Some incredible statements are made by members of Fort Lewis College’s outreach group “Advocates for Choice” at a debate about Colorado’s Amendment 62, the “personhood amendment.” Condemning the use of science to determine the beginning of human life, we get claims such as:
“Science is not ultimate truth, that’s why it’s science. It’s always being studied, taught and re-taught. So, to insinuate that this science is absolute truth on the matter of what is human life is illegitimate…what is inside a body that cannot function outside its host is not a child…it’s a matter of reproductive choice. The living, breathing, sentient being is the one we listen to, not science.”
And from another member of the panel:
“We’re talking about science as if it is something that is absolutely concrete, like there is absolute proof that there is life and there is not life…their [pro-life] researchers say that the heart beats at 21 days…but there’s people on our side and research that says that the heart doesn’t beat until 24 weeks.”
Apparently, pointing this out is meant to compel us to believe that, because experts in biomedical and neonatal research give disparate answers sometimes, we should just ask the mother. Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that wanted to return to the dark ages with its suppression of science and repressive moral imperatives?
October 7th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
Excellent point!
October 7th, 2011 | 3:24 pm
“their [pro-life] researchers say that the heart beats at 21 days…but there’s people on our side and research that says that the heart doesn’t beat until 24 weeks.”
Um, ok. That’s nice. Hard to square with the fact that just last week I saw an ultrasound of a nine week fetus with a clear and beating heart, but whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.
October 7th, 2011 | 4:09 pm
There are two real arguments at work here.
Yes, the pro-life argument to determine when life really starts – and what qualifies as life – goes on. Good for all of you who work toward recognition that ALL human life is sacred, that there is no way to hold life as sacred but allow arbitrary exceptions.
The other argument has to do with the limits of science’s authority. Scientists have enjoyed having unlimited authority without any accountability. They can decide what is and is not true just on their say-so. They can refer to scientific principles when it advances their agenda, or they can remind us all that science is imperfect – in fact, too imperfect to be used at all as a source when the facts support the other fellow’s agenda….
October 7th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
Take their comments at face value and the ethical answer is STILL to preserve the unborn. Mike Adams gave an excellent analogy. (I’m paraphrasing here. If you want to read his words, look for it in the archives of Townhall.com) When hunting for deer, if he sees movement in the bush he knows it is wrong to shoot until he is sure what he is shooting at. Otherwise he may kill a person. If science can’t tell you and you can’t be SURE if the unborn is not a person, then the ethical approach is to not abort.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:17 pm
They are woefully ignorant, but they seem to be a volunteer group for a local branch of Planned Parenthood, so I would not take their comments to reflect on Planned Parenthood as a national organization.
They need to look up “fetal heartbeat” and “XY” on Wikipedia for starters.
October 7th, 2011 | 6:06 pm
Exactly, Chipper!
“their [pro-life] researchers say that the heart beats at 21 days…but there’s people on our side and research that says that the heart doesn’t beat until 24 weeks.”
…and so they give the benefit of the doubt to…who?
24 weeks–good God.
October 7th, 2011 | 9:22 pm
Blake –
And you were going to answer my question here when? Oh, too late, comments are closed. Pity.
October 8th, 2011 | 1:47 am
The irony seems to cut in precisely the opposite direction. Science concerns itself with hypotheses on the processes of the material world and with gathering data to either support or refute those hypotheses.
Science cannot say which group of cells deserves the protection of civil and criminal laws protecting human rights. Science can analyze DNA and teach us how cells differentiate but it cannot, for instance, offer guidance on the question of whether using a “morning-after” pill is morally first-degree murder.
To claim otherwise is exactly to adopt “scientism” and a materialist perspective that most pro-life people or religious conservatives would emphatically reject in other areas.
October 8th, 2011 | 8:03 am
Mark: strictly speaking, you are correct to point out that the findings of science, and our moral views about these findings are distinct; but only conceptually. Obviously, the findings of science have moral implications. For example, if the results of the scientific method shows that nuclear weapons, if used globally, will destroy most humans, it would be immoral to use them. Of course, there’s the added premise that “all human life deserves protection” but the point is that, scientific findings are inextricably linked to morality, in practice. We’re moral beings, just as we’re scientific beings; we can’t help ourselves.
Science tells us that the cells that constitute the embryo/fetus are no different than the cells that contitute the, say, adult human, except in the latter there’s more of them, they’re more developed. But if we make the obvious moral statement that post born humans deserve protection, by virtue of their biolgical traits, then the same deduction can be made with respect to embryos and fetuses.
October 8th, 2011 | 1:56 pm
Blake –
The other argument has to do with the limits of science’s authority. Scientists have enjoyed having unlimited authority without any accountability.
And you were going to answer my question here when? Oh, too late, comments are closed. Pity.
If you want to ask me questions, that’s fine. But please – stop taking it personally when I don’t behave the way you expect me to.
Or would “demand” be more appropriate than “expect”?
October 10th, 2011 | 11:51 am
Blake –
You misunderstand; I’m actually pretty much unruffled (and unsurprised). I just think it’s interesting which questions you avoid.
October 10th, 2011 | 3:08 pm
You misunderstand; I’m actually pretty much unruffled (and unsurprised). I just think it’s interesting which questions you avoid.
The only times I deliberately avoid questions is when I suspect bad faith – someone wasting my time, deliberately or otherwise.
More often I just don’t see them.
So don’t take it personally – it is probably neither an insult nor a compliment if I don’t respond to something you’ve said.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact