Michael Egnor: The cowardice of science organizations on when life begins

How can scientists tell when a new unique human life has begun? Unique DNA. Conclusion: DNA, therefore, Do Not Abort But every woman has the right to end the life of an innocent human being. Seriously? Think EPA. If a new human being happens to be living in life's original Environmental Protection Agency, think again. Battman

kf - did you miss this in the list

ever decreasing abortion rates,

It's a strange sort of moral compass that deplores abortion, but wants to act in a way that will increase the number of abortions. Bob O'H

BB, the enabling of holocaust through domination of views that inherently undermine moral government is not progress. On that imposition, the worst holocaust in history, mounting at a further million victims per week, is made to vanish from the statistics, poof. Then, with a rhetorical flourish, it is announced: lower violence. Sorry, a million victims each new week for a holocaust that in 40+ years has created 800 - 1,400 million victims is not a reduction of violence. Similar things can be noted regarding several of the claims you make and examples of alleged progress. Progress towards and building up of associated momentum as we head for a cliff is not advancement but ruin. Unfortunately, the cultural marxist oppression thesis that seeks to taint and discredit the past while touting the rise of amorality, libertinism and licence as liberation, is leading us towards consequences that will be awful. But then, Machiavelli aptly warned on how hard it is to anticipate ruinous consequences of a business as usual consensus. The ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb is the central sign that this is an untoward generation weighed in the balances and found wanting. The wrecking of family, marriage, personal identity, law, prudence and soundness in general proceed apace and the merry march to the cliff's edge proceeds. Already, the USA is in low end, 4th generation warfare civil war with lawfare backed by street theatre and agit prop manipulation the preferred means to impose the cultural marxist agenda. Mob swarms, fanned by media spread slander, tear up the principle of protection of innocent reputation, pushing towards a Gresham's law of bad politics and worse policies driving out the sound. Britain's elites are busily discrediting themselves. The academy and the sciences are burning up the intellectual inheritance of our civilisation. Unsound economics and linked ideologies are massively promoted rather than widely exposed i/l/o history and sound economics -- e.g. socialist systems cannot assign due values and predictably lead to massive misallocations and failure, even as markets have failures that require prudent management. There is a general looting of the inheritance of our civilisation (hard and soft infrastructure is going to be neglected increasingly) and the mutiny on the various ships of state proceeds apace. We have by and large never been soberly taught the lessons of that parable by Plato and linked history on the dangerous instabilities of democracy that must be counterbalanced through a sound cultural consensus. The consequences are predictable but we have no patience to listen to such warnings even as we eat up our civilisation's seed corn. KF kairosfocus

KF

BB, redefining amoral behaviours and the mass slaughter of innocent life at the rate of a million further victims per week (not counting the silent toll) simply underscores the point of a civilisation that has lost its moral compass and is heading over the cliff.

OK. You are willing to classify behavior as “ amoral” even though it has resulted in quantum leaps in society. Shall I clip again? Why the hell not.

Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc.

Brother Brian

BB, redefining amoral behaviours and the mass slaughter of innocent life at the rate of a million further victims per week (not counting the silent toll) simply underscores the point of a civilisation that has lost its moral compass and is heading over the cliff. KF kairosfocus

KF

BB, you are unfortunately continuing to exemplify precisely the hollowing out and decay of the moral core of our civilisation.

Again, I clip from 119 above in reference to your hollowed out moral core of our civilization:

Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc.

Our core moral civilization can use a little more of such “hollowing out”.

That behaviour enables the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb at the rate of a million further victims under false colour of law per week.

In spite of the fact that the behavior I have been referring to has been shown to significantly decrease the “holocaust of our living posterity in the womb“ The fact that you don’t think that things like early, non-judgemental sex education, ready access to reliable and effective birth control, de-stigmatizing sex for pleasure and removing the ludicrous idea that masturbation and oral sex are sinful, are acceptable does not change the fact that they are very effective. Brother Brian

KF

BB, you are unfortunately continuing to exemplify precisely the hollowing out and decay of the moral core of our civilisation.

Again, I clip from 119 above in reference to your hollowed out moral core of our civilization:

Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc.

Our core moral civilization can use a little more of such “hollowing out”.

That behaviour enables the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb at the rate of a million further victims under false colour of law per week.

In spite of the fact that the behavior I have been referring to has been shown to significantly decrease the “holocaust of our living posterity in the womb“ The fact that you don’t think that things like early, non-judgemental sex education, ready access to reliable and effective birth control, de-stigmatizing sex for pleasure and removing the ludicrous idea that masturbation and oral sex are sinful, are acceptable does not change the fact that they are very effective. Brother Brian

Brother Brian:

In fact, for a woman not ready for children I find it a morally responsible decision.

Nonsense. The responsible decision would have been to not have sex.

Preventing unwanted children is protecting innocent life.

