Matsu, a pro-choice blogger at mediagirl.com (remember the pro-choice blog where Serge and I were called among other things "fundie wackjobs" for providing quotes from embryology textbooks and arguing about when the life of an individual human being begins) attempts to prove that "life begins at conception" is a religious belief.
What's interesting is that Matsu asserts that "life begins at conception" is a religious view after explaining "the idea that "life begins at conception" cannot be found in the Bible." The ignorance of Christian beliefs would also be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Here's my favorite quote:
"The modern scientific understanding of impregnation came first, then a religious significance was attached to a scientific insight."
No. Modern scientific understanding about when life begins occurred and prolifers have accepted this modern scientific understanding. Many pro-choicers because of their advocacy for abortion have vainly attempted to deny scientific facts by claiming that accepting modern scientific understanding is somehow a religious belief.
UPDATE: It appears that I have been banned from Media Girl's web site. I posted a comment there yesterday and now it is gone. It's amazing how some of the supposedly open-minded pro-choicers who simply can't stand anyone imposing their view on anyone else are so willing to ban the speech of others.
Read the comments section for Matsu's post to see how Robert from The Argument Clinic points out a factual error that Media Girl made while commenting (she claimed South Dakota's abortion ban doesn't have an exception for the life of the mother - it does). The response from Media Girl and Bay Prairie is anything but civil and all Robert did was point out a factual error. It would have been so easy for Media Girl to say, "You're right. I blew it. I meant "health" of the mother" or something like that.
Posts
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteShe recounts history but the recounting appears to be aimed at proving something, does it not? Namely that "life begins at conception" is a religious belief - which her post says later on.
Sperm and egg are parts of living human beings not living human beings unto themselves. You're confusing parts and wholes. Which is something Matsu does herself later in the comments sections when she ignorantly proclaims that sperm and egg are unborn human beings.
I'd disagree with the stated opinion that what something is biologically has no bearing on its moral status. I think what something is biologicallly has a lot of bearing on its moral status. The biological status of an organism might not be have complete say but it certainly has some. Does it not? How can we know if it is right to kill something if we don't know what it is biologically? I recognize that you might accepted the scientific fact that a human fetus is a living human organism but many in pro-choice camp do not. Instead, they deny the scientific reality by claiming it is a "religious belief."
If the biological facts of life aren't in dispute then why is Matsu ignorantly claiming that life beginning at conception is a religious belief? I never claimed that "life" was synonymous with "moral personhood." I merely pointed out that Matsu was falsely claiming that a scientific belief (when the life of a human organism begins) was a religious belief.
You're trying to put an argument into her mouth that she obviously didn't make and trying to put an argument into my mouth. Please cease and desist from the obvious strawman arguments.
Also, it'd be nice if you actually provided some reasoning (as opposed to simply asserting it) behind the idea that some human organisms are worthy of legal protection while others have yet to reach "moral personhood" and why I should accept your criteria of "moral personhood" over anyone else's?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the "religious beliefs" can't be real truths ideology. I thought that as well when reading his comment.
The idea that if an idea of "moral personhood" isn't scientific then it can't be forced unto others (seemingly because it isn't true for everyone) is based on a two-tiered system of "truth" where science is objectively true while religious claims aren't objectively true or not (even if they claim to be) but merely true for the individual who believes them.
What I've found interesting about Kevin is that every now and again he'll leave one comment on my blog (I'm guessing he gets here through prolifeblogs.com) and then usually never replies to my comment back to him. Kind of like drive-by commenting.