“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee

Radio shows

Personhood . . . by Science

by Bob Eschliman

Science says it’s a human being.

For the past nearly 40 years, the fight about abortion has been framed as a religious issue. And, while Christians certainly have a specific viewpoint on the issue, there is a truth we need to admit.

Those who aren’t Christian — or who don’t fully understand what it means to be Christian — won’t listen to an argument based on religious grounds alone. The message will get lost in the translation.

So, for once, I’m going to try to frame this discussion without ever uttering the words “God,” “Jesus,” or “Bible.” Anyone who knows me will understand I’m anything but an atheist; I’m simply trying to find a way to reach those who have yet to be reached with the message, hopefully in a way they can better understand it.

So, let’s start from the beginning. We’re talking about human reproduction, which is — according to the most commonly accepted scientific definition — “any form of sexual reproduction resulting in the conception of a child.”

Those aren’t my words, those are the words of the Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences. So, in purely scientific/medical terms, human reproduction is meant to result in the conception of a human child. Let’s look at how we get there.

According to the JHRS, human reproduction typically involves sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, although it is possible to have conception achieved via artificial insemination. Regardless of the method, the process is always the same.

While at a childbearing age, the woman is constantly creating ova, or egg cells. Men are constantly creating their own reproductive cells, called sperm. We don’t need to go into the details of how the sperm and ovum find each other, but when it happens, something interesting happens.

The ovum is a haploid cell, meaning it only contains 23 of the 46 chromosomes that lead to a complete human genetic code. In the case of women, only the “X” chromosomes are contained in the ovum.

Likewise, the sperm is also a haploid cell. For men, the sperm can contain either the “X” chromosomes or the “Y” chromosomes, but not both. The type of chromosome the sperm cell contains will eventually determine the gender of the child (a topic for discussion on another day).

But — and this is the most important point — neither the ovum nor the sperm are capable of propagating a species. Both have a limited lifespan, and neither of them can undergo division. In essence, they are each meant to be joined with another cell.

It is that process that creates new life.

When the sperm cell penetrates the cell wall of the ovum, it releases its chromosomes. At that moment, the ovum secretes a type of mucous that hardens the cell wall, preventing other sperm cells from penetrating.

Meanwhile, the haploid chromosomal strings from the ovum and the sperm begin to conjoin, creating a diploid set of chromosomes, leading to the creation of DNA. The new DNA contains a complete genetic code that, while it is similar to both the woman and the man, is entirely different from any other cell in the universe.

This process happens in the tiniest fraction of a second, completely immeasurable with the naked eye.

In that fraction of a moment, the new cell with DNA, called a zygote, will determine every attribute of a new human being, a human child, if you will. The child’s gender, height, and eye, skin, and hair color are all locked in — they cannot be changed — from that moment forward.

And, regardless of your religious views, or lack thereof, the process is always the same. This is all a matter of fact, supported by irrefutable science that cannot be impacted by whether or not you believe in creationism or Darwinism.

Now, let’s go back to the JHRS definition of human reproduction. Based on it, the moment the zygote is created, it is a human child. Sure, not every zygote will go on to become a living, breathing child, but those instances are statistically few and far between, and irrelevant to this discussion.

At the moment of fertilization — the moment of conception, if you will — a human child has been created. That’s not a phrase you’re going to find in any religious text. In fact, you’re likely only going to find it in a scientific text.

The overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs that do not become children are the result of human interference through processes that have been labeled “abortion.” But, let’s look at a couple more commonly accepted definitions:

Homicide: the killing of one human being by another.

Murder: the unlawful killing of one human being by another with malice aforethought.

Black’s Law Dictionary states that homicide is merely the act by one human being of taking another human being’s life. It is not necessarily unlawful or illegal, unless done outside the boundaries of lawful behavior.

Accepted justifications for homicide include self-defense, which is narrowly defined as protecting one’s own life from immediate deadly attack. For the purposes of this discussion, that’s really the only “exception” for allowing homicide.

