P.Z. Myers comments on a pro-life argument that embryos/fetuses are human beings.
The blogger at the pro-life website argued:
A human zygote/embryo/fetus (/infant/child/adult) is a human being. That is not a pro-life argument. That is not a Christian argument. It's not a conservative Republican argument.
It's not an argument of any kind.
It's a scientific fact. A mundane fact.
If a human zygote not a human being, what is it?
Here are the choices:
Bullshit. If a zygote/embryo is part of the mother's body, then at some time during gestation, at a time determined by the Supreme Court or some abortionist, the maternal organ magically transforms into a new human.
Nineteen weeks-- uterine hyperplasia. Twenty weeks-- little Joey/Mary.
A new insight into human reproductive biology.
As I said, bullshit.
A biological revolution! Evolution-- one species becoming another-- occurs with each gestation!
Not mom, not another species. It's just there. Whatever. You're a stupid fundamentalist for asking.
Here's the new taxonomy: human beings whom people want to kill are simply no longer classified as human beings.
Except it's not new.
...
Obviously a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. From the moment of conception. That's a scientific fact, like gravity, heliocentrism, andevolution.
There is no scientific debate.
It's also a fact that hacks like Myers will lie about the science to advance their politics. But we already know that.
The issue regarding abortion is whether all human beings have the right to life. I think they do. Myers thinks not.
That's what the debate is about.
The central thrust of the pro-choice movement is to make sure you don't know what the debate is about.
The blogger at the pro-life website argued:
A zygote meets all of the scientific qualifications of HUMAN life at the moment of conception.Myers replies:
Checkmate, Pro-Choicers
How interesting. I’m always amused when I see these bozos insist indignantly that they’ve got science behind them. And what are these “scientific qualifications”? List them, please.
The problem here is that there are scientific markers we could use to define whether something is of human descent, but they tend to be fairly reductionist and don’t provide a good indication of the kinds of sociological distinctions we want to make with the word “human”: it’s not just the zygote at the moment of conception that is human, but so is the sperm and the oocyte, as are cancers and HeLa cells. And when you look at cells as being of human origin, that still doesn’t help you in the slightest in determining whether a cell has rights.
Waving a flippant hand in the direction of undefined “scientific qualifications” is useless. Tell me what the specifics are, and I promise you, I can shoot them down one by one. How do I know that? Because the people who put these lists together are ignoramuses, every time.
A human zygote/embryo/fetus (/infant/child/adult) is a human being. That is not a pro-life argument. That is not a Christian argument. It's not a conservative Republican argument.
It's not an argument of any kind.
It's a scientific fact. A mundane fact.
If a human zygote not a human being, what is it?
Here are the choices:
1) The zygote/embryo/fetus is part of the mother's body. Like an organ or something.
Bullshit. If a zygote/embryo is part of the mother's body, then at some time during gestation, at a time determined by the Supreme Court or some abortionist, the maternal organ magically transforms into a new human.
Nineteen weeks-- uterine hyperplasia. Twenty weeks-- little Joey/Mary.
A new insight into human reproductive biology.
As I said, bullshit.
2) The zygote/embryo/fetus is another species, not human.Yea. Homo abortus, until the third trimester. Then Homo abortus magically transmogrifies into Homo sapiens at 24 weeks.
A biological revolution! Evolution-- one species becoming another-- occurs with each gestation!
3) The zygote/embryo/fetus ain't nothin. It's unclassified.
Not mom, not another species. It's just there. Whatever. You're a stupid fundamentalist for asking.
Here's the new taxonomy: human beings whom people want to kill are simply no longer classified as human beings.
Except it's not new.
...
Obviously a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. From the moment of conception. That's a scientific fact, like gravity, heliocentrism, and
There is no scientific debate.
It's also a fact that hacks like Myers will lie about the science to advance their politics. But we already know that.
The issue regarding abortion is whether all human beings have the right to life. I think they do. Myers thinks not.
That's what the debate is about.
The central thrust of the pro-choice movement is to make sure you don't know what the debate is about.
No. A fertilized human ovum is human, but it's not a human being, it's not a person. It has to develop to a minimum stage before it can be called a person. I personally would put that at no earlier than 24 weeks gestation, the earliest date that the fetal nervous system has developed anywhere near enough to be able to feel pain. Even then, it's still not viable enough to survive outside the uterus.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, evolution is a fact. You'd be an idiot for denying it. Also, we don't actually know what gravity is, so you're wrong when you state that it's a fact. Is gravity the force transmitted by the graviton (analogous to photos and gluons)? The graviton has never been detected. Or is it an illusion due to the curving of space-time by matter?
