The busiest abortionist

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby DR. ABBY HAFER

JUL 06, 2022

busiest abortionist
Shutterstock

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

“They took it out in pieces,” she told me.  

My friend was discussing a pregnancy that she had very much wanted as a married woman in her 20s. It had failed inside her and had to be removed, as she said, in pieces. Otherwise, she would have died of sepsis. She was devastated by this loss. Whether this is what led to the failure of her marriage a year or so later is anybody’s guess.

Women often feel guilty if their pregnancy miscarries. Religious women are often told that their bodies are the result of “Intelligent Design,” and the expectation is that their bodies are the perfect retorts for growing and continuing a pregnancy.  Even those who are not religious tend to think that our bodies, having evolved over millions of years, must be nearly perfectly adapted for the process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. 

Yes, our bodies did evolve. But evolution’s standard for the success of a system is not perfection, or even near-perfection. The standard for success in an evolved system is, “It doesn’t cause death before reproduction too often.” That’s a pretty low standard. It takes no account of human suffering, and it certainly takes no account of the occasional unsuccessful embryo. So long as enough people survive to reproduce, the species keeps going. Deaths or disfigurements in individual conceptuses don’t matter, so long as the population itself continues.

As a result, a human pregnancy is actually a pretty tenuous affair. One thing that would help women in general—and men as well—would be an understanding of just how tenuous a situation a human pregnancy actually is. 

 When does the soul enter the body?

We are not helped by the fact that anti-abortionists often claim that “life” begins at conception,  especially since what is formed at conception is a cell with a new combination of DNA. The life that allows that DNA molecule to replicate is the woman’s life.

However, when anti-abortionists talk about life “beginning” at conception, what they actually mean is that they believe a divine soul is actively placed into a fertilized egg at the exact moment that egg and sperm fuse. This imagined process of God turning it from meat into a human being by inserting a soul is called “ensoulment.”

The life that allows that DNA molecule to replicate is the woman’s life.

The issue of ensoulment is a matter that religious philosophers have discussed for many hundreds of years. 

In earlier eras, ensoulment was thought to happen at quickening, which was when movements inside the uterus were first experienced. Others have argued that ensoulment doesn’t take place until a baby, outside of the mother’s body, draws its first breath. 

Fertilization was only discovered after the invention of the microscope

What earlier thinkers did not think was that ensoulment took place at conception. Why didn’t they think that? Because prior to the advent of modern science, nobody knew what conception actually was. In Biblical times, nobody knew what happens at fertilization.

What actually happens at fertilization could only be discovered after the invention of the microscope. And following that invention, it still took a great deal of painstaking scientific research to figure out that sperm and egg have to meet and fuse for fertilization to take place. This painstaking research involved, among other things, putting pants on frogs. I am not kidding. 

How do you draw the line for the existence of something that doesn’t exist?

Since there is no evidence of a non-corporeal soul, and certainly no way of measuring its presence or absence, religious philosophers have always been at a loss for telling when a soul enters a body. Because a soul is immeasurable and indeed undetectable, once science discovered the fertilization of eggs, religious-philosophical cowards decided that the winking into existence of a human soul took place right at the moment of fertilization.

Why? Because they were unable to figure out where or how to draw a line. A fertilized egg changes into a born baby gradually through a continuous process. But the naïve religious concept of a binary “soul” insists that the soul either exists fully complete or does not exist at all. Further, it switches from one to the other in an instant—a serious mismatch with the reality of gestation and birth.

Faced with a difficult decision, many religious philosophers wimped out. They were actively unwilling to think about evidence of prenatal development.

They were also unwilling to make hard decisions. There is no evidence for a soul existing at the moment of conception or any other. However, the entire religious belief in a binary on-or-off soul depends on drawing a line someplace. So they decided to play it safe, drawing the line right at the moment of conception. It’s a lazy, cowardly person’s choice.

What does this have to do with miscarriages?

But we were talking about miscarriages, and about a divine soul being placed into a fertilized egg by God himself, at the moment of conception. Of these two ideas, only one is a fact. And the fact is that pregnancies miscarry at an alarming rate. Further, these two ideas—ensoulment and miscarriage—stand in direct contradiction to one another. 

