…and this is a 
Uh-oh…a pro-life poll
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: July 31, 2008 1:50 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's one way to foil a pharynguloid poll invasion: limit your poll answers to those that aren't even wrong. Try to answer the question of"When does life begin?" — your only choices are at birth, at conception, at some stage, with a god (?), and the ever-useful "I don't know". Conception is winning right now, when everyone knows the correct answer is approximately 4 billion years ago. There is no dead stage in the cycle of life!
The alternative answer is "after the kids all move out", but that option isn't listed, either.
Comments
Posted by: Peter Vaht | July 31, 2008 2:12 AM
"With God" is the same as "I don't know"
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 2:15 AM
They're grossly oversimplifying a complex issue.
As a pro-choicer, I admit there is a genuine moral/ethical argument to be had regarding how late is too late to have an abortion.
But it's an argument that should be informed by science and not religious superstition.
Posted by: llewelly | July 31, 2008 2:17 AM
PZ, please don't use their language. These deluded people do not favor life at all. Call them anti-freedom, or anti-choice, or pro-back-alley-abortion, or victims of charlatans, or anything but their self-righteous crap name.
Posted by: Simon Coude | July 31, 2008 2:21 AM
That is definitely a strange poll. I chose when the baby is born, just to contradict their good old "pro-life" christian values.
Don't you think the little angels in the top-right corner look like little demons? Maybe I'm too tired, but they look mean.
I hope I won't have nightmares because of them.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 31, 2008 2:28 AM
Life begins several million years ago. The sperm and the egg are alive before conception.
-jcr
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 31, 2008 2:28 AM
As I've said before I'm such a poll troll moll that crashing these things makes me feel all tingly in my nether regions. Keep 'em coming PZ!
Posted by: Zeno | July 31, 2008 2:29 AM
They won't be happy till blastocysts have voting rights, embryos qualify for the drinking age, and fetuses are eligible for the House of Representatives.
So far the only well-documented case of unambiguous personhood in a fetus is Stewie Griffin, who was found to have plans for the conquest of Europe on him at the time of his birth. (And in his case the right-to-life gang should consider the downside of getting what they're asking for.)
Posted by: azqaz | July 31, 2008 2:34 AM
Well, they need to define what they are calling "Life" before the question can be answered. When the cells start to edit DNA into RNA and produce proteins? When cells start dividing with almost identical DNA/genes? When it is Human?!??!?!?!?! Please, have them elucidate on what is "Alive", and then I can help them.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | July 31, 2008 2:41 AM
How long is "the moment of conception"? Is life assumed to begin at the beginning or end or middle of this process?
Posted by: nanoAl | July 31, 2008 2:49 AM
llewelly @ #3
To quote george strombolopolous (SP?)
"cut the crap, you're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion"
and higgs @ #9
you're thinking way too hard, these morons don't have a clue how the process works. They probably think life begins once the man finishes.
Posted by: nanoAl | July 31, 2008 2:51 AM
or you could go by George Carlin's definition, life begins when the man says "Oh sorry honey, I meant to pull out but the phone distracted me..."
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 2:55 AM
I couldn't vote - there is no "none of the above" option.
I mean, eggs and spermatozoa are both already living cells, aren't they?
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | July 31, 2008 2:59 AM
"After the kids all move out" Haha never heard that one before. :-)
Posted by: Jason | July 31, 2008 3:03 AM
I prefer to call people like them "pro-birth." After all, they don't care what happens to you after you exit the birth canal.
Posted by: Dave in Escondido | July 31, 2008 3:18 AM
It's a stupid question, since the word "life" is left undefined and the notion that it begins (rather than began) is taken for granted. If this were a serious discussion I would never answer the question, but would dispute it.
However, this is politics, not a search for truth.
I therefore suggest that we all answer "at birth" just to tilt the poll as far from the pollsters' expectations as possible.
By the way, in the bakersfield poll, I found I could vote 4 times. I have two computers, and two browsers (Firefox and Safari) on each. If you're similarly configured, try it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 31, 2008 3:18 AM
I can't vote with a good conscience unless I know all the facts.
For instance, what is the fetus at A certain stage in the womb's position on The New Yorker cover depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists? And how would 'I don't know' reduce the economic and educational disparity between whites and minorities?
