David — it is certainly true, as you write, that the result of conception is an embryo with “distinct DNA.”
What’s not clear to me, however, is why “distinct DNA” should be the criterion by which we judge personhood for moral and legal purposes. As Reason’s Ronald Bailey has pointed out, 60 to 80 percent of human embryos — post-conception, with distinct DNA — are naturally destroyed by the woman’s body. Are we to see this as a large-scale massacre of human beings, develop drugs to prevent it from happening, and require all women who have unprotected sex to take them? Certainly, we would be willing to take measures like this if post-birth infants were dying in comparable numbers.
This makes as much sense as declaring that natural death is the equivalent to murder and that therefore society is obligated to spend whatever it takes to prevent all death.
Only someone totally disconnected from reality would try to equate miscarriage with murder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not equating miscarriage with murder; I'm equating miscarriage with natural death. When a human being is threatened with death, even from natural causes, we are willing to take serious measures to prevent it (though we may ultimately fail). If embryos are human beings with rights for the purpose of abortion law, they should also be human beings worth saving in other contexts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find your argument very unpersuasive and borderline hysterical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn other words you have no argument so you're going with childish retorts. Not surprising at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen a human being is threatened with death, even from natural causes, we are willing to take serious measures to prevent it
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes indeed. Like banning salt, transfats, and sugar. Same logic.
THIS is National Review??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe do go to great lengths to save from miscarriage those babies we know about. It is thought that half of miscarriages, though, are the result of blighted ova, which have such severe chromosomal abnormalities that they could never make it to birth regardless. Just as at the end of a long life, sometimes nothing can be done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne problem is that it's not clear that there are "serious measures" to take to prevent natural miscarriages -- particularly when even DETECTING PREGNANCY is difficult at the stage when most of these natural miscarriages occur.
If there were a daily supplement women could take to prevent this, there might be a case for their having the moral obligation to do so, if they're sexually active.
And maybe there is, thus, a moral case for funding scientific research to see if such a preventative medicine could be developed.
Your argument seems to be that, until we can decide to provide massive funding for such research, we can't say one thing about the monstrous decision to deliberately end an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.
That's ridiculous, and in a saner world, you would even now be laughed off this site.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo a sexually active woman should not be allowed to smoke, drink alcohol or coffee (or any other beverage containing caffeine) or exercise?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause all of those things can cause failure of implantation...
Also failure of implantation and miscarriages are "apples and oranges." Known miscarriages are the tip of the iceberg and happen later in pregnancy. Failure of implantation happens to about 50% of embryos and are indistinguishable from a woman having her period.
So for every child a person has, there was at least one failure of implantation, statistically speaking.
We don't REQUIRE life-saving measures in those cases. You're suggesting that to be consistent in the case of miscarriage, we should. That doesn't tack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince the vast majority of these miscarriages are the result of genetic abnormalities that prevent the fertilized egg from developing, it's not clear that there is anything that can be done.
You are the one who equated these deaths with a massive massacre. That sounds a lot like murder to me.
Some are willing to spend great amounts of money to prevent death. Many people feel that when death becomes inevitable, the best option is to just let it happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMiscarriage _is_ natural death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour premise is flawed. The right to life is inalienable - if you agree with the declaration of independence. It's not the other way around - if we protect it, it must have rights. If it has rights we must protect it. Most mothers do protect their fetuses. However, it's not up to government to fix this (i.e. provide adequate health care etc.). However, it is up to government to protect life from intentional harm.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell then perhaps your choice of the word "massacre" is poorly chosen. A comparable word choice for natural deaths would be, say, "epidemic". I would also add that people are working hard to study and address this "epidemic."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was going to make a comment along the same lines as MarkW, but he beat me to it. Human embryos are human persons, 'en embryo'. Trying to indentify some humans as non-persons or, partial persons, makes a mockery of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, a la the three-fifths compromise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is an excellent point! Somehow I think religious conservatives are ignorant of that. THey think every embryo is destined to be a future scientiest or doctor...why would God allow them to be massacred neeedlessly?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do realize there are many pro-life atheists and agnostics, do you not?
I know the 'Bible-thumper' card is supposed to end all debate, especially if offered by someone who rejects both God and Scripture, but it is quite wanting in this discussion.
I don't see a lot of appeals to God in the comments here, rather to the science and poor argument and logic of the author.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScientists or doctors are worthy of protection . . . but if you are a red-necked mechanic that likes to hunt . . . This seems to point out that you believe the notion that not all human life is inherently valuable.
If you give his point some thought you will shortly realize that he did not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost nonagenarians don't live to see 100, and therefore -- by Robert's illogical and amoral reasoning -- we should not distinguish between the common occurrence of their death by natural causes and the act of deliberately taking an old man's life.
National Review Online, ladies and gentlemen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHear, hear on that last sentence. This is one of those arguments held by people that have two or three high school-level arguments in their quiver and think they've just split an atom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think VerBruggen's argument reaches the level of high school, then IMO you're flattering him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse