We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

Rasputin, your responses to my metaphors has helped me understand where you’re coming from more clearly. I certainly don’t want to strawman you, and I see where my metaphors weren’t perfect analogies to your argument. Taxonomical Problems While there are legitimate taxonomical problems in defining some species, the idea that organisms reproduce offspring that are the same kind of organism is not controversial in the scientific community. The taxonomical issues with defining some species is not a problem for my view that abortion kills a human organism. As my colleague Dr. Rich Poupard pointed out to me, “does the fact that biologists sometime have difficulty assigning the correct species to a certain organism create good evidence against our points? ” The answer, at least in this case, is no. It will take actual evidence to defeat my position. Pluto, the Ex-Planet The International Astronomical Union (IAU) had to vote on a narrower definition for planets, because of the problems resulting from Pluto being considered a planet even though it was the only one not "clearing the neighborhood" of its orbit. [1] If the former definition of “planet” remained, Pluto would be included, but so would Eris and Ceres. Thus the IAU voted on what celestial bodies would be considered "planets. " Based on the updated criteria of the IAU, Pluto was never a planet. Similarly, if a large group of biologists and embryologists got together and figured out that fetuses aren't human after all, I'll read their report and weigh the evidence. Anybody can propose new criteria for being a member of the human species, but without good evidence their definition is useless. So I think it’s time for you offer your criteria, and we'll compare your list with the experts of today. If there is good evidence that humans often reproduce non-humans, I will change my position. But the scientific evidence right now seems to support the view that humans beget humans, so you have an uphill battle in front of you. Determining the Best List Rasputin said: “I will indeed [provide a list of what criteria is important. ] But first you must provide me with a method by which we may judge one list to be OBJECTIVELY_BETTER_THAN another list. ” To start with, let us both consider the two lists, and try to make sense of which one seems to make the most sense. Ideally, I would then like to see experts in the related fields comment. And then we do what we always do: pick the list that makes most sense. It’s possible that we’ll learn new things in 50 years we don’t know now that will cause us to reevaluate again, and that’s fine. For now, it seems that the best we can do is weigh the evidence we’ve got. Here’s just a sample of the evidence we have right now: Modern Teaching Texts on Embryology "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. "[2] "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i. e. , an embryo). "[2] "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being. "[3] "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization. .. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development. "[4] Pro-Abortion-Choice Philosophers Peter Singer: “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ”[5] David Boonin: “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you or me on the one hand and every human fetus from conception onward on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. ”[6] From the legal arena, this fact has been upheld in the U. S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case of Planned Parenthood vs. Rounds (2008) concerned the constitutionality of a South Dakota law requiring, in one part, that abortion providers inform women that abortion ends the life of a “living, separate, whole human being. ” Planned Parenthood claimed that the state was forcing doctors to promote religious or ideological beliefs, but the court ruled that the law only required doctors to utter simple biological facts. The court ruled, “By common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb . . . Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion. ”[7] Can Biologists Determine Species? Rasputin said: “Actually, all biologists can do is analyze a genetic sample and provide us with a number that depicts how much the sample varies from a benchmark genome. But which sequence do you think we should use as the benchmark? (Personally, I'm voting for Angelina Jolie. )” I think your analysis of what biologists do obfuscates the issue, implying that this is a bigger problem than it really is. There are several ways for forensic scientists to determine species membership by analyzing mitochondrial DNA. Consider this 1998 article published in the Forensic Science International, titled “Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation. ”[8] The authors describe a new method for “combining in a single-round PCR reaction both species determination, on the basis of the phylogenetically variable cytochrome b (cyt b) gene sequence and individual identification, on the basis of the hypervariable D-loop region sequence. ” (Emphasis mine. ) From the article’s conclusion: “In a first step, examination of the coamplified fragments on agarose gel allows for screening of human (two bands, 309 and 259 bp) or animal (one band, 309 bp) specificity. ” In other words, the forensic scientist can easily tell by looking at the data whether he’s looking at human DNA or animal DNA. Conclusion It is time for Rasputin to lay his cards on the table. I’m grateful that he doesn’t want to play the Perpetual Skeptic, but we are now into round 3 of this debate, and I haven’t seen any evidence, just skepticism. I’ve expressed willingness to consider alternative theories and evidence, and Rasputin has promised to offer his. Let’s all take a careful look at what he has to offer us. Sources: 1: Inman, Mason. "Pluto Not a Planet, Astronomers Rule. " National Geographic 24 08 2006: n. pag. Web. 17 Jun 2011. . http://bit.ly... 2: Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. 3: Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2. 4: William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14. 5: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. 6: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 20 7: . http://bit.ly... 8: Martin Bataille, Karine Crainic, Michel Leterreux, Michel Durigon, Philippe de Mazancourt, Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation, Forensic Science International, Volume 99, Issue 3, 25 January 1999, Pages 165-170, ISSN 0379-0738, DOI: 10.1016/S0379-0738(98)00185-6. . http://bit.ly...