Black’s also states murder is delineated from other forms of homicide by the fact it is both done outside the boundaries of lawful behavior (“unlawful killing”), and that it is done with “malice aforethought.”

Just what is malice aforethought, you ask?

Well, in legal terms, it means the homicide occurred as a result of an intended act (or omission — not relevant here) by which there is a high degree of probability it will result in the death or serious injury of the deceased. However, if the homicide is the result of gross recklessness that demonstrates a “lack of care for human life,” this can also be considered malice aforethought in the modern American legal system.

In general, society has accepted these definitions as part of the “rule of law” that maintains order within our population. And, it is applied in the United States evenly, regardless of one’s religious leanings, or lack thereof.

So, now let’s take a look at a couple of provisions in the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment, in part reads: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” And, the Fourteenth Amendment, in part, states: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

The dictionary definition of “person” is: a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities and attributes strongly associated with being human. The Fifth Amendment was meant to protect The People from the federal government; the Fourteenth was meant to protect them from their own state governments.

So, using scientific fact, accepted mainstream legal definitions, and the accepted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, we have determined that a human being is created at the moment of conception, and that the intended death of that human being — through any one of many abortion processes — is homicide by murder.

And it didn’t take a single line of scripture to get there.

Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism. 

  • Anonymous

     One can plausibly argue that the zygote is not morally relevant life, however.  Whether it is morally relevant depends upon why one thinks that murder is wrong. If one believes murder is wrong because the human nervous system has evolved to find being killed aversive (as most atheists do), then it is hard to argue that the zygote is morally relevant until it has at least developed a rudimentary nervous system.  Killing a life form without a nervous system has no more moral relevance than killing skin cells when you scratch yourself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/doug.mcburney Doug McBurney

      OK, then where would you draw the line Libgov?

      • Anonymous

        At  28 weeks, when the thalamus is sufficiently developed to feel pain.

        • Gregg Jackson

          So you are saying that it’s ok to kill persons who can’t feel pain?

          • Anonymous

            No, I would argue that having any brain area that would find murder aversive makes murder wrong.  There are areas outside the thalamus (the frontal lobes, for example) that would find being murdered aversive, and so as long as the human possesses such an area, it is murder to kill them.  I gave the thalamus as the cut-off point for when abortion becomes murder because it is the first part of the brain to develop that would find being murdered aversive, so that is why I put the cut-off point at 28 weeks.

          • Gregg Jackson

            So it’s ok to kill pre-born babies who don’t possess the ability to feel pain but not ok to kill other human persons who can’t feel pain? That makes no sense.

          • Anonymous

            Umm, yes it makes sense.  It’s morally wrong to kill any human that has a brain area that would find murder aversive.  Someone with a working frontal lobe but not a working pain system (e.g., someone with congenital analgesia) possesses such an area.  A developing fetus prior to 28 weeks does not.

          • Gregg Jackson

            So is it ok, according to your line of reasoning to kill a person who is unconscious (in a coma) who doesn’t possess the ability to “find murder aversive” as you say?

          • Anonymous

            No, it is not OK because they still possess brain areas that find murder aversive.

          • Gregg Jackson

            Yes, but those areas of hte brain are non-functioning.

          • Anonymous

            Oh no, even when unconscious, those parts of the brain are alive and their nerve cells are firing.
             

          • Gregg Jackson

            Physically perhaps. But the fact of the matter is that the person is still not conscious of being killed.

          • Gregg Jackson

            Also, you did not answer my question above:

            Do you disagree with the scientific evidence that human life begins at the very moment of fertilization when the sperm fertilizes the ovum?

            Yes or no?     

          • Anonymous

            Umm, what evidence?

          • Gregg Jackson

            Axiomatic biological and scientific evidence which all confirm that at the very moment of fertilization that a totally unique human person is created with a full set of 46 chromosomes and totally distinct fully developed and intact DNA.

          • Anonymous

            Oh yes, I would agree that at the moment of fertilization an entity with a full set of 46 chromosomes is created, but don’t see how a human entity with 46 chromosomes has any greater moral relevance than one with half that number.

          • Gregg Jackson

            So you disagree with the scientific evidence that human life begins at the very moment of fertilization?

    • Bob Eschliman

      Then make the plausible argument, Libgov. How is a zygote morally irrelevant?

      • Anonymous

        Because it does not have a nervous system that finds being killed aversive.

        • Bob Eschliman

          How is that a plausible argument? You need to truly defend your position before the debate on this point can continue. Why is the nervous system the defining characteristic of a morally relevant human being?

          • Anonymous

            Because (again, according to Atheists, not Christians) the reason that anything might be morally wrong is because there is some entity that finds the action aversive if it is done to that entity (that’s a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for something being morally wrong).  Without an entity that finds the action aversive to itself, there can be no moral wrong, and that is the case when killing a zygote.

          • Bob Eschliman

            It’s a scientific fact that women who undergo a surgical abortion procedure later face deep depression.

          • Anonymous

            And having a baby that they didn’t want might make (at least some of them) even more unhappy than having an abortion.  The woman is making a decision about what will maximize her happiness, and having an abortion might do so.  Making abortion illegal robs a woman of the ability to choose what will maximize her happiness.  Thus, the fact that abortion may lead to an overall reduction in the mother’s happiness does not make it immoral, it is only immoral if it somehow reduces the happiness of the entity that is aborted (and without a nervous system, it doesn’t).

          • Ame

            One problem I see with the happiness standard is that these women can’t see into the future.  They don’t know what will make them happier.  Did you know that Steve Jobs was given up for adoption by a single women still in school?  He wasn’t a saint but he affected the happiness of a lot of people.

            Generally, I believe that people that are giving are happier than people that are focused on themselves.  It’s odd but those who try to make themselves happy seem to mostly fail while the people who think of others succeed in improving the happiness of both.

  • Gregg Jackson

    “Killing a life form without a nervous system has no more moral relevance than killing skin cells when you scratch yourself.”

    So, we should be able to kill paralytics who don’t possess a functioning nervous system?

    After all, according to your own standard, Libgov, paralytics and humans in a permanant vegetative state aren’t “morally relevant life” forms on par with “skin cells” as you have so determined them to be.   

    • Anonymous

       Paralytics do possess a functioning nervous system. Otherwise they would be dead.

  • Ame

    @Libgov:disqus That’s ridiculous. A skin cell will never be more than a skin cell.  It has a limited purpose and “dies” and is replaced regularly as a part of that purpose.  A zygote is an immature human being.  Only interference will prevent “it” from maturing. 

    • Anonymous

      So you are saying:  Skin cells don’t develop into humans and zygotes do so that is the difference.  Fair enough, but it is not the case that only interference will prevent “it” from maturing.  For example, the mother may be starving, and, if that is the case, then the zygote won’t mature into a human being because it will not get sufficient food.

      If your position is that killing a zygote is murder because, if all the right things happen, it will eventually turn into a human being, then you must logically also adopt the position that killing a gamete (egg or sperm) is murder because if all the right things happen, it will also turn into a human being.  Is that your position?

      • Erik Goodale

        A child, whether zygote, embryo, infant, toddler, etc. is a distinct and separate entity genetically speaking (other areas too but we are keeping this scientific).  Gametes are not.  This is why the author and others point to conception/fertilization as the point at which human life begins.  This is also why a woman has to have the placenta as her own body recognizes the child as distinct/separate genetically and so would attack it if the child was not protected from her immune system.

        • Anonymous

          What do you mean when you say that gametes are not separate entities genetically speaking?

          • Erik Goodale

            They are still considered part of the larger person which is displayed in at least two ways.  1)  Immune response.  A woman’s ova are not rejected by her immune system.  If they were, all women would be sterile.  Males is a little different as last I knew the science held that we don’t hold our gametes our entire lives as women due and instead produce them at the onset of puberty.  2)  No gamete can develop on its own into a separate person.  You can’t even take two of the same gametes i.e. two ova or two sperm and make this happen.  You have to have the ova and the sperm and it is only at that point — the point of conception/fertilization — that you have a genetically separate and distinct entity/person.

