third installment of Transporter!! for the weekend take anyway.  

We went, partly to see if it might replace National Lampoons Christmas Vacation among our holiday traditions, but alas, Vacation remains unseated at the top of the Luther Family Christmas traditions.  This reviewer's recommendation: it'll entertain you, but it'll wait for the DVD too.

BIG GOV

My boss is retiring. While cleaning out her office, she ran across the summary report Al Gore prepared for Bill Clinton before they left office that detailed their efforts to reduce, revamp or eliminate government positions, agencies and in general both the size and the scope of federal government. Backed by OBM dollar figures and OPM body counts, it was a pretty amazing look at the party of big government's largely successful efforts resulting in a budget surplus and the smallest gov't since well before the Reagan years. Which begs the question, on this blog anyway, how in the heck can anyone claim to be a Repub these days because they want smaller, more efficient government? I'll try to remember to dig around for a link to the summary report somewhere cuz you have to read it for yourself. But given the cost of gov't over the last 8 years, the price we paid in interest rates, unemployment and inflation after the Reagan-Bush years, and the numbers in the report, it has to be obvious to anyone not blinded by party loyalty that, just like the Party of Lincoln, the roles and goals of the parties have changed quite a bit over the years.

It's stuff like that that helps me justify true independence. I may be liberal, but liberal ideas can be found on both sides of the aisle if you're willing to look with your eyes open. Allowing them to be closed by the blinders of strong party affiliation is what, IMHO, has led us into the quagmire politics has become.

I want better. If they're gonna hook me for 25% of my income, dammit, I want better. I don't care what party brings it as long as it gets brung.

Luth

Out