Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Great TED Talks vid: Human life from conception to birth

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Comments
"Since science has, indeed, confirmed that the fetus is a member of the human family..." Science has done nothing of he sort. "The human family" is not a scientific term, and the truth of the proposition, "The fetus is a member of the human family" depends entirely on how you define it. I would define "the human family" as the set of all beings consisting of a human body joined with a soul. If you define it in such a way as to include a human zygote, I guarantee you that using that definition to prove that abortion is murder will be begging the question.Bruce David
November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Furthermore, you have NOT demonstrated that anything has an inherent natural right to life. To say that murder is wrong is not the same as saying that a person has a natural right to life, nor does it imply that. In other words, in general, the immorality of an action does not imply that the the recipient of the action has a natural right to consequences of refraining from the action. To see this, consider keeping one's word. Your conscience may tell you that it is immoral to break your word. This may be (and probably is) because breaking a promise is a violation of your own integrity. It's about you; it's about what it's ok for you to do, and not about the person to whom you have given your word or their rights at all. If I give you my word that I will teach you how to play tennis, I have not created an inherent natural right in you to learn tennis, even if I do believe that breaking that promise is immoral.Bruce David
November 22, 2011
November
11
Nov
22
22
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
In 29.1.2.1.1, you state, "Through reason, we can apprehend the natural moral law, which means that no religious faith is necessary." So I challenged you to provide the demonstration of how reason "apprehends" that a fertilized human egg has an inherent natural right to live. You finally gave me an answer, above, which consists of two parts, the first of which is that we "apprehend the natural moral law through our God-given conscience", and conscience tells us that murder is wrong. So it isn't reason that apprehends natural moral law, it is our conscience (unless you claim that reason and conscience are the same thing). So my first question is, which is it, reason or conscience? My second question is, how can you claim that there is an objective moral law when different people's consciences, which you claim are God-given, come up with different morals? One's person conscience will tell him that sex between two unmarried adults is immoral, another's will not. One person's conscience will tell them that lying to avoid hurting the feelings of another is moral, another's will tell her that it is immoral lie under any circumstances. Even the question of murder is ambiguous when you examine it closely. Is it immoral to kill someone to protect one's property? Some would say yes, some no. Is executing a convicted murderer also murder? Some would say yes, some no. Is the nurse who turns off the life support for a terminal patient in excruciating pain and who has asked to die committing murder? Some would say yes, some no. How about starting a war, like the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Innocent people are killed in wars. Starting one means that you will be responsible for their deaths. Is this murder? Some people's consciences will tell them, "Yes", some "No". So how can you say that conscience can give us objective moral law? The second part of your answer is that reason's apprehension of the immorality of abortion is a function of a person knowing that "scientific evidence...shows that the fetus is...whole and is just as much a part of the human family as anyone at any stage of development." In the first place, I keep asking how you know that a fertilized human egg has "an inherent natural right to live", and you keep redirecting my question to a "fetus". Since some fetuses would qualify as human beings by my definition, I'm going to talk about a human zygote, which I think I can safely assume is included in your use of the term "fetus" in the above quote. The scientific evidence includes facts such as that a zygote is a single cell formed by the union of a human sperm and egg, that it contains the full complement of human DNA, that if left in utero and all goes well, it will in nine months be born as a human infant. That it "is just as much a part of the human family as anyone at any stage of development" simply does not follow from the scientific facts by any logical sequence or rules of inference. There is no way to derive that proposition from scientific facts. For one thing, the term "human family" is not a scientific term, and whether something belongs to the "human family" depends entirely on how you define it. The fact is that your statement is a conclusion that YOU draw from the scientific facts, not because if follows logically (that is, by reason), but just because it seems true to you. To sum up, you believe that abortion is murder because you do, period. You like to believe that you arrive at this conclusion through reason, but you are fooling yourself (and only yourself...well maybe Bornagain77 also). Regarding the last two paragraphs, by the clause, "just don’t lay it on me" I did not mean to say, don't express your opinion. I would never say that. I was trying to express something along the lines of "don't try to ram your opinion down my throat", but to avoid getting into a discussion of what THAT means and whether you have been doing that, I think I'll just withdraw the comment. Regarding your questions and comments relative to women, I said above and I stand by it, I'm for a woman being free to make her own decision. This would include having access to all the information and advice she cares to access or listen to. If after hearing the arguments, she decides to have the baby, I have absolutely no problem with that. If you think you can convince her of the rectitude of your position, go for it. If you succeed, I have no problem with that either. What I do have a problem with (adamantly opposed to is a better phrase) is forcing her by law to carry a pregnancy to term when if free she would choose to end it.Bruce David
