Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
One thing you may have noticed after 3 years is that I almost never talk about abortion. I'm pro-choice on abortion, but I have a policy never to argue about it with anyone because, in my experience, it inevitably turns ugly. Frankly, the whole debate bores me and so I almost never write about it. And I'm not really going to write about it now except in the very limited context of this profoundly silly statement by Chuck Norris in his latest WND column:
Our contemporary world has indoctrinated us to believe humanness cannot be uniquely defined, a fetus is nothing more than a cellular mass, and there is no special value to being human.I beg to differ.
Seeing is believing
Before our embryonic twins were surgically placed into my wife Gena, the nurse told her, ''I want to show you something.'' She wheeled Gena to the incubator where they were kept and gently opened the door. The incubator was bathed in warm light and soft classical music. Gena later told me it was the most incredible sight she had ever seen. ''It was like looking at something from heaven,'' she explained. That was only 2 days after conception! Whether or not Gena had become pregnant, we were fully convinced at that moment that life begins at conception.
Now, unless they had a very powerful microscope there, Gena didn't see anything at all. At 48 hours, that little blastocyst was a whopping 4 cells and cannot be seen with the naked eye. And it looks like this:
This is emotionalism at its worst. And of course, if those embryos had not developed correctly - the ones he thinks came from heaven itself - they would have been discarded. Which means he and his wife would have been responsible for the destruction of those little gifts from heaven.
Comments
Ed,
I agree with your opinions in this post, but I think you've broken your own rule about abortion posting. This post is just as likely to draw fire as one that says "Abortion should be safe, legal and free through the second trimester. Discuss."
CP
Posted by: carpundit | January 23, 2007 9:40 AM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | January 23, 2007 9:51 AM
Yep, they're trusting in God all right. They're a regular Abraham and Sarah. And presumably more than one embryo was created in whatever process of techno-repro they're using. What will they do with the extras? Keep 'em on ice forever?
Posted by: Eveningsun | January 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Having been through IVF, I can safely say there are few things less beautiful and magical than embryo implantation.
I dunno, it's something about the drugs that make you feel like crap, the fact your bladder has to be full to bursting for the procedure, and the medical surroundings.
Then they make you announce your full name, so they can be sure they give you the right embryos, cover your stomach in ultrasound gel, and stick a catheter into you.
Yup, it was definitely an experience that made me think about life beginning at conception. Uh-huh.
Posted by: Mara | January 23, 2007 2:10 PM
Let me get this straight. Chuck Norris -- the Chuck Norris -- the one who impregnated every girl in a stadium if the internet is to be believed, had to rely on artificial insemination to conceive his children?
My image of him is totally blown.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | January 23, 2007 3:18 PM
Ed, I'm inclined to agree with you. Discussions about abortion between the two sides slide too easily into histrionics and name calling. I see it weekly as a Planned Parenthood sidewalk escort.
But there are times that one does need to speak up. For instance in the Georgia Legislature a bill to ban abortion has just been introduced. Half the bill is nothing but talking points copied nearly verbatim from anti-abortion literature and all either unproven or outright lies, e.g, abortion causes breast cancer; abortion leads most women to increased use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco; 60 percent of women who report post-abortion trauma (not defined) turn suicidal; or 25 percent of women who have an abortion seek pcychiatric counseling (it goes on at some length past that). For a quick read go to http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1.htm
Oh, and performing an abortion would be a felony, opening anyone convicted to a life sentence and any doctor so convicted would lose their medical license for life.
On the good side, even though the Georgia legislature is heavily anti-abortion, the expectation is that this bill is too draconian to ever make it out of committee. Of course, even if passed, it would never take effect until Roe v. Wade was overturned. Sadly, were it to pass, Georgia provides no avenue for a citizen override like South Dakota and 22 (or thereabouts) other states.
Posted by: Keanus | January 23, 2007 3:50 PM
I get tired of seeing people rant and rave about human life beginning at conception. It doesn't.
Before conception there is life - a man and a woman. The man produces sperm cells (a form of life). The woman produces egg cells (another form of life). When the egg and sperm unite, the egg is fertilized. This produces a blastocyst (still another form of life). The blastocyst is basically a mass of about 100 hundred cells that are undifferentiated into what one could cosider human tissue. In other words it is a potential human life.
