Scientists or philosophers? Make up your mind, please.

dna2.gifSome people hold the view that abortion is justifiable because the unborn aren’t persons.  The personhood argument fails on many levels, but what is amusing and illuminating is when the materialist crowd debates its elusive definition.

What happened to, “We only trust what science tells us?” and that we can only trust empirical evidence? 

Secular embryology textbooks are remarkably clear about when life begins and thus what is killed during an abortion. The unborn are human beings at a particular stage of development, though people try to dehumanize them with labels such as fetus. But what kind of fetus is it?  Human. Science could not be more clear.

So why do the science-only folks get all philosophical when it comes to rationalizing abortion?

It is amazing the lengths people will go to in justifying abortion, even when they have to abandon their usual worldview to do so.

Even Planned Parenthood used to concede the humanity of the unborn.  What scientific discoveries did they find to change their minds?  Or was it a monetary discovery?

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing is possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

0 thoughts on “Scientists or philosophers? Make up your mind, please.”

  1. I am a scientist, and the unborn is human…..it is human from the moment of conception.

    Most people who use the “scientist” argument, are not even scientists….at best…they had a little biology in high school, or grade school.

    The next time someone uses that argument, ask them where they got their PhD in embryology from.

    marianne
    http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/

    Like

  2. Marianne:

    I love you in a cyber, spiritual, intellectual sense that my wife would approve of. The same thoughts were running through my mind as I was reading Neil’s post.
    I am a physician-scientist, I am always amused when I read and hear the “science” argument, usually from people that didn’t bother with doing their homework in said high school biology classes.

    Best,
    Joseph

    Like

  3. DJ,

    The morning after pill, or the usual birth control pill, which as I understand it is merely two different strengths of the same drug, is indeed a chemical abortion if conception has taken place before the drug does its job. If it prevents conception, then it is a true contraceptive, or acting as one. But that is always the case, and with the morning after, there is an assumption that conception may have taken place. Absolutely an abortion. These chemical abortions aren’t figured into the stats of how many have perished since Roe. Thus, to say 50 million have died since Roe is the most conservative of numbers.

    Like

  4. ER,

    There is no point after conception at which “personhood” is scientifically established. That has actually already happened at conception. Anything else is a subjective line of demarcation that satisfies the guilt feelings of those who agree with that line. But it isn’t a real line at all. Only conception is.

    Like

  5. Re, “would you agree that it demonstrates that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being?”

    A woman who has an abortion is ending human life, flesh of her flesh, inside her body. “Abortion” is a noun. Women and physicians are the actors here.

    MA, re: There is no point after conception at which “personhood” is scientifically established.”

    I agree. But science is only part of the discussion about what “life” is — even what “human life” is — and what we’re do with variopus forms of it. And I do agree that human life, or a sort, begins at conception.

    I’m dodging nothing. Facing, for argument’s sake, a hellish dilemma, between honoring the rights of a born woman human being, or the rights of an unborn human form of life — or, an unborn human being — existing inside the body of the born one, I’m gonna go with the rights of the born one.

    Like

  6. You conflate the right to avoid a pregnancy of her own making for a few more months with the right not to be destroyed without anesthetic. Hardly apples / apples.

    And why is it a hellish dilemma? If the woman’s right not to be inconvenienced (more likely, the father’s “right” to pressure her to have the abortion) trumps the right to life of the unborn, then abortion provides the most net happiness — in your view, at least.

    Like

  7. It would be hellish because I would be in the position of deciding who lives and who dies. That’s the position you want the law to take. I don’t want it myself. But I don’t want to take away the right of the mother to deal with as she desires with the forming body that is growing inside her grown body.

    Nice touch, BTW. “Inconvenienced” is effective rhetoric to downplay the drama and trauma of carrying a living body inside your own body when it repulses you, just as “crushing and dismemberiing human beings” is effective rhetoric for emphasizing the physical trauma of abortion while sidestepping the reality that, whether or not they are human beings, the unborn lack one critical quality that defines “human being” as most people generally understand the term: the unborn have not been born.

    Like

  8. It would be hellish because I would be in the position of deciding who lives and who dies. That’s the position you want the law to take.

    Yes, precisely. I want the law to take the position that innocent human beings get to live.