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Good observation.StephenB
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Not to trivialize it, but abortion is like putting a dent in someone's car door and then driving away. Everyone knows the right thing to do, but it's so inconvenient, and as far as they can tell they are getting away with it.ScottAndrews2
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
That should read, "ignorance of reality and death always go together."StephenB
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
I agree that a great deal of morality is not self evident. On the other hand, some moral precepts are obvious, the exhortation against murder being one of them. With respect to the current subject, the relevant question then, is this: Is the fetus one of us? If the answer is no, then one could make a rational case for abortion. If the answer is yes, then abortion is clearly immoral. Since science has, indeed, confirmed that the fetus is a member of the human family, I don't know how one can provide rational justification for an abortion, defined as the "direct" killing of a fetus, not the "indirect killing," that may be the incidental result of a medical procedure to protect the life of the mother.StephenB
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
I never avoid questions Bruce. We apprehend the natural moral law through our God-given concsience, which is innate. It is the same conscience that tells us that murder is wrong--the same concience that tells YOU murder is wrong. However, one may not know that kllling a fetus is wrong unless someone else has the kindness to provide the scientific evidence which shows that the fetus is more than a mere blob of tissue--that it is, in fact, whole and is just as much a part of the human family as anyone at any stage of development. I realize that you have no respect for that fact, and that your world view prompts you to reject all countervailing evidence, but none of that changes reality. ---"Don’t get me wrong. You’re entitled to your opinion. Just don’t lay it on me, and certainly don’t force it on a woman who desperately wants to end her pregnancy." LOL You think I am entitled to my opinion as long as I don't express it. I know that this will be a big surprise to you, but most women do not know the scientific facts about abortion. However, unlike you, they are, for the most part, open to it. Typically, when someone shows them the baby in their womb, they are grateful and do not kill it. Very few people dismiss hard evidence the way you do. Indeed, many women, who are not given that information and have an abortion, go into a deep state of depression when they learn that they have been lied to. Ignorance of reality and death are always go together. Do you think women are entitled to the scientific facts about abortion and the status of the fetus, or do you think that providing that information is "forcing" an opinion on them?StephenB
November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Thank you for your contribution, Scott. I wondered if anyone but me and Stephen were listening at this point. I don't know how closely you have been following our debate, but in case you haven't been, my point is that whether you regard a human zygote as a human being is going to be very much dependent on one's philosophy, one's view of the nature of reality, God, our own nature, etc. My own view is that who each of us truly is is pure spirit, made in the image and likeness of God, eternal, immortal, completely safe from harm. We take residence (incarnate) in human bodies periodically for the purpose of the forgetting and then having the exquisite experience of remembering Who We Really Are. (This is a VERY brief summary of a much more complex topic.) Given that view, the most natural way to regard a human being is that it is a human body conjoined with a soul, and if the soul, the animating force, that which has intelligence, creativity, compassion, and love, is missing, then what remains, the body, really isn't a human being at all. Now add to this my belief, based primarily on information presented in the two books, "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls" by Michael Newton, that the process of incarnation is such that a soul does not join a body until that body has a well developed brain, and I arrive at the conclusion that a fetus becomes a human being at some point during the third trimester, when the incoming soul merges with it. I do not say all this to convince you of the truth of my beliefs, only to present the case that it is possible, based on one's world view, to legitimately have a different opinion than that a human being comes into being at the moment of conception. Thank you for listening.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
You're avoiding my question Stephen. You claim that reason can apprehend the "natural right to live" of a fertilized human egg. I ask you for the demonstration. If you can't give a demonstration that can be evaluated by another rational mind, then it's simply your own personal opinion. This whole discussion turns on this question, Stephen. If you can't demonstrate this natural right that you claim is inherent in a zygote, you've got nothing. Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't lay it on me, and certainly don't force it on a woman who desperately wants to end her pregnancy.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
