Are some scientists myopic, when it comes the issue of human life?

Question

It seems odd to me, people can use a microscope to discover so many different types of very small living creatures, but if they see a fertilized embryo through the same tool, they have difficulting observing it as a form of life. Is it life (by any definition), or not? It's much larger, and far more complex than most single cell creatures.

Answer 1

Sure, in the most general sense. It's a collection of cells, and those cells are alive, but so are the cells in your skin, that you kill hundreds if not thousands of just by scratching. So is the mosquito you slap when it tries to bite you. So is (or was) the food you eat, whether it's plant or animal.

Answer 2

Here's the way I see it: A bacterium, for instance, is a single-celled organism. If a scientist puts this bacterium in an antibiotic-filled environment during an experiment, it is considered acceptable by everyone, yourself probably included. The reason is that we all acknowledge that the bacterium was alive, but was never HUMAN life.

Now let's move on to an embryo. (An embryo is, by definition, fertilized.) As with the first example, nobody will deny that the embryo is living. However, things get tricky when it comes to issues of whether it's a HUMAN life. At this point, the issue comes down to the question of when the embryo (or fetus) becomes counted as a human. This is a difficult question that sums up the whole pro-choice vs. pro-life thing.

Here are some facts about embryos that either prove or disprove your point:
1. An embryo is eukaryotic, whereas a bacterium is a primitive prokaryote.
2. In terms of appearance, an embryo/fetus looks just like any other animal throughout its mother's pregnancy. At one point, human fetuses have gills.
3. There is never a moral objection when either of us eats an apple. (Fruits are technically plant ovaries.)
4. There is rarely an objection when a chicken is killed for food. Isn't a whole, adult chicken at least as valuable as an embryo?
5. Embryos, under the right conditions, have the ability to become people like you and me.
6. Until the short time before birth, a fetus is not capable of surviving outside of the womb.


By the way, you say, "It's much larger, and far more complex than most single cell creatures."

Why does size matter? As I mentioned before, chickens and apples are bigger than embryos, but we destroy those.

Why does complexity make something more valuable? Many bugs are complex, but few people like them?



By the way, nice use of the word "myopic."

Answer 3

I personally am torn on this one. But I'll take the other side.

We destroy simple forms of life all the time. Do you have any idea how many millions of yeast cells you kill when you bake bread. I mean, you intentionally create them just to make your bread light and airy and then kill them in the oven. How right is that? A human embryo, although it has more potential because of the DNA involved, isn't really that different than a yeast cell in that it has no feelings or emotions. It is a little hard to see how it is that much ethically different using only logic.

Answer 4

Interesting ethical argument. Is a fertilised embryo life?

it has the ability to be, of course, but only in the right environment. Under a microscope, it isn't. Could you therefore argue that an embryo form in vitro fertilisation is simple a collection of cells? However, is an embryo at the same stage in a uterus is a living being?

I don't know the answer, but we will need to decide one day soon.

Answer 5

It's the issue of sentience. A tiny organism and a fetus two days from fertilization are both alive, most certainly, but neither is sentient. A fetus doesn't gain sentience for quite some time (which is why even many who are pro-choice aren't for partial-birth or late-term abortions).

Answer 6

All scientists are exactly the same, so they all think exactly the same, drive the same cars, marry the same partner, go to the same school, breathe at the same time, wear the same clothes... some non-scientists lump all scientists into the same category, which is absurd. Its just as ridiculous as saying all musicians are the same.

Answer 7

We don't have a problem wiping out single celled creatures, but we call them life. We make a bit of a distinction between simply existing and being able to think, make decisions, etc.

Answer 8

Any scientist would say that a human fetus is "life". But, your American culture of death-worship says that it is "inconvenient life". Is it wrong to step on an ant? How about a spider? How about a frog?

Answer 9

life? yes.

a conscious being? no

its not scientists who make mistakes when it comes to embryos, its theists. see what happens when you leave school at the 5th grade to peruse a life in christ?

you assume that an embryo has feelings, emotions and thought. in reality its just biological matter.

Answer 10

Its so refreshing to hear someone speak who actually has a brain and the ability to use it. Thank you.