Science Tries to Define "Life", not "Human Life"
Over and over again anti abortion operatives tell us, "Science has determined that one fertilized cell is a human being." Science has not determined this is the case. The only agreement about this is within the religious community of anti abortion Christian nationalists. Science does, however, discuss "life," an entirely different topic.
There are at least 100 definitions in science that try to define "life." The definition used is different because applications of the term differ according to the issue under examination.
One of the novel tricks of recent years used by Christian nationalists is to say one fertilized human egg has a difference DNA than the woman carrying it. Viruses have unique DNA.
Another trick used by Christian nationalists is to say that when the fetus has a heart beat it is separate from its mother. Our doofus Governor here in Iowa just repeated that in today's newspaper. A rabbit fetus probably has a heartbeat. In either the case of the human or rabbit fetus there is no heart, just nerves firing.
A definition used sometimes in science is that an organism is a life when it can reproduce itself. We cannot use that definition for humans because it would apply only to adults. Still, if religious nationalists want to drop the word "science" into their propaganda we can point this out.
Anti abortion nationalists made a mistake when they started calling abortion "murder." There are about 5,500 deaths per day in the United States. Many of the result of carelessness or neglect by some agency or person. Some deaths are choices of those who died. There are many miscarriages which mostly occur because of nature. But even some of these can be traced to a mistake by someone or some policy.
In general, science cannot help the anti abortion zealots. Better they stay out of government and leave the rest of us alone.
Such hateful rhetoric. You must be studying the Squad, Planned Parenthood and the usual suspects of race baiters in politics, Hollywood and academia. Your game is awful. It is transparent. No one but your close, personal operatives (haha) are buying it.
ReplyDelete1. Anti-abortion operatives.
2. Christian nationalists.
3. Novel tricks ... used by Christian nationalists.
4. Another trick used by Christian nationalists.
5. Religious nationalists.
6. Propaganda.
7. Anti-abortion nationalists.
8. Anti-abortion zealots.
Matt "Such hateful rhetoric."
DeleteI had people twice march up and down in front of my house with signs saying I am a murderer. Apparently, that is your definition of kindness.
Whether it is white people trying to put down black people with slavery and segregation, Christian people trying to prevent gay people from renting apartments or the self righteous shouting "prayers" to young women entering a women's clinic, these define the term "hate."
once again I am probably wasting my time (idiot that I am), expecting the censor's hand to fall hard once again. hopefully, however, maybe Jon will take the time to read my comments, meaning that I have not totally wasted my time. first, I have some sympathy for Jon with the people screaming murder in front of his house. Jon's home, like my home, is his castle (as they say) and should be respected as such. second, although abortion is an objectively homicidal act, no one should be casually shouting murder. there is always the question of culpability: in other words was there real intent to commit murder?: maybe no, maybe yes. in a society where abortion, in many circles at least, is thought of a nothing more serious than removing a wart, moral vision may well be obscured, blinded. just as in a society of slaveholders. third, tho' none of this gives Jon a free pass to mock others, to return hate for what he thinks of as hatful rhetoric directed at him. Yes, Matt is right: Jon regularly spews out malevolent, judgemental rhetoric.
DeleteUnknown "Jon regularly spews out malevolent, judgmental rhetoric."
DeleteOne of the things I enjoy about writing this blog is observing old debate technique arise again and again. In this case, I wrote a blog explaining again that there is no basis in science for the claim that a fertilized cell is a human being. I wrote it because the claim is made frequently that "science proves" the fertilized cell is a human being.
Since I made such a good case against the claims of anti abortion zealots they, you and Matt, have decided not to critique my case. You resorted to the old strategy, "If you have lost the argument, make personal attacks."
Both you and Matt wrote posts that did not mention the argument I made. Instead you went off on how I referred to those who try to push their religious views into law.
Our Constitution and its authors, the founding fathers, chose a secular form of government, one that did not have a state religion. I prefer to resist those who want to put such a religion into our government.
as I recall, I have provided several arguments, philosophical arguments, not theological arguments, countering your oft repeated view re your buzz about religion and government, etc. understandably, I am inclined to go thru it once again. suffice to say, I do not find your arguments about life at all convincing. leaky as a sieve from a reasoned, even commonsensical point of view.
DeleteWhen something patently obvious as human life is thrust under your microscope to look at, and you return with 'that is not human and it is not life', one can assume that the horse is dead so why beat it again and again.
DeleteYou further harm your straw man argument about those who would impose a Christian theocracy. Such a theocracy would first have to pass through the ecumenical filter. That filter would not allow any speck to pass through as the speck would be blasted by countless Protestant denominations as well as the Catholic faith. Regardless, the Catholic Church holds that government is not our savior.
So, to *ALL* the people who continue to follow this blog after over a decade of its existence, I submit that Jon is an open book, a shallow book and an uninteresting book. One would hope he would argue honestly but, hope is not a good strategy in this case.
not inclined to go thru it once again
DeleteAnd I must add it is no excuse for the sophistical rhetoric put forth in Jon's post.
ReplyDeleteanonymous "As I recall I offered several philosophical arguments...not religious..."
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any. You have said often there are philosophical arguments that are not religious. Once you praised a book and revealed the author. I pointed out he is a very religious person and the book was from a religious propaganda publisher. After you many posts here I have concluded this is what you read, material that dabbles in philosophy written by religious people. I think you would help yourself by reading critics of philosophy writers who claim the fetus is a human being. Broaden your perspective from the narrow religious one you hang onto. Just a suggestion.