The corruption of the science of Human Embryology

American Bioethics Advisory Commission (ABAC) QUARTERLY ^ | Fall 2002 | C. Ward Kischer Ph.D.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

The twins problem is this, at fertilization (conception), the number of embryoes that will result is unknown. It can be one, two, three, four, or, even none... There is no doubt that a fertilized egg is a potential human being, but it is not a human being.

The quote which you initial complained about uses the term "human life". You claim that since this is not a human being, but possibly multiple human beings, it is of no value, and so you quite niftily made the destruction of multiple human beings an equally trivial action.

[Hank Kerchief]

If you want to call that which has not been born by the same name as those who have, that is your perogative. If a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are all going to be called a human being, then we need another term for a baby that has been born.

I know you think I'm being flip, but I do not intend that at all. We do not call an unhatched chicken a chicken because it is not a chicken. It will be once it is hatched (born), but until then, it is only a "potential" chicken.

I strongly oppose abortion, but am afraid the rational opposition to it has been taken over by a mostly irrational and emotional approach to the whole subject which does much more harm than good.

Your graphic, by the way, would convince anyone that already believes abortion is good, if that is what a fetus looks like, it ought to be destroyed. It looks like a tadpole or some space monster. It is really disgusting. Have you no shame?

Hank

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

On our planet, it takes approximately nine months for the zygote to develope (embryo, fetus) and then be born as a human being.

I understand peoples's difficulty with declaring human being status (and the accompanying rights/protections) as the moment of conception, but denying such status until the moment of birth (or even later as some would do) is abominable.

There is a really appalling section in this dialogue where Barbara Boxerappears to claim that we should wait for "a minute" after birth until we call a newborn a "human being."

[Hank Kerchief]

unborn fetuses are HUMAN BEINGS.

Then what do you call born fetuses? If unborn fetuses are already human beings, why do you call them fetuses? Do words have no meaning for you people?

Hank

[MHGinTN]

You're a weird egg, Hank. Goodnight

[Hank Kerchief]

I understand peoples's difficulty with declaring human being status ... but denying such status until the moment of birth ... is abominable.

I know you are aware that some still births occur at full term. Is it abominable that God or nature, if you choose, has determined that these potential human beings never will exist?

I know from personal experience the emotional impact of this, but feelings do not take the place of facts.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

Bippity, bobbity, bump ... I trust your baby is all right?

[MHGinTN]

Uh, perhaps I meant that query for Motherbear.

[MHGinTN]

http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm ... And bump to the top

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Is it abominable that God or nature, if you choose, has determined that these potential human beings never will exist?

But, we have no control over God or nature or bad luck or whatever one wants to call it.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Then what do you call born fetuses? If unborn fetuses are already human beings, why do you call them fetuses? Do words have no meaning for you people?

Again, I question whether you have read the article. It is precisly this use of differentiating terminology which the author has taken pains to describe as non-sensical and dangerous.

[Hank Kerchief]

It is precisly this use of differentiating terminology which the author has taken pains to describe as non-sensical and dangerous.

Exactly. The blurring of distinctions, sloppy integration, and the failure to make clear non-contradictory indentifications is always the method of those who attempt to obfuscate the truth. You have cleverly identified the method the author of this article has used to further his very unscientific agenda in the name of "science."

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

I said: Is it abominable that God or nature, if you choose, has determined that these potential human beings never will exist?
You said: But, we have no control over God or nature or bad luck or whatever one wants to call it.

That is exactly my point. There is no control, or certainty of whether the unborn will ever be born. Until the baby is born, no one can ever say for certain it will be born, even though in most cases, they are.

Remember, this was in response to your statement, but denying such status until the moment of birth ... is abominable, and my point is that giving such status before birth is presumptuous.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

... and my point is that giving such status(status of a living individual human) before birth is presumptuous. Hank Hank, your ghoulish insistence upon denying the individual living humanity of the preborn is arbitrary and foolish, and if you'd read the article (or had someone read it to you, if it's too difficult for you to follow) you would see that the author addresses well the absurdity of your assertion, your ghoulish insistence that the unborn are not living individual humans. With the learned offering in the above article, the issue is not a debating point but rather an axiom: from the perspective of science, the individual human lifetime begins at conception, period. I'm afraid you've marginalized yourself too such an extreme that you've lost what credibility you may have enjoyed previously.