    But I don’t want to take away the right of the mother to deal with as she desires with the forming body that is growing inside her grown body.

    Toddlers have “forming bodies” so the adjective is superfluous. Do mothers have a right to do as they desire with that body? Why does that fact that it is in the womb make it fair game for destruction?

    the unborn lack one critical quality that defines “human being” as most people generally understand the term: the unborn have not been born.

    I am not aware of a single embryology textbook supporting your view about the unborn not being human beings. The Hippocratic Oath folks viewed it as a human being, and they were bronze aged (as the atheist folks like to say) pagans.

    Re. inconvenienced — pregnancy is temporary. You can’t undo an abortion, but you could always kill the child later if you change your mind, right?

    Like

  9. Re, “Why does that fact that it is in
    the womb make it fair game for destruction?”

    Because it’s neither your, nor my, nor the law’s womb.

    Re, “Toddlers have “forming bodies” so the adjective is superfluous.”

    I concede the point.

    Re, “I am not aware of a single embryology textbook supporting your view about the unborn not being human beings. The Hippocratic Oath folks viewed it as a human being, and they were bronze aged (as the atheist folks like to say) pagans. ”

    If I said that the unborn were not “human beings,” then I withdraw that. But I think I fudged a little.

    I will not fudge this: I think, given the choice of whether the law, or the mother, should have the right to decide whether a human being living inside the mother should live should rest with the mother in whose body the other human being lives.

    BTW, I am being a honest as I know how, and as clear as I can be. Feel free to keep on with such frippery as “you could always kill the child if you change your mind, right?” But I probably won’t engage it, since it is, in fact, a different subject under the law and under the genera; understanding of what bodies are.

    Like

  10. ER:

    You had written:

    “Because it’s neither your, nor my, nor the law’s womb”

    Abortion doesnt end the life of the womans womb…abortion ends the life of the child within the womb.

    Further, that life within that womb is in part due to the father….whats your opinion on his “choice” in the matter?

    Hey Marianne and Joseph…not a PhD, just a BS, but hey , wasnt Organic and Bio Chem a blasty blast?

    Like

  11. To be blunt:

    The life inside the body of the woman, the flesh of her flesh, belongs to the woman as long as that life is inside her body and is flesh of her flesh.

    The man who sired the life inside the body of the woman has no choice in the matter.

    Like

  12. ER, the baby doesn’t belong to the mother in the sense that she can destroy it. That is ridiculous. A short trip down the birth canal and a change of location doesn’t magically transform a human being from being a thing one can destroy to a human deserving protection. The protection belonged there all along.

    And you live in a fantasy world. The men are usually pressuring the women to have abortions. It is their method of birth control. Guess who suffers?

    Like

  13. No, the baby IS PART OF the mother, therefore IS the mother, until some point, which we disagree on. Which is what Roe v. Wade, whether well or poorly, treied to address under the law.

    Tough issue. Not at all clear, or easy to work through.

    Like

  14. DJ,

    I do not. I agree with Bush 41 who, when asked how he would feel if a wife or daughter of his was raped and became pregnant as a result, said, in not so many words, “Seems to me there are two victims of the rape.” That is totally accurate. Just as with the mother, the child had no say in what happened, but somehow is expected to pay the ultimate price.

    Indeed, the child had even far less choice in the matter. As a husband and father of only daughters, as well as having sisters and many female friends and relations, I have always encourage each and every one of them to take responsibility for themselves and learn how to protect themselves in what ever way works best. It is said that the women who fight off their attackers fare far better on average.

    Like

  15. ER,

    It seems you have chosen the womb as your line of demarcation in this matter. But it is still quite subjective. My problem with this is that there is no other way that one can come into existence without that 9 months in the womb prior to first seeing the light of day. Seems rather harsh to deny the unalienable right to life that our law now guarantees based on their unfortunate inability to in any way arrive by other means. And since a full period of gestation is still only 9 months, I can’t think of anything more selfish than engaging in intercourse, knowing that pregnancy is possible despite one’s best efforts to avoid it, and then denying that 9 months in order to allow the person invited to enjoy its total lifespan. As I said in another comment, I can’t see how this can be squared with even a UCC understanding of Christianity.

