Replies

That's my exact definition, so how can we come to differing conclusions? Because you're practicing a type of scientism in an attempt to leave God or human spirituality out of it. This method is wholly incapable of answering any of life's serious questions.

I am not "practicing scientism", as you say. Science is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world; it does not deal with religious or philosophical matters.

The reason I concentrate purely on the scientific matters when discussing abortion is that the moment you bring up religion, many of those who are pro-abortion automatically dismiss you as a religious freak intent on controlling women. Focusing on the science makes it impossible for pro-abortion zealots to dismiss pro-life arguments as religious beliefs that they do not share.

You couple this with a type of halo effect over "scientific" explanations and definitions you agree with. This is serious bias. Look at your very next paragraph

As I said before, science is a methodology dedicated to describing the real world. There is no "agreement" here; the purpose of science is to be as objective and accurate as possible when describing natural phenomena. Everything I have said concerning the aliveness of sperms, ova, zygote, blastocysts, and embryos is verifiable by simple biochemical tests that can be performed by anyone. Ditto for everything I said about their being human.

Clearly, that's not the natural environment of human cells. Do these cells naturally seek you out? Do they normally occur in Petri dishes? So you've just violated your own definition. They may be cells from or of humans, but they're not human beings. You've not grown and killed numerous human beings have you? Of course not, so what are we discussing here?

You are completely missing the point, which is that, scientifically (i.e. objectively), there is no distinct point at which life begins. You can make valid arguments for destroying that life, based on objectively observable characteristics, but to argue that a growing human embryo is not alive or is not human is nonsensical and unsupportable by any objective measure. If that is your basis for being pro-abortion, then your abortion advocacy is based on a lie. If you acknowledge that the embryo is always a living human, but you feel it is okay to kill it up until it crosses some developmental point, you move the abortion argument away from the science and into the realm of opinion, which is not objective.

You have noticed that I have not discussed human beings, or my opinion of what constitutes a human being. Although you are using that to try to "prove" some inconsistency in what I have said, my avoidance of that specific issue is completely intentional.

Just to clarify, I am not in favor of abortion.

You say: I am not "practicing scientism"...

Please reread the definition of scientism: a term used...to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints... the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.

Doesn't that characterize your approach to the subject of abortion and the beginnings of human life?

Science is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world...

Religion is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world. People see and feel things that cannot be explained by science or even the promise of some future science. People long to believe and to know God.

it does not deal with religious or philosophical matters.

That's a cop out. For science to have any value it must deal with religious and philosophical matters. There aren't any facts in a vacuum. Science is a part of human life and it always was. It must be accounted for and it must account for human life.

That is an interesting argument, but is it fruitful? How many "abortion zealots" switch over the pure science of "life" (not human life)? My personal experience is that the Spirit teaches deeply and swiftly in the soul that's ready to listen. Zealots rarely listen and even more rarely are ready to change. Real change in human thinking happens at the margins with those who are at the edge of a camp of thought, ready to move forward or away from their previously held beliefs. All human beings believe. It is a fundamental part of the human condition.

Everything I have said concerning the aliveness of sperms, ova, zygote, blastocysts, and embryos is verifiable by simple biochemical tests that can be performed by anyone. Ditto for everything I said about their being human.

So they're alive, they're human, but they are not human beings? This argument feeds the abortionist's argument (we can't really know when it is a human being - it's just a blob of living human cells) and clouds the reality. The only important question about abortion is "when does human life begin".

This paragraph doesn't make sense at all. You've admitted to "killing" living human embryos as part of your experimentation. Why are you not charged with murder? Because they're not yet human beings. At what point of a pregnancy would you consider it murder to kill the developing embryo? You yourself state that at some "developmental point" you can kill it without recourse or regret. The wholly objective point at which a developing embryo becomes a human being is when it attaches to the uterine wall. That's my definition. It is objective and it is observable. Why isn't that as scientific as your ability to kill or preserve "human life" in your Petri dish?

I noted this immediately. Unless you know what is or isn't a human being then how can you claim to be scientific or anti-abortion?