I said:
...The death of a couple of fish makes the news. We kill a millionShallit, eagle-eyed amateur Darwinist that he is, and always on the look-out for bio faux-pas, observed:human calvesbabies each year in abortion clinics. The media response is silence...
No Wonder Michael Egnor is So Confused about Biology
He thinks dolphins are fish and embryos and fetuses are babies.
How did he ever graduate from medical school?
Aarrghhh... I just knew when I wrote the post that one of the more OCD Darwinists would point out that my expression "a couple of fish" rather than "a couple of aquatic mammals" was not biologically correct. And that observant Darwinist would of course miss the point of the post-- that the media makes a bigger deal out of the death of a couple of baby
So, mea culpa. I privileged rhetorical fluency over taxonomic precision. And in reply to Shallit's question about how I graduated from medical school, fortunately dolphin taxonomy wasn't on the medical boards.
Human embryology was on the medical boards, and Shallit does make this assertion as well:
He thinks... embryos and fetuses are babies.
Hmmm... Well I do think that human embryos and fetuses are human beings. Shallit apparently does not.
So I challenge Dr. Shallit: tell me exactly what you think human embryos and fetuses are, biologically speaking.
Should be interesting.
He thinks... embryos and fetuses are babies
ReplyDeleteNote how he leaves the word 'human' out of both ends of his statement.
Some rather horrifying stats were released in the UK yesterday:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2011092/Aborted-cleft-palate-Thousands-pregnancies-aborted-abnormalities-including-500-Downs.html
There is a hilarious logical leap:
ReplyDeletehow do you get from:
x says that y thinks embryos and fetuses are babies to:
x thinks that human embryos and fetuses are not human beings??????
@madbat,
ReplyDeleteI made no logical leap. I just asked Dr. Shallit a question.
Mike
"Well I do think that human embryos and fetuses are human beings"
ReplyDelete- So, if you had the option of saving 100 embryos or one baby - you would the embryos ?
Btw, the word "being" refers to sentient life forms, do you consider an embryo to be sentient ?
Embryos are embryos, fetuses are fetuses, and babies are babies. Regardless of species, this seems pretty clear-cut to me.
ReplyDeletemadbat wrote:
ReplyDelete"..a hilarious logical leap..."
Hilarity is not an emotion I usually associate with abortions and lost life potential. It is a solemn and deeply saddening subject to me.
But there is a clear leap (lapse) of logic illustrated here, below.
Andreas wrote:
"So, if you had the option of saving 100 embryos or one baby - you would the embryos?
The leap/lapse of logic is here within the form of the question.
It is a common one from the pro-abortion position and exquisitely obvious here.
Can you see it?
The hypothetical 'embryos' are somehow disembodied and thus devalued.
We know the 'baby' is either a fetus or child, by definition. We assume it has a mother and get an immediate emotional response to the word 'baby'.
But where and how do we get the '100 embryos' from ?
Are they petri-dish cultured embryos created to perish in the lab; be used in experiments, harvested for stem cells, or frozen to meet another such engineered doom in the future? Will they never be given the potential to grow into full developed adult homo sapiens?
OR, are they naturally procreated gestating embryos already in situ and developing with the potential to become fully developed adult human beings?
OBVIOUSLY this distinction between the potential of these hypothetical embryos is very important in how we answer the question.
If the embryos are all in the womb and developing to term, then the nightmarish choice of cold logic would be for the embryos to thrive and develop into people. The hundred over the one is the logical route. I cannot bring myself to answer it that way. It is an immoral choice.
If at all possible I would offer myself instead, so that the 101 could ALL fulfill their potential....Perhaps the bloodthirsty scifi magician forcing this choice on me would accept such a trade.
On the other hand, IF the hypothetical embryos were created only to be denied that development and simply perish in a dish, then the 'baby' is the obvious - if equally horrific - choice.
But the lack of a apparent distinction is what shows the leap/lapse in reasoning and avoidance of culpability.
Thus,this convenient lapse also seems to allow for a moral lapse too:
"Embryos" loose the prefix "human", and become theoretical entities and are thus reduced to the level of a resource to be 'harvested' and 'cultured'.
Think about it! The naturally procreated embryo in situ that is engaged in the process of natural development has the POTENTIAL to become a human; a person.
If we accept that very basic potential as fact, it renders the raw thrust of your question to something like:
So, if you had the option of saving 100 (early stage) potential adult homo sapiens or a single (later stages) potential adult homo sapien - you would choose the 100(early stage) potential adult homo sapiens over the single (later stages)potential adult homo sapien?
The only remaining distinction is now the STAGE at which this early human life is developing. An analogy might be that 100 4 year old children are worth less than a single 40 year old adult male blogger.