In essence, life does not begin at conception, it changes its form.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | January 23, 2007 4:10 PM
You are forgetting that this is no normal embryo, but the embryo of Chuck Norris, the only man who can get away with roundhousing God.
For a full refutation of your entry, and a more applicable picture of Chuck Norris's blastocyst, go here:
Chuck Norris's Embryo and the Misguided Science Bloggers Who Criticize Them
You'll have to scroll past the comic to see the entry.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | January 23, 2007 4:18 PM
There is no moment of conception in any case. Once the sperm enters the embryo there are a whole host of processes that take place to blend the DNA strains together, but even after the first cell division they are still distinguishable from each other. Nature just just doesn't seem to want to comply with the fundie desire for nice clean demarcations.
This Chuck Norris nuthatchery story really takes the cake though. They decided that embryos are people because of some warm lights and classical music around the "place where they are kept?" Does that mean I could convince them to worship their own dookie if I did the same sort of technological setup in their toilet?
Posted by: plunge | January 23, 2007 5:58 PM
Actually, I just pointed out to my undergraduate genetics course this week, sexual fertilization is not necessarily the rule for humans. For example, Chuck Norris produces a complete humunculus.
Posted by: dr_d | January 23, 2007 8:26 PM
I understand why abortion debate bores you. The disagreements are always about fundamental assumptions and it never goes anywhere. it boggles my mind that abortion is such a major political topic in your country, but I can't help but wonder if Roe had something to do with it. It was well intentioned, but if it were left to states I doubt things would be much different than they are now and abortion probably wouldn't be the political footbal it is now.
Posted by: James | January 24, 2007 12:34 AM
As I posted on the blog you sent me.... "Embryos not human? Mmmm. I think it is amazing that your logic leads you to the scholastic conclusion that, if it doesn't look human, it must not be. Or even that "invisibility" of cells demonstrates "emotionalism at its worst." If art of all types can be inspring and moving, can't the inception of human life sitting in a petri dish or some other medical apparatus? Is Norris and his wife showing "emotionalism at its worst" and yet you, who don't ever write on abortion, are demonstrating "logic at its best"? If I were back in my undergraduate or graduate logic classes, I'd say you've proven one thing for sure--you've accepted hook, line, and sinker, the humanistic western paradigm of human life. And you're passing it along. Congrats! At least your bias is lucid. Bottom line, I'm sure the Norris' are glad their zygotes didn't grow up to be zebras.... http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml .
Todd
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 1:07 AM
At least your bias is lucid.
And your bias is so obviously hidden :rolleyes:
Posted by: Will | January 24, 2007 7:48 AM
Every sperm is sacred.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | January 24, 2007 9:00 AM
Todd, but how do you know that Norris' are glad they didn't have zebra zygotes?
Well, if they did, that would be one kick-ass zebra at least.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 24, 2007 9:07 AM
Todd wrote:
Yeah, how horrible. I've also accepted the humanistic western paradigm of science, the humanistic western paradigm of liberty, and much more. I am absolutely a product of western enlightenment humanism. Congratulations, you have stumbled upon an accurate label for my position.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 24, 2007 11:56 AM
Ed Said:
I don't know about Gena, but Chuck Norris doesn't need a microscope to see individual cells, his eyes can see both at the atomic and galactic level.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | January 24, 2007 12:22 PM
Ed, you need a name like your partner-in-crime, "Saint Gasoline"--http://saintgasoline.com/2007/01/21/suspension-of-disbelief.
Is that all you can do is heckle my "labeling"? C'mon--there's much more to that paragraph than that superficial jab.
At least Saint Gasoline gave it a whirl:
"It is sad that Norris has such a poor understanding of what characteristics make a being relevant for moral consideration." And "a cluster of cells incapable of thought, reasoning, or feeling is somehow relevant for moral consideration."
