When Life Begins - Will politics trump science?

National Review Online ^ | November 02, 2008 | Robert P. George

[neverdem]

---

November 02, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

When Life Begins
Will politics trump science?

By Robert P. George

When does the life of a human individual begin? Although the question is of obvious importance for our public policy debates over abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research, politicians have avoided it like the plague. Of late, though, things seem to be changing. Recently some of our nation’s most prominent political leaders, from the Speaker of the House to both contenders for the office of president, have weighed in on the question.

Faced with the complicated and not-very-widely-known facts of human embryology, most people are inclined to agree with the sentiment expressed by Speaker Pelosi, who has stated “I don’t think anybody can tell you when… human life begins.”

Yet is Speaker Pelosi correct? Is it actually the case that no one can tell you with any degree of authority when the life of a human being actually begins?

No, it is not. Treating the question as some sort of grand mystery, or expressing or feigning uncertainty about it, may be politically expedient, but it is intellectually indefensible. Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.

A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.

It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.

On one side are those who believe that human beings have dignity and rights by virtue of their humanity. They believe that all human beings, irrespective not only of race, ethnicity, and sex, but also irrespective of age, size, and stage of development, are equal in fundamental worth and dignity. The right to life is a human right — therefore all human beings, from the point at which they come into being (conception) to the point at which they cease to be (death), possess it.

On the other side are those who believe that those human beings who have worth and dignity have them in virtue of having achieved a certain level of development. They deny that all human beings have worth and dignity and hold that a distinction should be drawn between those human beings who have achieved the status of “personhood” and those (such as embryos, fetuses, and, according to some, infants and severely retarded or demented individuals) whose status is that of human non-persons.

A common error these days is for people to convert the question of when a human life begins from a matter of biology to a matter of religious faith or personal belief. Senator Biden recently asserted that while he believes life begins at the moment of conception, this was a “personal and private” belief deriving from his religion that may not legitimately be imposed on others “in a pluralistic society.”

Biden is perfectly correct about when a life begins — at conception. But he is wrong to suppose that this is a mere matter of personal opinion or a position deriving only from religion. It is a matter of biological fact. Politics should not be permitted to trump it.

In view of the established facts of human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development, the real question is not whether human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages are human beings. Plainly they are. The question is whether we will honor or abandon our civilizational and national commitment to the equal worth and dignity of all human beings — even the smallest, youngest, weakest, and most vulnerable.

— Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

[neverdem]

Do We Still Need Embryonic Stem Cells? It doesn't look like we do. Induced pluripotent stem cells appear to fill the bill.

http://www.johnmccain.com/PhoneBank/

You can use that link to work the online phonebank for McCain/Palin. If you have unlimited long distance, why not?

Stay home or vote third party. Don't be surprised with what you get.

http://gunbanobama.com/

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

[MrB]

The abortion issue is not about keeping future abortions legal,

it is about keeping past abortion decisions guilt free.

This will enlighten you on the pro-aborts’ support of embryonic stem cell research - the embryo must NOT be given any special human status, because to do so would imply that abortion kills a baby.

[neverdem]

regenerative medicine/stem cell ping

[umgud]

When Life Begins - Will politics trump science?

Yes.

[from occupied ga]

Will politics trump science?

Always does - "global warming" (was "Global cooling" a few decades ago), CAFE (looking for the mythical 35 mpg carburator), no DDT due to alarmist Rachel Carson (now tens of thousands of new malaria cases each year world wide), loss of cheap clorinated hydrocarbons due to junk sciense "hole in the ozone layer" Gun control, "We just didn't go far enough" when crime goes out the roof. Science relies on reason - politics on force. And the ideas of stupid but attractive people who can get elected by other stupid people.

[murphE]

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being.

ping

[loveliberty2]

Excellent!

The matter of protecting life should have been a battle cry in this election year, because Creator-endowed right to life and liberty is the foundation upon which this nation was founded.

