Posted on 08/14/2005 4:20:41 PM PDT by beavus
...
David Boonin, though not responding to George, also discounts the pro-lifer’s claim that the newly conceived embryo is a distinct, living, and whole human organism. How can this be, he argues, when we don’t know the precise moment during the conception process at which the new zygotic human being comes into existence? Here Boonin is both right and wrong. True, we don’t know exactly when during the conception process that the zygote comes to be. Some embryologists argue that it happens when the sperm penetrates the ovum while others point to syngamy, when the maternal and parental chromosomes crossover and form a diploid set.
But as Francis Beckwith points out, although Boonin raises an important epistemological question (When do we know that sperm and egg cease to be and a new organism arises?), he’s mistaken that his skepticism successfully undermines the pro-lifers strongly supported ontological claim that the zygote is distinct, living, and whole human being. “It may be that one cannot, with confidence, pick out the precise point at which a new being comes into existence between the time at which the sperm initially penetrates the ovum and a complete and living zygote is present. But how does it follow from this acknowledgment of agnosticism that one cannot say that zygote X is a human being?” Boonin, writes Beckwith, commits the fallacy of the beard: Just because I cannot say when stubble ends and a beard begins, does not mean I cannot distinguish between a clean-shaven face and a bearded one.
Moreover, Boonin’s skepticism cuts both ways and serves to undermine his own case. Abortion advocates (and advocates of ESCR) typically claim that until a fetus has value-giving properties such as self-awareness, rationality, and sentience, it does not have a right to life. But since when can we know the precise moment that those properties come to be in the fetus? That is, at what exact point in the pregnancy does the unborn become rational enough to warrant a right to life? No one can say, though abortion advocates suggest that it’s somewhere between 24 weeks to 30 weeks. Despite their lack of certitude on these questions, few abortion advocates are willing to surrender their views. However, if the pro-life position is refuted by a lack of certitude, so is the pro-abortion one.
we don’t know exactly when during the conception process that the zygote comes to be
Fact: we KNOW that no such precise moment exists.
Some embryologists argue that it happens when the sperm penetrates the ovum while others point to syngamy, when the maternal and parental chromosomes crossover and form a diploid set.
Like conception, these processes do not start or stop at precise times either. We observe nature and we discover that it flows smoothly with time, offering us no precise transitions.
When do we know that sperm and egg cease to be and a new organism arises?
The answer to that question is, of course, that the transition between the two is smooth. We observe states of gametes & embryo. We also observe all of the intermediate states. There is no magical skip from gametes to embryo.
“It may be that one cannot, with confidence, pick out the precise point at which a new being comes into existence
One can WITH CONFIDENCE say that no such precise point exists.
fallacy of the beard: Just because I cannot say when stubble ends and a beard begins, does not mean I cannot distinguish between a clean-shaven face and a bearded one
True. But the author implicitly commits the other variant of this fallacy by presuming that because we can distinguish between a clean-shaven face and a bearded one, there must be a sharp division (as hairs are plucked one by one) between them.
That is, at what exact point in the pregnancy does the unborn become rational enough to warrant a right to life? No one can say,
We CAN say that there is no such exact point. Life is a complex and smoothly transitioning state. We observe life as it changes, at all stages of the life cycle, and we see that there is no precise temporal division anywhere.
However, if the pro-life position is refuted by a lack of certitude, so is the pro-abortion one.
Actually, ANY position that argues that biology shows us precise temporal divisions between states is refuted by simple CERTAIN fact that we look and such divisions are seen to be absent.
Conception seems to be the rational starting point for an individual life, as fertilisation is the beginning of this individual's life-cycle, but skip all that.
Let's say we agree that life DOESN'T begin at conception, but 20 years later scientists agree that yes, the individual does indeed begin at conception. What's the result? Answer: A whole bunch of people who are never born because scientists couldn't agree, so we erred on the side of choice.
OK, now the other side. Let's say that for now we can't agree on when life begins, but we agree that it begins at conception for now. Then, twenty years from now, scientists reveal it doesn't begin until later. Does that mean we should have aborted all those people who weren't allowed to be, yet who were born over the course of twenty years?
