Biological science affirms that every fertilized human egg is a human (it has its own gender, unique DNA, and is no other species but Homo sapiens). The question is not whether a zygote (or embryo or fetus) is human. It is.Egnor asserts that humanity is a discrete, not a continuous variable. If so, then would he kindly point to the exact point at which the human begins? After all, fertilization itself is a multi-step process. So, where is it? When the sperm breaches the oocyte membrane? Formation of the pro-nuclei? Initial DNA replication? Degeneration of the pro-nuclei membrane? Formation of the mitotic spindle? Fusion of the chromosomes? Division of the chromosomes and formation of the first daughter cells? This really should be an easy answer for Egnor. Since biological science affirms that there is a discrete distinction between human and gametes, pointing to that magic point should be trivial.
Of course it isn't, which is why it is correct to say that Egnor declares a zygote a human, with human rights, by fiat. But if that's the case, shouldn't zygotes have the right to vote, drink, own property, etc.? He gets around the implications that we recognize different rights by age by claiming that while humanity is a discrete variable, human rights are not. Well, except for one.
I assert that all human beings have at least one right of personhood -- the right to life.Using his regental powers, Egnor again claims something by fiat. At least in this case, he isn't claiming that biological science affirms he is right. Of course this raises some interesting questions too. Why isn't Egnor equally outraged about the growth of in vitro fertilization, which necessitates the production of far more fertilized eggs than are necessary, resulting in the destruction of many human lives? Or the fact that about half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion? Or the dying who are prevented from exerting their right to life by seeking assitance in ending it? Or the use of the death penalty? Or war? Really, holding true to this belief means that you don't even have a right to lethal self-defense, since an attacking individual's right to life trumps your own right to not be hurt, or robbed, or intimidated. Or if you are a pregnant woman who is diagnosed with cancer and must go through with chemotherapy to live, it is not allowed because that would necessitate an abortion.
That's what it is really about in Egnor's mind. It's not just that zygotes have a right to life; they have more of a right to life than any one else.
6 comments:
By what fiat do you declare that the human zygote has no right to life? How do you know? Is that any less arbitrary than what you consider Egnor to have done?
I never said that they didn't. What I did say is that Egnor is selective in asserting what moral rights a person has, using a definition of person that is not empiracally based even though he claims it is. And even the moral right that he asserts all persons have he feels free to redact in certain situations, as related in his response. If he wants to qualify who has what rights he is free to do so. But he shouldn't pretend that the right to life is an absolute if he doesn't believe it. A little clarity please.
1. Where did he say his definition of a person was empirically based?
2. Has he not clearly explained the principles according to which moral decisions are made when there are significant conflicting values in play? (Answer: yes, he has done so.)
3. In other words, he has qualified who has what rights, as far as is relevant to this discussion.
4. What more clarity could you ask than that??
And finally, what on earth do you yourself believe? You're waffling. You say now that you never said the human zygote has no right to life. Are you committing yourself to a position? (Here's a clue: if you support killing innocent human zygotes, you are indeed committing yourself to a position denying them the right to life.)
"1. Where did he say his definition of a person was empirically based? "
Where he says "Biological science affirms that every fertilized human egg is a human." Did you not see that part, or do you need help with what the word empirical means?
"2. Has he not clearly explained the principles according to which moral decisions are made when there are significant conflicting values in play? (Answer: yes, he has done so.)"
Now he has, but at the time of my original post he did not. He has now clarified the principles he uses, namely a form of situational ethics rather than universal ethics, and I thanked him for doing so.
"3. In other words, he has qualified who has what rights, as far as is relevant to this discussion."
4. What more clarity could you ask than that??"
Okay, general when people enumerate their arguments they are actually making different points on the same subject. These aren't additional points; you are just repeating yourself. Please avoid it in the future
"And finally, what on earth do you yourself believe? You're waffling. You say now that you never said the human zygote has no right to life. Are you committing yourself to a position? (Here's a clue: if you support killing innocent human zygotes, you are indeed committing yourself to a position denying them the right to life.)"
Whoa, where to start. First, when I see BS I point it out. It is clear that Dr. Egnor doesn't understand what does and does not constitute a scientific question. He is BSing his readers whether he knows it or not. Second, as this post was about Dr. Egnor's views, not mine, I don't see how I could possibly be waffling. Pointing out bad arguments is something we scientists like to do. See my recent post on GMOs. I think everyone should do it regularly, especially arguments with which they agree. Third, could you possibly load that last sentence anymore? I'll give it a try. Are you saying you don't believe that cognizant adult humans have a right of autonomy that supercedes the rights of an invasive parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells? Hmm, that was pretty easy.