[MHGinTN]

bttt

[Hank Kerchief]

With the learned offering in the above article, the issue is not a debating point but rather an axiom: from the perspective of science, the individual human lifetime begins at conception, period. I'm afraid you've marginalized yourself too such an extreme that you've lost what credibility you may have enjoyed previously.

You may believe whatever you like about when a human being actually becomes a human being, and may define those words as you choose. As for this issue being a scientific one, it is not. A definition of humaness is philosophical, not scientific. There is no way the definition of "human being" can be axiomatic.

No one denies that a new life begins at conception. This is the red herring always thrown into this discussion. Every cell is alive, but being 'human' requires something more than just being alive.

I am going to suggest a solution. When I refer to a human being, I mean a "living breathing" human being. When you refer to a human being, you mean anything that might eventually become a "living breathing" human being as well as a "living breathing" human being.

This reduces our disagreement to a matter of definition. I do not deny that a fertilized egg is alive, or that an embryo or fetus are alive. I do not deny that, barring any problem or difficulty, these will become "living breathing" human beings.

If we accept your definition of human being, a new word will be required for "living breathing" human beings. If we accept my definition, a new word will be required for your idea that whatever will be or is a "living breathing" human being is already a human being. Or we could adopt the current usage of zygote, embryo, and fetus for what is not yet a "living breathing" human being but probably will be, and "human" for what is actually a living breathing human being. I leave the choice up to you.

I have always considered myself marginalized. The truth is hated by most. I have no interest in convincing anyone else. I have answered such questions as others seemed interested in asking. If others do not choose to think for themselves, it is their choice. I have learned, being right always puts you in the minority and the more right you are, the smaller the minority. Knowing the truth does not require anyone else's agreement.

As for the "the learned offering in the above article," it was so much pompous pseudo-scientific blather, but some are impressed by such things. I do not mean such science as was discussed was incorrect, but that the philosophical conclusions drawn were spurious. Evidently this seems quite "credible" to some. Personally, I have no desire to be credible. I do not want anyone to believe anything based on what I say. I want people to use their own best reason to honestly examine what they believe and allow no contradictions.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

We disagree about the meaning of the word human. See post #37 for a possible solution.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

Personally, I have no desire to be credible. That was/is obvious, Hank. I'm surprised you felt the need to admit it though. Out of curiousity, what is it about the birthing that conveys reality of a living individual human being, in your view? The birth certificate? The first inhilation? The air reaching the baby's body? The first sound out of the newborn? The first person who sees the newly arrived thing?

[Hank Kerchief]

Out of curiousity, what is it about the birthing that conveys reality of a living individual human being, in your view?

Let my ask a rhetorical question. Why do we need a word "human?" What is the word meant to designate?

Historically the word we use "human" for was "man" as in mankind. The purpose, philosophically, was to differentiate man from all other creatures. The philosophical definition of man is "rational animal." This definition is based on the Porphyrain tree which briefly defines all living things thus: all bodies, non-living (mineral) or living (organism), all organisms, non-sentient (plant) or sentient (animal), all animals, non-rational (brute) or rational (man). So, the ultimate genus (or species) of man is "rational animal." This definition serves to distinguish man (human beings) from all other existents.

To take this very useful concept and use it to make arguments with regard to biological and moral concepts is an epistemological mistake, and does harm to both moral concepts and the basis of knowledge itself, which is the clear non-contadictory definition of words.

My real objection to calling anything other than an organism we can actually see breathing a human being is that it is a confusion of the meaning of the word itself, and all such confusion ultimately allows any kind of obfuscation of the truth reducing all argument to a clamoring of opinion rather than objective reason.

Take the question of abortion for example. This question should never be based on the definition of man or what a human being is. Abortion is the destruction of life, a life that, if born (according to it's strict definition) will be a human being. It is intended to be a human being, and the willful destruction of it will prevent the intended purpose from being fulfilled. [By intention, I do not mean in the teleological sense, but in the biological sense. If you are religious, you may also mean in the teleological sense.]

I believe the argument that an unborn is already a human being does great damage to the "credibility" of those who oppose abortion, encouraging the very thing we object to.

Hank