![]() | ||||||
| Blogs | Articles | Organizations | Biography | Jack's Book | Contact Information | Links |
|
| ||||||
|
Jack Sisson's The Beginning of Human Life Blog | |
|
Many people believe human life begins at conception. Others acknowledge life at conception, but differ about when that life becomes human (versus an indistinguishable mass of cells). We hope to both start and then further dialogue regarding the beginning of human life. We have been preparing for this discussion since 1986. |
Wednesday, February 13, 2008Does the Anti-Choice Movement Exploit Bad Science?
The following is excerpted from a blog post at Petunia's.
Well, then. I was getting ready to post about this article on embryonic research and I noticed that it went well with this post Amanda at Pandagon put up a bit ago. Nice timing. Anyway, the article notes the attempt to define the beginning of human life as contraception using science: “To be a complete human organism,” they write, “an entity must possess a developmental program (including both its DNA and epigenetic factors) oriented toward developing a brain and central nervous system.” The program begins at conception; therefore, so does personhood.And later: The program’s collective nature doesn’t discredit individual rights. But it does complicate the authors’ task. They have to show that the embryo is an individual, not just a program. Here, again, science defies them. They write that the embryo’s cells “function together to develop into a single, more mature member of the human species.” Not quite. In one of every 300 cases, the embryo splits to become two or more people, at least one of whom wasn’t a distinct organism at conception. And in every case, part of the embryo becomes placenta, nurturing the other part and passing away. The embryo, too, is collective. [Emphasis added.]The song and dance with science here is the religious right’s way to try to get contraception outlawed. If they can convince people that embryos are human, then they’re half the way there. In fact most of the way and if they can use science language to help they will, just as they use the language of science to argue for intelligent design (a disguise for creationism–ie religion). The fact that their science is bad might not matter, because it’s just a smokescreen. Read the entire post. Labels: beginning of human life, contraception, embryo |
LinksBrain PillsRoe v. Wade Stem Cells Stem Cell Fight! Bearing Right Moral Monkey? Op-ed Dave's site Stem Stall Screamers Bush the hypocrite ArchivesJune 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 December 2005 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 March 2009 November 2009 April 2010 |