Show me your science
Religion New Service reports that detractors of a Missouri abortion consent law are critical because “Pythagorean Greeks, early Christian church fathers . . . and modern ethicists have grappled with the fundamental, ultimately unknowable mystery” of when human life begins, yet the Missouri law requires that women seeking an abortion in the state be told that human life begins at conception. Modern science and distinguished Princeton bioethicist Robert George are on the side the Missouri State Legislature.
Among other things, the new law requires modification to Missouri’s 24-hour abortion consent law requiring that women be told, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” The RNS article notes that opposition to this statement centers on the second sentence (i.e., abortion terminating a human being):
“But for philosophers and theologians, things get more complicated with the new law’s second sentence, which asserts that abortion ends the life of a ‘separate, unique, living human being.’
“‘The distinction is between human life where you’re talking about an organism as opposed to a human life in a moral sense,’ said Bonnie Steinbock, professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Albany. ‘Those are two different debates that go back to Aquinas and the issue of ensoulment.’
“Aquinas, and Augustine before him, wrestled with concepts first introduced by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. Aristotle believed that a soul could only inhabit a fetus when that fetus began to look human, a timetable he set at 40 days for men and 90 days for women.”
See the dualism here? The Missouri law critics believe that life and humanity are separate things. In other words, they believe life and humanity don’t converge until some unknowable point during gestation . . . and it’s moral to abort that life prior to the convergence.
A member of President George W. Bush’s Council on Bioethics and co-author of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, Robert George told me five years ago that science had advanced to the point where it would be impossible for abortion-rights advocates to argue accurately that life and humanity do not begin at conception. Here’s an excerpt from an article I wrote about our discussion:
“The science has advanced so far, George said, that the pro-choice crowd cannot make a sound moral and logically consistent argument for destroying life based on the idea that an embryo lacks humanity. Within hours of conception, he explained, scientists now know that the human body plan is already forming. The biological format for a well-constructed person is already in the works far before a morning after pill could do its job.”
Yet, critics of the Missouri law display their ignorance. They revert to the ancient life-humanity dualism that modern science has debunked. Science has proven that life and humanity are not two different things that merge at some mystical time during gestation. If Robert George were to debate the scholarly critics of the Missouri law, he might begin by saying, “Show me your science.” That’s what the Show-Me State legislature did and they got it right.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top31 Comments to “Show me your science”
People still dig outdated anthropological ideas like race if it suits their agenda. People ignore facts when it does not suit their desire for power.
Report comment to moderator
Let me revise that, people ignore, bend. or distort facts to suit their worldview.
Report comment to moderator
Life is precious…and God…and the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
“These thinkers believe that life and humanity are separate things.”
Not that its applicable to this debate, but “life” and “humanity” really are two separate things. Consider a human corpse, which is “human” but not “alive”.
“science had advanced to the point where it would be impossible for abortion-rights advocates to argue accurately that life and humanity do not begin at conception.”
Then George is over-stating his case. In order to “prove” that life and humanity begin simultaneously at conception one must have concrete, quantifiable definitions of “life” and “humanity”. Moreover, for someone to accept such a proof he must generally accept those definitions as being the correct ones. That’s where the “proof” angle breaks down.
Suppose George makes the following “proof”:
1. Human DNA and the potential to develop into a human determines humanity, e.g. humanity begins at conception.
2. A fetal heartbeat is a priori evidence of “life”.
3. Abortion stops a beating heart.
4. Ergo abortion ends a human life.
If I’m a pro-choice person, I can accept that points 1-3 “prove” point 4. But then I can also reject point 2, which is presented in an axiomatic way instead of derived from a set of subordinate facts. If I reject point 2 then I also reject the conclusion in point 4.
Report comment to moderator
So a dead body has rights when the living do not? This world is warped indeed. Also, Buddy, with the statement you gave, 1 and 4 work even better without 2 and 3.
Report comment to moderator
Also Bob should explain point 3, I know it is sarcastic, but it would be great to hear you explain your point in full.
Report comment to moderator
#6: Oh, it’s just a line from the best sketch comedy show of all time (Mr. Show with Bob and David). I was hoping someone might catch the reference.
Report comment to moderator
Imagine the proof-demanding, hair-splittering of the chemical-onlyites..
