« Polycarp: He's Important for Us Today | Main | Worshiping the Trinity »

February 25, 2010

Comments

>> "the task of pro-life persuasion is to restore meaning to the word, define it for them."

Are you saying that there objectively exists a set called:

living_homo_sapiens_sapiens

and that your job is to show people that a zygote is a member of that set?

Or,

are you merely campaigning for your opinion about how the zygote should be categorized.

Tony,

Learn how to read.

MijkV

"Abortion is the violent dismembering and killing of an innocent, helpless baby."

While I generally agree with the thesis of the article, I must caution you about this premise. The morning-after pill is not a violent dismembering. There are abortions that do not fit in the description above. Abortion is not wrong merely because it is violent. Self-defense killings are also violent and probably gruesome on occasion, but they are permissible.

Abortion is wrong because it is the intentional killing of innocent human life. That is all that is necessary for the moral (and hopefully one day, legal) violation.

A 5 day embryo is innocent in the same way a rock is innocent.
RonH

To say nothing of a morning after embyro or whatever you call it at that point.
RonH

RonH: agreed. Innocent is merely the absence of guilt. The only reason the term "innocent" is used is because the embryo has done nothing to disqualify itself from the moral protection against killing, the way that, say, a murderer has (if you believe in capital punishment).

If you accept that a 5-day embryo is innocent in the same way that a rock is innocent, you are half-way there in making the legal case against abortion. Glad you agree.

NL,

"half-way"
No, it takes you 0% of the way.

A rock has done no more to disqualify itself from...

RonH

Hi Ron,

I see your 5-day benchmark yet again.

Do you repeat this particular age because the embryo does not implant in the uterine wall until day 6? (In other words, its on its way there as a fertilized egg/zygote, but hasn't yet set up residence...)

Maybe as long as its a transient, its fair game for research...?

Or is it the "doesn't-have-any-'interests' claim again?

RonH: finish that sentence. See, neither the rock nor the child has done anything to disqualify itself from any moral or legal protection. The rock never had any protection to begin with. The child (in my view) did. So your statement about innocence, to the extent you are focusing on that quality alone, only bolsters my view.

To the extent you want to debate the existence of the protection to begin with, well, now you aren't focusing on innocence anymore, are you? So your statement above only helped my view. If you want to talk about the prohibition against killing innocent human life as such (without regard to the quality of innocence, which has now been established), very well...

Unfortunately for your comparison, a rock is not alive, nor is it human

RonH:

On what basis would you claim (if you would) that it is immoral to kill an innocent human adult? Or would you not make such a claim at all?

NL,

Can we agree on the following: 1) In your system I don't have the kind of 'basis' you ask me for. And, 2) In my system your system is an invention.

My system is an invention too. I make it mine because it exists specifically - nay it is defined specifically to conform to reality... whereas yours is bound to conform to scripture and orthodoxy (whatever they are).

David,

Five days serves the purpose. Anyone can look up what a 5 day embryo is and decide for themselves if this is the sort of thing that moral consideration extends to.

Ron(Five Day)H


RonH:

In your system, you apparently are clairvoyant, because in my system, you know neither me nor my motives. My question to you is simple: do you think anyone is obligated not to kill some other certain class of humans? Either your "system" recognizes such an obligation or it does not. Are you saying that it does not?

Rather than assuming things about my "system"--things that are not even true--you might pay me the respect of inquiring first. Because when you don't, you make yourself look rather infantile. I'll happily answer questions about my beliefs, but you should know that my first aim is to know reality and conform my beliefs to it. If that is your aim, you should stop making assumptions and start asking questions.

If one can show RonH a case where an embryo liked to play baseball or collect comic books, he probaby happily change his mind. Otherwise, "interests" will always get in the way.

NL,
I don't believe in clairvoyance. I remember you from previous posts and I've just confirmed what it's like to go here: Naturallawyer. What did I get wrong?

Yes I think as you describe. And I also think no obligation whatsoever applies to a 5 day embryo (or a morning after thingy). What do you think of that?

KWM,
Since you brought up my intereest in interests, you probably know that when I mention interests in this context I don't mean something like baseball or comic books but something like "having a stake in, a claim to."