Boy, it's true what they say about the media dumbing-down complex issues.
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 31, 2008 3:26 AM
I agree with llewelly (#3). Stop letting these loonies set the tone. They're not pro-life, they're anti-choice.
Posted by: Melinda Dillon | July 31, 2008 3:29 AM
Everyone just needs to vote "when the baby is born." That will totally blow their tops.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | July 31, 2008 3:29 AM
nanoAl @10...
I know that when I finish, a burning lust for a pizza comes to life.
Posted by: Hugh G. rection | July 31, 2008 3:30 AM
In the testicles. Sperm are alive.
Posted by: Dave in Escondido | July 31, 2008 3:30 AM
Where is everyone? I know most of the US and Canada are asleep right now, but it's morning in the UK and late afternoon in Australia. Come on, folks, get busy!
Presently, "at birth" is beating "moment of conception" 36.9% to 22.2%, with "in the womb" somewhere between those two.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 31, 2008 3:36 AM
If the fetus were grown in a machine (not a woman) and there were willing and well qualified parents wanting to raise the baby, I might have objections about abortion. If the mother doesn't want a child for any reason, who am I (or you) to tell her she is going to have the child? It's not just a year out of her life, it's more like a lifetime commitment. If the child is unwanted, statistics say you may have a miserable, vindictive criminal in the future.
You are too focused on the fetus. Look at the whole picture.
Posted by: UrbanWildCat | July 31, 2008 3:40 AM
To quote Bill Hicks: "You're not a human being until you're in my phone book."
Posted by: Dave in Escondido | July 31, 2008 3:44 AM
Now "at birth" is beating "moment of conception" 40.9% to 19.1%.
This is fun.
Thank you, PZ!
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 31, 2008 3:47 AM
when everyone knows the correct answer is approximately 4 billion years ago. There is no dead stage in the cycle of life!
duh I got distracted by the questioner's bias and misunderstanding to realize the obvious fact so simply stated by the good doctor, of course there is a direct connection to the first life on earth.
the question shows a basic lack of understanding of what life is and how it works. thanks for reminding me.
Posted by: Ygern | July 31, 2008 4:13 AM
I just can't bring myself to click on any of them. The poll is just too damn stupid.
I was raised a Catholic, but I came to my senses eventually.
Sites like that one makes my brain want to crawl out of my skull and run away.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 31, 2008 4:13 AM
Crash my polls dammit PZ! I'm getting bored of waiting till I host the Skeptic's Circle to get some attention. =P
Posted by: Dave in Escondido | July 31, 2008 4:22 AM
"at birth" -- 43.1%
"moment of conception" -- 16.1%
Posted by: Eli Vieira | July 31, 2008 4:23 AM
Hilarious! These pro-life morons insist on trying to fit the world into their infantile god and life into their childish baby-from-stork-like reproductive knowledge.
I just hope some day priests forget about children and start making love to nuns, who would thus forget about other women's whombs and vaginas.
Greetings from Brazil (here we just make our abortions in spite of the law and of pro-life mumbo jumbo).
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 31, 2008 4:26 AM
I have lost count of the number of times I have asked 'pro-lifers' which out of a long, non exclusive list of the events of the process of conception and asked them to draw lines. Only one tried and he chose something not on the list which was completely garbled and uninformed and something to do with DNA so we went around again and he piked. Life is cyclical, even if you are a tardigrade on a cold dry day. As you say, it started 4Billion or so years ago.
The idea that conception is not an event is foreign to these people, it simply does not occur to them and if you force them to confront it they behave like rabbits caught in headlights. Their brains hurt and they find they cannot think.
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 31, 2008 4:57 AM
When I develop a womb, the ability to conceive and the cuircumstances where I might have to decide, I'll tell you. Until then not my F'n business.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | July 31, 2008 4:57 AM
To me, the US constitution answers the question. No person can be President until 35 years old. There's no argument about what that means. It means you're not considered a person until your moment of birth; the nine prececeding months in the womb don't count. It's your birth certificate that establishes your age, not your date of conception or implantation.
My own standard is that a fetus transitions to moral status as a human being at the point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, but that point in time can never be exactly established. The best we can say is it usually happens somewhere between the second and third trimester. (Thus, commonsense laws regulating abortion to the first two trimesters, with exceptions for the third trimester when the mother's life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy, or when the fetus has died.)
