Ethics Intelligent Design Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

At Mind Matters News: There’s no science argument on whether unborn children are human

Spread the love

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor notes that abortion activists argue that the embryo is a different species, some unclassified thing, or part of the mother —
that’s politics, not science:

Egnor has a message for people who wonder whether the preborn child is a human being:

He also recounts that, while he always tells the truth to parents about their unborn babies’ neurological issues as he understands them, sometimes the children surprise him:

“Just recently, I saw a 10 year old girl in the office for whom I’ve cared since she was in the womb. When her spina bifida was diagnosed by prenatal testing, the doctor basically insisted that she be aborted. It was relatively late in the pregnancy, and the doctor gave them the name of George Tiller, a notorious late-term abortionist in Kansas who aborted babies at an age when even the most callous of other abortionists refuse to kill. Her family declined, and sought me out as a second opinion. I told them the truth about their daughter’s prognosis — which was guarded but by no means hopeless.

“As it turned out, I was wrong. She did indeed have spina bifida and I operated on her the day she was born. But she has done much better than any of us even dreamed. She walks, runs, and loves to dance. She is bright and charming, and is the love and light of her mom, dad, and her doting older brothers. I give talks to medical professionals about neurosurgical prenatal diagnoses and at the end of the talks I show a video clip of her dancing. Michael Egnor, “Political Website’s Christmas Gift to Readers: Promoting Abortion” at Mind Matters News (December 28, 2021)”

News, “There’s no science argument on whether unborn children are human” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: “The science of sexual reproduction is as much settled science as is the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and that DNA carries genetic code.” – Egnor

You may also wish to read: Political website’s Christmas gift to readers: promoting abortion FiveThirtyEight asked readers to share their abortion stories and got something it hadn’t bargained on: Many were glad it didn’t happen. I am a pediatric neurosurgeon, and every day I treat kids (and adults) who were prime candidates for abortion, but by the grace of God escaped the abortionist. (Michael Egnor)

10 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: There’s no science argument on whether unborn children are human

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Much as it pains me to say so, I agree with Egnor on this point. The zygote, blastocyst, fetus, embryo, whatever should be presumed to be human and therefore entitled to the right to life.

    His anecdote about the young girl who survived to live a healthy life after a prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida is heartwarming. I wonder if he also lectures about the prenatal disorders for which there is no effective treatment and no happy ending. If he credits his God for the survival of that young girl does he also blame Him for all those unborn that do not survive through no fault of human beings?

    What we see in many anti-abortionists is great concern for the right to life of the unborn but little if any for the rights of the other human being involved, the mother. Texas Bill SB8, for example, allows no exemption for cases of rape or incest. Apparently, the authors are not concerned about the trauma of victims of such offenses being compounded by the trauma of being forced to carry the unborn child to term. Apparently, Christian compassion only goes so far.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    A child in the womb has a distinct heartbeat from the mother that is human. Only life has a heartbeat that is distinct to that life. Tumors, or whatever the pro-abortionists claim about what is happening, are unable to point to anything else that has a distinct heartbeat.

    That is science, not what the pro-abortionists claim to be science. There is nothing scientific with their claims. It is purely emotional that has nothing to do with the logic science demands.

    Seversky claims that Christian compassion does not reach the mother. If he understood the truth, he would know the compassion is for both mother and child. Both are innocent in cases of rape and incest. Neither should be blamed for the actions of the man.

    As long as there is no threat to the mother’s life, not health but life, there should be no abortion. Children in the womb are innocent. Why would anyone believe an innocent child should be punished for the wrongs of the father?

    If a father commits a crime and the mother knows nothing of the crime, should the child be punished for the father’s crime?

  3. 3
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    If he credits his God for the survival of that young girl does he also blame Him for all those unborn that do not survive through no fault of human beings?

    no exemption for cases of rape or incest. Apparently, the authors are not concerned about the trauma of victims of such offenses being compounded by the trauma of being forced to carry the unborn child to term.

    Atheists:
    “God doesn’t have the right to kill” (under no circumstances )
    Also atheists:
    “A woman has the right to kill”…punishing an innocent baby for the crime of a rapist…”

  4. 4
    davidl1 says:

    Apparently, the authors are not concerned about the trauma of victims of such offenses being compounded by the trauma of being forced to carry the unborn child to term. Apparently, Christian compassion only goes so far.

    The pro-life people that I know feel that abortion would be compounding the overall trauma with murder. I’m not saying that is the case (or not), but I don’t see any lack of compassion in that position. It’s a bad situation, and there will be suffering, nobody wants that.