    Like

  16. No, the baby IS PART OF the mother, therefore IS the mother, until some point, which we disagree on. Which is what Roe v. Wade, whether well or poorly, treied to address under the law.

    Tough issue. Not at all clear, or easy to work through.

    Scientifically speaking you are wrong. Roe v. Wade was horrible law, and even many pro-aborts concede that.

    Tough issue? Psychologically complex perhaps, given that the women are in tough circumstances. That is why crisis pregnancy centers are so helpful.

    Morally complex, though? Not at all! The reasons given for 99% of abortions do not rise to the level of justifying murder.

    Like

  17. MA, it absolutely is subjective. Agreed. And, what you don’t know about Christianity is a lot.

    Neil, science is only part of the abortion debates. I’d be very careful about resting your case totally on science. Every time someone, or some movement, within the Church does that, they get bit in the butt. Science is fleeting — more fleeting than you wish it was for the sake of your arguments.

    Like

  18. Well said… it always amazes me how atheists who worship at the altar of science conveniently ignore it when it comes to abortion (the fact that a fetus is genetically unique, and therefore *not* part of the mother’s body) and evolution (second law of thermodynamics).

    No wonder they’re so grumpy – the cognitive dissonance required to maintain those contradictory views must give them an awful headache.

    Like

  19. ER,

    What is subjective is your line of demarcation. What is not is the fact that we’re talking about the lives of actual people. If I concede that somewhere down the road there may appear definitive evidence that it is not a person with the Creator endowed unalienable right to life, we must still at this point assume it is, as all available evidence and data supports this contention. It is an outright lie or denial (not much difference here) to pretend it can be objectively viewed any other way. I also know quite enough about Christianity to know that the lie/denial as well as the taking of these innocent lives, is counter to Christian teaching no matter how you look at it. What, regarding this issue, suggests to you that I am missing anything about Christianity?

    Like

  20. MA, regarding the lives of actual people: “We” are not faced with the decision. Pregnant women are. And I think pregnant women should decide.

    Re, “What, regarding this issue, suggests to you that I am missing anything about Christianity?” I meant nothing regarding this issue. WhatI meant was there is a big wide world of Christians out there, and they don’t agree on a lot a lot of the time, if you hadn’t noticed. 🙂

    Like

  21. I have noticed, now that you bring it up. It doesn’t mean a darn thing as to what is so obviously true here. Pregnant women are pregnant by choice 98% of the time. They got that way by engaging in the very act designed to make them so. They made their decision and having made it invited into existence another person. They are morally and ethically responsible to provide for the child until they can put it up for adoption. To do away with the child through abortion is to murder their own child, plainly and simply. To support the continued legalization of the process is to be complicit.

    Like

  22. Sidesteping the usual misuse of the word “murder” — oh, no I won’t. War is murder. You dig it. You’re complicit. Hoo ha.

    Back to the show:

    Re, Call me complicit in supporting the continued legalization of any woman having legal control over her own body and the body inside her body — up to a subjective point where “viability” causes the obligation of the state to outweigh the rights of the mother, which is what we have now.

    Like

  23. ER,

    Ah, the war comparison. Get serious. Now, back to the show.

    ““We” are not faced with the decision. Pregnant women are. And I think pregnant women should decide.”

    YOU are not faced with someone making my life difficult, yet, you are not out of bounds to say that I have no right to take their life. You support a cheap rationalization to allow women and men to duck their responsibilities. It’s worse for you to do so here than in my hypothetical because I’m talking about someone who could fight back. This increases your shame.

    Like

  24. I heard something on Glen Beck that makes some sense.
    Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama give the appearance of wanting to use abortion as population control here and throughout the world. Pelosi mentioned that abortion is good for the economy. (Less People) When Obama signed on to tax payer funded abortions and contraception given to other countries, he does it for the same thing. (less people) Obama wants national health care. Speculation here is that the government controlled health care could limit paying for only one child birth per family. And what would Pelosi and Obama suggest if you got pregnant a second time? You guessed it.

    Like

  25. Pelosi is right, in a technical sense. If you kill human beings that consume disproportionate resources then you’ll save a few $$, at least in the short term. One way to reduce poverty is to kill poor people.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s