The other term for miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.”  Conservative religions go out of their way to ignore the fact that women’s bodies are hives of spontaneous abortions. These happen routinely in humans.

Conservative religions go out of their way to ignore the fact that women’s bodies are hives of spontaneous abortions.

Where human women are concerned, the bald fact is that over 31 percent of all fertilized eggs fail to result in living babies—a conservative estimate based on careful research.

I am not now talking about human-induced abortions but spontaneous miscarriages.

What’s more, according to careful research reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 25 percent of all fertilized eggs do not even manage to implant on the lining of the uterus, which is just the first step in a pregnancy after fertilization.

Twenty-five percent of all fertilized eggs live for only about ten days, then fail to implant. They die and pass out of the body along with menstrual fluid. This in turn means that every year many millions of fertilized eggs come into existence and then die about ten days later as undifferentiated clumps of cells. The remaining six percent of spontaneous abortions happen after implantation.

All this is supposedly God’s work. 

This means that for every 100 live births, there were at least 45 spontaneous abortions.

So we must ask ourselves: Why, if God creates these souls at conception, does he then destroy so many of them before they even have a chance to breathe? Before they ever experience life outside the womb? Before they can ever have the experience of being human? Before they can ever have an interaction with the world, which we are told, is necessary in order to find their way to God? 

These numbers show that the human female reproductive system is far from perfect. In fact, anyone who argues that the human body is the result of intelligent design has clearly never taken a close look at the female reproductive system, or for that matter the male one.  

In human females, gestation is frequently incomplete and often results in a naturally aborted fetus.

There were approximately 130 million babies born worldwide in 2018, which means approximately 58.5 million spontaneous, natural abortions in that year alone.

If God gives life to each embryo at the exact moment when egg meets sperm as conservative Christians claim, then God subsequently kills tens of millions of little unborn babies every year. Put another way, God performs tens of millions of abortions every year.

God, if he exists, is by far the world’s busiest abortionist.

A biologist explains why ‘heartbeat laws’ are nonsensical

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby DR. ABBY HAFER

MAY 06, 2022

a biologist explains why heartbeat laws are nonsensical | heart cell and pulse line
Shutterstock/YouTube screenshot

Overview

The proliferation of anti-abortion ‘heartbeat laws’ cynically conflate the spontaneous pulsing of cardiac cells with the beating of a heart, and the beating of a heart with the presence of a soul. Such magical thinking belongs nowhere near the laws of a secular democracy

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

A scientist is working in her lab, quietly culturing heart cells. She puts Petri dishes full of them into an incubator to grow. A few days later, she takes them out and inspects them under a microscope to see if they have multiplied as she wanted. 

As she innocently adjusts her scope, she sees—they are beating. What’s more, when she puts two of them near each other, they beat together! When she moves all of them together, they still beat together, in one great throbbing mass!  “IT’S ALIIIIVE!” she shrieks.


That scientist would be me. I didn’t really shriek, “It’s alive!” But I did see individual heart cells beating, cells that I had cultured, beating with no brain, nerves, organism, or even heart around them. They just contracted rhythmically—that is to say, they beat—all by themselves. 

Because that’s what heart cells do. 

Biologists sometimes have weird jobs. One summer, I worked in a lab that looked at how embryonic heart cells take up various chemicals. One of my jobs was to culture the heart cells— that is to say, grow them. I dissected embryonic chickens, took out the hearts, dissolved the connective tissue between the cells, and spread the cells out in Petri dishes along with the food and fluids they would need to be happy. Then I put them into incubators, hoping they would multiply.

After a few days, I took them out and checked them under a microscope to see if they were multiplying. And sometimes, when I looked at them, they were beating. The individual heart cells kind of looked like they were twinkling, with their little, individual contractions.

As for putting them together to see if they beat together, I didn’t actually do that. But other scientists have done so, and that’s exactly what they found: when cardiac muscle cells are placed together, they will beat together. It’s so well established that it’s common knowledge, written into textbooks. We know that they do it, and we know why they do it. Here’s a paragraph about this from the textbook Anatomy and Physiology:

If embryonic heart cells are separated into a Petri dish and kept alive, each is capable of generating its own electrical impulse followed by contraction.

