Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research.
Dianne N. Irving
Guild of St. Luke White Mass Presentation
St. John Seminary, Boston Archdiocese
Boston, Massachusetts
Copyright October 14, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION1
Has anyone noticed lately how so many words and phrases from diverse issues and diverse fields have taken on some odd and rather funny, amusing new meanings? Sort of a "cultural phenomenon" - owed in no small measure to the French philosopher and Father of Deconstructionism Jacques Derrida who just recently passed away - perhaps! Such ingenuity should surely not go unrecognized. So I thought it would be interesting to start collecting some of these gems from time to time, just for fun! I call them "gobbledygooks."
The definition of a "gobbledygook" is an amazingly broad and rich one. For example, dictionaries give the following: GOBBLEDYGOOK: (noun) nonsense; junk; psychobabble; non sequitur; absurdity; fraud; trick. (adj.): foolish; fake; meaningless; irrational; unreal; cunning; tricky; deceitful; disingenuous; crafty, etc.
Examples of "gobbledygooks" would include: 2 + 2 = 37. Carbon is water. Chicago is in Florida. The moon is made of blue cheese. Water boils at six degrees Fahrenheit. Squares are circles. The Statue of Liberty is in the Chesapeake Bay. Napoleon was Chinese. And geese lay golden eggs. Well - you get the picture. Gobbledygooks are not just factually wrong. They fly in the face of common sense!
The field of medicine has its own "gobbledygooks" - like, handing the new mother her "product of conception", or "pregnancy begins at implantation". But what I want to share with you is a related and equally amusing list of gobbledygooks from the field of science - specifically, terms that began their lives in the early abortion debates, but have since shifted into the current ones on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research. It constitutes, in fact, The Mystery of "The Disappearing Human Embryo". And although these gobbledygooks currently lurk mostly in the halls of research labs and pages in biotech journals, physicians and other health care workers should expect them to recycle back into the daily practice of medicine at any moment now.
II. HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Because of the time restraints, let me cut right to the core of these scientific gobbledygooks - i.e., the deconstruction of the science of human embryology for political or other purposes -
"........... "
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeSpeciesist propaganda.
Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research.
Dianne N. Irving
Guild of St. Luke White Mass Presentation
St. John Seminary, Boston Archdiocese
Boston, Massachusetts
Copyright October 14, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION1
Has anyone noticed lately how so many words and phrases from diverse issues and diverse fields have taken on some odd ...[text shortened]... ..... "
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html
I agree with most of the science discussed, but when the article starts talking about personhood, that's when the 'gobbledygook' rears its ugly head. Most egregious is the fact that the article's only 'argument' against "delayed personhood" really just amounts to a straw man in almost all cases. The article only considers one very extreme Actual Possession Criterion for personhood (when it talks about rational attributes and sentience) and then tries to show that such a criterion would lead to absurd conclusions. But this is completely irrelevant to all views of "delayed personhood" (including mine) that don't adopt such an extreme criterion of personhood; moreover, even for someone who holds such an extreme Actual Possession Criterion view, he could still argue against "slippery slope" notions based on other grounds (e.g., prudential or utilitarian reasons). The Actual Possession Criterion that the article considers is so extreme that fully developed human beings who are sleeping are not persons. Like I said, it's a straw man.
Originally posted by LemonJello.... and what about "the deconstruction of the science of human embryology for political or other purposes " ?
Speciesist propaganda.
I agree with most of the science discussed, but when the article starts talking about personhood, that's when the 'gobbledygook' rears its ugly head. Most egregious is the fact that the article's only 'argument' against "delayed personhood" really just amounts to a straw man in almost all cases. The article only considers one v ped human beings who are sleeping are not persons. Like I said, it's a straw man.
Have you read the whole article or did you stop after what she wrote about "delayed personhood" ?
After your and my remarks about my use of the terms "mother" and "child" instead of your "woman" and "fetus" in the "Abortion stops a bleeding heart" thread, I thought it would be nice to post this article, don't you agree ? It adresses in essence the same problem.
From the article's conclusion: " ..... But it is even worse than that. As Josef Pieper55 has wisely noted, "The place of authentic reality is taken over by a fictitious reality; my perception is indeed still directed toward an object, but now it is a pseudo-reality, deceptively appearing as being real, so much so that it becomes almost impossible any more to discern the truth." This is precisely what bothered Plato with his own contemporary Sophists. What makes the sophists so dangerous, said Plato, is that they "fabricate a fictitious reality." That the real world in which we all live can be taken over by pseudo-realities whose fictitious nature threatens to become unnoticed is truly a depressing thought. And yet this Platonic nightmare possesses an alarming contemporary relevance, for the general public is being reduced to a state where people are not only unable to find out about the truth, but also become unable even to search for it.
Now, others might think this is all very funny - just "mental gymnastics", "gobbledygooks", or "fairy tales". But it isn't. It is now reality. The way I see it is best summed up by the progenitor of French philosopher Derrida - Lewis Carroll:
"When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty," which is to be master -- that's all."
[Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll: http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm ]
Originally posted by ivanhoeOverall, I think the article says nothing of importance and boils down simply to semantics. Whether we call the thing that exists at conception an 'organism' or 'being' or 'embryo' or 'zygote' or 'ball of goo', the point is that it is not morally considerable and doesn't have rights at conception.
.... and what about "the deconstruction of the science of human embryology for political or other purposes " ?
EDIT: Of course, semantics can be important if we are trying to remain objective. We should be using accurate terminology. That's not where I disagree with the article.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI thought you studied philosophy. Am I mistaken ?
Overall, I think the article says nothing of importance and boils down simply to semantics. Whether we call the thing that exists at conception an 'organism' or 'being' or 'embryo' or 'zygote' or 'ball of goo', the point is that it is not morally considerable and doesn't have rights at conception.
PS: I edited my post. Please reread it.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, I study philosophy.
I thought you studied philosophy. Am I mistaken ?
PS: I edited my post. Please reread it.
I agree that, from a scientific viewpoint, a human organism, or human being, comes into existence at conception. The problem, of course, is that many people incorrectly equate 'human being' with 'person'. This is exactly what your article does at just about every turn, and it is a throw away piece of speciesist literature. When it does confront the actual substance of personhood debate, it only brings up one silly straw man argument.
Originally posted by LemonJello" .... the deconstruction of the science of human embryology for political or other purposes "
Yes, I study philosophy.
I agree that, from a scientific viewpoint, a human organism, or human being, comes into existence at conception. The problem, of course, is that many people incorrectly equate 'human being' with 'person'. This is exactly what your article does at just about every turn, and it is a throw away piece of speciesist literature. W ...[text shortened]... t the actual substance of personhood debate, it only brings up one silly straw man argument.
I repeat: Have you read the whole article ? ( ... and my second post in this thread ?)
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, I read the article. I didn't read all the footnotes/reference discussion.
" .... the deconstruction of the science of human embryology for political or other purposes "
I repeat: Have you read the whole article ? ( ... and my second post in this thread ?)
And, yes, I read your second post.