My point is, why are those who claim to be for "just the facts" so obsessed with blurring the lines as to what constitutes an individual life's starting point, as opposed to trying to really pinpoint where the individual begins? And what is so irrational to these people about saying conception is the beginning point for an individual life?
Somewhere between conception and birth (inclusive) life begins. The burden of proof (and I mean proof) as to when is on those who wish to terminate the pregnancy. Those who oppose abortion don't have to prove anything.
Impossible to agree on that point, because it contains an implicit assumption that is factually false. It presumes that there is a specific time point marking the beginning of something in a life process. In fact, it is wrong to say "we don't know". We DO know that no such point exists.
Let's say we agree that life DOESN'T begin at conception,
Or at any other specific time. That is a fact.
but 20 years later scientists agree that yes, the individual does indeed begin at conception
Scientists will sooner agree that the world is flat or that 572 hairs makes a beard. Technology is sufficient even today for us to observe that there is no time point.
What's the result? Answer: A whole bunch of people who are never born because scientists couldn't agree, so we erred on the side of choice.
Why? Do you think that acknowledging reality will lead to more abortions? Does that mean that if we oppose abortion we should adhere to obvious factual falsehoods?
My point is, why are those who claim to be for "just the facts" so obsessed with blurring the lines as to what constitutes an individual life's starting point,
My friend. Look at the world. Take the knowledge you have of how things change in time. Consider changes you see with your very eyes, and include, if you like, what we observe in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biology. Nobody is blurring any lines, because it is a fundamental fact, readily observable, that those lines simply do not exist.
as opposed to trying to really pinpoint where the individual begins?
We KNOW the answer to that question. There is NO pinpoint.
And what is so irrational to these people about saying conception is the beginning point for an individual life?
It is irrational because it contradicts what is actually observed. What can well state that "embryos should be legally protected", but to say that there is some natural distinct time on the life cycle between gametes and embryo (or any other time) is to presume a falsehood.
If we want to persuade people to a position, we should at a minimum not contradict the reality that people see all around them--the smoothness of time.
We observe the process, and we see that it is smooth. No dividing time exists in nature. There is nothing to discover and nothing to prove in that regard. We look, and we see that it is not there.
Anyone, prolife or prochoice, who bases his argument upon the possibility of such a time point existing, can and should be immediately discounted, because the presumption is a factually false one.
You're arguing just to argue--I say RIGHT THERE that let's agree for the sake of argument NOT that this is a fact, but as a basis for discussion.
The rest of your post is simply contrary garbage. You insist on this bizarre "we can't agree on when life begins because it's a continuum" when any second grader can see I am discussing individual life.
You insist on playing by your own weird rules and yet refuse to even accept an admitted falsehood in order to create a scenario for discussion. You believe you are the source of all truth yet you can't even grasp simple debate tactics.
Nobody is blurring any lines, because it is a fundamental fact, readily observable, that those lines simply do not exist.
That's beyond ridiculous. Go on with your weird solipsistic view of science and accepted fact, but don't expect to be taken with even the tiniest bit of seriousness when you keep posting this weirdness.
Don't bother arguing with someone who has said on this topic "There is no time point at which fertilization begins."
It is a fact. If you think otherwise, then maybe you can describe that time point to me.
zzzzzzzzzzzz...
P.S. If you can't figure out that fertilization happens at some point in time, you're waaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. Bye now.
Shall we take, for the sake of argument, that the world is flat, or the moon is made of green cheese? That is the point I'm trying to make. It isn't a deduced point, it is one of observation--a fact. We don't argue our way to the fact that no such time point exists--we see it for ourselves.
The rest of your post is simply contrary garbage. You insist on this bizarre "we can't agree on when life begins because it's a continuum" when any second grader can see I am discussing individual life.
I thought you were discussing biology. I am only telling you that there is no such point in biology. Imagine watching the process under a microscope. Incorporate what you know of biochemistry. It may not be apparent to a second grader, but it should be apparent to someone at, say, a high school chemistry level, that life processes are smooth, without any magical skips or jumps.
