O'Reilly and facts on the unborn

[John1956]

The other night Bill O’reilly scolded a letter-writer who challenged the notion that unborn babies are “potential” human beings. I wrote to scold Bill but didn’t get my letter read on the air. So, I am posting it here:

---

Re: Your reply to the Bill Penn letter on 5-28-15

Dear Bill,

You claimed that you have the facts about unborn babies being “potential” human beings. However, standard biology textbooks indicate that the unborn baby, from the moment of fertilization is a human being.

Here is an example to support this fact, from a discussion about the zygote stage of the human being: “This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being” (emphasis in original). Notice that the word “potential” is not used here.

This quote is from page 1 of the embryology textbook by Professor Keith Moore, titled The Developing Human.

---

 

[Vico]

The other night Bill O’reilly scolded a letter-writer who challenged the notion that unborn babies are “potential” human beings. I wrote to scold Bill but didn’t get my letter read on the air. So, I am posting it here:

---

Re: Your reply to the Bill Penn letter on 5-28-15

Dear Bill,

You claimed that you have the facts about unborn babies being “potential” human beings. However, standard biology textbooks indicate that the unborn baby, from the moment of fertilization is a human being.

Here is an example to support this fact, from a discussion about the zygote stage of the human being: “This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being” (emphasis in original). Notice that the word “potential” is not used here.

This quote is from page 1 of the embryology textbook by Professor Keith Moore, titled The Developing Human.

---

I think it likely that he is thinking of the Bioethics use of gastrulation as the earliest moment of becoming a human being. Gastrulation is when three germ layers are present: the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. They have no concept of the soul.

 

[persistent1]

Although Aquinas would also have considered one at or so soon after conception to be a human in potential, even he would argue that frustrating a human life in potential is such grave matter that it would be second only to murder in heinousness. Not recognizing that a person is a person at the moment of conception is no escape from the argument.

 

[John1956]

I just thought it was odd that he claimed to have the “facts” on this when the standard biology textbook I quoted said nothing about a “potential” human being; it said a human being is present at the moment of fertilization. Speaking of facts.