For that matter, a great deal of morality isn't self-evident. If two grown men want to have sex, many people don't see a problem with it. Much of what we call morality is really obedience. We recognize an authority and obey. When we think about it we can usually see why a certain law is beneficial and disobedience to it detrimental. But sometimes we can't. Or some people just don't. We follow certain rules out of obedience. That rubs some people the wrong way, just to obey because you think that someone else knows more than they do or because they owe it to them. But if you have a strong reason for recognizing an authority and a basis for trust, then such obedience is wisdom. A child can demonstrate a degree of wisdom by obeying his parents, whether or not he understands or agrees. Understanding is nice, and we're granted some to the extent of our capacity for it. But trust and obedience are foundational. If they are missing, reason and understanding are not enough to compensate.ScottAndrews2
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
That an embryo is in a sense human has a great deal of logical support. I happen to believe that it is a human life. But it's not self-evident. Most women who abort a fetus would never a murder a child. They call it 'getting rid of it.' Whether they realize what they are doing or are in denial or really don't believe it's a human is personal. It's a belief. To me it's a very well-founded belief. But if someone wants to go the cold, logical route then I can't see convincing them short of persuading them to recognize the same authority that I do. Don't get me wrong - I think there's a very strong logical case to be made that an embryo is human being. If it isn't, then outside of personal speculations, when does it become one? If you can pinpoint any moment when it is human, was it not human the moment before? It regresses back to conception. There are logical arguments going the other way. I don't agree with them, but the point is that it isn't self-evident. It is foremost a part of our belief system. Mine is quite well supported, but ultimately I can't boil it down to nuts and bolts of logic.ScottAndrews2
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
The issue we are discussing at the moment isn't very complicated. Either the natural moral law exists, can be apprehended, and is binding, in which case abortion is an immoral act; or else the moral law doesn't exist, cannot be apprehended, and is not binding, in which case there are no immoral acts, including abortion. What matters is not whetehr Jefferson and Co were good philosophers but rather if the philosophy that they embraced was true.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
"Well, clearly the notion of two different definitions for humans is an arbitrary rationale calculated to justify the abortion of a fetus." I have only one definition of a human being, which I have repeated over and over and over. Your assertion that I have two, once again, begs the question, because it assumes that I accept that a human zygote is a human being, but an inferior one. Yet AGAIN, you distort my meaning for the sake of winning the argument. And again I ask you, do you really think that an onlooker whom you wish to save from the evil clutches of new age thinking is going to be persuaded by THAT?Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Well, clearly the notion of two different definitions for humans is an arbitrary rationale calculated to justify the abortion of a fetus. Do you think that you are the first pro-choice person to come up with it? To judge one part of the human population as inferior to another is the classic means for rationalizing murder. Whether or not that little gambit is an honest extension of your world view I will leave to you.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Ok, leaving aside the question of whether Jefferson and his colleagues qualify as authorities on philosophical truth, the only ones mentioned in that statement are men. Women and children are left out, not to mention the unborn. But let's grant for the sake of argument that the word "men" really meant "human beings". If you advance this as an argument for the truth of your position, you are begging the question, which is "What constitutes a human being?" That question is simply not addressed by the quote. And anyway, what is said is that "we hold these truths to be self-evident". That hardly proves they are true. Someone else (King George, for example) might respond, "Well they aren't self-evident to ME."Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
You say, "Through reason, we can apprehend the natural moral law, which means that no religious faith is necessary." Ok, show me how we can do that. Show me how you use reason to apprehend natural moral law. Kant attempted it (and Kant was no dummy), but his analysis was faulty. Many others have tried, but someone else always finds holes in their reasoning. What have you got that elevates your use of "reason" above all the others who have tried and failed, that makes your "apprehension" anything other than your personal opinion?Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
"Well, if all the knowledgeable sciencts say that an embryo is a human being and you say that it isn’t, then that would contradict your definition wouldn’t it?" If you understood my position you would know that the answer is obviously "No", because whether an embryo is a human being is not a question that can be answered by science, period. As I have said over and over, it is a matter of definition in the realm of philosophy, and as we well know from watching Dawkins make a fool of himself when he ventures into the realm of philosophy, scientists are no more qualified to do philosophy than I am. Most probably less so, since I have studied the subject formally, and most scientists probably have not. But in any case, the question is moot, since I seriously doubt that all or even the majority of biologists would say that it is scientific fact that a human embryo is a human being. "However, if you are all that hung up on the definition of a 'human being,' which you introduced as an arbitrary tactic to separate unworthy humans (those who do not meet your definition) from worthy humans (those who do)..." Oh, so now you're a mind reader are you? Your comment is insulting, as it implies that my stated views are dishonest. Once again, you resort to shabby, underhanded debate tactics of the sort employed by Darwinists. You have no basis on which to make that statement other than your own imagination and your desire to somehow defeat me at any cost, even to your own integrity. I'll have you know, sir, that my definition of a human being follows naturally from my understanding of the true nature of reality and the process by which souls get born into human bodies. My definition of what constitutes a human being comes first; my views on whether abortion is murder follow from it, not the other way around. You really can't see, can you, that the way you consistently manipulate truth in the service of truth is an internal contradiction, and doomed to fail. It renders your arguments petty and impotent.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
