Agnostic.com

46 3

Is the human embryo sacred or something special ?

John Wyatt is Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics and a devout Christian.
Here is what he writes about the human embryo:
"At one level the embryo is just biology, a collection of genetic information and cellular machinery. But at the same time it is a physical sign of an immaterial or spiritual reality, even a sacrament of a hidden covenant of creation. A sign that God is bringing forth a new being, a god-like being, a unique reflection of his character, a being to whom he is locked in covenant commitment. (...)
"we have to recognize that not every embryo is destined to develop into a person. More than 50 per cent of all human embryos fail to implant in the uterus or miscarry at an early stage of pregnancy. Studies indicate that the majority of these embryos have major chromosomal anomalies which are incompatible with life."

How is it possible to make these two perspectives compatible? - On the one hand, the human embryo is something sacred, the beginning of a god-like being, on the other hand more than 50 percent of these "sacred beings" are routinely destroyed before they can develop into a child, killed not by wicked abortion doctors, but by nature itself, or - because after all God himself is responsable for everything that happens in nature - by their Creator.

What I cannot understand is how Professor Wyatt can reconcile sacredness and mass-destruction. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of those "pro-lifers" who fight against abortion do not know that more than half of all human embryos are destroyed naturally, without external interference, but our Professor of course is aware of that fact. To me, this is one of the points where biology and religion collide (at least if you agree with Prof. Wyatt that God's covenant with humans starts with conception, and not at a later stage in the fetal development.)

So what do you think? Is the human embryo sacred or something special (inherently and essentially different from, say, a mouse embryo)? If yes: why? Or do we need a supernatural dimension in order to distinguish human and mouse embryos in a moral sense?

Matias 8 Sep 21
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

46 comments (26 - 46)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

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 😉

@OwlInASack You are right. They could grow up to be Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Trump. We certainly wouldn't want to miss that. As far as l'm concerened if you ain't carrying it, you have no say.

1

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.

0

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

0

Nothing is sacred.

Carin Level 8 Sep 25, 2018

Or everything is sacred, we are not that special.

0

Abortion rules

2

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

zesty Level 7 Sep 26, 2018

@dan325 🙂

3

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.

0

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.

I am definitely Pro Choice also. I disagree with your "too quick to dispose of" notion. Choosing abortion is a heart wrenching and tragic personal decision. However, It is for many of us a necessary sorrow. Woman are intelligent human beings. Give us some credit and support us in our decisions. We know the nature of what is developing inside of OUR bodies. The "sacredness" (I wish I could think of a better word) of the embryo to each each individual woman is not constant or equal. The percentage of woman who make the decision to terminate an embryo or fetus hastily or uncaringly is miniscual. The country and the world for that matter need recognize women for intelligent and responsible choices we are capable of making.

@OwlInASack We are never in a position to make absolute statements about value, all value statements are necessarily subjective. The best that we can ever hope for is to achieve a general assent.

The value of a human individual is immeasurable regardless of their circumstance. However technically an embryo is not an individual until "birth" or separation from the mother. In the search for moral standards the law seeks to establish when an embryo has the viability to survive detachment.

0

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?

Yes, but that's in the Old Pesterment.

0

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"!)

...I thought you had a valid point!

1

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

zesty Level 7 Sep 30, 2018
2

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.

1

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.

2

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

4

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!!!!

1

Nothing special about an embryo, nothing sacred either. A woman has the last say about whether it stays in her body or not.

0

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.

1

It is not sacred because we are not sacred.

0

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

0

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.

The joke about "pro-lifers" is that they're for the fetus, but as soon as it's a child, screw it, you're on your own. They often despise other's lives, so being just for the fetus is an ego trip to keep women down.

0

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.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:183760
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.