It goes on to say:

When two independently beating embryonic cardiac muscle cells are placed together, the cell with the higher inherent rate sets the pace, and the impulse spreads from the faster to the slower cell to trigger a contraction.

In short, it is not mysterious, it is not magic. It’s biology doing what biology has evolved to do.

The anti-abortion movement’s cynical “heartbeat laws” are all manipulation, no science

There are many so-called “heartbeat laws” on the books in the United States at this time, laws that outlaw abortion after an embryonic “heartbeat” has been detected. Many others have been proposed. The most egregious current example is the law in Texas that states that a woman may not get an abortion after she has been pregnant for six weeks. Specifically, it bans abortion after cardiac activity is detectable. Other states are following suit as of this writing.

To most people, “cardiac activity” and “heartbeat” sound synonymous, and this mistaken assumption has been exploited by those who wish to deny women their right to an abortion. 

The assumption may be easy to make, but it is glaringly incorrect, as is illustrated by the narrative that began this article. It’s simple: heart cells beat all by themselves, entirely on their own. If an individual heart cell is alive, it contracts in a rhythmic manner—that is to say, it beats. “Cardiac activity” means that a few heart cells are alive and beating, not that a heart actually exists.  A true heartbeat, on the other hand, is, technically speaking, the beating of a heart. An actual complete heart, not a few cardiac muscle cells. A complete heart does not exist at six weeks’ gestation. 

To further illustrate just how independent a heart cell’s beating is from there being an actual living organism, consider the following two facts:

1) Beating heart cells need not come from an embryo. At Vienna University of Technology, descendants of stem cells called progenitor cells were induced to become heart cells in a laboratory, and they too beat on their own, in a Petri dish.

YouTube video

2) It is also possible for a person who is brain dead to still have a beating heart.

Heart and soul

If all of this seems spooky, it is largely because we incorrectly but understandably associate a beating heart with an intrinsic, even mystical life force; it is associated with the presence of a soul itself.

Ancient Egyptians and some ancient Greeks believed that the heart housed the soul, as well as our ability to think. Christianity adopted the idea that the heart is the seat of consciousness, intelligence, free personality, intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong, and a place over which God could have direct influence. These feelings continue in our culture to this day.  

But what we know, through science, is that the heart is a muscle that pumps blood throughout the body. We know that a heart can be transplanted from a dead person to someone else, and that a soul is not transplanted at the same time. We know that cardiac muscle cells will contract in a rhythmic manner, regardless of the state of the body around it, or even the existence of a body around it, or even the existence of a heart around it. 

The religious idea that the heart is the seat of the soul stalks the subject of abortion. In fact, in general, the religious concept of “ensoulment” has been the unspoken underpinning of the anti-abortion movement for decades.

The religious idea that the heart is the seat of the soul stalks the subject of abortion.

“Ensoulment” is the idea that there is a specific moment when a developing embryo is endowed with a soul. Once a divine soul is placed in an embryo, terminating that embryo is thought to constitute the murder of a divine soul.

The laws of a secular democracy should offer no place for magical thinking of this kind. When anti-abortionists ask “When does life begin?”, they are really asking, “When does life with a soul begin?” It should be noted that no one is arguing about whether or not the organism created through conception is alive.

The egg and sperm were alive. The parents were alive. All the ancestors back to the dawn of life on the planet were alive. Life is involved at every juncture before, during, and after conception. So the question “When does life begin?” regarding pregnancy is a nonsensical one. Once you realize this, you see that the question is a stand-in for ensoulment. 

“Cardiac activity” is likewise a stand-in for ensoulment. When such activity begins, it only means that some individual heart cells are alive. The sound is nothing more than the greatly-amplified rhythmic contracting of a collection of muscle cells that do not form a heart.

It needs to be stated in plain English: All anti-abortion fetal “heartbeat laws” are based on unscientific nonsense and should be abrogated. Cardiac muscle cells will contract on their own, even in a Petri dish, with no brain, no nervous system, no organism, and no heart attached to these cells. A “heartbeat” at six weeks’ gestation does not involve an actual heart. Further, muscle cells contracting are not the sign of a soul.

And regardless of the beliefs in the individual minds of citizens, the concept of a soul has no place in the laws of a secular democracy.