RonH

RonH:

By stating, "mine...is defined specifically to conform to reality... whereas yours is bound to conform to scripture and orthodoxy", you imply that my commitment to Scripture or orthodoxy is more basic than a commitment to reality. That is what I bristled at, and actually took to be a rather snide remark. My belief is that if Scripture does not conform to reality, I must abandon it. So your description of my views is inaccurate to the extent you assume that I'll abandon reality to keep hold of Scripture. Rather, I've found that Scripture provides a far more convincing account of reality than anything else on the table, particularly worldviews like naturalism.

If you think there is no obligation not to kill another innocent human being (even adults), your views on the embryo are the least of your analytical problems. Of course you don't believe there are any obligations to embryos if you don't believe in such obligations with respect to anyone to begin with. So between you and me, we can't even touch the issue of abortion or embryos, because it appears you've abandoned the idea of "ought" altogether. And, if I might suggest, your abandonment of "ought" means you have given up reality for the sake of some other desire. Our disagreement is so far beyond abortion and embryos that there's no use in even approaching those topics, I don't think.

It is indeed a rare thing to meet someone who has given up on "ought," but there is no point in arguing that an embryo isn't a person or doesn't have interests when those interests or the lack thereof are irrelevant to a morality that you presuppose does not exist.

wow!! i like readin this.. :) keep the reactions coming guys!

Joan, you are funny.

NL,
Real life is intervening so I have to be brief.

You capitalize the word 'scripture'. I realize this is a standard of sorts and one that is useful to make it clear which scripture you mean. But it implies to me a commitment. I struggle to write the word at all without scare quotes or maybe a ؟ I have the same problem with other such words.

Are there any parts of Scripture that you actually have abandoned for not conforming to reality? Do you capitalize just for style?

I don't *think* I've abandoned the idea of ought. Seems like I'd be wasting my time if I had. Just sayin'.

RonH

Hi, RonH.

Yes, I do know what you mean by “interests”. But the reason I brought up baseball and collecting comic books is, well, because your “interests” are as arbitrary as playing baseball and collecting comic books.

>>I don't mean something like baseball or comic books but something like "having a stake in, a claim to."

And yet you still haven't explained why you think the embryo doesn't have a stake in living or a claim to life. What interest could be greater than that? It seems to me he (or she) has quite a huge stake in his current and future life, whether he knows it or not because the stake is objective, not subjective.

Hi Amy,
Amy,

The embryo won't exist if I destroy it. But that doesn't mean it has an interest existing. If it did then a rock would have such an interest too.

Being alive isn't enough either. Bacteria are alive but we're glad if employees kill bacteria by the millions when they wash their hands before returning to work.

There are two differences between a bacterium and an FDE. The FDE has, say, 200 (identical) cells instead of just one. And, the FDE cells have human DNA instead of bacterial DNA.

In spite of these differences, the FDE and the bacterium interact with the world in much the same way. They are not like us. They are not like the animals we consider subjects of moral consideration.

RonH

>>If it did then a rock would have such an interest too.

Really? A rock has a current and future life as a human being?

Awareness means nothing if the interest is objective. The current and future life of an embryo as a human being in it's earliest days is a greater interest than a bacteria's current and future life. It is objectively greater. And it exists objectively, whether or not the embryo is currently aware of it.

Amy,
There is a difference between awareness and being the sort of thing that can have awareness. The FDE is not merely unaware or unconscious. It is the sort of thing that is incapable of awareness or consciousness.

Present case excepted, I am not aware of anyone anywhere who has ever suggested extending moral consideration to something like this. Are you?

If I were to sprinkle the word objective in what I've said here would it make a difference to you?

RonH

"The FDE...is incapable of awareness or consciousness."

This is false. I know of at least one FDE that became aware and conscious. It took a little time, but sure enough it became aware and conscious. I'm speaking, of course, of myself.

But wait, but wait, the FDE is not capable of being conscious at five days. It's only capable of being conscious later. So it's OK to kill it at five days.

OK.

An unconscious 40-year old person is not capable of being conscious while it is unconscious. It's only capable of being conscious later. So it's OK to kill it while it's unconscious.

...it [the current and future life of an embryo] exists objectively, whether or not the embryo is currently aware of it.

This is a redefinition of what it means to have interests (not to mention what it means to exist objectively). From our perspective we can imagine a future time when an embryo will have developed into an individual with interests, but to say so is to concede that we are no longer considering the embryo's perspective. It rather defeats the purpose of perspective-taking to use our own perspective in place of someone else's.

