A Definition Informed by Science
One thing that I am ashamed to say I do too little of is reading the newspaper on a regular basis. Having decided to start doing better today, I bought a copy of the Orlando Sentinel while visiting in O-town and came across an editorial entitled “Follow British stem-call model.” There is much in the whole thing that is worthy of comment, but I just want to focus on three sentences coming near the end that illustrate something to look out for whenever discussing stem-cell research or abortion or even intelligent design and science in general - the confusion of science with philosophy disguised as science.
The three sentences go like this:
But [the] religious defining of what constitutes a human being is not informed by science. Without consciousness, a blastocyst of less than 200 cells does not quality as a sentient life any more than, say, dandruff. Hence…in-vitro fertilized eggs…are not human beings.
Can you see the error in his argument? The argument is this: (1) Science says a blastocyst is not conscious, (2) things that are unconscious are not sentient life forms, (3) things that are not sentient life forms are not human beings, (4) therefore: fertilized eggs (’blastocysts’) are not human beings. The problem is that the only scientific fact in the argument is that fertilized eggs lack consciousness, and I’ve never met a pro-lifer who didn’t know this or claimed it was untrue. He then reasons that this lack of consciousness makes for a lack of humanity. But this is a philosophical and not a scientific statement. Does science tell us that a fertilized egg is not a human being, any more than a piece of dandruff? No, science tells us that, unlike a piece of dandruff, a ‘fertilized egg’ is a living thing belonging to the human species which has its own completely unique genetic code that will, when left on its natural course, develop things like consciousness and the like. If anything, the pro-life view is more informed by science than the author’s view. It is just that the author (and he is not alone in this) has chosen, without giving us any reason why to accept this philosophical view, to believe that consciousness is the defining characteristic of human life. (One might well ask him whether a person in a temporary coma has ceased to be a human being)