« Is Pregnancy More Risky than Smoking? | Main | Pictures, Pictures, Pictures »
January 17, 2006
Should Humans Have Value Based on Appearance?
PZ Myers posted this picture on his blog:
Cute. The argument here (I’m being generous by the use of that term) is that a human being must not have value based on the fact that it looks like another species at an early stage of development. PZ knows that a human embryo is an individual organism of our species, but since it looks so closely to an embryo of another species (and a much younger one at that) we should value it like a tasteless fast food product.
The implication is clear: the value of a human being is based on their physical appearance. If they look like “an animal”, they must not be valuable (other than for a tasty treat). If they look like “us”, their value rises accordingly.
Unfortunately, in my line of business, I see a number of human beings who do not “look” like the rest of us. I have performed surgery on a victim of a shotgun blast sustained by an off-duty police officer attempting to foil a robbery attempt (which looked similar to the graphic pictures here.) He lost the majority of the soft tissue to his face – and will never look “normal” again. Is he also less than human? I have treated numerous cancer patients who
I have also treated a number of congenital facial anomalies, from simple clefts to complex facial syndromes. Are these children less than human? Should we value them less because of what they look like?
Even more telling is the story of Juliana Wetmore. This little girl was born with Treacher Collins Syndrome, which is a congenital syndrome affecting the bones and soft tissue of the face. She has the worst case I’ve ever seen, which the result of a new genetic mutation. See the amazing video of this little girl here. I have read a number of articles discussing the technical aspects of reconstructing her face – the latest was the use of bone morphogenic protein (BMP) in order to stimulate facial bone growth. Nevertheless, she will never have the appearance of a “normal” human being. Question: which of these persons in this picture are more human?
Once again, the question to ask is how should we value human beings? If we should not value them based on being an individual member of the human family, then on what basis should we value them? Appearance? Maybe the good scientist can justify such a view. As someone who actually treats human beings that do not look “normal”, there are few things more wrong than basing our human value on how we look.
Posted by OMFSerge | January 17, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342034c553ef00d8345a229869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should Humans Have Value Based on Appearance?:
» The Daily Cut - 1/19 from RazorsKiss.net
Cadre Comments reminds apologists of a sin they need to be wary of.
The Good Fight gives his picks for best all-time debates - the catch is well, you'll have to read and find out!
Imago Dei takes PZ Meyers to task for equating human worth wit... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 19, 2006 8:28:18 PM
Comments
You drew that implication, not Myers.
Straw man arguments are one thing, but straw universes! Whew!
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 21, 2006 11:29:37 PM
Maybe I misunderstood Ed. I'd be happy if you could clarify. On what basis, besides physical appearance, does PZ use to compare the value of a human and chicken embryo?
Posted by: Serge | Jan 21, 2006 11:52:45 PM
Dr. Myers makes no comparison of the relative value at all. Did you read his post?
If anything, he's poking fun at the fundamentalists who claim animals have no souls, and consequently little value. His claim is the opposite of yours. He's saying all life has value.
Why didn't you see that, instead of what you saw? It's in your vantage point, not in what Myers said.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 23, 2006 11:28:05 PM
Do you really believe that PZ was comparing the human with a chicken embryo in order to elevate the status of the chicken?
Posted by: Serge | Jan 24, 2006 4:59:06 PM
Myers posted the photos as they came from someone else. They are classic photos that demonstrate similarities chordate embryoes have, which is one thing one would expect if evolution is an accurate theory.
Dr. Myers made absolutely no comment about the relative worth of anything in that post.
Tell you what, why don't you take your complaints over there an post them with the other comments? There's a lot more traffic there -- and with the link, your readers can see what's going on.
Don't take my word for it -- go see for yourself.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 25, 2006 11:15:34 PM
The problem with images and slogans like the ones PZ posted is that they lend themselves to multiple interpretations. Perhaps he had more than one point in mind. If we had pictures of an adult male and were comparing them to, say, ape anatomy, as is often done in evolutionist circles, then it might be interpreted as a simple (simplistic) argument from homology. It might also be saying something about the value of the two relative to one another.
If similarities in prenatal development reinforce evolution, Ed, do the dissimilarities count against it?
Thanks for stopping by.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 26, 2006 7:35:18 AM
Dissimilarities show divergence in evolution -- not evidence against evolution, but when the lines diverged. When one argues against what nature shows, one is arguing at a supreme disadvantage.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 27, 2006 10:19:36 PM
Difficult to falsify that way, isn't it?
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 28, 2006 6:57:51 PM
No, not to anyone paying attention. The divergences should correspond to and corroborate other data, from other sources. Easy to falsify, difficult to fake.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 29, 2006 10:16:20 PM