Otherwise, as established by the US constitution, moral status as a human being begins at birth, period.
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 31, 2008 4:59 AM
When I develop a womb, the ability to conceive and the circumstances where I might have to make this decision, I'll tell you. Until then not my F'n business.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 31, 2008 5:21 AM
Heck, it's my birthday today !
I'd say, in a colloquial way, my life started 44 years ago this very day when my mother ejected me from her.
That's the only way I can make any sense of this stupid question.
Posted by: Escuerd | July 31, 2008 5:36 AM
Any answer I gave on this poll would be a lie. Well played, "pro-life" douchebags. Well played.
Posted by: Philbert | July 31, 2008 5:40 AM
The greetings card industry leads me to believe that the answer is "at 40".
Posted by: Tall | July 31, 2008 5:45 AM
Am I the only one who sees a distinction between the poll question "when does life begin?" (the answer to which is at least relevant to the subject of abortion) and "when did life begin?" (the answer to which is, as we all know, several billion years ago).
Posted by: Carlie | July 31, 2008 5:56 AM
I saw a greeting card once that said life begins at 40. Does that count?
Posted by: Carlie | July 31, 2008 6:02 AM
"cut the crap, you're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion"
I'll gladly take on the label "pro-abortion" if the other side takes on the label "anti-woman".
Posted by: T_U_T | July 31, 2008 6:03 AM
re#37
then the correct answer is "most probably a few dozens millions of years after a terrestrial planet cools down enough to hold liquid water "
Posted by: Joseph | July 31, 2008 6:41 AM
With a god? This is disturbing. Are they saying that Zeus still visits lovely maidens and gives them His manly lightning?
Posted by: watercat | July 31, 2008 6:49 AM
As I understand it, a human sperm detaches from the host, dies, and travels in an undead state to a particular site within the living body of a second human. That portion, a human egg, although having become one with its human host, now also joins the living dead. The zombie sperm seeks out its fellow denizen of the dark realm, attaches itself to the zombie egg, bells ring, angels sing, and a new life springs forth from these two dead blobs of tissue.
Its a miracle, it is.
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 7:02 AM
Who says these comment threads don't change anyone's mind? ;)
I voted after all.
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 31, 2008 7:06 AM
I've always called these assholes "Pro-Forced-Maternity" since they only give a shit about these "poor, unborn babies" up until they are born (as long as they are Caucasian) and given up for adoption to rich, white, Christian couples. Most of the leaders/founders of these groups are men. My, how surprising! Whatever could their motivation be, I wonder? Espcially in light of the fact that the odious banner graphic for that poll's group shows little angel babies. If a fetus is aborted doesn't the little fetus' soul get to go sit on Jesus' lap or something squishy like that?
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 7:07 AM
Escuerd @35, that's exactly what I thought.
But now I realize they gave me no choice but to lie or to be silent. I chose to lie, but it was a forced choice - the least unpalatable option to me.
Ah, honesty can get so complicated...
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 31, 2008 7:16 AM
Negentropyeater said:
Happy Birthday Negentropyeater! BTW am I the only one to wonder why the anti-choice brigade still celebrate children's birthdays if they believe a fertilised cell is actually a person? Surely a much more logical date to celebrate in this case would be your Conception Day (prenatal scans and parental memory should be able to give you a fairly accurate estimate of the correct day)?
Carlie said:
Excellent point - although I prefer "pro-forced birth" myself!
Posted by: Barry | July 31, 2008 7:18 AM
When does religious belief become obnoxious?
A. At conception.
B. When the faithful try to legislate tenets of their faith.
C. With God.
D. I don't know.
Posted by: Barry | July 31, 2008 7:29 AM
Forrest Prince -
I like the US Constitution as much as the next guy, but I think it requires some casuistry to calibrate moral status based on a clause about when someone may run for president.
I understand your argument - that viability is difficult or impossible to determine, so we should fall back on some other standard. This sounds reasonable to me.
I don't agree that the other standard should be an 18th century document that does not set out to explore the issue of when life begins. I'm by no means an originalist, but I have to believe that had the Framers set out to answer the question of when life begins, they would NOT have embedded their answer in a brief comment about age restriction for the presidency.