I know of at least one sperm cell that became aware and conscious. It took a little time, but sure enough it became aware and conscious. I'm speaking, of course, of myself.

Every sperm is sacred.

Joe-

You're a sperm cell? Is this like the opposite of the Virgin birth? You didn't need a Mother or an ovum at all? Wow?

In the case of the FDE and the unconscious person, we need only wait and let nature take its course and it is very likely that we will eventually have a conscious person. Though that's not 100 percent certain, the sleeper, for example, might have a massive and fatal stroke and never awaken.

In the case of the sperm a highly unlikely event has to occur in order for it ever to become a conscious person.

WisdomLover,

This is not a helpful analogy. You are conscious before you fall asleep (or fall into a coma, or get hit on the head with a tree, or etc) and your interests can reasonably be regarded as persisting while you are unconscious. An embryo has never been conscious—it can't even properly be said to be unconscious—so it bears no meaningful resemblance to a sleeping, or comatose, or injured person.

We have an interest in not being killed while we're temporarily unconscious, and we can safely assume that others like us have the same interest; but we can't say this about an embryo which has never been conscious. That would be putting our perspective in its place.

"An embryo has never been conscious—it can't even properly be said to be unconscious—so it bears no meaningful resemblance to a sleeping, or comatose, or injured person."

Of course it does. It bears this resemblance: If you let nature take its course, it will become conscious.

The fact of prior consciousness is actually irrelevant. Imagine some fancy sci-fi cloning scenario. I've created a clone, force grown it in a vat and manipulated its brain so that the minute it wakes up it will be a fully autonomous human being complete with memories, desires principles and so on. But it's been in a dreamless torpor for the entirety of its existence. All I'd need to do is nudge it and it would wake up. Or I could just wait a few minutes too.

Can I kill it?

In the case of both the sperm cell and the FDE, a series of biological events must occur before consciousness occurs. Saying, "we need only wait and let nature take its course" could also apply in the case of the sperm. When I was a sperm cell (and an egg cell), I only had to wait until my parents were sexually attracted to each other, and then "nature took its course", and then there was me.

Yes, compared to the sperm cell, it's more likely that the FDE will eventually achieve consciousness, but in both cases, these entities only have the potential to one day be conscious. Neither has ever been conscious, nor can they be conscious without an additional series of biological events occuring. If these events do not occur, neither will ever be conscious. In the case of the FDE, any number of things can prevent consciousness from ever occuring. The mother could fail to eat or could die for other reasons, the developing embyro could be exposed to toxins, etc. The FDE has potential, the sperm cell has potential, an egg has potential (in fact, it's possible that all you need is the egg cell). So, they're all sacred, and must be protected.

"Of course it does. It bears this resemblance: If you let nature take its course, it will become conscious."

If you let nature take its course, a sperm cell and an egg cell will become conscious.

Joe,

>> If you let nature take its course, a sperm cell and an egg cell will become conscious.

usually not

Most zygotes have no potential for consciousness. Perhaps 75% die within a few weeks following fertilization.


Wisdom Lover,

>> " I've created a clone, force grown it in a vat and manipulated its brain so that the minute it wakes up it will be a fully autonomous human...Can I kill it?"

There was actually an episode of Star Trek where this exact thing happened. And William Riker shot his own clone while it was sleeping.

lol

what a bad man

But if you're talking about cloning life and implanting memories, a more interesting question to ask is: how much can you alter the human genome in your new creation, before God decides to not give your spawn a soul anymore.


If you let nature take its course, it will become conscious.

I agree. More to the point, if you let nature take its course, it will develop into an individual with interests. Should that come to pass, its situation will be very different. But that situation is not the one we're talking about.

The fact of prior consciousness is actually irrelevant.

I'm not sure I understand your thought experiment—I would have guessed it was making my point. Are you saying that, in your mind, the clone's status doesn't change after you nudge it awake? Why on earth not? You've succeeded in illustrating a “joint” at which we can “carve” the clone's nature, a joint which doesn't exist in the real world of continuous development; and in spite of that you conclude that its current nature must really be what its future nature could be, if you were to wake it up.

