So It Turns Out Sarah Silverman May Not Be Very Bright

This is some first-class self-beclowning. Unfortunately it occurred when Sarah was trying to be scientific, not comedic.

When most people are looking for qualified scientific opinion, the first place they’re likely to turn is Hollywood. But as it turns out, that might not be the most reliable place to go. One might be better suited to ask, say, someone with scientific knowledge. Who knew?

This valuable lesson was reinforced recently when struggling comic Sarah Silverman made what could be one of the most scientifically-illiterate-statements-while-invoking-science ever made:

In an episode of Hulu’s “I Love You, America,” Silverman claimed: “We’re all human, except for fetuses, according to science.”

Unfortunately, Silverman didn’t decide to inform us precisely what a human fetus was if he or she is not human. Giraffe perhaps? Maybe a fern? It would have been an enlightening and most entertaining question to ask her in a follow-up. But alas we are left to wonder if Silverman has any convincing examples of a fetus emerging from the womb as anything other than a human.

As for the actual scientists who specialize in the field of Human Development, there doesn’t seem to be as much confusion. The consensus (remember how important that term is when discussing other fields of science like, say, global warming) is best articulated by Keith Moore in the 7th edition of his scholarly text “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”:

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Let’s see if we can put this in less technical jargon for those who attempt to dabble in science for their TV shows. The terms “adolescent” and “adult” don’t refer to nonhumans of course, but rather humans at particular stages of development. In the same way, the terms “embryo” and “fetus” don’t refer to nonhumans either; they refer to humans at particular stages of development.

I don’t hold much hope of Silverman being able to grasp this somewhat elementary concept. Not because she lacks the brain, but because she lacks the intellectual integrity to cease her willful suspension of logic. It’s a simple formula for her and others like her.

  1. She knows that it should be illegal to murder humans.
  2. She wants the murder of humans in the womb to be legal.
  3. So she simply pretends the humans in the womb aren’t human.

That’s the same self-beclowning attitude that allowed her to suffer through an interview in the same episode with abortionist Willie Parker who posited this grand theory: pro-lifers who are trying to stop the genocide of black babies being killed in abortion, actually are racists who want more white babies.

The kind of person who thinks that makes sense is the kind of person who would believe a human fetus isn’t a human.

There’s absolutely no remnant of intellectualism or reason left in the abortion movement anymore.

No. 1-3

"Ignorance is not an excuse for STUPIDITY" It is become ever more apparent the the combined IQ of Hollywood, academia and the Media is incapable of jumping into double digits.

The STUPID just gets MORE Stupid.

You have Senator Booker believing he is Spartacus, Senator Warren believing she is an Indian, Jake Tapper & Chuck Todd believing they are Journalists, Hillary Clinton believing she is not a "Deplorable" and Barak Obama believing he is relevant then WHY would you expect the Paper of record who denied the existence of the Holocaust getting ANYTHING correct?

Robert Moore
Robert Moore

Uh, what she said was rather nonsensical. It might even have been facetious. If that's the case, the only clowning that happened here was the right-wing punditry that's picked it up.

A zygote is not a person and does not go to heaven if it dies. That's just absurd. If that's what the author means by "intellectualism" it's not very... intellectual...


Silverman is a progressive....and abortion is foremost in the progressive catechism. And since progressives feel that science is on their side about global warming and the existence of God, they naturally presume that science also backs them up on their abortion claims. Silverman is not especially funny since all she does is ridicule caricatures of conservative positions without doing the same against, without that honesty....that both sides say ridiculous things....the comedy lacks true introspection....and just becomes tedious.

Now if Silverman was trying to make a candid point she could've at least questioned whether a fetus qualifies as a in the 14th amendment's prohibition against a State depriving a "person" of life without due process....but certainly this legal distinction is far less gratifying than declaring a fetus is not quite human....whatever that actually means. but why actually should we care any more about what Silverman says about abortion than her opinions on Kavanaugh, tax cuts, or the NFL protests?