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 7:32 AM
Lilly @46, I'm with Wolfhound @44, because they apparently want women to go all the way to term.*
As also alluded above, as a male I probably can't grok the true circumstances involved.
* I.e. they want to mandate what should be a free choice.
Posted by: Dancaban | July 31, 2008 7:36 AM
@40. Years that is.
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 31, 2008 7:56 AM
@49. What a beastly website. That idiot woman was pregnant with an anecephalic fetus and was selfish enough to carry it to term so it could die a horrible death 2 hours after birth by bleeding out through its unformed skull. Yeah, that's MUCH better than abortion. In her narrative, I love how any doctors who suggested terminating the pregnancy or weren't supportive of her hormone-crazed reality denial were "snide and callous". Sheesh. My favorite line was when she expressed disappointment that when the poor thing was born she noted that all of their prayers hadn't healed the condition. The whole thing made me shudder.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 31, 2008 8:01 AM
Happy Birthday NegativeEntropyEater
Ferret, there is nothing wrong with being a shameless attention whore. I voted yes on your poll, and I want you to be proud of it.
I was tempted to vote I don't know on the main poll, if only because the question of abiogenesis is far from settled. But, in the end I did the screechy monkey, FCD thing at voted for "at birth."
Posted by: Bagel | July 31, 2008 8:07 AM
When should we stop protecting a person's rights?
A. At birth
B. When they first disagree with me or my "values"
C. When they are not a part of my tribe
D. When God tells us they're evil
E. Don't know
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 8:07 AM
Sigh.
Yeah, Wolfhound. To you and I, it's disturbing, but to the "sanctity of life" crowd, it's wholesome and laudable.
I wish I were using hyperbole, or that the site were a parody.
Posted by: Michelle | July 31, 2008 8:24 AM
Life begins at conception. I'm all for that principle and I believe it is true...
...Doesn't mean I can't kick the kid out of my womb anytime though.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 31, 2008 8:35 AM
Wolfhound said:
Right there with you Wolfhound, now if you'll excuse me I tihnk I need to go and throw up!
Posted by: T_U_T | July 31, 2008 8:44 AM
then you are for murder, michelle :( sad thing there are many pseudo-pro choicers like this, who agree that embryos have the moral status of human beings, and yet they think they have right to kill them )
Posted by: Teresa | July 31, 2008 8:45 AM
Here's an interesting "prolife" discussion.
http://conservablogs.com/haemet/2008/07/28/the-real-face-of-choice/
Posted by: watercat | July 31, 2008 8:57 AM
Re the story at #49;
Is it painful to bleed to death?
If not, I see no reason to condemn this. I assume you have not been in this family's situation, and even if you have, it was their situation, not yours, and they handled it in the way that brought the least heartbreak to those involved. (and pain, afaik) To those not involved, fuck off: this sort of thing hurts enough as it is.
Posted by: Ferin | July 31, 2008 9:04 AM
I alwasy figured it was when your parents left you home alone and forgot to lock up the booze.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 31, 2008 9:14 AM
@52: Woot! Go shameless attention whoring!
Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 9:25 AM
watercat, my point was not to say what she did was wrong* - my point was that this is illustrative of the sort of attitude "pro-lifers" wish to establish as the norm, and to enforce with the weight of the law.
Same thing with euthanasia; they wish to deny choice to those personally affected, out of their beliefs.
* I hereby explicitly say it was not wrong IMO - just disturbing. And I presume that no brain = no pain.
Posted by: Skeeve | July 31, 2008 9:26 AM
I, like a few others, didn't vote on this one. It just doesn't provide enough back info.
1. When a baby is born.
Obviously, the baby is already alive at this point.
2. At the moment of conception.
This one is where I'm stumped. While I agree in some respect to previous posters regarding the sperm and egg posit of being alive, this is actually where we get our "life", but at what stage can you morally say that it is a human being? I'm Pro-Choice for the most part, but when I sit down and actually think about this particular issue, I really can't peg the moment a fresh embryo is considered a new person.
3. With God
Null response
4. I don't know.
This should actually be the most common response to those of us without much in-depth knowledge of biology.
I really would like to crash this poll, but it's a stupidly worded poll. It was probably created that way to force everyone to choose #2, since that is the only choice that makes any sense. IMO, polls like this should just be ignored.
