And the winner is ..........?
Posted on 07/10/2002 7:51:29 AM PDT by NYer
The July 4 issue of the scientific journal Nature reports that "Just five years ago...mammalian embryos were thought to spend their first few days as a featureless orb of cells. Only later, at about the time of implantation into the wall of the uterus, were cells thought to acquire distinct 'fates' determining their positions in the future body."
Researchers tagged specific points on mammalian embryos (blastocysts) shortly after fertilization successfully demonstrating that they come to lie at predictable points in the embryo. "Rather than being a naive sphere, it seems that a newly fertilized egg has a defined top-bottom axis that sets up the equivalent axis in the future embryo," says Nature. Some studies suggest that such differentiation happens as early as the two celled stage.
The journal concludes from the study: "What is clear is that developmental biologists will no longer dismiss early mammalian embryos as featureless bundles of cells - and that leaves them with some work to do."
And the winner is ..........?
It sorta raises the eyebrow over the term "unviable tissue mass" too, doesn't it?
Pro life BUMP
Indeed.
Don't forget this guy:
 |
| Michael J. Fox has wrestled with Parkinsons since 1991. |
But such distinctions are meaningless --- that's the point. In fact, I go further in my own personal view of the question, one that in some ways is the mirror image of Singer's. Conception merely puts already existing life into a new configuration. The Great Chain of Being --- each one of us is an instantiation of an unbroken thread of the chain --- extends far back into the mists of prehistory, its origins deeply mysterious, and its deliberate severance, when not justified as an act providing fuel for life, always a moral failing.
This finding moves the definition of "human" to the very beginning, where it belongs. You seem to be saying that it will fundamentally change the terms of the debate. But it won't do that at all.
Singer's contention is that it doesn't matter if it's a human being or not, viable or not, even born or not.
When faced with the proof that it's human, the pro-aborts won't just give up and go away. They'll simply decide that it really doesn't matter -- that the abominable "right to choose" is more important than mere humanity.
It's already been done, in fact. In a 1995 New Republic article, Naomi Wolfe put it this way: Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die. But it is never right or necessary to minimize the value of the lives involved or the sacrifice incurred in letting them go. Only if we uphold abortion rights within a matrix of individual conscience, atonement and responsibility can we both correct the logical and ethical absurdity in our position and consolidate the support of the center.
A close reading of this -- and of the article itself -- is really quite horrifying. But it is at least honest, in the way Singer is honest, about their ultimate views on human life.
A finding like this will have no effect on abortion, because (as Wolfe's article makes clear), abortion is probably the most profoundly selfish action a person can take. Never forget: 95% (at least) of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience. Wolfe is saying that killing for convenience is OK.
A discovery like this can make no headway against human perversity.
Baby's, once born, can sustain independent functions, but they cannot lead independent lives. They depend on nurturing long after they leave their first protective environment of mommy's womb. Without it, they die. Just as removing them from the womb too early causes death.
Development starts in the womb and continues for 20 some years in the physical sense.
Perhaps (though I doubt it). People know that it's more than a tissue mass anyway -- they have to work terribly hard to (pretend to) convince themselves otherwise.
But as Naomi Wolfe has pointed out, the "tissue mass" argument is mostly a matter of PR anyway, and its intrinsic unbelievability does (in her view) more harm than good to the pro-abort cause.
And it's only a last-ditch argument anyway, since women usually choose an abortion for the sake of convenience.
Wolfe's article lays the groundwork for something far more insidious -- she puts forth the view that a choice to abort will serve to inflict Noble Suffering upon the woman. "Yes, it's hard to snuff out a helpless human life. I suffer from it daily (sniff). I am pursued by demons. But it was The Best Thing To Do. I will gladly suffer for Doing The Right Thing."
Abortion is no longer just "the most difficult choice a woman can make," it becomes a positive good!
If this discovery makes waves in the major media (which it will not), then watch for something like Wolfe's approach to make the airwaves.
There was three pics where this baby was just face forward, huge eyes, smiling like she knew what was happening. This woman is due in October so that makes her.....5 months along I think. (A man's additions) This kids name is gonna be "Abigail" based on what the young mother learned today.
I have no idea why, but this is the one of the most awesome experiences I feel I have ever encountered...I will tell everyone here and now if anyone could have seen what I saw today they would realise in a heartbeat what LIFE IS...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.