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.

Human embryos are animal embryos, no different. Man as god is Ego.

It is not sacred because we are not sacred.

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.

If it's immoral to remove an embryo, then all cancers are also sacred.

If new cells (cancer) are created because of a mutation (which is out of our control) then those are equally sacred, and cannot be touched. Add in anything else that surgeons can remove: bad valves, imperfect anatomy, failing organs, in-grown toenails, the list is endless.

In every hospital in the world, in any moment, people are having their "god-given" cells re-arranged and/or removed by modern medicine.

Why is it that when a man chooses to deposit HIS cells into a woman, they're suddenly "SACRED"????

If they're so bleating SACRED, then he should have kept them TO HIMSELF!!!!

The human embryo is neither sacred nor something special. It is simply an early stage in the development of every human organism.

I was thinking about sex today. "Love bugs" are being pests this time of year, male and female flys conjoined by their genitals and buzzing haphazardly together.

My point is, an embryo was the best evolution could come up with, and reproduction is slightly more fun for us than for love bugs. What's cool is most mammals look about the same before 8 weeks of gestation, even a human and a mouse. The real debate is what can be mundane and miraculous at the same time? Nature has mastered embryos from before humans walked upright. Sure it's complex, but if early man connected the dots that mating = offspring, it's not as big a deal as mr professor believes.

The religious right says that the minute a sperm and an egg shake hands it is a child. Once it is born they no longer give a shit.

The existence of the pope is a clear sign that abortion is necessary.

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"!)

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?

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.

If god treats zygotes with so little consideration, how can they be holy? We share 97% of our genetic information with every living creature on earth. Not just mammals, either. Birds fish bugs, all of it. The difference between a mouse embryo and a human enbryo is 3% give or take.

Get your bible out of our vagina and shove it up your ass!

Abortion rules

Nothing is sacred.

Is no too simply of an answer?.........

the justification is easy as silk. "God called them home". when your fantasy includes a being who can do no wrong, then even obvious wrongs become right when it does them.

genocide is wrong, but the flood was right. War is wrong, but the destruction of Jericho was right.

no problems.

not a believer, just saying, they can justify anything in that story, anything at all.

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

If the joining of a sperm and egg is somehow a sign of a spiritual reality or a sacrament of sorts (however he's defining that), I have to wonder whether he believes the same for chickens and pigs, whose embryonic development is so similar to that of humans, and if not why not. He seems to have no basis for his claim except that he believes in the supernatural. That seems to be justification enough for him, but I need reasons backed by science or strong logic (not theology or metaphysics). I've never heard a sufficient argument to support such spiritual-reality assertions.

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.

Thought experiment:

You are visiting a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out on one of the theatres, and is rushing towards the oxygen tanks. When it reaches them, the entire place goes.

You are in a corridor. On one side is a cooler containing 50 frozen embryos, immersed in liquid nitrogen and ready for transport. On the other is a baby, screaming in terror. You have only got time to rescue one, and if you hesitate, everyone dies.

Who do you choose?

Matias, this is very similar to the (very interesting) question you put out the other day on the reconciliation of religion and science. As I said then, many scientists compartmentalize their faith and practical knowledge, as humans are incongruous in thought, deed and emotion on a daily basis. The professor in this case tries to merge the two and finds himself in a logical cul-de-sac. I get what he is saying as conception is an amazing thing. It’s an incredible mathematical chance that you are you, and one spermatozoa among millions penetrated one egg, when human ovulation is a tricky thing. On the other hand it’s such a common occurrence that there are seven billion of us! Human conception is at once as mundane as shitting and as incredible as the Big Bang. In the grander scheme of the world and in a biological sense, a human embryo is not a sacred thing - it is a product of reproduction and is no higher or lower in order in the natural world than a germinating acorn or a mouse embryo. However socially the family unit, fertility and conception have taken on a meaning beyond genetics. Anthropologically insemination and pregnancy can bond kinsmenship and identity of the clan, unite or divide clans, form the basis of social cohesion and peace, claims to territory or war. Pregnancy is imbued with ritual and birth is a right of passage. That is why women’s fertility is controlled by men to this day. That is why to some people believe it is sacred - thousands of years of programming. It’s the key to survival of your group and your genes. It is logical that most of society think an embryo is sacred, and that murder is evil. It’s all tied to primeval survival. Truth be told that both conception and murder are mundane daily occurrences.