And, in passing, I'm curious about your choice of a “force-grown” human being. Would the same point follow if you were about to activate an android? I recognize that Mr. Data, prior to being activated for the first time, can't really be said to be alive at all, the way an embryo is alive. But that seems to me only to sharpen the distinction: before, we have insentient machinery; after, we have an autonomous individual with interests. (Again, nature doesn't provide us with these wonderful obvious joints, but that's what thought experiments are for, right?)

Just think of unactivated Data's future prospects! Shouldn't Dr. Soong be required to activate him?

The chances of a given sperm-egg pair ever becoming conscious are nil. How many other sperm is each sperm competing with? So what are the chances, given that some sperm cell 'wins' and combines with the ovum, that one particular sperm cell will combine with the ovum? And what are the chances that even one of the competing sperm cells will 'win'? The answer to both questions is "slim".

On the other hand, the chances of an FDE becoming conscious are pretty good. The chances of a person in dreamless sleep becoming conscious are of course, much better (though still not 100%).

If you were to plot the probability of a sperm-egg pair reaching consciousness at some point in the future against time, it would resemble a step-function that takes you from almost zero to over 50-50 at the moment of fertilization.

"The chances of a given sperm-egg pair ever becoming conscious are nil."

Well, if that was true, we wouldn't exist. I assume that you mean "close to nil".

Point is, it can happen. When nature takes its course, and it's combined with an egg, a sperm can become conscious. Why should probability matter? If something has the potential to become conscious, then it has the capacity to become conscious. Why does it matter if the probability is 1 in 2 or 1 in 2 billion? If it has potential, then it's sacred. Masturbation is murder.

(Note to Tony: I meant to say "a sperm cell and an egg cell *can* become conscious. I know that most zygotes die in the first few weeks.)

WL you said

If you were to plot the probability of a sperm-egg pair reaching consciousness at some point in the future against time, it would resemble a step-function that takes you from almost zero to over 50-50 at the moment of fertilization.

Where do you get "over 50-50"? Not denying, just asking.

RonH

Somewhat pertinent to this thread, ToNy would've nailed the final Jeopardy question from a few nights ago, the answer was about the scientist who's mnemonic device was this: "Kings Play Chess on Fine Grained Sand".

Hi Janny, you said this:"We have an interest in not being killed while we're temporarily unconscious, and we can safely assume that others like us have the same interest; but we can't say this about an embryo which has never been conscious. That would be putting our perspective in its place."


Why can we safely assume this, it it a popularity contest? I think that in this discussion as in the larger population, higher percentages of the population, in fact do attribute "interests" to the FDE or even to the OneDE. Is it by popular vote that we determine whether to invade the womb for the purpose of killing a being that is exactly like you were in a similar stage of your life?

Joe-

Is it equally moral to push a button that has a 1 in 1 million chance of killing an innocent human being and a button that has a 1 in 2 chance of killing an innocent human being?

Ron-

I think I got the 50% figure from the Noonan article on abortion. I could be wrong. Whether the exact percentage is 10% or 80% though, it is many orders of magnitude higher than the probability that any given sperm-egg pair will ever be conscious.

"Is it equally moral to push a button that has a 1 in 1 million chance of killing an innocent human being and a button that has a 1 in 2 chance of killing an innocent human being?"

I don't understand. I don't think this is relevant. It's not an accurate reflection of my point. The button in question has a 1 in 1 chance of killing. The question is whether it matters if the entity killed has a X in Z chance versus a Y in Z chance of eventually developing something that it currently lacks and never had. Does it matter if one entity has orders of magnitude higher probability of becoming conscious compared to another entity?

Let me put it this way. Let's say that we genetically tested an embryo. And let's say that we find a genetic problem that tells us that there is only a 1 in 100 chance that this embryo could develop to the point of being born or to the point of developing consciousness (doesn't really matter which). Is it ok to kill this embryo?

Ok, what if the odds of surviving to consciousness were 1 in 1000? What about 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? What is the exact probability where we cross the line from unacceptable to acceptable with respect to killing the embryo? Given that in all cases, there is a non-zero chance of developing consciousness, how does probability of eventually developing consciousness matter?

Brad B,

Why can we safely assume this [that others like us have an interest in not being killed while they're temporarily unconscious], it it a popularity contest?

Do mean to suggest that we cannot safely assume this about others like us? You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for that.

Or do you mean, if we can make that assumption, why can we not assume the same of embryos? Because embryos don't yet have the infrastructure to support consciousness.