      • Ame

        I will die without nourishment and shelter. With those two needs met I will mature, not something I’m excited about given my age. The same is true from the moment of conception. A gamete will not. Nourishment and shelter will not grow it. It’s only half of the information to build a human.

  • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

    Libgov – Moral relativism has no place in the current legal process.  Prosecutors, judges and juries do not weigh the relevance of a human life.  Legally a person is a person, and therefor murder is murder.  As Bob very methodically demonstrated using medically and legally accepted definitions of the terms in question…  ”a human being is created at the moment of conception, and that the intended death of that human being — through any one of many abortion processes — is homicide by murder.”

    You are not arguing with his conclusion.  You are arguing the above referenced murder is ok.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, you are correct, I was not directly responding to the argument made in the article in my previous comments.  I will try to do so here.

      The argument the author is making is that murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought, and that a person is “a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities and attributes strongly associated with being human”.  Because a fetus possesses a full complement of human DNA, it has attributes strongly associated with being a human being (because only human beings have this attribute), and thus abortion constitutes murder under the legal definition.  Is that a fair summary of the argument (I’ve tried to be as fair as possible, but maybe I misunderstood)?

      If that is a fair summary, then I would argue that the author must also take the position that killing an individual human sperm or human egg is also murder.  Human sperm contains strands of human DNA (an attribute only and strongly associated with being a human), and as such, killing human sperm constitutes murder under the set of definitions the author has laid out.  If the author is willing to take his argument to its logical conclusion, he must also argue that masturbation is murder.  If he is willing to say this, then I would say his argument is correct, but I suspect (knowing male humans as I do), that the author himself would have to admit that he is a murderer.

      The author might respond, “A full complement of DNA constitutes a morally relevant human attribute but a portion of human DNA does not”, but that is entirely arbitrary and much less defensible than my definition that “Having a nervous system that finds being murdered aversive constitutes a morally relevant human attribute, but just having human DNA does not.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

        No. I don’t think you adequately summarized the argument.  You are attempting to apply a relativistic definition to something that is quite concrete.  Human life.  A zygote is an independant life, consisting not only of everything necessary to build a person, but it actually is a person.  Just like a baby is a human, and a child is a human, the elderly are human, etc.  Not “possessing strong attributes associated with being human” but actually human!

        • Anonymous

          Umm, didn’t I use the definition of personhood he did in the article (I copied and pasted it, so I must have)?  What is the author’s definition of personhood (if I got it wrong)?

          • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

            Again, you misquote to make your argument.  The definition is “a human being.”  That definition is then followed with an “or” (indicating a correlation, correction, or alternative definition) and another possible definition.

            I think that the first definition is perfectly acceptable in this case.  It is easily understood, fits in context, and conveys legislative intent.  It is also virtually impossible to use for construction and reinterpretation of the passage.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure what you meant when you said I misquoted.  What was the misquote? (I copied and pasted)

            Regardless, if the definition is “a human being” then we need a definition of “a human being,” so what definition are you using?

          • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

            That is kind of like arguing what the definition of “is” is.  As a self aware “human being” living in a world full of “human beings” raised by a society of “human beings” I hope you don’t need a definition of “human being.”  It is you.  It is me.  It need not be confused or twisted.

            According to Webster’s 1828 (contextually accurate to the original intent of the amendments) a person is…

            PERSON, n. per’sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.A person is a thinking intelligent being.2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.You’ll find her person difficult to gain.The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person’s attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

          • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

            humanHU’MAN, a. [L. humanus; Heb. form, species.]1. Belonging to man or mankind; pertaining or relating to the race of man; as a human voice; human shape; human nature; human knowledge; human life.

          • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

            Free dictionary.com

            hu·man  (hymn)n.1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

          • Anonymous

            Under all the definitions you list, I would say a gamete is as much a human being as a zygote.

          • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

            Then, for your sake, I am glad that you are teaching something as squishy as psychology instead of a concrete science like biology.  Because, if as a bio prof you were teaching that gametes are people too,  I think you would probably lose you job quite promptly.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, one of the things we have learned in psychology is that when people don’t have a good argument to make, they resort to insults as a way of changing the topic and attempting to save face.  Odd indeed that more than 90% of biology professors are pro-choice. 

          • Anonymous

            That’s weird; I think your response to my comment above and my response to that got cut off.  So, to summarize, you are saying that a definition of personhood is simply “a human being” and the stuff after the “or” can be ignored.  Fair enough.  However, now I need to know what the definition is of “human being” (i.e., what criteria does something have to meet before it can be called a “human being”).

      • Bob Eschliman

        As I pointed out in the article, ova and sperm (gametes) are haploid (feel free to Google or Bing the meaning there), which in essence means they only have 23 chromosomes each. But, all organisms in the Animalia family have diploid cells (46 chromosomes–XX (male) or XY(female)) that can replicate themselves. So, in that sense, ova and sperm do not meet the criteria of “having attributes strongly associated with being human.”

        • Anonymous

          But a zygote doesn’t have lungs, a brain, or a nervous system so, in that sense, it also does not meet the criteria of “having attributes strongly associated with being human.”

          • Bob Eschliman

            Genetically, it IS a human being. I didn’t decide the definition… the reproductive professionals did… if you feel your knowledge base is better than theirs, by all means, petition them to change the definition of human reproduction.

          • Anonymous

            Umm, didn’t decide the definition of what?

          • Bob Eschliman

            I didn’t decide the definition of human reproduction, OR the definition of person.

          • Anonymous

            OK, so who decided the definition of person?  Which reproductive professionals decided on this definition? And where can I find the place where they wrote down the definition?

  • Tom Hoefling

    Excellent. Nature and Nature’s God are in perfect agreement, as always. http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html

  • Anonymous

    I’ve often wondered why we cannot challenge abortion on the basis that the same laws will allow for one to be charged with double murder when a pregnant lady is killed regardless of where she is at in her pregnancy. If it’s a life then, how is it not a life when she intentionally has a doctor kill it? Besides, if you believe she might’ve chosen to have her baby, once she’s dead she’s not going to be making many more decisions. It’s hypocrisy. I’ve long thought IF I were a lawyer I would seek out a case where someone did murder a pregnant woman and demand the second murder charge be dropped. I’d build that part of my case on the fact that if my client were a doctor and the mother knowingly entered his clinic and asked for the baby to be killed there is not a single murder committed. So basic math tells us something isn’t right.

  • Guest

    Wow…Bob Eschliman is not a doctor, but he plays one on the blogs… lol
     
    That aside, I would appreciate input from an OB-GYN (maybe Dr. Paul’s available) concerning the difference between ‘conception’ (fertilization) and implantation on the uterine wall… ”Sure, not every zygote will go on to become a living, breathing child, but those instances are statistically few and far between, and irrelevant to this discussion.” What? “Irrelevant”? I can’t think of anything more central to the pro-life discussion as what happens to a zygote. 
     
    “The overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs that do not become children are the result of human interference through processes that have been labeled “abortion.” “ Really? So the zygotes that you had just referenced were likely aborted by human interference, or were they naturally?  How many fertilized eggs simply do not implant on the uterine wall?  While #Idon’thavethefactstobackthisup, my wife’s OB once told us that the number of natural miscarriages (fertilized eggs simply not implanting) is much higher than we would expect.
     
    What I really wonder about is the effect of popular hormonal birth control methods that many in the pro-life movement employ… are fertilized eggs passed during menstration?  If so, how is this any different than the morning after pill?  Are those defined as abortion?  Are those people just as guilty of abortion as those who use the morning after pill?  As for me, I don’t hear too many in the pro-life movement calling for the abolition of all monthly birth control pills.  Should they be?
     