    If conception takes place under typical circumstances, and the child is not wanted, doesn’t carrying it to term also result in trauma? How much trauma is required before it’s ok to treat the fetus as expendable?

  5. 5
    zweston says:

    I appreciate that Sev has agreed the baby is human…

    Because a child is conceived in Rape doesn’t mean the baby deserves to die. It’s still a baby that has a right to life. This isn’t discounting the rights of the mother, it is just protecting their lives. If the mother’s life is in danger, that is a different story. Of course rape and incest are terrible and very uncomfortable to talk about… but it’s the only consistent and logical stance… life is life and no one is allowed to terminate it because of circumstances. Anything else is inconsistent. Tim Tebow’s mother was told to abort him as she may die (I believe) but she kept him to term and he seems to be doing alright.

    Great story of a miraculous adoption and healing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic8Hzc1BwtQ

    The question arises…why does God not do this all the time…and the answer is I don’t know, but I trust God has his reasons.

  6. 6
    awstar says:

    “The science of sexual reproduction is as much settled science as is the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and that DNA carries genetic code.” – Egnor

    Acutally, science says the earth can orbit the sun, or the sun can orbit the earth. We can not know by observation.

    Cosmology is now where Darwinian evolution was twenty years ago.

  7. 7
    Belfast says:

    “If he credits his God for the survival of that young girl does he also blame Him for all those unborn that do not survive through no fault of human beings?”

    Combination Red Herrings and Rhetorical Questions.
    #8 in the Troll’s Guide to Public Commenting.

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    Belfast @7
    Just out of curiosity, what are Nos. 1 through 7?

  9. 9
    Fasteddious says:

    I doubt if anyone seriously believes that a human fetus is not human, genetically speaking. Clearly the unborn child is a living human being, and to argue otherwise is just blind stupidity or arrogance. However, the pro-choice argument – the one upheld by the courts so far – is that, although human, the unborn child is not yet a “person” in the legal sense. That is a more vague and flexible term that applies to non-human legal entities as well. The fact that many people buy the “personhood” argument instead of seeing the obvious “humanity”, reflects more on their ideological presumptions rather than any scientific facts.
    The entire abortion debate is (or should be) about balancing the rights of the unborn child against those of the pregnant woman. However, that usually comes down to the woman’s temporary inconvenience versus the entire life of the child – clearly an unfair balance. A small book was published awhile back attempting to analyse where the balance should actually be, apart from ideology, religion, political correctness, etc. The Kindle version can be found at: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07JM8L4RT/
    The main finding is similar to the new laws now before the Supreme Court, that set the “fair” balance point very early in the pregnancy – around four weeks after conception. In principle, this analysis and logic could be used to argue in favour of these new laws.
    Note that arguments about rape and incest are wedge issues. Let’s decide the 90% of abortion cases (essentially the woman’s inconvenience) first and then we can look at exceptions and difficult situations, using the 90% of cases as the baseline.

  10. 10
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Dear Fasteddious

    You wrote “I doubt if anyone seriously believes that a human fetus is not human, genetically speaking. Clearly the unborn child is a living human being, and to argue otherwise is just blind stupidity or arrogance.”

    As a Creationist, I agree that anyone could doubt such clear settled scince. However, such people do exist. Let me give you three examples of well known Science Deniers, who display what you correctly called ” blind stupidity.”

    1) Dr Richard Dawkins, Phd, a prominent peer reviewed Atheist activist, from Oxford College, England.
    Dr Dawkins wrote this: “An adult pig is more human than ANY fetus.”

    2) Joseph Biden, President of the United States of America.
    President Biden recently stated that while he disagrees with the vast majority of top peer reviewed embryologists, who claim that human life begins at conception. (The President did generously say he still respects such scientists. He didnt state why he and his Chief Medical Advisor Dr Anthony Fauci disagres with them, nor did he state when he and Dr Fauci claim that human life does begin.)

    3) Former President Barack Obama
    (Note: President Obama is universally acclaimed as a brilliant intellectual, an Ivy League Scholar and Contitutional Law Exper, and he is articulate!)
    In 2008, then Senator Obama stated, in response to Pastor Rick Warren’s question, that he was ignorant of when human life began. . His exact words were that the question was “above my pay grade”

    Regarding President Obama’s answer, I figure this: Educationwise, Columbia and Harvard Law have slipped.
    What do you figure?

Leave a Reply