I think that in this discussion as in the larger population, higher percentages of the population, in fact do attribute "interests" to the FDE or even to the OneDE.

Granted. But if you're going to attribute your own interests to an embryo, then there should be no controversy when I point out that they are not the embryo's interests, but your own.

Is it by popular vote that we determine whether to invade the womb for the purpose of killing a being that is exactly like you were in a similar stage of your life?

Wait—aren't you the one trying to invoke popularity?

Joe-

I'm not sure what the the exact probability is or whether there is one. Were it the case that we have gradual increases in the probability of reaching consciousness, we would face subtle and dubious line-drawing arguments.

Fortunately, that is not the situation we have. Nature's God has provided us with significant step at fertilization. There's a bright line drawn there.

Now you ask why the probability of achieving consciousness in the future is so important. The answer is that I'm not sure. It clearly is though. That's why people thought that it was OK to allow Terry Schiavo to die.* Wasn't it? Because sho was gone and had very little chance of returning. And even if you think that T.S. doesn't meet the threshold, its clear enough that at some point you say, turn off the machines, nothing's going to happen to make him wake up.

So the very reasons that the left uses in end-of-life arguments are the reasons that show us that the FDE ought not to be killed, but that we need not consider masturbation a form of murder, or menstruation a form of miscarriage.

The fact of past consciousness, as I already noted, is irrelevant (see my sleeping clone example above).

=================================

*-I'm not saying that it was OK to kill Terry Schiavo, but my main objections have more to do with moral spillover to the survivors...I'm inclined to think that Mrs. Schiavo was long gone from that husk (Of course, I'm no expert on that and I might easily be wrong).

Janney-

I just noticed your response to the sleeping clone thought experiment. Thanks for that.

It seems to me that the case that's most like the FDE is the case where we don't nudge the sleeping clone, we just let nature take its course and it wakes up. Am I permitted at any time prior to that to kill the clone?

To adapt the case of Data and Doctor Soong. Imagine that Soong has already activated Data, but there's a 'spinning up' time. If nature takes its course, Data will be fully autonomous, but he isn't yet. Can Dr' Soong aim his phaser at Data in this time and kill him?

"Were it the case that we have gradual increases in the probability of reaching consciousness, we would face subtle and dubious line-drawing arguments. Fortunately, that is not the situation we have."


But it IS the situation we have, thanks to genetic testing. The scenario I described is rapidly becoming a reality.


"Nature's God has provided us with significant step at fertilization. There's a bright line drawn there."


Your "bright line" is just a change in probabilities. We still have a line drawing problem. You are saying that a one probability, the entity is sacred, but at another probability, the entity is not sacred. It all depends on the probability that something that doesn't have, and has never had, a conscious might one day acquire consciousness.

Yes Joe, it's just a change in probabilities, but it's a large, stepwise change. If you are waiting for a brighter line, you'll have a long wait.

In truth, we don't really face the gradual increase in probabilities problem. Do we? You're just placing a bet that it will work out that way.

If it does work out that way, though, it doesn't say anything about my current point. In nature (not in the lab) there is a bright line drawn at fertilization.

"Yes Joe, it's just a change in probabilities, but it's a large, stepwise change. If you are waiting for a brighter line, you'll have a long wait."

Ok, so you think that the big change in probabilities is significant, and I'm not so sure that this change in probabiliites should alter things or be the deciding factor in terms of what we do with entities like embryos that lack and never had consciousness. Accurate enough summary? If so, I'll let this rest.

"In truth, we don't really face the gradual increase in probabilities problem. Do we?"

Yes, I think that we do. There are genetic abnormalities that we can now detect in embryos that will lead to the conclusion that there is only a 1 in X chance that the embryo will ever develop consciousness (where X is greater than, say, 10). With these abnormalities, we can say that some embryos will develop consciousness before death, but a very large percentage will not. Certain types of trisomies are an example of this.

I think that it's a very safe bet that the number of abnormalities that we will be able to detect will increase with time, and with this increase, we will be filling in the spectrum of the odds. That is, in some cases, we will be able to say that the odds are 1 in 10. In other cases, the abnormality that we will be able to detect will generate odds of consciousness of 1 in 20. In yet other case, the newly detectable defect will give us odds of 1 in 50, etc. Welcome to the brave new world. Medical ethics is going to be a growth industry.

