At long last — and against the strong headwinds of the anti-science ideologues — the law is finally catching up to biology. Next week, Mississippi voters will determine whether all human beings in the state of Mississippi are also “persons” under the law. Such a vote is a logical — if belated — concession to well-established science. Indeed, scientists are virtually unanimous in declaring that the result of conception is a human child with a distinct DNA different from his or her parents. This unanimity is the essence of “overwhelming consensus.”
Given this biological reality, is it logical, reasonable, or remotely moral to characterize some human beings as “persons” and others not? Are we not long past such outright quackery? I hope and expect that Mississippi voters will decisively reject the deniers in their midst and recognize the reality of personhood. After all, it’s a simple matter of science.
Don't you mean "the science," Mr. French?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is new science? Really? Every cell in our bodies includes dna that could be cloned into another human. Does that make each cell a "person"? Are you sure the science doesn't really say that a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being?
Mr. French seems to be gilding the lily a bit in terms of "the science." Niice rhetorical device of calling those who don't accept this position "anti-science ideologues."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept that the legal and ethical concept of "personhood" is not solely based on DNA. If it were, tumors and fetuses would have to receive equal protection, and twins (perhaps only conjoined twins) would be one person, not two.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou appear to be disregarding the first half of the quoted sentence -- "Indeed, scientists are virtually unanimous in declaring that the result of conception is a human child" -- in favor of the second half alone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. French conveniently omits a link to any scientist (reputable) who actually made this statement.
Again, there is nothing new in the scientific conclusion that a fertilized egg has DNA that is not identical to that of either parent. I learned this 35 years ago in high school biology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou appear to be disregarding that the second half is used to define "human child." Without the definition, it opens the topic up to whether or not the product is simply a part of the mother, and thus entirely up to her discretion.
If the second half is the definition, that'd be the logical point to focus your attention as the first half is meaningless without the agreed understanding of "human child."
All she did was point out several logical flaws with the definition. You can focus on the first half all day long, but until you ignore that and come to an agreed, specific, description of what exactly is a human child, the debate is an exercise in futility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSadly, no. The second half is, in fact, the part about which scientists are "virtually unanimous"; the first half of the sentence is French's own extrapolated conclusion, which he is trying to pass off as scientific fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite. That's the sloppiness in French's argument; he's conflating the biological definition of "human being" with a broader philosophical definition of personhood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it Mississippi where "pro-science conservatives" have built a theme park that features humans frolicking with dinosaurs?
No, wait... that's Kentucky. Never mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeh. At least those "pro-science conservatives" are showing more respect for human life than "pro-science leftists".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...against the strong headwinds of the anti-science ideologues..."
Bold statement. I wonder what your opinion is of the attempts to teach creationism in public schools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can describe a fetus any way you like, but the fact remains that until viability, a fetus can only survive inside the body of a separate "host" human. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to force the host to harbor the fetus, but there is no logical analogy to it within all other human experience. In other words, whether "science" deems the fetus a separate human at conception or not, it isn't the same type of separate human that exists in the post-birth world (or post-viability world, if you prefer).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA newborn baby cannot survive very long separated from its mother. Is he or she viable? In fact, a child has to be "mothered" for several years before it can survive independently.
Isn't your standard, then, really just an arbitrary standard? A child from the moment of conception is developing in degrees on a track toward independence and away from the need for his mother's care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEh? A newborn baby can't survive very long separated from its mother? It has happened countless times, particularly back in the days of primitive medical procedures when the mother would die in childbirth but the baby survived. Another person or persons would raise the child.
That can't happen with a fetus. Either the biological mother allows the fetus to grow within her, or the fetus doesn't survive. There is no analogy to it in the post-partum world
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously, a child can survive away from it's biological mother, but it cannot survive without someone to "mother" or care for him or her.
You're saying that personhood is a factor of the unborn child's ability to survive outside of his mother's womb, but that is an arbitrary notion and depends upon the advancements of medical science. Unborn babies are able to survive earlier and earlier outside the womb due to medical advances. Would you walk back your age of viability if doctor were able to create a womb-like environment in which an embryo could grow into a full-term baby?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTremendous post. And I love the way you frame it. Now what will the intelligensia say? "Oh will you look at those backward-ass Mississipians! Same ol' fundamentalism but this time around they're scientific literalists! A generation ago they were all about the Bible, now they're all about science. They just can't seem to realize the point, which is that when it comes to moral questions, there just isn't any right or wrong...unless we say so."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat garbage.
Scientists are virtually unanimous (I'd even venture to say unanimous) that the result of conception is a fertilized egg. You can call a fertilized egg a human child if you wish, but when I and people like me think of a human child, we think of someone you can hold in your arms, not something you might lose if it got under your fingernail. Hell of a leap, I'd say, but you're entitled to your religious belief. That it has DNA different from that of its mother or its father doesn't add much more than to say that a fertilized egg has different DNA than William "The Refrigerator" Perry or a sea urchin, or that it has far more DNA than a brick.
When does a fertilized egg get to have the same package of legal rights as me? If you're talking about the right to be elected President, the answer is age 35. If you're talking about the right not to be spanked by your parents, the answer is age 18. If you're talking about the right not to be incinerated or otherwise disposed of like trash, I'd say 16 weeks after conception, but I'm willing to have that peeled back a bit. If you're talking about the right to be respected as a unique person with a soul, a child of God to be cherished, something I can't see without a microscope just doesn't move me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If you're talking about the right to be respected as a unique person with a soul, a child of God to be cherished, something I can't see without a microscope just doesn't move me."
Just because something doesn't move you doesn't mean that it isn't true. A fertilized egg is the beginning of a human life. That is a simple, biological fact. No Baltimore Catechism. Your whole post is a lot like some fundamentalist saying, "I didn't come from monkeys. I look nothing like a monkey."
And, incidentally, the human ovum is actually visible to the naked eye, being 0.2 mm in diameter. It's as large as the period at the end of this sentence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was about to respond to all this, and then after reading it a second time I decided he digs his own hole so brilliantly I could only hope that readers read it through three or four times and commit it to memory.
One thing: "If you're talking about the right not to be incinerated or otherwise disposed of like trash, I'd say 16 weeks after conception." Just for the record, that's two weeks before the picture of this trash was taken.
And yet...a bit of hope, I guess. Even a guy like this can see the immorality of his own pro-choice movement which has successfully made it so that a child can be legally killed any time before the moment of delivery. I guess it's hoping against all hope that he would actually have the courage to stand up or what he says he believes in and work to outlaw any abortions after the 16th week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA fertilized embryo isn't a human child. But it *is* a human being, or at least will be if nothing else is done to it. A fertilized human embryo doesn't become a sea urchin, nor a brick-- but a human child, human teenager, human adult, and elderly human.
You choose an arbitrary date of 16 weeks after conception. Many choose the NON-arbitrary point of conception, where a human embryo is formed and will never again be its component parts. Who is being unscientific now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse