John Wyatt is Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics and a devout Christian.
Here is what he writes about the human embryo:
"At one level the embryo is just biology, a collection of genetic information and cellular machinery. But at the same time it is a physical sign of an immaterial or spiritual reality, even a sacrament of a hidden covenant of creation. A sign that God is bringing forth a new being, a god-like being, a unique reflection of his character, a being to whom he is locked in covenant commitment. (...)
"we have to recognize that not every embryo is destined to develop into a person. More than 50 per cent of all human embryos fail to implant in the uterus or miscarry at an early stage of pregnancy. Studies indicate that the majority of these embryos have major chromosomal anomalies which are incompatible with life."
How is it possible to make these two perspectives compatible? - On the one hand, the human embryo is something sacred, the beginning of a god-like being, on the other hand more than 50 percent of these "sacred beings" are routinely destroyed before they can develop into a child, killed not by wicked abortion doctors, but by nature itself, or - because after all God himself is responsable for everything that happens in nature - by their Creator.
What I cannot understand is how Professor Wyatt can reconcile sacredness and mass-destruction. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of those "pro-lifers" who fight against abortion do not know that more than half of all human embryos are destroyed naturally, without external interference, but our Professor of course is aware of that fact. To me, this is one of the points where biology and religion collide (at least if you agree with Prof. Wyatt that God's covenant with humans starts with conception, and not at a later stage in the fetal development.)
So what do you think? Is the human embryo sacred or something special (inherently and essentially different from, say, a mouse embryo)? If yes: why? Or do we need a supernatural dimension in order to distinguish human and mouse embryos in a moral sense?
Potential human life is nothing. There is nothing to protect - end of story. Bazillions of "what ifs" since the beginning of humanity means that potential human life is wiped out and wiped in with millions of direct and indirect decisions each second of each day. In fact, often one potential human life is not compatible with another (the case of an embryo lost for any reason only to be replaced in a uterus a month later, etc). A clump of human cells with "potential" really is nothing but that.
The next question is when does life begin and at what point (or maybe at no point) does the state have the right to prioritize one over another's? I'm not touching that one today.
Wyatt might claim that if God decides that billions of embryos will not go to full term then believers must accept this decision as necessary if they are to believe in an omniscient God.However it is not for man to claim such authority and decide that potentially viable embryos should not survive.
‘
Of course in being a Pro Lifer the professor wishes to impose his views on those who do not accept the existence of a theistic supernatural figure overseeing all.Religion cannot stay out of such issues as it holds life to be sacred at least at the point of conception not being so concerned as to what happens after an unwanted child actually comes out of the womb.But faith on the basis of belief is what really motivates them not science except where it can occasionally be used to bolster their views otherwise opposing stem cell research which will save so much daily suffering for those enduring the ravages of MS, Parkinson’s and so on.
Then according to Dr. John Wyatt: Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics, a human embryo is inherently scared due to an innate bond with the Almighty Creator of Time, Space, and Dimension. We are the children of God which makes each and every one of us a special little flower, divine in origin and inherently beautiful.
That's so sweet but I see a problem with that thinking.
His hypothesis hinges entirely on the unprovable existence of an invisible magical being who lives in the sky. So if the Almighty Creator of Time, Space, and Dimension weren't real then Dr. John Wyatt's assertion of the human embryo as sacred is a steaming load that he just made up based on his faith.
But I'll go one better.
Not only are humans not the scared creation of an omnipotent superbeing but there's currently about 8 billion of us covering the planet. Eight billion of ANYTHING is a plague. If there were 8 billion rabbits, or 8 billion koala bears, or 8 billion ring-tailed lemurs, there'd be government programs paying people to kill them in vast numbers.
Dr. John Wyatt: Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics is just another Xian nutjob with an education.
The joke about "pro-lifers" is that they're for the fetus, but as soon as it's a child, screw it, you're on your own. They often despise other's lives, so being just for the fetus is an ego trip to keep women down.
The only reason this is an issue is to get a number of people who are one issue voters to get this point put forth without realizing the price paid. What else goes with this line of thought? Women's rights, health care, giving up the rights to good health insurance, putting people who will vote against the other things you think matter. Waste chemicals in rivers that use the water for drinking, drilling for oil in places where there is no way to capture any spills, put radioactive material into the environment, making the debt rise with no means to pay it back without taking away SSI, Medicare, Medicade, programs that help the poor. The last time they tried something it cost 40,000,000 homeless to be made, have many jobs that are minimum wage.
Nothing special about an embryo, nothing sacred either. A woman has the last say about whether it stays in her body or not.
Nothing is sacred.
Or everything is sacred, we are not that special.
I think it's special in as much as an acorn is, because of it's potential, which is kind of cool. Some seeds have to be burnt to reproduce of course
@OwlInASack You are right. They could grow up to be Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Trump. We certainly wouldn't want to miss that. As far as l'm concerened if you ain't carrying it, you have no say.