Where he says "Biological science affirms that every fertilized human egg is a human." Did you not see that part, or do you need help with what the word empirical means?
I know what "empirical" means. I'm afraid you need help with what the word "person" means, and how in the context of abortion debates its meaning is distinct from "human." I'm sure Dr. Egnor would agree that the question of human zygotes' humanness is a matter of empirical inquiry, but he would deny that their person-ness is a matter for empirical investigation.
Where to start on the rest? Wow.
Second, as this post was about Dr. Egnor's views, not mine, I don't see how I could possibly be waffling.
You might look and see what I wrote. I gave you a hint.
What was loaded about my last sentence? Is there any dispute as to whether these zygotes are human? Or innocent? Or that abortion is killing them? Or that killing them constitutes denying that they have a right to live? Or that when one supports killing, that is support for a very final act, such that the word "committed" applies? I really did try to choose terms that most people would not object to. Perhaps some would regard "innocent" as tendentious; substitute "haven't done anything wrong yet" if you prefer.
Compare that with your admittedly over-the-top loaded response, which we both know uses highly tendentious and controversial language all the way through.
That's for you to think about on your own. I have learned that when an interlocutor resorts to going over the top, uses parental guidance ("please avoid it in the future"), tries to tutor me on vocabulary while demonstrating his own misunderstanding of the terms in use, or casts misguided aspersions such as you employed here, the discussion never goes anywhere fruitful. I won't consider it necessary to try to continue my part in it. It's too bad. I had hopes of some kind of respectful dialogue.
Mr. Gilson, it appears that blogspot still thinks you are a spammer. I pulled out this comment, but I really should write a letter of complaint.
"I'm afraid you need help with what the word "person" means, and how in the context of abortion debates its meaning is distinct from "human."
Well, I checked three different dictionaries as well as dictionaries for the legal and philosophical professions and all of them say that a person is an individual human being. You must be using a different reference source than everyone else.
"I'm sure Dr. Egnor would agree that the question of human zygotes' humanness is a matter of empirical inquiry,"
If "humaness" is emprical then answer the following scenario. You are changing my genome, replacing each gene with the corresponding gene from the chimpanzee genome. We would agree I am human at the beginning and at the end I am not. Can you think of a test for the point at which I change from being a human to a non-human? If your answer is yes (which it must be based on everything else you have written here) then you most assuredly do not understand what empirical means.
Use the other example I gave here in my blog. Take a small stream of about 10 feet wide and increase its size by one inch increments until it is 1 mile wide. Can you test the point at which it stops being a stream and becomes a river? No. Can you assign a point at which you arbitrarily define it as being a river? Yes. This is the same problem dressed up in a different way.
If you are still having problems with this concept, I will gladly offer to help until you understand the concept of testability.
"What was loaded about my last sentence?"
Everything.
"Is there any dispute as to whether these zygotes are human?"
Yes, which is rather the whole point. You are using an operational definition of human that includes zygotes. I do not. But I am not the one pretending that my operational definition is some immutable law of biology.
"Or innocent?"
It is an unnecessary modifier with one intent: to beg the question by seeking sympathy. It is a commonly used rhetorical trick.
"Or that abortion is killing them?"
As I said in my other post, even the definition of a living organism is operational and not an immutable law of biology.
"Or that killing them constitutes denying that they have a right to live?"
Again, begging the question by assuming that one is killing.
"I really did try to choose terms that most people would not object to."
Try harder.
"I won't consider it necessary to try to continue my part in it. It's too bad. I had hopes of some kind of respectful dialogue."
Do you honestly think you are the first creationist/homeopath/accupuncturist/woomeister to come by my blog? I've been through this before. From your very first post I knew what the pattern was going to be.
Commenter comes in and asks a few disparaging questions which make it obvious that s/he has not read my post. I respond and point out this fact, often with some subtle digs at their lack of understanding. S/he gets in a huff and asks more off topic questions and further illustrates s/he lacks some fundamental understanding of the point and adds further insults to the original comment. I respond again, this time with more open mockery since my time has now been wasted twice. Commenter now gets all in a huff of ersatz offense that the discourse is not civil and respectable.
I've seen it play out before Mr. Gilson, and could have predicted your comments before you made them.
Post a Comment