The real answer to this undressed question, for my part is:
NONE. I will kill NONE of them.
I would not kill any innocents, under any circumstances.
No matter how small, large, young or old.
I have been trained as a soldier, not a murderer.
There is no justification for such a deed.
Not even in the theatre of war.
And most certainly certainly not to the unborn, children, the disabled and very elderly.
To the objectively moral mind, such acts are evil and cowardly.
I would also hazard to guess, although I am no physic myself, that a doctor would be bound by OATH to attempt to save them ALL (101 potential fully developed homo sapiens ie HUMANS ).
"OR, are they naturally procreated gestating embryos already in situ and developing with the potential to become fully developed adult human beings?"
ReplyDelete- The embryos in the petri-dish have the same potential for development (and could, theoretically, be used for in-vitro fertilization). So, your distinction is meaningless, and the moral dilemma stands.
"Think about it! The naturally procreated embryo in situ that is engaged in the process of natural development has the POTENTIAL to become a human; a person."
- Not exactly. It does not *become* a human, it undergoes steps of replication which could lead to the development of a human being. This is btw also true for human sperm cells and unfertilized eggs - they are just at an earlier stage of development.
"An analogy might be that 100 4 year old children are worth less than a single 40 year old adult male blogger."
- This is not a good analogy (and nobody would argue such a thing btw). Both the 4 year old children and the 40 year old blogger are self-aware and have the ability to feel pain and pleasure.
"To the objectively moral mind, such acts are evil and cowardly."
- There is no such thing as an objective moral mind.
"I would not kill any innocents, under any circumstances."
- Neither would I.
Btw, the concept of "Innocence" requires a mind to be meaningful. A single cell is "innocent" in the same way as a stone is innocent.
Btw, the concept of "Innocence" requires a mind to be meaningful. A single cell is "innocent" in the same way as a stone is innocent.
ReplyDeleteVery well, then. Prove to me (prove, don/t merely assert) that mind comes from matter.
Say guy, push the right buttons. Shallit said, "I" found this morphism... In his prior post. Check his comments to see him self correct to "we". Is some person not getting credit?
ReplyDeleteAndreas,
ReplyDeleteYou begin:
"The embryos in the petri-dish have the same potential for development (and could, theoretically, be used for in-vitro fertilization). So, your distinction is meaningless, and the moral dilemma stands".
That is factually incorrect. The Petri-dish will not gestate them, deliver them, or nuture and love them.
These little creatures of potential - in their earliest stages have NO CHANCE, unless the scientists that created them reinsert them successfully into a surrogate. Their potential is limited by the sentient beings who will willingly and with intent create them and USE them up as a resource, despite the inherit potential of the embryonic cells themselves..
We are not talking about in vitro, or you would have specified such, and in any case they would fall into the class of in situ embryos once implanted; even if the embryo was not created by means of natural procreation and was fertilized in a dish or tube.You're splitting hairs with the in vitro aspect.
Originally you did not specify, so we are left to assume these un-hyphenated embryos have no natural parents and no future. They are simply 'embryos' - in your words! Your hypothetical un-hyphenated embryos are disembodied. You have not even named the species to which they belong; we only assume they are Human because of the term 'baby'.
Again your lack of distinction belies your avoidance of Human Potential when reasoning about this subject.
It is unavoidable, really - it is!
You go on to attempt to rebut my points on potential:
"Not exactly. It does not *become* a human, it undergoes steps of replication which could lead to the development of a human being. "[my emphasis]
What exactly IS the end stage of these embryos development then, Andreas?
Shall these hypothetical embryos develop into a Chrysler, a mailbox, or perhaps an asteroid? What else could a human embryo 'replicate' itself into? Surely it could perish, but what else can it 'become', besides HUMAN?
You do not attempt to close that logical gap, rather to bury it in language.
CNTD
ReplyDeleteI know my response was long and complicated, but if you read it, you will see my thrust is about POTENTIAL. A Naturally procreated (through the sex act, between two people - to be clear) in situ embryo has the potential to become a fully developed human being , or as you put it :"which could lead to the development of a human being". "Could " is all we need: potential.
At least we can agree on that....sort of.
You go on to say:
"This is btw also true for human sperm cells and unfertilized eggs- they are just at an earlier stage of development."
Nice to see you use the 'Human' as prefix for sperm and ovum, Andreas.
This seems to indicated to me you understand just any old sperm and egg match will not do. You need two eggs of a matching pair. They are pretty picky and very specifically designed that way.