Maybe if people realized all embryos are genetically related. What each becomes and what sexes it is are all determined by evolution/natural selection.
Not in my opinion, but in the opinion of many others yes.
Human embryos are animal embryos, no different. Man as god is Ego.
I am told 20% of pregnancies end in miss-carriage. If everything is "part of god's plan" then god must be the universes greatest abortionist! (I know, I'm taking something, but god know what, out of "context"!)
...I thought you had a valid point!
There is a biblical way of having an abortion. A method that is not only approved by God, it was invented by him. He describes it himself in the book of Numbers (5:11-31). It's all part of God's wondrous Law of Jealousies. God's magical abortion procedure. A priest, some bitter water, and a wife that you think might have been unfaithful. Priceless. So if God has his own abortion procedure, abortion can't be wrong, right?
Yes, but that's in the Old Pesterment.
A human embryo is not sacred since nothing is "sacred", but unique and special it most certainly is, if only in potential.. Though Pro-Choice must be upheld, I do feel society is too quick to dispose of the unwanted.
I am definitely Pro Choice also. I disagree with your "too quick to dispose of" notion. Choosing abortion is a heart wrenching and tragic personal decision. However, It is for many of us a necessary sorrow. Woman are intelligent human beings. Give us some credit and support us in our decisions. We know the nature of what is developing inside of OUR bodies. The "sacredness" (I wish I could think of a better word) of the embryo to each each individual woman is not constant or equal. The percentage of woman who make the decision to terminate an embryo or fetus hastily or uncaringly is miniscual. The country and the world for that matter need recognize women for intelligent and responsible choices we are capable of making.
@OwlInASack We are never in a position to make absolute statements about value, all value statements are necessarily subjective. The best that we can ever hope for is to achieve a general assent.
The value of a human individual is immeasurable regardless of their circumstance. However technically an embryo is not an individual until "birth" or separation from the mother. In the search for moral standards the law seeks to establish when an embryo has the viability to survive detachment.
What an interesting observation. I can’t speak from an intellectual point of view with this. I don’t believe I could abort a child in uterine because it is a living being who has the right to live. However I would not push this on others. This is central to my beliefs. I recognize the biology and the understanding of divinity in the biology. I suppose it is complicated.
A child? Is that what women are calling blastocysts nowadays? And what is divine about IVF? Are each of the numerous fertilized eggs, nearly all of which are discarded, considered 'sacred?' These embryos are typically frozen, so is the 'divine spark' likewise 'on ice?' Consider what the future of IVG holds, where women, with or without the assistance of a male donor, will have their eggs harvested and fertilized by sperm-like cells in a laboratory so that they can analyze the candidates for genetic characteristics, freeze the promising ones, and discard the rest. This is already happening in a number of countries. This genie will not return to the bottle. Soon, genetic analyses and engineering will enable the ideal traits to be selected, and unwanted embryos will be discarded by the hundreds of millions.
@pnfullifidian you seem very passionate. I protect my own. That is where my passion lies.
@Ingi Your body, your choice ... and as a man, I don't even think we (males) should have a say in the matter! Peace.
@pnfullifidian my spouse didnt allowme say in having future children. He had himself snipped without my permission. When men stop being assholes about that sort of thing, then we can talk about who has what say over my body. Peace out!
@Ingi Okay, I think I understand. Your spouse is (was?) your partner who went against your wishes, and because of your spouse's behavior, men should stop being assholes before we can have a conversation about who has a say in a woman's right over her body? If it is your position that you have (or should have had) veto power over your husband's reproductive decisions, then it follows that he would hold similar power over yours. But all of this is between the two of you, and should have no direct bearing on the public debate. Just as our partners hold infinitely more significance than our elected representatives, there's a huge difference between the intimate decisions made in the privacy of our homes and laws made in statehouses.
I’d say a human embryo is both special and sacred.
Thanks for your honest and open opinion, especially in a forum where many of us will disagree. I respect your integrity to be able to state what you believe, even in the face of opposition.
@Livia Thanks. Of course the meaning of the words ‘special’ & ‘sacred’ to me may be take volumes to explain, but at the end of the day I find that they apply to a human embryo. This doesn’t mean I think abortion is wrong. I just think it’s a serious thing and I can at least understand where people against abortion are coming from.
Professor Wyatt is thinking that we are our bodies, and that is getting him in trouble, off on an irrational course IMO. No human body or any organism is worth much because bodies are manufactured at more than a sufficient rate. Sure, embryos are sacred, but everything is sacred. Human bodies belong to the natural world and are subject to nature’s laws. Every acorn does not become an oak tree—there’s not enough room.
IMO Conscious Awareness desires a river of organisms with which to interact, but the fate of a single organism is of little concern—organisms are temporary by design. They are also nothing but robots, finely made but unaware and without free will, a sense of beauty, or love.
Embryos are under the total control of the manufacturer until such time as conscious awareness takes possession of the product. After that she has no say.