Posted by: AJS | July 31, 2008 9:28 AM
Would these "pro-life" people happen to be the same ones who support the death penalty and illegal wars, and oppose gun control?
Posted by: Drgeox | July 31, 2008 9:33 AM
I just checked the poll and interestingly enough, "When the Baby is Born" is ahead by quite a bit right now. I agree that this is a stupid poll, but I voted for the 'at birth' option just to bugger them.
Posted by: freelunch | July 31, 2008 9:40 AM
Often. They also believe that it's okay to teach both kinds of religion: fundamentalist and evangelical (Christianity).
Posted by: Bob | July 31, 2008 9:40 AM
I have a more worthwhile poll: How many people think P.Z. Myers is a pretentious blowhard? I am quite sure the answer would hover around 100%, given his ridiculous platitudes about nothing being sacred, except of course the things he believes in. However, I think the people at National Review say it best with the following blog entry about Mr. Self-Important:
Let's take P. Z. Myers at his word: "Nothing is sacred, everything should be questioned."
Everything? A perusal of Myers's blog indicates that there's a lot of things he doesn't bother to question. First, he's an evolutionary biologist -- so he doesn't question evolution. He's an atheist, but does not bother to ask what caused evolution.
Does he regard abortion and homosexuality as deviations from the primary evolutionary imperative to reproduce? Does he question racial equality and desegregation? Does he question affirmative action? Women's rights? The sexual revolution? The Big Bang theory? Does he question academic tenure? Or ask if his own salary and pension are too high?
I suspect that Professor Myers holds many views sacred and beyond question. For most campus leftists, the notion "question everything" simply means "question everything except left-wing positions." There isn't any "I-only-know-that-I-do-not-know" Socratic humility with this guy. His blog is little more than an anti-religious and anti-conservative screed, and of course he's been backed fully by the University of Minnesota administration. His antics are simply another example of political theater and anti-bourgeois hatred masquerading as academic inquiry, and further evidence of the debasement of the academy.
--Michael Filozof, Adjunct Professor, Niagara County Community College
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2008 9:49 AM
Bob are you quoting that in support or to expose another ridiculous fool?
Posted by: Kirian | July 31, 2008 9:49 AM
I'm going to jump on the "terminology" thing as well. I am both "pro-life" and "pro-choice." I don't know too many non-psychopaths who would gladly call themselves "anti-life." Meanwhile, every story I have heard of women who have had to make this choice--no matter where their morality fell on the issue--involved an agonizing decision on the part of the mother (and sometimes the father).
I'm pretty certain no one on either side here would be happy describing themselves as "pro-abortion" either. We all should want there to be fewer abortions, whether you think it's because of the sanctity of human life or you just want potential parents not to have to make that choice.
But the supposed "pro-life" people take this one step too far; they also think any form of birth control is evil, and believe in the obviously non-working abstinence-only sex education. They are not "pro-life;" they are "anti-sex" and therefore "anti-human-nature." They do not care about the abortion act itself; they want to control your sex life by guilting you into not having sex unless you plan to have a baby.
As far as the poll goes... let's assume they meant "a given human life," which is what really matters as far as morality goes. It's still a fuzzy question, but like some posters above I partially agree with the viability stance; a given fetus is officially alive when it would be viable outside the womb. Whether that should be modified by "without significant medical intervention" is a grey area.
Posted by: freelunch | July 31, 2008 9:50 AM
Clearly Mr. Filozof (really?) failed to take a single science class during his college career, or he would know that there are questions asked and answers gathered about evolution. The next set of questions are silly, except for the one that shows his envy for those who have tenure, since he is an adjunct. His suspicions aren't even justified suspicions, they are routine, mindless right-wing talking points of no value to himself or anyone else. They aren't even questions. They are tendentious rhetoric, worthy of nothing but mockery.
So, Bob, next time you try to post a criticism here, don't copy the work of fools. Maybe you need to learn a bit more so you don't make yourself look foolish because you cannot tell the difference between sensible criticism and foolish nonsense.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 31, 2008 9:51 AM
@ 67: Or, yknow, he questioned things like evolution and women's rights, and decided that they were right. That's possible too.
Posted by: Cleon | July 31, 2008 9:57 AM
I'm a computer programmer. I don't question the existence of the Java programming language, as I work in it every single fracking day.