WR
So a zygote is a unicellular human being? And sometimes, after a few rounds of cell divisions, it becomes two human beings (monozygotic twins)? Does Jesus insert a second soul at that point or does the original soul divide into two? Is it a double murder to abort a zygote that is about to split?
ReplyDeleteSo a zygote is a unicellular human being? Does it have a soul? And if it splits into two, a few rounds of cell divisions later, which of the twins gets the original soul?
ReplyDeleteThe biological humanity of the fetus is admitted by virtually all informed defenders of abortion. PZ Myers is an idiot, we all know that. Here:
ReplyDeleteIn addition, loaded language is easily found in speaking about human beings in utero. For instance, those that are pro-life point out that “fetus” is a word that dehumanizes human beings in utero and conceals what normal speech reveals. No one attends a “fetus-shower” or speaks of a woman “pregnant with fetus.” The clinical term corresponding to fetus for a pregnant woman is gravida, but this term is completely unheard of in public discourse. “That gravida will give birth any day now.” Then again, pro-choice advocates insist that calling the human being in utero “a child” or “an unborn baby” biases the case against them from the start, since only a tiny fraction of the population would assent to killing a “baby” or a “child,” even if preborn. I will, therefore, speak usually of the “human fetus,” the “human being in utero,” or the “fetal human being” as these terms are both scientifically accurate and the least “loaded” towards one perspective or the other. It should be also acknowledged that, in a biological sense, the humanity of the fetus is acknowledged by those on all sides of the debate. Obviously, those who are pro-life hold that the fetus is human in a genetic sense. But Peter Singer, who is not only pro-choice about abortion but also about infanticide, recognizes the same thing:
"It is possible to give “human being” a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to “member of the species Homo sapiens.” Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."
(Singer 2000, p. 127)
In this, Singer is not alone. The biological humanity of the fetus is admitted by virtually all informed defenders of abortion as shall be evident throughout this book. So in referring to the human fetus or the human being in utero we do not beg any disputed questions.
Kaczor, Christopher (2011-02-18). The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Routledge Annals of Bioethics) (pp. 6-7). T & F Books US. Kindle Edition.
WR,
ReplyDelete"A fertilized human ovum is human, but it's not a human being, it's not a person."
How convenient. Then destroying them in the most sacred place on earth (the womb) is okay then, isn't it? Maybe if we define anyone we don't like as not actually 'being', we can kill all of them off too?
Here is how the rest of us see it:
A being is a living thing.
A human, a type of living thing, for most of us THE most important type of living thing.
A zygote, embryo, foetus, infant, child, or adult (and senior variants of adult) are all stages of human life. From the moment the DNA is combined, he/she can be NOTHING else but a human being. That is what has become (come into BEING) at the moment of conception.
"I personally would put that at no earlier than 24 weeks gestation, the earliest date that the fetal nervous system has developed anywhere near enough to be able to feel pain."
Again you define humanity/personhood by the ability to suffer physical pain. Surely you can see the error and self deception involved in this, Bach.
Pain is not the measure of existence, any more than the ability to feel pleasure is. What is really happening here is that you are trying to rationalize the killing of the foetus as 'painless'. You're mitigating the killing with an aspect of mercy. I am very familiar with this rationalization, personally.
You, as a civilian, should not have to be.
The effect / level of pain is irrelevant - the human life has been ended. The foetus has been 'terminated' - killed.
"It has to develop to a minimum stage before it can be called a person."
Ah, so you have shifted on the fly. Now we are talking about legalisms. No longer do we discuss science or morality. Instead now the law determines the science which in turn determines the law.
Back into that monistic logic/morality loop.
The truth: A person is a person from the moment of their conception to the moment of their death. That death could take place within weeks of conception (naturally) or 100 years or more post conception.
It is still a loss of life and all the potential it brings no matter the minutes or years they have lived.
If that process is intentionally interrupted and the life ended, that is called killing.
Killing a human (at any stage of life) is called....
CNTD
Delete"Even then, it's still not viable enough to survive outside the uterus."
So what? I have a friend who is not viable without dialysis, is he not a person or a human being. I had two family members spend their last months on food pumps...where they not viable human beings? Are the doctors, nurses, and scientists involved in the manufacturing and use of those devices in the veterinary or zoology field?