1) LIVING human sperm and LIVING human egg at 09:00:00
2) Fertilization at 09:00:01
3) New human life also at 09:00:01
4) New human life didn’t make it at 09:00:05
5) Upon the autopsy, “where is the PROOF of it’s human life?
No proof from science journals concerning human life evident in the embryo?
Case thrown out.
Report comment to moderator
The question should never be, “When does life begin?” We can never know the answer to that question, but it is really irrelevant. The fact is life began a long time ago. It requires the fusion of living gametes to create a new, living human. The correct question is, “When does a new, individual human being begin its life?” If words mean anything at all, and the observations of biological science are meaningful, it is a medical and biological certainty that that occurs at conception.
The determination of when that human life becomes worthy of protection is not a scientific or medical decision, it is a moral and metaphysical choice. Science informs that choice, but the science is already beyond rational refutation.
Report comment to moderator
Um, I’d also like to point out that there’s a very clear line between life and consciousness, or being self-aware. Right? Isn’t that what this is about? Science may never be able to answer that question, but it does seem that the phrase “life of a separate, unique, living human being” seems to imply consciousness. Which isn’t provable at this point. Even if they don’t use those exact words, they’re clearly trying to suggest that.
Report comment to moderator
And frankly, how is it in the interest of the State to discourage abortion?
Report comment to moderator
Some things are way too important to entrust only to theologians and philosophers and ethicists. Sorta like how they used to say wars are too important to entrust only to generals and diplomats
Report comment to moderator
That’s something the Pro-Choicers are definitely on the wrong side about. The US government should take a decidedly neutral position on abortion. They shouldn’t be taking stances on moral issues. It’s best left up to the individual states. At this point we can (I think) all agree that abortion isn’t a fundamental human right. It’s a medical procedure that can be done. The debate is whether it should be ALLOWED to be done. And that’s something, I think, the states should decide for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
BDDBY (10): Um, I’d also like to point out that there’s a very clear line between life and consciousness, or being self-aware.
Frank: And I’d like to point out that you just described three related but distinct states of human existence:
The relationship simply stated: You can be alive and not conscious or self-aware, but you can’t be self-aware and not conscious or alive.
Read on …
BDDBY (10): Right? Isn’t that what this is about? Science may never be able to answer that question, but it does seem that the phrase “life of a separate, unique, living human being” seems to imply consciousness. Which isn’t provable at this point.
Frank: I think you meant to say, ” … seems to imply self-awareness, which isn’t provable at this point.”
Human life deserves protection. Not merely “conscious” human life (or we could lawfully kill people in their sleep), nor merely “self-aware” human life (or parents could kill their young infants).
BDDBY (11): And frankly, how is it in the interest of the State to discourage abortion?
Frank: Frankly, the issue has nothing to do with the “interest of the State,” for that criteria can be used to justify all manner of wickedness.
Rather, the issue is, “For what purpose does God ordain the civil magistrate?” The Scriptures tell us it is to approve righteousness and exercise God’s wrath against criminals (Romans 13).
Furthermore, the highest evil is murder — unjustly killing the bearer of God’s image. Genesis 9:6 appears to be the establishment of the first standard of government among men. God says that murderers must have their blood shed by men, because 1) murderers kill the bearer of God’s image, and 2) other bearers of God’s image must punish the murderer by shedding his blood.
All of which is to say, the protection of human life is the civil magistrate’s highest calling before God.
So if abortion is the unjust ending of human life, it is the civil magistrate’s duty before God to discourage it.
Report comment to moderator
BDDBY (13): The US government should take a decidedly neutral position on abortion. They shouldn’t be taking stances on moral issues. It’s best left up to the individual states.
Frank: While I wouldn’t use the word “neutral” here, I think I see what you’re say, and I generally agree.
It is up to the states to punish criminals in general. (If we were governed according to the Constitution, there would be a mere handful of federal crimes.)
I only balk at your choice of the word “neutral” because I don’t think the feddle gummint should be “neutral” toward murder or theft or perjury. I just don’t think the feds should be in the business of prosecuting those crimes.
Report comment to moderator
On this issue my views line up with Christine O’Donnell’s.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, are you saying “consciousness” and “self-awareness” are two different things? Because I don’t think you’re Carl Jung.