Likewise, the idea of an evolutionary biologist--someone who studies evolutionary processes every time he walks into his office--"questioning" evolution is rather silly.
You strike me as a very bitter man, Mr. Filozof, striking out at anyone who dares hold a different opinion than your own. I also note, after a google search, that you seem to have trouble holding a job--but rather than take personal responsibility for it, you blame everyone else.
In summary, I think you need to look into the psychologist concept called "projection."
Posted by: Graculus | July 31, 2008 9:57 AM
then you are for murder, michelle :( sad thing there are many pseudo-pro choicers like this, who agree that embryos have the moral status of human beings, and yet they think they have right to kill them )
"It's alive" is not the same thing as "It's a human being".
Posted by: dgoodin | July 31, 2008 9:59 AM
Professor Filozof:
I challenge your assertion that evolutionary biologists don't question evolution. I would submit that there entire professional life consists of doing nothing but questioning evolutionary theory -- testing it, challenging it, and refining their understanding of it. Evolutionary theory has undergone quite a lot of change of the years, but some form of natural selection still appears to be the best way to explain speciation. "Question everything" does not mean "reject everything" (mistake frequently made by True Believers of political stripes).
Regards,
D.G. Goodin, Professor
Kansas State University
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 31, 2008 10:00 AM
Quoted for lulz.
Posted by: dgoodin | July 31, 2008 10:02 AM
Addendum to above:
in the second line 'their' instead of 'there'
in the last line "...of ALL political stripes...
apologies for the errors.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 31, 2008 10:11 AM
T_U_T said:
No T_U_T, alive =/= moral status of human being. Plenty of things are indisputably alive, gametes, bacteria, fungi and plants for example - but no-one has much of a qualm about killing them, let alone go as far as describing doing so as "murder".
This is why the "when life begins" argument around abortion is pointless because the correct answer is "approxiamately 4 billion years ago" - as PZ pointed out in his post. The real question is, at what point do the rights/welfare of an embryo/foetus/baby become equivalent to or have the ability to override those of it's mother?
For my money, whilst it's still in the mother's body it's her body, her rules.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 31, 2008 10:15 AM
Its been mentioned before in other threads, but perhaps the most rationally composed argument is from Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
The survey sucks. Killing a plant is not murder, and condoned by virtually all. Killing a wasp is not murder, and condoned by virtually all. Killing an ape is not murder, although sometimes is illegal. Killing a human being is sometimes murder and frequently illegal. All are examples of "Life".
So it's not really a question of when does a human being become a human being. Sometimes, never, depending on your definition. But the question is how we legislate it.
Posted by: Dahan | July 31, 2008 10:16 AM
Bob,
I hope you don't teach any of the sciences, because you don't seem to understand the scientific process. Please see dgoodin's response at 74.
Dahan, Adj Prof
Brown College and MCAD
Posted by: Dahan | July 31, 2008 10:29 AM
Bob,
BTW, bothering to state that you're a professor of any kind here... is kind of the equivalent of walking into a saloon in the wild west and stating you have a gun. No one's impressed.
Posted by: Jams | July 31, 2008 10:31 AM
Understanding words: a primer.
# Life
First, some definitions of life. English words often have multiple meanings that are disambiguated according to the context they exist in. In the case of this poll, the answers and the theme of the site itself clearly disambiguate the definition of "life" being used - well, at least enough to know they mean a single human being, a soul, a free will, or at least something that's at issue on the topic of abortion. There's also nothing to indicate this is a science question rather than a political question (as someone else noted). One could wish that it was a science question, then wish that is was about life as a whole rather than that soul thingy, and then one could wish one was arguing against something more substantial than straw - you know, if one were into that sort-of thing.
# Sacred
First, some definitions of sacred. Another terribly ambiguous word - oh english, you slut. PZ clearly regards life (one can't believe in human rights and not believe life is sacred), science (the process, not a specific scientific conclusion), and truth (he holds it above falsity) as sacred (see definition 4). And of course, holding something "sacred" according to definition 1 is not at all equivalent to holding something "sacred" according to definition 4 or any of the other definition of "life" - hence the different definitions.
So really, when PZ says he holds nothing sacred, his use of the word "sacred" is no less ambiguous than the pro-lifer's use of the word "life".
