Replies

I was specifically talking about James Trefil, who is a noted science writer who confused eggs and embryos. He had decided "humanness" begins at 24 weeks and was so interested in mocking those who believe humanness begins at conception, that he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing. He got a good chuckle at the thought of pro-lifers trying to save the (unfertilized) eggs that women shed monthly.

I can't retrieve his old NYT op-ed article, but you can get more of an idea of his interest in determining the moment at which human life begins from this....Facts of Life: Science & the Abortion Controversy

Here is an excerpt from the Amazon editorial review of Trefil's book -- Facts of Life

Reviewing the latest advances in molecular biology, evolutionary biology, embryology, neurophysiology, and neonatology--fields that all bear on this question--the authors reveal a surprising consensus of scientific opinion; that humanness begins around the twenty-forth [sic] week of gestation when connections needed for brain function are finally made. A fascinating inquiry, moving across various scientific disciplines, The Facts of Life makes a valuable contribution to the continuing abortion controversy, and offers a fascinating glimpse of what makes us uniquely human.

Trefil seems to have thought a consensus of scientists could find the answer to when human life begins. But he got so lost in his details while trying to win his argument that he confused eggs and embryos in his op-ed piece. I may be incorrect, but I think it's obvious he was not a dispassionate scientist seeking facts, but a man looking for evidence to bolster an opinion close to the one he already held.

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

I thought scientists are most happy when they find elegant and simple answers to their questions. The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

....he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing.

:^)

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

Well, to be fair, the consensus view may actually be the true answer. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to Truth-with-a-capital-T in this life, so all we can do is use what limited tools we have in order to try and approximate the truth - reasoned discourse and consensus being two of those tools.

The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

All I can say is to reiterate that, while people may do things that are objectively evil, nobody has ever set out to do evil for its own sake - everyone believes that they are serving some good in what they do. If you have had a chance to follow the discussion that MHG and I have been having, I hope that it is at least clear that the notion that parthenogenetic organisms, for example, are in fact embryos in the truest sense is at least open for discussion among reasonable people - along with thinking that they're doing good, everyone on any side of any issue tends to think that the truth of what they believe is very nearly self-evident. Would that it were so - there'd be no disagreement at all that way ;)