Science and Scientists Do Not Claim a Fertilized Cell is a Human Being
The old saw that "science proves a fertilized cell is a human being" is seldom discussed by scientists themselves. It is discussed endlessly by propagandists who oppose abortion. I was pleased to see a legitimate scientist publish some thoughts on this propaganda claim.
The link, written by a professor with a Ph. D. from the conservative Un. of Chicago and a professor for two decades in both departments of biology and psychology, appeared on an issues site. It is not a refereed academic article but is careful, as academic articles are, not to overstate his case.
The professor writes, "...I'm fascinated by the ways people use biology to shore up ideas in a variety of topics from abortion to economic policy." He did not say, but an example of the latter is often economic models supposedly based of "natural selection" or "natural equilibrium." Economists who advise conservative politicians often try to insert biology to claims government should not intervein in the economy because there is some "natural" thing going on there.
The link author also notes about abortion, "A bioethical issue as complex as the one cannot be resolved simply by appealing to the 'facts' of biology."
While we have discussed here the "unique DNA" in the fertilized cell and cells that result are often called a human being that must not be "murdered" by an abortion, it is not that simple. A large proportion to the cells with this DNA are not used in the fetus or later in a born baby. Instead, they are used in the support systems in the mother. They are in, for example, the umbilical cord or placenta. Is this tissue, tossed away to die, a human being just because it has "unique DNA?" Certainly someone could have the same opinion about the tissue called the placenta being a human being as they have about the tissue called the fetus being a human being. They could parade in front of abortion clinics with pictures of placentas.
He also discusses the "heartbeat." We have noted here before that neurons firing are called "heartbeats" when there is not heart. Propaganda being what it is, this opens the door to emotional appeals that the fetus has an awareness which most certainly it does not.
The link author repeats often he is not taking a position on whether abortions should be allowed or not. It is not a question that can be answered by science. Better would be honesty. Honesty requires someone claiming a fertilized egg is a human being attribute that view to his/her religion, not to science.
Personally, I think this person's reasoning doesn't work. By his reasoning, if I lost an arm and we had to "throw it away", that would be murder. That's a huge leap, and I don't think his argument does anything to rebut the idea that a human being is allegedly killed when a fetus is aborted.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think that anyone who understands how science works also understands that whether or not a zygote is a human being is something that doesn't exist on the scientific realm. In order to be able to define that in a scientific way, we'd have to devise a test to attempt to falsify the assertion. Can you think of such a test? We have a lot of real world examples where a zygote doesn't become a human being, perhaps due to miscarriage, but anti-abortion folks would just counter that by saying the fetus is already a human being. Therefore, there really is no test we can develop to assert such a thing, and that makes the concept unfalsifiable.
It's based on interpretation, and anyone who has put serious thought into the matter understands that. Some people define life as "unique DNA". Some people define it as a measurable heartbeat. Currently, the law defines it as "viability", but a more modern approach, one that is used for end-of-life decisions, is cognitive ability. It's something that is quantitatively measurable, and it makes sense from a logical perspective that a being only "is" if it is aware that it "is".
I personally don't see a lot of wiggle room in this reasoning. However, that means that there is nothing but wiggle room when we are talking about "when a human life begins", and I think it's an unresolvable conflict.
Bryan K--"However, that means there is nothing but wiggle room when we are talking about 'When a human life begins' and I think it is an unresolvable conflict."
DeleteThe question of when a human life begins has been established by law--and formerly was the predominant view in religion. In law, a human life begins at birth, period. The question that remains unresolved is not when a life begins but what rights does a woman have over her own body. Any rational consideration of this concludes the fetus is part of her body when it is in her body. Religious views may prevail when the fetus can survive outside her body. Then, various complex issues arise that are best left to doctors and the woman.
Currently, the legal definition of when life begins is "viability" and the legal definition of when life ends is "cognition".
DeleteThe period of time between viability and birth is a completely different argument with a completely different circumstances, in my eyes. Of course, a woman should have the choice to end the pregnancy if it is a safe procedure. I also believe that's the point where every effort should be made to save the fetus/baby, and that's where it becomes a hell of a lot more complicated.
Fortunately, the vast majority of abortions that occur after viability are due to medical necessity, so it's not much of an issue as far as I'm concerned.
You don't talk about it at all!
ReplyDeleteWhat you won't ever talk about is abortion 5 minutes before birth, 5 minutes AFTER birth or the murder of a 2 year old.
You reserve the right to kill at most anytime. After all, many kids are a pain to women at all ages.
Matt--"What you don't want to talk about is abortion 5 minutes before birth...."
DeleteWhat you don't want to talk about are the rights of the woman. In your world, pregnant women have no rights during their pregnancy.
Evade the issue that you advocate infanticide.
ReplyDeleteA woman has all the rights she had before pregnancy. Pregnancy involves the woman and all the babies in her womb, i.e. multiple people's rights.