WisdomLover,

It seems to me that the case that's most like the FDE is the case where we don't nudge the sleeping clone, we just let nature take its course and it wakes up. Am I permitted at any time prior to that to kill the clone?

Well, sure. Your original story illustrates a preconscious stage and a conscious stage, with a “bright line” between them; if I didn't know better, I'd have guessed it was an illustration of the distinction between insentience and personhood. Why should you not be permitted to not nudge the clone, or to take it apart again, before it is conscious? It would be no skin off the clone's back. (I'm assuming you don't have investors.) Now you've nudged it, and presto! it's a person—or something just like one—with interests in avoiding pain, continuing to exist, and etc. Killing it would be a simple violation of its interests. That bright line is unrealistic, and a little trippy, but it does make the point.

I think you disagree because you believe that the potential or anticipated consciousness of the clone is sufficient to earn it the “right to life,” but I think this pushes the point beyond what the story can handle. If the clone gains this right at some point during construction, then there exists a time before it gained that right—it would be okay to “kill” it then, would you agree? We have only moved the line (and dimmed it some, probably). On the other hand, surely you don't want to claim that the clone has always had a right to life—before you started construction, before you drew up the plans, before you had the damn idea in the first place. Somewhere in there the analogy fails, I think.

Now it's true that smearing the bright line between stages into a broad, smooth continuum of change would make the story accord better with the reality of prenatal development. But I don't see how it would move you towards the conclusion that “the fact of past consciousness is irrelevant.” Whether a bright line exists or not, the fact remains that consciousness just doesn't happen right away. If it is a meaningful developmental feature at all, then why shouldn't we take its (admittedly vague and approximate) onset into consideration? If it is irrelevant entirely, then why do you seem to care that, “if you let nature take its course, it [an embryo] will become conscious”? And why do people on this thread persist in attributing consciousness, and interests, to embryos?

Hi Janney, there's a lot going on so far, I'll answer your last response here first.

I was challenging your assumption on 2 fronts, in one way it was as you suggested[we should be able to assume this about embryos if you are going to assume] You reject it because of the asserted necessity of prior consciousness. Why do you impose this necessity? You have it now but didn't have it at a prior time. If you are ever going to have interests, you have them at all stages of life since interests *require* safe passage in all stages of life. If you dont have safe passage then, why should you have it now for your future interests. Also[as an aside], do you imply by definition that intersts give some meaning to life?

As to your pardon, by what grounds do you claim that it'll always be so or that it will be safe to believe that our fellow humans will attribute interests to you or anyone else while they are unconscious. I think there are some among us that will not do that even now if given the chance. I have an idea that your position will not be of moral grounds, so what grounds do you hold that it should be so?


>>It is the sort of thing that is incapable of awareness or consciousness.

Not so! It’s the very sort of thing that’s capable of awareness—it’s a human being. Just because it’s not currently aware does not mean it’s not the kind of thing that has those characteristics. It is that kind of thing, just in the very earliest stages. In the same way, a man in a coma is also the kind of thing capable of awareness, though he isn’t currently aware.

But what do you say to the idea that they have an objective interest that exists whether they know it or not?

A sperm is not a human. A human embryo is a human. They’re two completely different kinds of organisms, and we have different obligations to them. We have obligations to humans, not sperm cells.

WL: Am I permitted at any time prior to that to kill the clone?

Janney: Well, sure.

Whoa! You sure you want to stick with that? Remember this is a fully developed human body indistinguishable from a 40-year old human body. It contains a brain that's in exactly the same state as a dreamlessly sleeping 40-year old. It will have normal 40-year old thoughts the moment it wakes up. And if you will just leave it alone, it will wake up in a perfectly normal 40-year old way.

The only thing it doesn't have that distinguishes it from a normal 40-year old is prior consciousness.

It seems to me that what is completely unimportant in this case is the past history of the thing. What's vitally important is the high probability that I will be destroying its future by killing it.

Of course, at some point in the past it was OK to scrub the cloning experiment. I don't disagree with that. I'm not going to give an exact probability, but I will tell you when we've past the point of no return. When the probability the the clone would eventually reach consciousness if nature were just allowed to take its course is orders of magnitude greater than the odds on a given sperm-egg pair acheiving the same outcome, we're past that point.

The comments to this entry are closed.