But, I think you may being just a bit dishonest with yourself here, aren't you? You mean the sperm and egg have the same potential on paper / in theory, don't you? You could not possibly mean in physical reality? Sperm don't grow into big fuzzy sperm with teeth, organs, and eyes; that we can walk in the park or take for a swim at the beach etc. Ovum don't calcify into huge eggs and then hatch into pretty girls. These reproductive cells are only half of an equation, even in your hypothetical - and recently hyphenated - scenario.
You must see the key word here is "unfertilized" Andreas, no?
An unfertilized ovum, or it's male counterpart the spermatozoa are incredibly complex and wondrous things. Much like key and lock. It seems that without some external help it is (as in the sex act or the 'test tube') and an introduction these individual parts are limited to be just that.
In everyday reality an unfertilized ovum becomes part of the menstrual flow in a human, unused sperm becomes sterile ejaculate. Sperm are the keys that unlock the potential, but they will not grow into a being on their own - they require the lock. Likewise the ovum requires the completing information held within the sperm to naturally and normally develop via gestation and childhood into a fully developed human being.
The embryo holds the potential to become an adult within. Embryos are completed and developing. No more mating is required, no peer review necessary. If left to their own devices in a healthy womb, they can become a a fully developed human. This is where the stages begin. Not with the parents genitalia or reproductive cells, but with the completed and self replicating embryo. This combination process is the only way we know of to reproduce. Anything else is literally miraculous. But you don't even believe in moral objectivity, so I think we can leave miracles well enough alone.
You then go after my '40 year old male blogger' analogy with the following response:
"Both the 4 year old children and the 40 year old blogger are self-aware and have the ability to feel pain and pleasure." So now we get to the substance of your response, having attempted to bury the central idea of my own - POTENTIAL.
But we will come back to that!
The subjective moral line you draw is about being "self aware" and "ability to feel pain and pleasure." So the 'stages' of life when awareness is lessened or undeveloped, the ability of feel pain is understood to be less and to appreciate pleasure is undeveloped or have been lost are 'fair game' for research or harvesting? So perhaps these sensory standards could also be modifed in my analogy to make it:An analogy might be that 100, comatose 4 year old children (who have the potential to / will awaken in a matter of months) are worth less (less worthy?) than a single fully cognizant 40 year old adult male blogger?
Does that sensory / awareness revision make the question any more palatable?
Not for me. Potential is the key. The Embryo and the comatose children, the 'baby' and the 'blogger' - ALL share a similar potential: HUMAN potential.
CNTD
ReplyDeleteWhile on the subject of being human, you state:
"There is no such thing as an objective moral mind. "
That is your belief. You are free to hold on to it. It does, however, render any moral arguments you make (subjectively) and purely relative and thus impotent. A person who does not believe in true morality can not take moral positions and expect them to be considered seriously.
Most civilized humans believe in the existential mind, and most humans believe in morality - objectively. I am one of those. By extension, I also believe in culpability. Another illusory construct of the brain, in your view? If so that is very convenient when engaging in amorality, such as abortion.
No objectivity? No mind? Perhaps we are imagining our imaginations too!?
You agree killing is bad and that you would not engage in it - for this I am glad, but then you add:
"Btw, the concept of "Innocence" requires a mind to be meaningful. A single cell is "innocent" in the same way as a stone..."
Just FYI Andreas, a cell is ALIVE, a stone is NOT.
The operational word is KILLING, the term 'innocents' is a descriptive one.
Again we see the sensory awareness principal in your statement. Level of awareness = worthiness of life.
The stone cannot sense or 'feel' as it is an inanimate object, the embryo cannot feel or sense in any way known to us - so therefor the stone is innocent and you cannot KILL an embryo.
Like the stone, it is now simply a resource to be used up.
Again, we see POTENTIAL ignored.
Will a stone ever develop a mind, Andreas? Will it ever fall in love? Will it prefer reds when it comes to wine or blondes when it comes to mates? COULD the embryo possibly develop those tastes and preference, if allowed to develop into a child in the womb and then was delivered, raised, and nurtured and allowed the potential for full maturation?
Can you KILL the potential LIFE in a stone, Andreas?I understand POTENTIAL is an uncomfortable area for the GNU Atheist / Materialist movement, and not just in biology. Potential hints at purpose, purpose hints at design:
Design? Not even considered or entertained in your rather limited views. But you will find, in this debate - like so many others - POTENTIAL is INESCAPABLE.
By extension, culpability for the wanton creation and destruction of such potential is also inescapable.
So, in closing I will say that abortion is the murder of human potential, and the creation of fertilized embryos for the purpose of harvesting and experimentation is a similar exercise in Evil. To begin the process of life in order to destroy it's potential on a whim is inherently wrong - no matter the nature of that idea.
Does that shrilly Shallit fellow always wimp out when he is wrong?
ReplyDelete