"And anyway, evolution is a fact."
Adaptation is an observable fact. Living things adapt, and adapt over generations.
Evolution is a theory about adaptation based on fossil evidence, observations in the field, and controlled experimentation. I do not see it as a sound theory, but it is an accepted theory - not a natural law or fact.
"You'd be an idiot for denying it."
No, that would make the doctor sceptical of a controversial theory. I suspect he is also sceptical of directed panspermia. I know I am. It may make more sense that the Darwin's great 'whatever' and the modern theory of 'shit happens', but I still see it as far fetched and both scientifically and philosophically shallow.
Scepticism is not the same as idiocy, is it?
"Also, we don't actually know what gravity is, so you're wrong when you state that it's a fact."
The force of gravity is a reality we face everyday. How it works is pretty clear. The theories about WHAT makes gravity work the way it does and WHY it does so are theory.
But let's translate into English what you have said, shall we?
You're suggesting that because there is no mathematical model or scientific proof to completely explain gravity, it is not factual - it does not exist, or may not exist?!
But, on the other hand, the THEORY of evolution that makes an imperfect if baroque attempt at explaining patterns in the adaptation of organisms past and present IS an established fact - a reality.
Boiled down: A natural law as illusion and theory as fact.
Very scientific, indeed... or perhaps I should say SCIENTISTIC?
No, that would make the doctor sceptical of a controversial theory.
DeleteIts only "controversial" among the lunatic fringe. Most people have accepted reality, which seems to be a foreign concept to you.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteNot even the conservative state of Mississippi managed to agree in a referendum with the proposition that a conceptus was a person from the moment of conception. The 'no' vote was 58%. A fertilized human ovum is human, but not a human being or person. A fertilized ovum in an IVF lab isn't considered to be a person. It can be frozen for years or discarded. No coronial inquiry is necessary to dispose of it or to determine the cause of death.
What makes you think that the womb is the most sacred place on earth? Or that humans are the most important living things? The Earth could do extremely well without humans. Bacteria are much more important. Life on Earth for 2 billion years consisted entirely of bacteria, and we can't survive without our own special bacteria.
Evolution is a fact. Even YECs want a type of hyperevolution to get all of today's species from the limited number of types on Noah's Ark. Egnor is just having another of his 'wink to the fundamentalist crowd' with an aside, but usually he writes Darwinism instead of evolution.
There's nothing 'natural' about 'natural laws'. They're just a human attempt to describe reality. Scientists agree that there's a reality out there. The scientific method involves making observations, developing a model or theory and then testing the theory with further observations. At the end of the day, all we can say is that the model is consistent with all the data. We can't say that it's true.
Newton described gravity as a force, but didn't know what it was. Einstein removed the need for it to be considered a force, with curving of space-time doing the job. Now; is it just one of the 4 fundamental forces, with its own force carrier particle - the graviton - but which is the only one we're mostly aware, unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force in most cases.
Egnor is an idiot for lumping gravity with evolution. He's not a skeptic, he's a denialist. Gravity exists. So does evolution. Egnor now appears to be disagreeing with even the bizarre form of the YECs.
Bach,
Delete"Not even the conservative state of Mississippi managed to agree in a referendum with the proposition that a conceptus was a person from the moment of conception."
Wow! I disagree with a bunch of politicians and lawyers. Shocking.
"What makes you think that the womb is the most sacred place on earth?"
It is the place we all start. It is where life begins for all mammals, most importantly HUMANS.
The most innocent life exists within the womb (or fertilized egg).
What on earth makes you think it is not a sacred place?
"Or that humans are the most important living things?"
Well, there are three very rational answer to this. Seeing as you're an atheist I will begin with the one that will make the most sense to you - the pragmatic. Pragmatic: I am a human - therefore my interests are those of my species/people. Philosophical: We are the highest form of physical reasoning intelligence on this planet.
Finally, Theological: That is the way our world is arranged and designed (at least for the present).
Who or what told you we were not the most important form of life? What would you suggest IS?
"The Earth could do extremely well without humans."
Extremely well at what? Orbiting the sun?
"Bacteria are much more important."
Remember to tell your kids that at their next birthday party or dinner. Maybe a nice Valentine's card for the wife: "Roses are red violets are blue. I would choose bacteria over you!"
"Life on Earth for 2 billion years consisted entirely of bacteria, and we can't survive without our own special bacteria."