You believe you are the source of all truth
What makes you think that is what I believe?
That's beyond ridiculous. Go on with your weird solipsistic view of science and accepted fact, but don't expect to be taken with even the tiniest bit of seriousness when you keep posting this weirdness.
That is unfortunate, if true, that people so adamantly deny the world they see. The observation of time continuity is so ubiquitous, that DENYING it is more appropriately called "weird".
It is interesting that you interpret what little I have written as "solipsistic". How do you come to that view (which I of course think is false)?
Does that mean you cannot describe such a time point? Ask yourself why that is. You will discover that you cannot describe it, because it does not exist. You know that you can observe the process and spot sperm & egg. You can also spot zygote. But, as you observe the process over time, you see that the transition between the two is smooth, with no identifiable time of transition.
It is interesting that you say "figure out". Does that mean that you logically deduce that such a time point exists? May I ask you how you make that deduction? Why is it, that that deduction seems to contradict our observation of the process?
Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A. The Rooster. (Sexist males always get to come first).
Point is, I don't know of any pro-aborts who are clamoring for the right to commit abortion during the process of fertilization. Usually they wait until...oh, I don't know, when they've missed one or two periods. We all know fertilization is complete and there is a distinct individual growing within the womb by then.
I sure hope your title: Common MISconceptions wasn't a pun.
It sounds like you might agree that there is no specific identifiable time point that separates when a thing has and does not have rights. Is that true?
Re-read snarks_when_bored's posts about the biochemical processes that occur after the first spermatazoa has penetrated, and a very short time later the egg is impervious to further sperm...
Sometime between there and the end of the first mitosis would be a good time to indicate fertilization is complete...
Actually, I think the whole thing is a moot point because most abortions occur well after this whole process is long over with.
Gotta run, first day at a new job AND first day of school for the young 'uns.
Cheers!
I'm familiar with the processes, thanks.
Sometime between there and the end of the first mitosis would be a good time to indicate fertilization is complete...
I'm still not clear. Are you saying that is one time when fertilization can be said to be past, or are you saying that somewhere in there is a time point that abruptly marks the end of fertilization?
Actually, I think the whole thing is a moot point because most abortions occur well after this whole process is long over with.
It may be moot for the purposes of abortion, but not for analyzing how people think, and how they justify some passionately expressed beliefs.
It seemed that you were using the argument (paraphrased) that if you divide the process into time slices, the change from one time-slice to either of its neighbors is so small that there is no clear demarcation line between states.
If you agree with that (even if it is only for the sake of argument), then my follow-up is this:
There is at least one demarcation line, and that is, prior to some point (or at least some small period of time), it is "fair game" for any sperm to penetrate the egg. Within some short time after that, one of the sperm has clearly won the race, and so fertilization has begun.
Some time later, after more bio-molecular changes, the first cycle of cell division has begun. At this point, fertilization is necessarily complete, since there is no distinguishable sperm cell--except for all the losers that didn't penetrate. :-)
This would be a second demarcation line.
I think what I object to is the assumption, or maybe the imposition, of the suggestion that fertilization is necessarily instantaneous--and the implication that since in some light, it is not instantaneous, any arguments about "when life begins" are invalid.
Just because a process happens over time, does not mean there is no distinction between beginning and ending states: there may be a blurry area in the middle of the process but there are also distinct conditions before and after the blurry process starts and finishes.
Thanks for playing!
It may be that we are unable to agree on a time earlier than some specific point. But we all agree that after successful implantation, the situation is different than before first cell division...
It does NOT therefore follow that rights are nonsensical, merely because you want to confuse yourself...
On the other end, what is the the distinction IN the baby's growth just after crowning, and before full birth? Is the physical difference large enough to permit full abortion, but permit "partial-birth" abortion?
Or for that matter, is there enough of a difference between a baby of seven month's gestation, and a full-term baby? I have friends and acquantances who where born prior to full-term, and yet are doing fine...
How many lawyers can dance on the head of a sperm?
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.