    Can you see now how this becomes complicated in a hurry?  If we come to the conclusion that hormonal birth control methods (which many responsible, pro-life advocates use) actually prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, are we ready to champion the banning of these methods? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

      Very good question “Guest.”  I wish you would identify yourself so we could have an accountable conversation about this issue.  You are correct in identifying the complexity of defining abortion.  Does that include hormonal birth control pills, IUDs, morning after pills, any other process of preventing implantation?  I would personally say yes, but I don’t know if I am ready to die on that hill.

      Abortions requiring surgical intervention, or physician prescribed medication however definitely constitute deliberate destruction of a human life.  I would probably support outlawing the others as well, but would have to see a truly objective, universal, ideologically consistent bill presented to support doing that.  I don’t like piece-mealing anything.

  • John Lofton

    “Science says it’s a human being.” OK, and so WHAT? The REAL questions are: “So what is a human being? An image of God, made by Him? Or just an evolved accidental pile of molecules that assembled by chance?” And on the REAL questions, I do not care what “science” has to say. I believe what God says in His Word.

    John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Blog: JohnLofton.com
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com

    • Bob Eschliman

      I don’t disagree with your position, John. I, too, accept that the Bible says so, so it is so. But, I also understand many people do not agree with that position. The point is to provide a different view that might reach an audience that is either ignorant or intollerant of the Christian worldview. Steve perfectly described it as a “Christian apologetics view on abortion.”

  • Bob Eschliman

    Libgov… Let’s start a new string here on your “moral relevancy” statement. I’m going to assume you’re at least reasonably versed in philosophy… if not, you should be able to Google this stuff pretty easily. You’re suggesting moral relevancy is determined by the victim of murder, not by the murderer, which is a false premise from the start. Bernard Gert, in his Definition of Irrationality, said rationality and moral relevance are determined by actions, not by the person or object who/that is acted upon. So, I reject your moral relevancy thesis, because the pregnancy woman and the doctor who performs the abortion are both fully capable of understanding that the zygote/fetus/unborn child is a human being and that murder is wrong.

    • Anonymous

      Umm, so is it immoral to shoot a dead body?

      • Ame

        What is up with the red herrings? And creepy ones at that.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t understand?  Red Herrings?  I’m asserting a false premise?  What do you mean?  I’m trying to understand Bob’s statement that the victim is irrelevant to whether an action is immoral, so I asked him a question.  How can asking a question assert a false premise?

          • Ame

            The discussion is about killing. The dead can’t be killed so your question is off topic to my mind.

          • Anonymous

            Ame: So can you explain to me what Bob meant when he said: “You’re suggesting moral relevancy is determined by the victim of murder,
            not by the murderer, which is a false premise from the start”

          • Ame

            Basing the morality on a status of the victim or circumstance is wishy-washy relativism. It’s still wrong to steal from someone who won’t or can’t notice. Your motives and actions are at issue and are judged moral or immoral. Doing something immoral that doesn’t end badly for anyone or thing is still immoral.

          • Anonymous

            OK, basing morality on the status of the victim is wishy-washy relativism.  Is it OK to kill a cow?

          • Ame

            Again you are going off topic. A cow and a human are totally different.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds like wishy washy moral relativism to me in which the morality of an act depends upon the victim.  How is it different?

          • Ame

            I may need to sleep on it to explain it well. A cow is never a human and a human is never a cow. They are not the same beings under different circumstances/with different statuses. Each is unrelated to the other. Does that explain?

          • Anonymous

            Hmm, no I still  don’t understand Bob’s statement that the victim doesn’t matter to the morality of an act. 

          • Ame

            Let me try again.  Since I believe that truth is not relative, there is an overarching principle that always holds true.  The morality of killing a human being is different from killing an animal or plant because these are not the same type of being.  The principle is different. This human and that human may have different statuses like an immature nervous system but they are the same type of being.  They would fall under the same principle.  That’s why bringing up cows is irrelevant to a discussion of abortion. Dead bodies are also irrelevant since they can’t be killed.  Gametes are distinct from human beings because they never develop without conception.  However, a zygote develops and needs nutrition and shelter just like me.

