Just in case you missed Richard Dawkins in the Washington Post today about the anti-abortion ad running during the Superbowl, here it is:
I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.
The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion.
It is a version of what, following the great Nobel-Prizewinning biologist Peter Medawar, I have called the Great Beethoven Fallacy.
Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament.
One doctor to another:
"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"
"I would have terminated the pregnancy."
"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."
It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'.
As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,
"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse."
If you follow the 'pro-life' logic to its conclusion, a fertile woman is guilty of something equivalent to murder every time she refuses an offer of copulation. Incidentally, 'pro life' always means pro human life, never animal life although an adult cow or monkey is obviously far more capable of feeling pain and fear than a human fetus. But the profoundly un-evolutionary nature of this terminology is another story and I'll set it on one side.
The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would.
Probably not such a good quarterback but - we can but hope - a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free. That is not the point. The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother's refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry. The same is true of all four of his grandparents, all eight of his great grandparents, and so on back.
Religious apologists are unimpressed by this kind of argument because, they say, there is a distinction between snuffing out a life that is already in existence (as in abortion) and failure to bring life into existence in the first place. It's not a distinction that survives analytical thought, however. Look at it from the point of view of Tim's unborn sister (let us say), who would have been conceived two months later if only Tim had been aborted.
Admittedly, she is not in a position to complain of her non-existence. But then nor would Tim have been in a position to complain of his non-existence, if he had been aborted. You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority.
The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. The best that the rest of us can do is point out, to anyone that will listen despite our lack of money to pay for such advertisements, that it is nonsense. As I have just done.
Eliz again: I just love Richard Dawkins. I would be his groupie if I did that sort of thing.
12 comments:
Impecable logic as ever, but the fundies won't care about that, more's the pity.
By this impeccable logic any unconscious person becomes a candidate for involuntary termination.
Mr. Scientist also fails to note that whether or not a fetus has a nervous system depends on the age of the fetus. In fact, all fetuses have a nervous system because intercellular communication is necessary at every stage of life.
Is thinking a voluntary or involuntary function of the nervous system? Can you stop thinking? No, you can't. So how can suppose that a newborn baby or fetus does not think? Simply because you cannot imagine it to be so in your terms?
An unconceived person is the same as an aborted person? What crap is this? By this type of thinking an unconceived person is the same as any dead person, except the dead person had a life while the unconceived one never did.
So, gentle liberals, do you realize that it is primarily the black and brown people of the world who are receiving your great humanist gift of abortion? What kind of secret bigots are you? Oh yes, there is that occaisiona WASP lady who accidentally got pregnant and needs to evacuate her uterus- and she has a perfect right to, doesn't she?
Except that if you introduce the notion of rights then you must grant those rights to all; not to do so presupposes that there are those deserving of rights and those not deserving of rights (those too weak to defend their rights)- so where does that leave you intelligent liberals? I don't suppose any of you will see the paradox in this, because at the end of the day logic is not your forte, you only know the word to use as a slander of others.
"The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would.'
Oh, really? And just how would this have happened? Do each of those 40 million sperm carry different dna? What science supports this claim of Dawkins?
I think it's great when anyone who feels passionate about a polarizing subject can speak of it.
Now you are ripping for it for the usual political reasons, ie, the mentality of what is really wrong in the world today.
Whether or not I agree with him, he's a breath of fresh air.
Marty.... oh dear...
A question for you, if all reproductive cells produced an identical person (as you claim) then why aren't we all identical to our siblings? Oh, and how the heck do we get little girls and little boys, or are they identical too?
You don't need science to understand this Marty, just open your eyes.
Richard Dawkins did say he was speaking about early abortions, Marty, where the nervous system is not developed.
Steve, I was walking to the deli at work this morning and saw a person called Steve Borthwick, England captain, being interviewed. What team are you captain of? I am not up to speed with English sports.
E, not me, just a namesake, he's the captain of the England rugby team; although I think my dad would like it if I were the captain of the England rugby team, as I keep telling him the "other" Steve Borthwick is probably crap at designing software, he's not impressed :)
I was hoping someone would say that Steve. Put your thinking cap on.
Why don't we all look like our siblings? The same genetic material is combined (much of the time anyway) yet it expresses itself differently. I think this is a matter for science. Why does it do this? It does it because differentiation is affected by multitude of hormones in the mother's body as the fetus develops.
And how can Dawkins say that if another sperm had gotten there first this fellow would not have been this same fellow, with all other factors being the same? Because each of the sperm carry the same relevant material. His statement in this regard cannot be substantiated; no surprise there as the recent revelations about the IPCC have revealed the sloppy leftist approach to science as being no more than political propaganda. How can Dawkins prove that Tebow would not have been Tebow if the next sperm over hadn't got there first? He cannot.
Where I see the body as being a vehicle for the entity which resides inside it you see the body as the whole person, a bag of blood and bones devoid of any inhabitant- yet you constantly use the pronoun I to refer to some un-measurable quantity and quality of being.
Ideas of equality must be based on the existence of the inhabitant because, if you use your eyes, we are all clearly not equal. Dawkins alludes here to the lack of equal rights for animals- doesn't he realize that in the unequal world of the flesh we are all food for each other?
Marty, sorry, you're wrong on every point I'm afraid.
Tell me specifically how I am wrong and I will look up the most current study on homosexuality that theorizes why it is that boys with more older brothers are far more likely to be homosexuals.
Give me some science Steve, since that is your department.
Well, since you ask, here's a brief explanation.
During meiosis, genes from chromosome pairs are randomly selected from each strand. So if there are (say) one million genes in a chromosome, there are 2^1m possible combinations. But there are many more than one million and 23 chomosome pairs.
So there are quite a lot of possible combinations of DNA that can go into each sperm or ovum. Even given the enormous number of sperm in a single ejaculation, the chances of any being the same are infinitesimal.
That's what Steve means when he talks about any other "..of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum...".
I'm sure Katie can provide more detail if required.
One more thing...
Since this process is the same each time, if there is a correlation between homosexuality and the presence of elder brothers, any connection with genetics is likely to be obscure (although it's not completely impossible).
Post a Comment