Symbiosis is a PROBLEM for your philosophy, not a supporting argument. You should really look it up.
"Evolution is a fact."
If your referring to the theory of evolution, it is a THEORY - not a natural law. If you are referring to adaptation, then I agree; it is an observable fact of life. Animals and plants adapt. Survivors survive and breed. This was old news to the first settled humans over 10,000 years ago.
"Even YECs want a type of hyperevolution to get all of today's species from the limited number of types on Noah's Ark."
Genetic bottle necks, floods, adaptation etc have no relevance here. YEC - like Darwinism - has to grasp at both philosophical and scientific straws,
"Egnor is just having another of his 'wink to the fundamentalist crowd' with an aside, but usually he writes Darwinism instead of evolution."
What fundamentalists? I have yet to meet one on this page.
"There's nothing 'natural' about 'natural laws'."
I agree. Super-nature and purpose best explains them.
" They're just a human attempt to describe reality."
Like language and math...and everything we do or write?
"Scientists agree that there's a reality out there."
Oh GOODY GUM DROPS!!! We can all sleep better now. The Scientists have determined there is a reality.
"Egnor is an idiot for lumping gravity with evolution."
The way I see it, he was illustrating the position of materialists - THEY see the theory of evolution as being on parity with the reality of gravity.
"He's not a skeptic, he's a denialist."
No. He is a sceptic, and you're a 'believer'
"Gravity exists. So does evolution."
As ideas, sure. As a reality, only gravity can be proven. Evolution is a work in progress (or regress). Adaptation can be proven.
"Egnor now appears to be disagreeing with even the bizarre form of the YECs."
Well, as I understand it Dr Egnor is a Roman Catholic...so it does not surprise me he would disagree with either fringe of the ideas on human Genesis. He most likely has ideas that are not totally monistic in these areas. At least that is true of what I have read of his work.
Early in their existence both the rat and human embryos undergo incredibly similar developmental processes. The development of features in both embryos at early stages is controlled by the same Hox genes expressed in virtually the same ways. These early embryos are indistinguishable without special equipment and training. The gene expressions that result in virtually all the differences between rats and humans come latter in gestation.
ReplyDeleteI find it creepy and morbid that Christians would invest so much energy and passion fighting for the “rights” of an embryo that developmentally, morphologically, and functionally is virtually no different than any other mammal embryo.
I acknowledge that the fetus develops more human fetures all the time, and I would be happy to embrace a grand compromise that bans abortion after an agreed-upon stage of development (18 -20 weeks?), if anti abortion forces would cease there assault on early abortions and stop opposing birth control. Of course Christians and their Muslin allies will never go for that.
-KW
In our neck of the woods we say of a guy like PZ Myers and those who think like him that they have more sails than rudder!
ReplyDeleteWhen the wind blows only God knows where they are going...
LOL !
DeleteThat's 100% true, Pépé.
Its interesting that you take Myers' to task over his comments, but you don't actually bother to respond to his question. Specifically: "[W]hat are these “scientific qualifications”? List them, please."
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you didn't because you cannot. And knowing that, you choose to obscure the issue by throwing up a pile of meaningless word salad instead.
Dr, seriously, humor me here. What if instead of Terri Schiavo having a liquefied brain, her entire head was lost in an accident and her body from the neck down was being kept alive with advanced medical technology, would that body be a human being? Would there be any point in keeping it alive? I don’t think so. What do you think? Might the soul still be in there?
ReplyDeleteIt’s possible to imagine technology that can keep decapitated bodies alive but I think we can all agree that it would be foolish to do so. Without a functioning brain we’re meat and organs, not people.
-KW
Follow me in this exercise for a moment - what if someone were elected Tzar of LIFE. One person in Washington D.C. who sits at a desk is presented with paperwork of patients across the country who are stricken with increased age, fatal illness, broken bodies and deformed minds.
DeleteThis Tzar states on a Tuesday "All who are on life support will now be shut off...we do not deem you worthy of saving". Its a large pill to swallow, but eventually, people can be talked into agreeing with it. (Terry Schiavo)
Then - on a Thursday, this Tzar makes a proclamation: "All people 90 and over will be put to death as the will not be likely to live 1-10 years, and we need to preserve our resources for those younger than they."
The following Monday, the Tzar of Life states that all cancer patients will not be allowed for treatment - as the cancer they have should just follow its course and kill them anyway - rather than medicate/spend $, as the likelihood of relapse isn't worth the risk emotionally or financially.
