The Principle of Objective Evidence


In my last piece I wrote about the illogical assertion by Vice President Biden that although he accepts the Catholic Church’s position on life beginning at conception, he’s not going to impose it on others who disagree.  I’ve noticed a constant thread to the ‘pro-choice” argument:  They always want proof of the pro-life position, such as science but when you show them the scientific proof they tend to change the subject and say things like, “well, the fetus is not a person or other non-sequiturs, such as “I do not agree that science is cut and dried,”  as a commentator said on my last post after I presented her with the scientific proof that human life begins at conception.  Now, I should point out that the “pro-choice” side never has any proof of their position; nor do they claim one.  Let’s look at some logic here about what can be considered good evidence:

In his fine book, Ten Universal Principles; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues, by Robert J. Spitzer, one of the ten principles is the Principle of Objective Evidence.  Spitzer defines Objective Evidence as nonarbitrary opinions or theories that are based upon publicly verifiable evidence. Is science cut and dry or not?  science is based on observable facts that can be proven.  To say that science is not cut and dry is illogical at best and a contradiction at worst.  Like mathematics, science is not based on religious beliefs or opinion; it is based on observable facts.  As Spitzer points out “when something is only accessible to me, it is called “subjective,” but when something is accessible to everyone, it is called “objective.” Science is objective evidence, accessible to everyone.  The fact that life begins at conception is a proven scientific fact.

Spitzer continues:  “We cannot simply assert something as a matter of our subjective opinion (that is, an opinion that we claim to be true just because we felt or believe that it was so).  This would be merely subjective verification, and, therefore, it could not be used to prove something to somebody else.”  The claim by science that a single cell zygote is a human being is objective proof.

Pro-lifers are often challenged to present proof of their position that the unborn is a human being.  Now I challenge the “pro-choice” side to present proof that the unborn is not a human being.  What is your evidence that meets the Principle of Objective Evidence?  I’ve never heard one.  I’m still waiting to hear one.

Advertisements

One thought on “The Principle of Objective Evidence

  1. The oocyte, which provides the basic cell for the zygote, is itself alive. Some scientists have considered that the sperm may not need to be alive for its head to penetrate the oocyte’s membrane and contribute chromosomes, and the rest of the sperm is destroyed. If the live oocyte preceded the zygote, how does life begin at conception? Fertilization does not contribute life but rather some new chromosomes allowing a modified genetic code.

    Meanwhile, a live human zygote/morula/blastocyst could, indeed, be grown apart from the woman’s body, in a petri dish, but it could not live beyond a doubling of its life span. It is for “pro-lifers” conveniently illegal to grow a human blastocyst for longer than 14 days without freezing it for further use. However, in all experiments with non-human ones, the blastocyst’s natural life span, nourished by an amount of nutrient equivalent to that in the female uterus without implantation, is only doubled by the use of the most powerful supernutrient science can supply. In the human case, the doubling would be 16-20 days. Without implantation, the blastocyst/embryo dies at that point.

    Once implanted in the uterine wall of the woman’s body, the human blastocyst/embryo depends on this biological attachment, just as in other mammalian cases. It continues to live only if the woman does, just as in the case of her limbs and organs. If the woman dies before the embryo/fetus develops viable organs for living apart from her, the embryo/fetus dies, just as do her limbs and organs, and there are no exceptions. What evidence do you have, scientifically, that this continuation of life is the life of the embryo or fetus and not of the woman herself? I see no evidence of that at all.

    A human being has a body that maintains its own homeostasis and takes in its own oxygen and nutrients, but an embryo/fetus does not do that. It is the woman’s body that maintains homeostasis for the embryo/fetus. It is the woman’s body that takes in its own oxygen and nutrients, and her oxygen and nutrients are transferred to the embryo/fetus via her blood just as oxygen and nutrients are supplied to her limbs and organs. Where is the proof that the embryo/fetus does what a human being does? I see none at all.

    You have mistaken unique DNA for a unique human being. Yet identical twins have the same DNA. In fact, conjoined twins share not only the same DNA but even the same body. What allows them to be two human beings instead of one is the fact that there are two heads, in the sense that there are two distinct sets of organs for taking in oxygen and nutrients and two distinct brains that can control distinct perceptual response and expression. If only one distinct set of such organs and one distinct brain is available, we do not define the body as that of twin human beings but of one human being and one parasitic twin, which is not considered a distinct human being (and cannot develop into one).

    It is probably psychologically natural for human men to imagine that the contribution of the human male is the creative element that “makes” a human being, but the fact is that God and the woman are creating the human being together all during the pregnancy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s