If this nation devalues that concept, basing an individual's right to life and liberty on judicial fiat and a woman or girl's decision, then where is the security for liberty for any? It was the concept of Creator-endowed life, liberty, and laws to protect them which distinguished the American experiment from all other forms of government and made it a "beacon" for liberty for the oppressed all over the world.

The elephant in the room in this election has been the Radical Left's absolute determination that it, alone, will decide who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States! They talk about "change," they talk about war, they talk about everything else, but the "elephant" is the question of the unfettered right of a woman to destroy her unborn child. To the Left, this is a declared war on all opposition. And, the opposition has largely avoided the confrontation--except for the Catholic Bishops, God bless them!

John McCain needs to clarify the singular importance of the life issue, and the threat to liberty if Obama carries out the Left's agenda. Soft pedaling this issue, as if it is just a personal preference, overlooks a far more significant principle.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Thomas Jefferson

"The world is different now. . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."- JFK, Inaugural 1961

At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994, Mother Teresa stated: “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

[neverdem]

"The abortion issue is not about keeping future abortions legal,

it is about keeping past abortion decisions guilt free."

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Elections seen as turning point for stem cell studies

Post abortion guilt is nothing new. The author is writing for several states with stem cell referenda and initiatives tomorrow.

Stem-cell law goes to the polls: The November 4 election will settle more than who sits in the White House

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

This is obviously true. Science explains human nature, and it supports the Catholic Church’s assertion that a new human life begins at conception.
No reasonable sane human being can deny this.
Obviously there are no reasonable sane humans beings in the democrat party or among radical feminazis.

[Sherman Logan]

Science explains human nature, and it supports the Catholic Church’s assertion that a new human life begins at conception. No reasonable sane human being can deny this.

True but irrelevant. The issue is not when human life begins, it is when human life should be given the protection of law as a person. That is irreduceably a political question. Science can hopefully provide insight, but it simply cannot answer the question. It's just not a scientific issue.

[MrB]

If we’re “not sure” as Pelosi states, why err on the side of killing a human being?

If a hunter sees movement in the brush, and isn’t sure where his hunting buddy is, can he morally take the shot?

[Philo-Junius]

The legal term for this sort of culpable incuriosity is “depraved indifference,” and is legally sufficient evidence of murderous intent.

Unless the victim is an inconvenient baby, of course.

[MrB]

I like that term - I think I’ll use it...

[AnalogReigns]

If this nation devalues that concept, basing an individual's right to life and liberty on judicial fiat and a woman or girl's decision...

News flash, I hate to break it to you, but since in the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, we as a nation have never even come close to reversing that horrendous decision...and are responsible for close to 50,000,000 of our own childrens' deaths--we long ago abandoned defending the right to life and liberty.

The irony of it all it all is that this was done in the name of freedom for women....and virtually immediately after the successes of defeating legal racism in the civil rights movement.

If Obama wins, and, the resulting chaous, social, economic, military, foreign policy and otherwise ensues, I believe it will be the beginning of God's judgment on America for the sacrifice of 4,000 a day to her Moloch-god of "Choice."

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. -- Jefferson

[Philo-Junius]

Enjoy. My main point is that this isn’t even primarily a moral argument. Centuries-old established legal principle dictates that debates about the origins of life aren’t relevant here; if there is the possibility that the baby is a human life, it is murder to kill it.

The question is whether we will follow our own law, never mind God’s law.

[RetiredArmy]

In O-scum-a's world it does.

Just got a phone call. When I answered it was BILL CLINTON telling me to vote for O-scum-a tomorrow! Been getting a lot of these O-scum-a calls here in Alabama the past few days. O-scum-a is down 62-35% here. Why bother?

[Sherman Logan]

I don’t disagree with you on the moral issue.

However, morality is not a scientific issue. Science deals in facts. Right and wrong is just not a scientific question. Decisions on such issues are inevitably based on other criteria.

[cpforlife.org]

ONE NATION UNDER GOD – VOTE PRO-LIFE

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[Salvation]