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

Potential human life is nothing. There is nothing to protect - end of story. Bazillions of "what ifs" since the beginning of humanity means that potential human life is wiped out and wiped in with millions of direct and indirect decisions each second of each day. In fact, often one potential human life is not compatible with another (the case of an embryo lost for any reason only to be replaced in a uterus a month later, etc). A clump of human cells with "potential" really is nothing but that.

The next question is when does life begin and at what point (or maybe at no point) does the state have the right to prioritize one over another's? I'm not touching that one today.

0

It and I say it intentionally, is simply a function of biology. There is no magical properties and I apologize to those that can not conceive as it may feel differently to them.
It is no more a human that the seed that has yet to sprout and become a tree.

It is only as important as the 2 people that created it feel it is

1

It has no experiences, no memory, and can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester. Its potential parents will feel pain if there is a miscarriage. Sacred though? How can any atheist or agnostic say that it is? Any theist that says it's sacred is just guessing. If life is so sacred then why does nature shit on it so much?

3

Any Embryo is simply just that, it is collection of cells with an as yet indeterminate purpose awaiting the effect/s of hormones to " kick-start" the processes that will determine what it will, hopefully, eventually become.
To ask if something is " sacred, " in my opinion, implies that it should be considered as a " Loan" or " Gift" from some Supremely Higher Entity BUT it is not and never has been, there are only the Forces of the Natural Universe and the effects they can have or not have that determine what will be and what will NOT be, nothing more, nothing less.
A womans body is HER own property, what happens within that body as in pregnancy, etc, is HERS and HERS alone to determine and NO-ONE elses what-so-ever just as is the body of a man as well.
Unfortunately, the only thing we have NO control over body-wise are diseases, injury and death, BUT in the case of OUR own death WE should have the choice to chose how, when and why we die and it NOT be determined by some Arcane, Arcaic Superstitions and belief system imposed upon us.

0

No its not sacred!

0

It's a bundle of cells. Human infants are among the most helpless in the animal kingdom. I think if the fetus cannot reasonably survive outside the womb, it's not a person-should not be accorded human rights. When this is precisely, I am not educared ebough to say, but I can say without a doubt, an embryo is not "sacred" to me. Then again, I don't believe in inherently sacred things. To me this smacks of superstitious nonsense.

0

Once we get over the god thing, we'll look at procreation and evolution as we should. Life is to be respected. The embryo comes second to the woman bearing it. And if it's in a dish/tank it's just an experiment. Brains are just part of evolution, not some ethereal super-space.

0

Maybe if people realized all embryos are genetically related. What each becomes and what sexes it is are all determined by evolution/natural selection.

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?.........

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.

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

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.