Not if you are killing those unwanted kids. To prevent abortions we should start fining both the men and women involved in the unwanted pregnancy. Then we can move on to jail time and chemical castration. ET

kf, I guess I understand that you are saying that you agree with my post at 127, which I re-quoted at 143: "The question of at what point and under what conditions one should consider it legal to have an abortion, vs when it should not be legal is not a scientific question: one should not expect science to answer questions which involve some combination of theology, philosophy, values, morals, balancing competing interests, etc." hazel

BB, you are unfortunately continuing to exemplify precisely the hollowing out and decay of the moral core of our civilisation. That behaviour enables the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb at the rate of a million further victims under false colour of law per week. Which, of course, therefore is not recorded in our crime statistics. For, part of the corruption is that through legal positivism, it is held that once one holds a position of power, whatever one rules becomes law. We have been led to forget that law which is written into our nature as responsible, morally governed creatures. Which is where we read the law that the first right is life; as, one robbed of his or her life can exercise or enjoy no further rights. Such laws were made by no judge legislating from the bench (or even unilaterally amending constitutions from the bench, God help us), or no parliament, or no king ruling by decree. They did not make them, they cannot change them, the injustice of undermining such is manifest. With the case of the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb being the central moral failing of our time. And yes, I know that such is not a welcome message for far too many in our day . . . a further sign of what has gone wrong. KF kairosfocus

H, evolutionary materialistic scientism is the dominant influence behind the scientism you alluded to. Today, we speak of being "unscientific." Formerly -- and far more appropriately -- they spoke of being "unphilosophical." The acid corroding our thought-frame is such that we too often do not recognise that ethical matters are philosophical ones, inherently; and there is a tendency to denigrate whatever is not warranted by the imaginary imprimatur of THE [imaginary] scientific method. And, many who do not assent to the atheistical ideology find themselves enabling its scientism and a priori materialism. Which is inherently amoral and irretrievably self-refuting. Until and unless this ghost is exorcised, it will haunt and dominate all discussions -- including the issue of recognising the humanity and rights of our living posterity in the womb. KF kairosfocus

KF

The inherent amorality of “non-judgemental” is exposed by the fact that IUD’s are in effect by and large early, silent abortion devices.

So? I don’t see anything amoral about preventing a zygote from becoming implanted in the uterus. In fact, for a woman not ready for children I find it a morally responsible decision.

This goes right to the challenge to our civilisation: will we recognise and protect innocent life?

Preventing unwanted children is protecting innocent life. I see this as a morally responsible act.

If we refuse, we have lost the moral core of our civilisation. Beyond a certain point, with that core rotted away through amoral gangrene, our civilisation will collapse, carrying with it much that has been built up.

Again, let me clip from 119 above some of this amoral gangrene you keep alluding to:

Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc.

If that is gangrene, bring it in. Brother Brian

VB

Both BB I think our schools have become indoctrination camps, my proposed alternative is for the schools to actually prepare their students for high school and college and stop their social engineering projects.

I agree. Give them factual information about human sexuality and contraceptives and you will be providing them valuable information that will help prepare them for high school and college. That is all I have been advocating for. I’m glad that we finally agree on something. Brother Brian

kf, what I wrote at 127 has absolutely nothing to do with "evolutionary materialistic scientism." In fact what I wrote directly contradicted scientism. Do you agree with this, in part or in whole, and why or why not?

The question of at what point and under what conditions one should consider it legal to have an abortion, vs when it should not be legal is not a scientific question: one should not expect science to answer questions which involve some combination of theology, philosophy, values, morals, balancing competing interests, etc. Accurate scientific information is important, and should be a part of the factual background that one takes into consideration, but in many issues (and this is one) more than science is needed for one to make a judgment or take an action.

hazel

H, it is very clear that evolutionary materialistic scientism -- which is both self-refuting and inherently amoral -- has been dressed up in a lab coat and used to undermine the moral core of our civilisation. That is a big part of how we have been led into enabling or being part of the worst holocaust in history, 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb snuffed out in 40+ years, currently growing at another million per week. BB, The inherent amorality of "non-judgemental" is exposed by the fact that IUD's are in effect by and large early, silent abortion devices. This goes right to the challenge to our civilisation: will we recognise and protect innocent life? If we refuse, we have lost the moral core of our civilisation. Beyond a certain point, with that core rotted away through amoral gangrene, our civilisation will collapse, carrying with it much that has been built up. And don't fool yourself that you can pick and choose consequences at will; the very case of enabling holocaust before us is a proof of the dark age we are on the brink of. When will we wake up to what we are doing? Are our consciences that benumbed or dead? KF kairosfocus

BB Both BB I think our schools have become indoctrination camps, my proposed alternative is for the schools to actually prepare their students for high school and college and stop their social engineering projects. Vivid vividbleau

VB

I don’t see why it’s the next step, however to answer your question directly, no I don’t

Thank you for being honest. Which part do you oppose? The non-judgemental comprehensive sex education at an early age? The access to birth control? Both? And what is your proposed alternative? Brother Brian

Hazel I would not do anything to oppose or support any law that would prevent adults from access to contraceptives. FWIW I have a strong libertarian tendencies. Vivd vividbleau

Vivid, leaving the sex ed part out, do you support readily available and affordable contraception for adults? hazel

BB “But are you willing to take the next step, which KF and others are not? Providing comprehensive, non-judgemental, sex education at an early age. Including ready access (and education on pros and cons) to safe and reliable contraceptives, including IUDs and the pill.” I don’t see why it’s the next step, however to answer your question directly, no I don’t Vivid vividbleau

VB

It is not enough to be pro life if we forget other considerations that drive abortion. If we in the pro life camp want to see fewer abortions we must financially support the keeping of the baby. Specifically the Govt must give financial incentives to have the baby and help the mother financially.

In this we agree. I fully support more incentives for keeping the baby. Or, more accurately, bringing it to term even if you give it up for adoption But are you willing to take the next step, which KF and others are not? Providing comprehensive, non-judgemental, sex education at an early age. Including ready access (and education on pros and cons) to safe and reliable contraceptives, including IUDs and the pill. This approach has been very effective in some countries. To pretend that we can teach our kids not to be sexually active is pathetically naive. The best we can do is to provide them with accurate knowledge and resources, and hope that they make the proper decisions. Brother Brian

KF

BB, you are evading the point; showing that you know that you are arguing for the indefensible.

I am quite comfortable defending my position. The fact that you disagree with it is irrelevant.

It is high time for us to wake up to where we have been taking our civilisation. KF

Didn’t we already go over this? Let me snip from 119 where I highlighted where we are taking our civilization.

Lower violence rates, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, greater acceptance and tolerance of others, ever decreasing abortion rates, improved health care, equal rights for women and minorities, increased emphasis on workplace safety, legalization of same sex marriage, less acceptance of spousal abuse and sexual assaults, improved environmental conditions in western countries, increased access to safe and reliable birth control, Access to safe drinking water and food, better access to accurate information on sex and health, etc.

The vast majority of people are happy with this trend. As am I. The big mystery is why you are not optimistic about these trends. But, frankly, I view that as your problem. Not mine. Brother Brian

KF,

H, the root question is brutally simple: will we protect innocent life?

Complications eventually arise, however. Consider the case of the 10-year-old Paraguayan girl who was raped by her stepfather. Should an abortion have been allowed in that case? Exactly what penalties should be paid by a woman (say one past the age of majority) who has an abortion? Should she be charged with murder? IIRC, you have been very coy about such questions. Your opponents (and even some on the pro-life side) are likely curious to know how your plan deals with these cases. daveS

Sev re 125 It was nice for a change to read someone that actually makes a rational argument for abortion even though I am pro life. I thought this to be quite applicable regarding the evolution of abortion from “Safe,legal and rare” to basically infanticide. “Second, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. It is easy to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the fetus it is not able to survive outside the mother's body; hence removing it from her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt--thereby showing insensitivity to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the desire for the child's death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn out to be possible to detach the child alive.” I am strongly pro life but I do appreciate her rational approach to a very emotional subject. I myself have a bit of a pet peeve with a simplistic pro life position. It is not enough to be pro life if we forget other considerations that drive abortion. If we in the pro life camp want to see fewer abortions we must financially support the keeping of the baby. Specifically the Govt must give financial incentives to have the baby and help the mother financially. Pro lifers as a group need to help the mother emotionally and financially as part of the adoptive process if that is a viable alternative. Corporations and businesses should be required to provide free, on premises childcare where the mother can visit their child during the workday and pursue a career if that is her preference. Just saying I am pro life is not enough. Vivid vividbleau

kf, your post didn't really address my point at 127: the abortion issue is one that is not decided by any "scientific method." I know your position, as stated at 130. However, do you disagree with anything I wrote at 127? hazel

H, the root question is brutally simple: will we protect innocent life? If not, we have lost the moral centre of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

BB, you are evading the point; showing that you know that you are arguing for the indefensible. It is high time for us to wake up to where we have been taking our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, no, the point is whether you can force your will on another by taking innocent life at will. KF kairosfocus

Aaron writes, "What scientific method have you applied to this position? " The question of at what point and under what conditions one should consider it legal to have an abortion, vs when it should not be legal s not a scientific question: one should not expect science to answer questions which involve some combination of theology, philosophy, value, morals, balancing competing interests, etc. Accurate scientific information is important, and should be a part of the factual background that one tales into consideration, but in many issues (and this is one) more than science is needed for one to make a judgment or take an action. hazel

KF

BB, you full well know the claim, it’s my body. That the unborn child is male shows directly that this is wrong, if proof were needed. A similar point can be made regarding blood types etc. KF

So, if the fetus was a clone of the mother, abortion would be OK? Whether or not the fetus has a different genome than the mother has no bearing on whether its rights are equal to the woman’s. You have a long history here of opposing any strategy that will significantly reduce abortion. This is an attitude that completely mystifies me. Brother Brian