            Clearer?

      • Gregg Jackson

        Again, Libgov, you are asserting a false premise. A pre-born baby from the vry moment he or she is conceived is a living human person…not a “dead body” as you atempt to imply.

      • Bob Eschliman

        Desecrating a dead body is a crime, ergo by virtue of the Social Contract, it is immoral.

        • Anonymous

          Umm, is cutting into a dead body for an autopsy immoral?

      • Bob Eschliman

        So, let’s get back to your moral relevancy position… you have yet to back it up sufficiently.

  • Gregg Jackson

    When Does Human Life Begin?

    Doctors Testify to U.S. Senate

    Many internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that
    human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary
    Subcommittee held hearings on the very question: When does human life begin?
    Following are testimonies from two of the doctors who testified:

    1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the
    Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: “By all the criteria of modern
    molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

    2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical
    doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact
    moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of
    conception.”

    “The Father of Modern Genetics”
    Testifies

    Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as “The
    Father of Modern Genetics,” also testified that human life begins at conception
    before the Louisiana Legislature’s House Committee on the Administration of
    Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

    Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we
    can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. “At no time,” Dr.
    Lejeune said, “is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is
    concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at
    conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human
    being.”

    Dr. Lejeune also pointed out that each human being is unique — different
    from the mother — from the moment of conception. He said, “Recent discoveries
    by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA
    molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products
    at the supermarket…it’s not any longer a theory that each of us is
    unique.”

    Dr. Jerome Lejeune died on April 3, 1994. Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France was a
    medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for
    over twenty years. Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome,
    receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the
    Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world’s highest award for work in the field of
    Genetics.

    He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick
    Children’s Hospital) in Paris. Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy
    of the Arts and Science, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London,
    The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and
    Argentina, The Pontifical Academy of Science and The Academy of Medicine in
    France.

    http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html

  • Bob Eschliman

    Libgov… you suggest there is no difference genetically between a zygote with 46 chromosomes than a gamete with 23. But, every member of the Animalia family must have 46 chromosomes. So, there’s a distinct difference between an organism with 46 chromosomes and an organism with only 23 (e.g. plants).

    • Anonymous

      Oh no, I would never suggest that there is no difference genetically (clearly there is).  I only suggest that there is no difference morally.

    • Anonymous

      Also, what do you mnean that every member of the Animalia family must have 46 chromosomes?  Very, very few do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

    • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

      Bob – be careful to distinguish the actual definitions of your terms from the specific technical details related to using those terms.  Humans have 46 chromosomes.  Horses have 64.  Donkeys have 62.  The thing that matters is diploid cells(capable of mitosis or replication) versus haploid cells(not capable of mitosis or replication).  One is a whole being, another is a part.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nick.weltha Nick Weltha

    There is going to be a time when citizens cannot own their own androids and it will be an extension of this Personhood argument that leads us there. That’s my only complaint with this approach. PETA,  Ape trusts, etc. are going to want to start extending Personhood rights immediately, and in a possible future where I design an android I want to later disassemble, I don’t want to have to get a government permit to do it, or worse, have them tell me it’s a “person” so I cannot.

    Additionally, as Libgov has made clear, the debate will just change from whether or not a being that feels pain is a “person”, or as fundamentalist Christians will inevitably have to argue, that they have souls from the moment they are conceived because as Jeremiah said, God knew us before we were in the womb.

  • http://www.facebook.com/belikebunce Wm Luke Priest

    Libgov – The conclusion to this article is as follows “a human being is created at the moment of conception, and… the intended death of that human being — through any one of many abortion processes — is homicide by murder.”

    This is the point of this article.  This is strict interpretation of the law.  We are not debating the philosophical implications of the law.  We are debating correct application of the law.  Abortion is homicide by murder, a crime punishable in every American jurisdiction as a felony.  The questions now are, why aren’t governments upholding the law?  Why aren’t citizens suing their governments for not upholding the law?  And Who should the governments be holding accountable for the above referenced murders?

Deace on TV