My response to SG:
"Revelant for moral consideration"-a great line by the way to justify extermination. Sounds like something a god might say. But no need for that since there is no god (I spent my life as an atheist). I completely agree! And so did Hitler. Except you say zygotes are not "relevant for moral consideration" and he thought that Jews were not "relevant for moral consideration." And since there is no god and no moral absolutes, except those established by each culture, then morals are culturally relative and established as such, right? So the same reasoning can be used to justify the Jews extinction under the 3rd Reich under German law.
Better be careful, or someday you might become what is "relevant for moral consideration."
Norris' comments on "What is human? And what's its worth?" still stand-http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53869
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 9:27 PM
Oooh, comparing someone you don't like to Nazis based on strawman similarities. Why, that has to be unprecedented in the history of the internet!
Posted by: Skemono | January 24, 2007 9:43 PM
I'm not trying to be new, and there's nothing "strawman" about it. Just because you can't rationalize around it. Stay out of it unless you have something logical to contribute. Heckling is easy.
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 10:07 PM
Todd, you should take your own advice!
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 24, 2007 10:08 PM
Seriously not trying to offending anyone. Just waiting anyone's logical rebuttal.
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 10:11 PM
Todd, do you really expect a logical rebuttal to your nonsensical nazi comparison? Haven't you ever learned that your "argumentum ad Naziium", as it's called, is always the last resort of a losing argument?
If the best you can do is a strawman comparison such as this, the only "logical rebuttal" that you deserve is a visit from the Hitler Zombie. Enjoy!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/history/hitler_zombie/
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 24, 2007 10:17 PM
Can I respectfully just ask you to merely answer who or what defines what is "relevant for moral consideration"? I can't figure it out.
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 10:24 PM
P.S. The Hitler Zombie had nothing to rebut or contribute to the arugument. I wouldn't consider the following comment sufficient rationale to dispel the analogy: "Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html. My use of the comparison is NOT to put down any person--I'm speaking about how every culture establishes its morality. And, if each culture establishes what is right and wrong for that culture, then how can we tell another culture what is wrong? E.g. the Nazis? My question is not meant to heckle, disrespect, or debate. It's an honest question.
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 10:38 PM
Honest question or not, Todd, it's generally understood that once someone brings up Nazis or Hitler in an online discussion thread, that thread is over. Period. The reason is that calling someone (or their argument) a Nazi is so inflammatory that it a) quickly derails the thread since everyone gets up in arms and starts shouting at each other and b) it's a universal epithet that ultimately means nothing. You can use it to "rebut" anything -- "I think Peanut Butter is awesome." "Yeah, well so did Hitler, you PB loving Nazi!"
In summary, only a Nazi would use a Nazi analogy in this thread, and nobody wants to argue with a Nazi, so this discussion is over.
(Note that last paragraph was ironic -- I am calling you a Nazi not because I think you're a Nazi, but rather to show how easily using that argument can shut things down into inchoate shouting. This message brought to you by The Foundation For the Enlightenment of the Humor Impaired, and the Ad Council.)
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | January 25, 2007 8:39 AM
Hitler liked VW beetles, too -- does that make them evil?
Posted by: Invigilator | January 25, 2007 5:02 PM
No, their ridiculous new VW GTI commercials make them evil.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 25, 2007 5:10 PM
Okay...forget the whole Nazi thing.
Honest question...I'm an atheist...Who or what is "relevant for moral consideration"? I can't figure it out. Can you help me?
Posted by: Todd | January 26, 2007 1:32 PM
P.S. Or simply put...who defines what is human? What is worthy of living and dying. What is morally right from wrong? It's not a rabbit trail, but something that pertains to abortion, living, dying, etc. What say ye?
Again, sorry if I offended you with the Nazi thing.
Posted by: Todd | January 26, 2007 1:59 PM
Todd, perhaps you should retake logic class since I can't believe you're missing the point that much. For most people who have replied to your silly argument and who are for abortion, the definition of what is human relies on things like consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to appreciate morality and existence, and so on, all in different combinations and degrees. What all the aforementioned, including myself, do agree about is that a zygote DOES NOT posses any of those qualities any more than the half digested residue of a piece of plankton inside Jonah's whale's fossilized intestines.
Posted by: alexxarian | March 7, 2008 9:41 AM