P.S. One could as easily argue that the word "life" is silly because everything is energy. Then one could laugh at how stupid anyone who uses the word "life" is, adjust one's monocle, gesticulate with one's septre, and generally mince about - if that's what one is into.
Posted by: freelunch | July 31, 2008 10:32 AM
Dahan, I think Bob was just quoting from an adjunct professor who has never been near a science lecture. Bob is so profoundly ignorant about science that he is impressed with "Filozof's" argument.
Posted by: watercat | July 31, 2008 10:37 AM
John Morales. Gotcha. Sorry to be cranky. It's a touchy subject for me.
Re the embryo/baby disctinction: we were discussing this elsewhere and it was pointed out that in some cases embryos never become human: they just grow up and become vice presidents.
Posted by: Patches | July 31, 2008 10:37 AM
"At birth" is the closest response to Biblical correctness.
The Bible has a number of different interpretations as to when human life begins, whether when they draw their first breath or when they manage to survive more than a few weeks. Either way, the Bible's stance is ubiquitously "after birth". Pro-lifers totally ignore these things though and instead use nebulous passages like "I knew you before you were formed" to justify their assertion that human life beginning at or before conception is a Biblical concept.
Posted by: dtlocke | July 31, 2008 10:41 AM
C'mon now, PZ, you could be a little more charitable in your interpretation of the question. By "when does life begin" they obviously mean "when does a new person come into existence". That said, the answer is of course complicated. No doubt there is no sharp line between something that is and something that is not a person---"person" like almost every word, is somewhat vague. Moreover, whether something is a person depends on several factors, all of which are quite a bit more complicated than "birth" or "conception", etc.
So you're right to point out that the correct answer isn't listed. But that's not because "billions of years ago" isn't one of the answers; it's because "There is no exact moment when a new person comes into existence, but there are periods of time in the womb when the thing is definitely not a person, and later periods when the thing definitely is a person. If it's a legal issue, we'll have to set the line at somewhere between these times. Whether we err on the side of caution--that is, whether we set the line closer to the definitely-is-not-a-person side--or whether we err in the other direction, will depend on a whole host of other considerations--e.g., the mother's rights, the would-be-child's life prospects, etc.".
But I guess that wouldn't make a very snappy poll answer, would it? I for one just went with "at a certain stage in the womb" since it is the *least* wrong answer.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2008 10:53 AM
But the question is when does "Life" begin.
Not when does an embryo become a person.
The egg and sperm are both living cells.
So when they join, it's most certainly NOT
the beginning of life.
Posted by: Dahan | July 31, 2008 11:11 AM
freelunch at 82,
Ah, now I get it, thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by: Michelle | July 31, 2008 11:24 AM
How can I put this...
Bite me.
I don't agree they have moral status of human beings. They are cells and therefore they are alive. HOWEVER, it's connected to my fucking body. Without my fucking body, it's dead. Basically, a child is a parasite living off me.
Now I have the right to keep my resources for myself whenever I decide so. If I don't want that child sucking off me for 9 months, I can abort it. I believe I can abort it ANYTIME...Though past a certain point it's just dangerous for the woman, but that's her choice and I hope they'll advise her of that danger. And yea, a kid past a certain point too IS able to live.
But here's my firm thought:
The rights of someone that is already born and alive comes WAY before the rights of a kid that is in that person's uterus. Harsh? Maybe, but it's the woman's right to her body and that's how it should work.
Call it murder, I call it owning my body.
Posted by: Wookster | July 31, 2008 11:26 AM
I want an option for "when it achieves sentience", as until then it's just a mammal. Any child development people out there know at what age a baby becomes self-aware?
Posted by: DGoodin | July 31, 2008 11:31 AM
In rereading the thread, I guess I responded to someone who was actually be quoted by another poster. Shame on me for not paying attention.
D. Goodin
Posted by: notthedroids | July 31, 2008 11:36 AM
Looks like a bunch of people took the not-so-subtle hint and phreaked that poll. Well done.
Posted by: Dustin | July 31, 2008 11:38 AM
Hi, Steve_C and others. I for one agree with you. But... you might want to try interpreting your interlocutor a bit less literally and uncharitably. If you want to actually advance people's understanding (especially your interlocutor's), why not try a bit harder to understand exactly what he is trying to say. That way, you can won't be talking passed one another.
Please see my comment at 85 for details.