Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Biology won’t solve your problems with abortion (philosophy of biology)

#1
C C Offline
https://quillette.com/2021/10/05/biology...-abortion/

INTRO: I’m a biologist. A neuroscientist, actually. Since I received my PhD in Biological Psychology from the University of Chicago, I’ve spent more than a couple of decades as a professor and scientist in both Psychology and Biology departments, and I’ve written a bit about the history and philosophy of biology.

Consequently, I’m fascinated by the ways in which people use biology to shore up their beliefs about a variety of topics from abortion to economic policy. (Note the new field of “Neuroeconomics.”) Of course, this appeal to biology is not limited to any particular political stance or point of view -- it’s used in a variety of contexts for a variety of reasons by a variety of people. What interests me is that it never seems to be based on any truly sophisticated or nuanced understanding of biology itself, and biologists can be as guilty of misusing biology as the less scientifically inclined.

A particularly intriguing example appeared in a recent article by Wesley J. Smith in National Review entitled, “When Human Life Begins Is Not a Matter of ‘Belief.’” Smith suggests that President Biden was being irrational when he said, “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I don’t agree, but I respect that.”

The author contends that the moment at which life begins is not a question of “belief” but of “biological fact,” to which science has already provided the definitive answer. That just isn’t true. I’m not taking a stand here on the question of abortion, per se. I’m saying that a bioethical issue as complex as this one cannot be resolved simply by appealing to the “facts” of biology, even though people on both sides seem to think it can.

Smith’s article begins by conflating the question of when “life” begins with the question of when “human” life begins. These are different questions. So, let’s start with the former...

[...] When I pose these questions to my students, they arrive at two insightful conclusions. The first is that being “alive” is actually an “emergent” property of a complex “dynamic system,” not a rigidly defined characteristic of some specific entity. Put simply, as systems become more complex, they display new characteristics that aren’t evident in their component parts (or ingredients).

[...] The second conclusion my students offer is that there will always be ambiguity in edge cases. It can’t be avoided. As systems (whether they are cells or robots) become more complex, they will display emergent properties. When we see a sufficient number of these emergent properties, we make a somewhat arbitrary (and often very idiosyncratic) determination as to whether or not the system is “alive.”

[...] This reality notwithstanding, appealing to biology is a seductive strategy. In Smith’s National Review article, he offers a handful of quotes from a couple of embryology textbooks in support of his view.

[...] The attempt to match the facts of biology with the inherent vagaries of language is always a no-win debate. Put simply, if you claim a particular biological event (“fertilization”) is the point at which human life begins, anyone with a different opinion and a more sophisticated understanding of biology can mount a pretty convincing argument to the contrary. In return, the even more sophisticated and knowledgeable biologist could counter. Hence, the unending debate will continue with no chance of resolution.

Let’s make the argument more concrete by looking at a few stages of the “fertilization” process. [...] This line of reasoning can be continued almost ad nauseam. Every arbitrary time point or criteria held to unequivocally establish “human life” can be met with objections justified with reference to biological “facts.” And the more details a participant in this debate knows about biology, the longer he can keep the argument going.

[...] Conclusion. Biology cannot and does not reveal unambiguous truths that conveniently or reliably correspond to our political and ethical beliefs. There is always going to be ambiguity in defining precisely what “life” is, or the precise moment that “human life” begins. In fact, there are always going to be unresolvable ambiguities around the borders of all concepts.

[...] Claiming that biological terms are authoritative and unambiguous is either a misunderstanding of biology or a failure to appreciate the difficulties inherent in applying linguistic categories to natural phenomena. ... Appealing to an ever-more detailed and obscure set of biological facts is both a fool’s errand and quite beside the point. And, to paraphrase Smith, it makes actual, meaningful debate impossible... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Science/biology does inform the ethics of abortion, but this guy uses someone who doesn't understand the science (life from conception) as a straw man against that fact. It is true that conflating "life" with "human life" is misleading, but this guy then addressed the former as if it speaks to the latter, with nothing but a bit of vague arm waving. There is no continuum between animate and inanimate matter. Obviously, egg, sperm, and fertilized egg are all "life" (living cells). But they are so just like skin cells. No one with a modicum of intellectual honesty would call a skin cell "human life," because a skin cell is not an individual organism of the species homo sapiens. "Human life" begins when new, unique DNA takes over development of the organism. It is then a unique human life, differentiated from the contributing DNA. Science/biology only define that as human life.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How to move beyond our endless disagreements over abortion policies C C 1 82 Nov 16, 2023 02:41 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Article Cracking the creation of life: Interview with Nick Lane (philosophy of biology) C C 0 54 Apr 4, 2023 09:58 PM
Last Post: C C
  Will AI solve the mind-body problem? Magical Realist 2 104 Mar 26, 2023 06:54 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article What is life? Scientists still can’t agree. (philosophy of biology) C C 1 90 Mar 21, 2023 07:54 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Bayesianism + Philosophy of space and time + Intro to philosophy of race C C 0 75 Aug 7, 2022 03:45 PM
Last Post: C C
  Abortion is wrong the mother must bare the child Ostronomos 15 397 May 8, 2022 09:14 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Laws of robotics: The ethical problems of artificial intelligence C C 5 218 Aug 22, 2021 06:22 AM
Last Post: Leigha
Question Problems may be inevitable, why not solutions? Leigha 2 203 Dec 1, 2020 12:56 AM
Last Post: C C
  The good scientist: Addressing the problems of today & the future C C 0 141 May 31, 2020 11:39 PM
Last Post: C C
  Religion vs Philosophy in 3 Minutes + Philosophy of Science with Hilary Putnam C C 2 614 Oct 16, 2019 05:26 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)