The point is obvious. Seemily ridiculous (gosh, I hope so) - but illustrates the WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE HAVE VALUE. Why should a *scientist* say that at 8 weeks, 20 weeks, 40 weeks (and everything in between) a human becomes a human life worth saving (and the greater question being - WHY CAN'T THEY AGREE ON AN AGE)?
If we change the definition of WHEN a human becomes a human - then what would stop anyone from saying when should a human STOP living? And if *scientists* agree to it being age 63.33333333 (seems like a scientific enough number) why is that any more or less cruel than saying a human at 12 weeks in utero is OK to be killed/terminated/aborted?
Its when we humans (scientists or all other "ignoramus" folk) try our hand at playing God that we seem to fall short. EVERY.TIME. Sigh...I said "God". Good luck disproving that one, "scientists".
Signed, Proud (God-fearing, Jesus-loving) Ignoramus
P.S. Why don't the scientists who are so Pro-Choice do a study on all of the other Pro-Choice women who have suffered a miscarriage. I will bet $ to donuts that those pro-choice women were deeply emotionally affected by the LOSS of their cell mass. Sure, blame it on hormone imbalance. But ask WHAT makes them sad. I could guarantee that a majority of women won't talk about their "hormones being out of whack" but the LOSS of a BABY ("that could have been legally aborted" most likely won't be anywhere in their articulation, either).
The following Monday, the Tzar of Life states that all cancer patients will not be allowed for treatment - as the cancer they have should just follow its course and kill them anyway - rather than medicate/spend $, as the likelihood of relapse isn't worth the risk emotionally or financially.
DeleteYour argument is idiotic. Your insurance company already makes this determination. At a certain point, your benefits will be cut off because you cost to much to keep alive. There are simply not unlimited resources available.
The fact that you haven't noticed that there is, in fact, a very real dollar figure attached to keeping you alive, isn't an argument that works in your favor. It just demonstrates that you aren't ready to deal with reality.
Nice dodge, Anon.
DeleteYou push the moral question into economics, and then pass the buck to insurance companies. Your actual argument is no more than invective and insults.
Where do the insurance companies get their data?
Who is on their payroll to provide the results that best fit their portfolios? SCIENTISTS.
If you suggest this situation (eugenics etc) is already a reality, what are the scientists that instigated it doing to STOP IT?
Proud (God-fearing, Jesus-loving) Ignoramus,
The questions you raise are excellent. The slippery slope is VERY real.
The simple truth of the matter is that 'science' is well out of it's depth in these matters.
The so called 'scientists' who whore out their expertise in an act of self interest and promotion, give these social engineers EXACTLY what they want. To order.
Instead of the value of life being a moral question, it becomes an ecological and economic one.
The 'scientists', like their 'science' is simply a tool for the folks who would convert our view of human life into an ecological equation... for what end? To feed the crops, to help 'the earth', to 'sacrifice' for 'the future'.
It is all VERY Faustian.
All very unscientific, too.
Good stuff, PGFJLI !
KW writes:
ReplyDelete"A fertilized human ovum is human, but it's not a human being, it's not a person. It has to develop to a minimum stage before it can be called a person. I personally would put that at no earlier than 24 weeks gestation, the earliest date that the fetal nervous system has developed anywhere near enough to be able to feel pain. Even then, it's still not viable enough to survive outside the uterus."
Could KW write the same looking at the eyes of this little girl born at at 22 weeks?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-437236/Born-just-22-weeks--Amilla-allowed-home.html
Was this girl at 22 weeks a 'person' or not?
Was this girl at at 22 weeks able to feel pain or not?
Domics,
DeleteA picture speaks a thousand words.
Awesome story! Thanks :)
Domics,
DeleteHere is the follow up article (this year) that talks about the attitude of the doctors (did not want to save her) and show pictures of this little person, now FIVE YEARS old :) She defied their cold rules, and LIVES.
God bless her, her folks, and all those who fought for her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
CrusadeRex,
DeleteAre you reading the article correctly? It appears to me that the premature baby, a boy, died soon after birth, and the photo is of the mother, with another child, a 5 year old daughter.
WR
Crus,
DeleteAre you sure you read the article correctly? It seems to be saying that the male premature baby died soon after birth and that the mother has another 5 year old daughter.
Agreed, the management was appalling.