Report comment to moderator
If murder is a federal crime, then the federal judiciary should be deciding whether they would prosecute those participating in abortion. If it is a state crime, then the state judiciary should handle it. The gov’t’s job is to protect the liberties of the people, and that includes the right to life, from which all other rights are derived. However when it comes to prosecution and such, whether the state or the federal gov’t handles it, that comes to what type of crime murder is.
I just looked it up, and constitutionally it would be up to the state whether or not they will prosecute abortion as murder. The Fed though should not be permitting it, it should be, constitutionally, up to the state whether they will press charges or not. Not saying that this is right ethically or morally.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that when a scholar’s personal views are misaligned with those of World Mag’s editors, the blog post or article is always quick to recite all the ways in which the scholar has been associated with left-wing causes. For example, I don’t recall a single post or article about Elena Kagan that did not hesitate to label her as a “liberal” or highlight irrelevant past associations with liberal causes.
But when a scholar’s views match up with those of World Mag’s editors, the article only focuses on his or her academic credentials and makes no mention of the person’s association with religious institutions or with political conservative activism. This is a perfect example.
Granted, I trust that George is a fine scholar. But it’s worth remembering the following:
1. He is a strict Roman Catholic, and is unlikely to proffer any opinions on life issues that disagree with the Magisterium (whether or not those statements are consistent with Scripture);
2. He is a proponent of the “new natural law theory” that was popularized by John Finnis, and which is widely regarded as being built on a “soft” view of the fall which is inconsistent with the Protestant and Reformed view of the fall; and
3. George probably also opposes the use of contraception (at least, if he is a good Catholic), which makes one wonder how it is that evangelical pro-lifers can turn a blind eye to use of the pill while advocating for the criminalization of abortion.
In other words, George is not exactly neutral on this issue. Moreover, it is not clear that Protestants need to pay any heed to the ethical musings of one whose theology tilts so heavily toward Rome.
Again, this post seems to fall in line with a string of World Mag posts and articles that suggest that we can ignore flawed theological views, so long as one compensates for those errors by an appropriate dose of activism for the social conservative cause.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a law. There are those here who would have a legislature redefine what marriage is, too. No different.
Report comment to moderator
“In other words, George is not exactly neutral on this issue.’
So? World makes no effort to claim they have no bias. We make no claim that they are neutral. In fact they go out of their way to proclaim their bias.
This is in stark contrast to the liberal media and their defenders…
We don’t claim to be unbiased. We merely contend that we are right, and you are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
“And frankly, how is it in the interest of the State to discourage abortion?”
More tax payers.
Report comment to moderator
BDDBY (#17),
For some time, I’ve been meaning to ask you this question:
Does Mr. Zimmerman know that you’re using his name?
Report comment to moderator
RSD
Catholics are split on abortion, and few are against contraception. When people say Catholics are always the same on an issue, they lie. I know in the Catholic school I went to, half the class had lost their virginity by 8th grade, which is way above the national average.
Report comment to moderator
The public school I went to after that had a pregnancy rate that was twice the national average. I went to a lot of messed up schools.
Report comment to moderator
The definition of life and what it means to be human can be two separate meanings. There is a valid argument to be made to separate the two concepts. George’s argument seems to state that genetic markings is all it takes to be human. This may help in a pro-life argument but it can be used as an argument for biological determinism.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116, a person can, however, say what “the Catholic position” is on an issue, and it is indeed against all forms of birth control, and very strongly against abortion. BTW, if the schools you went to were in the same town, the national average might not mean much; your local average was what was relevant.
Report comment to moderator
#23: It’s a quote from the Dylan documentary “Don’t Look Back”. When he ‘went electric’, an audience member called him a “Judas”, to which he responded, “I don’t believe you…you’re a liar!”
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, then most Catholics do not hold the Catholic position, at least from first hand experience.
Report comment to moderator
All philosophy aside concerning the beginning of consciousness or life or whatever–why do we allow such a brutal killing (by ripping apart, chemically burning, or cutting up) of an organism that feels pain as noted by it’s response to touch even in the very earliest stages of development?
Report comment to moderator
It’s amusing that if a subject once caused confusion, some people believe the subject must then be unknowable.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!