From the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
I think you are confusing two questions. Your first question focused on the issue of how we know that the right to life is objective (existing independent of our thoughts or personal designs). If God conferred it, then obviously it is objective and not subjective (something we make up as we go along). Your second question appears to focus on the epistemological problem of how we can know that this is true. Through reason, we can apprehend the natural moral law, which means that no religious faith is necessary. If the natural moral law doesn't exist, or if we cannot apprehend it, then obviously there is no warrant for asserting that a fetus, or anyone for that matter, has an inherent right to live.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Well, I accept that you believe that this is true, but your personal belief does not amount to a warrant. Have you got anything else?Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Well, if all the knowledgeable sciencts say that an embryo is a human being and you say that it isn't, then that would contradict your definition wouldn't it? Also, their definition of a human being is based on factual data that was compelling enough that they felt justified in using that word. However, if you are all that hung up on the definition of a "human being," which you introduced as an arbitrary tactic to separate unworthy humans (those who do not meet your definition) from worthy humans (those who do) then just use the word human, the definition of which is clear. The embryo and the fetus are humans--period. Then the only question to ask is--do all humans qualify for the right to life.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
The natural right to live is objective because it is conferred on humans by their Creator.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Correction: other than you want it to be trueBruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in these paragraphs demonstrates that my definition of a human being (a soul conjoined with a human body) is self contradictory or contradicts scientific fact. Dr. George makes the same mistake that you do--he takes is as given and "scientific fact" that a human body is equivalent to a human being. That is the assertion I deny, and neither you nor Bornagain nor anyone you have quoted has demonstrated its truth.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
You still haven't given me a warrant for your assertion that a fertilized human egg's natural right to life is objective. I can only assume you have no justification other that you want it to be true.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
What is a 'human' if it is not a human being? The distinction you cannot seem to grasp is the difference between something that is "human" and something that is "a human" or a human being. Examples of things that are human but not human beings are human hair, human skin cells, human DNA, a human appendix, etc., and, in my philosophy (and many, many other people's), a fertilized human egg. God, you're thick.Bruce David
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
“It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway, though, since you don’t even think that “human beings” have an inherent right to live.” ---Bruce: "Show me one statement anywhere in this post from which that conclusion could reasonably be drawn. My whole point is that whether or not abortion is murder turns on whether or not what one kills in the process is regarded as a human being. The clear implication is that killing a human being is murder and thus unjustified." The key word in that passage is "inherent." I don't doubt for a moment that you think that killing someone that meets your personal definition of a human being is murder, however, that is not an argument for the "inherent" or natural right to live which, by definition, must be objective and cannot be based on personal preferences. You don't believe in inherent rights or natural rights.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Bruce, your ongoing attempt to separate the definition of a “human” with that of a “human being” is just a convoluted way of introducing classes of beings. Not only is that argument illogical, it ignores the facts of science. You should burn the books that you are reading and start studying the book “Embryo,” by Dr. Robert George. “That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” “Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms —living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” It is a scientific fact that, at whatever stage the embryo or fetus may be in the developmental process, it is, unless interfered with, destined to reach biological maturity. Because fetus’s (even embryos) are WHOLE members of the human species, they are human beings. This is the rational, science-based definition of a human being, not some arbitrary standard based on subjective feelings, personal preferences, and wild guesses about when the soul enters the body, a fact that cannot be determined through scientific investigation.StephenB
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
But killing a 'human' is ok???bornagain77
November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply