The United States has been overwhelmed by hysterical news stories about the likelihood of a Supreme Court decision that will overturn Roe vs. Wade, so that the legality of abortion will once again be up to each state, rather than legal throughout the country as it is now. The creationists are going wild about it — for example, this post from a week ago by Ken Ham: Rumor: Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade.
You can read ol’ Hambo’s post if you want to, but we’re going to discuss a different one. It’s at at the Discovery Institute’s creationist website, titled When Does Human Life Begin? It was written two years ago by Michael Egnor, and the Discoveroids think it’s so important that they’re posting it again. If you don’t know who Egnor is, here’s his biography at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Okay, let’s get into it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
In the abortion debate, the question of “When does human life begin?” is central. Abortion proponents frequently argue that human life does not begin at conception, but at a later time in gestation, and they morally justify abortion on this basis. They argue that abortion of an embryo or fetus before a certain gestational age is moral because the embryo or fetus is not yet a human being.
We interrupt in order to give you your Curmudgeon’s position on this issue. By coincidence, we wrote about it in response to an earlier Egnor post — from seven years ago. That was Egnor Rants About Abortion. We said:
The end of human life isn’t particularly controversial. … [A]lmost everyone agrees that when the brain ceases to function, that’s the end of human life. Your Curmudgeon’s personal belief is that a symmetrical rule should be applied to determine the beginning of human life. That’s when the brain is sufficiently developed that it begins to function — which can be determined by electroencephalography, and which occurs somewhere during the middle of a pregnancy. … [W]hen the brain begins to function, the fetus has become a human being and abortion is wrong — in our humble opinion.
But no one cares about our opinion, so let’s get back to Egnor. He tells us:
There is a clear scientific answer to the question “When does human life begin?” [Really?] Let us consider the various possible scientific answers to that question.
One answer (as given above) would be that the fertilized egg or the embryo or the fetus up to a certain age is not yet a human being and in fact is a part of the mother’s body. The pro-abortion argument would be that the embryo or fetus becomes a human being at some point later in gestation and that aborting the embryo or fetus prior to that point is moral because it is merely a part of a woman’s body and not a human being in itself.
We can go with what Egnor just said, even though we explain our position differently, but Egnor doesn’t like it. He explains why:
However, from a scientific standpoint, at the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm, a completely new organism is present. The organism is not a part of the mother’s body although he or she is located within the mother’s body. Half of the time, the organism is a boy. The genetic complement of the new human being is unique and different from that of the mother.
Yes, it’s an organism. But is it a human being? Let’s read on:
The argument that this unique human being present in the mother’s womb from the moment of fertilization is a part of the mother’s body until sometime later in gestation is, from a scientific viewpoint, bizarre. … This argument used by abortion proponents — that an embryo or fetus is a part of the mother’s body until a certain point of gestation — is scientific nonsense. When the argument is made by a scientist, it represents either scientific incompetence or deliberate deception.
Egad, we’ve been insulted by a creationist! And now we come to the end:
It is the responsibility of the scientific community [Like the Discoveroids?] to make it clear to the public that this argument is junk science and is obviously used merely to defend the morality of killing a young human being in the womb.
Isn’t it thrilling to see the Discoveroids fighting against junk science?
Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.