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

ba77 -

Seversky, first off, legally if the unborn baby were granted the status of person-hood, then it would be afforded legal protection under the [US] constitution. ... Secondly. personhood can not be grounded within the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution but can only be grounded within Theism. More specifically, personhood can only be grounded within a ‘soul’ that is created by God.

OK, so by this argument a foetus can't then be granted personhood under the US constitution, without violating the Establishment Clause.Bob O'H

June 24, 2019

June

06

Jun

24

24

2019

01:00 AM

1

01

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

corrected link:

8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity – July 02, 2014 https://cultureshiftforlife.com/2014/07/09/8-horrific-times-people-groups-were-denied-their-humanity/

bornagain77

June 23, 2019

June

06

Jun

23

23

2019

05:24 PM

5

05

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky, first off, legally if the unborn baby were granted the status of person-hood, then it would be afforded legal protection under the constitution.

Unborn children as constitutional persons. - 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

Secondly. personhood can not be grounded within the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution but can only be grounded within Theism. More specifically, personhood can only be grounded within a 'soul' that is created by God.

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

Thus Seversky as an atheistic materialist, who, by definition of your worldview, is a non-person, then under the law you, legally, simply have no right to life yourself much less do you have the wherewithal within your materialistic philosophy to pronounce on when another human being may be granted the legal protection of personhood. Indeed your worldview denies personhood altogether. And whereas your materialistic worldview denies personhood altogether, on the other hand, advances in quantum biology have empirically demonstrated that there is indeed a transcendent component to our body that is not reducible to the material particulars of our body.

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

i.e. Advances in quantum biology reveal a transcendent soul that is created by God as we are being formed in our mother's womb. A transcendent soul, that has the capacity to live past the death of our material bodies.

The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

Thus Seversky, if you are going to pronounce on life and death issues of the law, especially when your opinion might effect another person's life or death, it might strongly behoove you to first find a worldview that can guarantee your own legal protection of personhood under the constitution before you weigh in on whether you think another person should be granted such legal protection for his own life. Verse:

Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?

Of supplemental note: Besides abortion killing unborn babies because they are not yet 'legally' recognized as persons,, there have been several other times in history where people were denied their legal status of personhood

8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity - July 02, 2014 http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity

bornagain77

June 23, 2019

June

06

Jun

23

23

2019

04:57 PM

4

04

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I would say upon first cellular mitosis. DNA transfer was successful and the human life has begun.AaronS1978

June 23, 2019

June

06

Jun

23

23

2019

01:41 PM

1

01

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Dr Egnor inasmuch as we both believe that the right to life of an individual human being should begin at conception. But note the word "should". What Dr Egnor and others believe is not a constitutional right nor statute law. If pro-life groups want to make abortion a criminal act, they must change the law through the normal legislative process. The Supreme Court implied as much in its opinion inRoe v Wade:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge,is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

The Court later argues:

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

In the article by Egnor cited in the OP he writes:

Where are the major scientific organizations on this issue? Why has not the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association stated clearly and publicly the basic scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization? The answer is obvious: many scientists in these organizations are willing to do what it takes to advance their ideology, and scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.

Or perhaps it's not as simple as this disingenuous summary by Egnor suggests. Again, from Roe v Wade

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception." The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. (My emphasis)

If conception is held to be the moment at which an individual human life begins, is the point at which the sperm cell penetrates the outer membrane of the ovum? Or is it when the two nuclei come into contact? Or is it when the the nuclei merge? Or is it when the zygote begins implantation in the wall of the uterus? Or is it when implantation reaches the point where the zygote has become fully dependent on the mother's life support? In practical terms, however, if medical technology is unable to detect any of the above as it happens in real time, it's irrelevant. The best we can say, and possibly embody in law, is that any detectable zygote, blastocyst or whatever shall be presumed to have the right to life and may not be harmed except in certain specified situations. The question of when an individual's life begins is of significance in this context only as it pertains to a presumed human right. And who shall qualify for the various rights granted by a society is a question for society as a whole not just scholastic bodies or various advocacy groups alone Scientific organizations can give an informed opinion in such matters but for Egnor to accuse them of cowardice for not adjudicating on issues that are not theirs to decide is a cheap shot.Seversky

June 23, 2019

June

06

Jun

23

23

2019

01:00 PM

1

01

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link