Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans

The Age (Australia) ^ | November 5, 2003 | Peta Rasdien

[MHGinTN]

ping ... If you would like off this pro-life ping list, drop a freepmail on me

[GeekDejure]

Well... at least at 14 days some freeky so-called doctor can't ram a pliars into you and then suck your brains out !!!

.

[OpusatFR]

Why, I had absolutely no idea God was on not only Greenwich Mean Time, but that His day had 24 hours.

[mcg1969]

Good post, MHGinTN, but would you be so kind as to explain how the twinning process fits into your analysis? In other words, if a 7-day embryo is indeed a unique, protected human life, then how is that only a few days later it can suddenly become two? I hope I don't sound condescending, I'm asking my question seriously.

I'm pro-life but I have always been uneasy defining a "full human life" as beginning at conception, and this long before I had even heard of notions of stem cell harvesting and cloning.

When I read that Scripture talks about God knitting me together in the womb, I see it as a process not an event: that if I were to stop a woman from knitting a sweater a minute after she began knitting it, I would hardly be destroying a sweater.

Similarly, I consider God's formation of Adam in Genesis. He formed him from the dust, and then breathed life into him. Had God been somehow interrupted during the formation process, would the perpetrator be guilty of murder, or of an offense comparable to diving into a pile of freshly raked leaves?

Having said that, I've had the privilege of seeing an ultrasound of my own child only a few short weeks after conception---long before many people even realize they are pregnant. I would never have dreamed of intentionally harming that innocent life at this stage, nor would I like to see anyone else do the same to theirs.

[Tac12]

Hmm, I think it is after 17 days, 2 hours, 14 minutes
and 3 seconds.

[MHGinTN]

I just e-mailed the AM, because I had written a paragraph addressing twinning, but it didn't make it into the transcibing of the post! I don't know why. But here goes a short explanation.

During the travels from conceprion to exit into the uterus, the embryo takes on the appearance of a mulberry fruit, thus it is called a 'morula'. Twinning may occur from the totipotent and pluripotent cells of the morula. But the false 'christian' Archbissect is caliming a logical fallacy, that because a second individual may emerge from the morula package there isn't a first individual present in the morula package.

In science, the zygote is the first celled age of the entire lifetime of at least one new human being begun at fusion of parent chromosomes. Every cell from then onward, for trillions of cells, will have that same 46 chromosome identity ... but it is possible for a second or even third individual to arise from that 46 chromosome beginning and it doesn't negate the fact that at least one individual began at the fusion of the parent chromosomes.

[FixitGuy]

Pardon me for being obtuse, but what the heck is the big difference between fertilization and the egg renting a room in the womb?

The big argument today is the partial birth of a child and the murderous act of ramming scissors into its brain.

(It disgusts me to even type that.)

But talk about a "moot point"; fertilization or 14 days after? What am I missing?

[FixitGuy]

Oh. Stem cell farming.

Sorry I missed the point!

[wardaddy]

Did you hear Liddy this AM?

[Sloth]

I'll just let my tagline address this one.

[MHGinTN]

No, I never get to listen to G. Gordon, but I'd like to if scheduling permitted it.

[wardaddy]

He had Doug Johnson on.

[MHGinTN]

I'm sorry; which Doug Johnson?

[syriacus]

Nice synopsis, MHGinTN.

[mcg1969]

OK, I appreciate your response. But please allow me to suggest that it's one thing to disagree with him on this and another entirely to call him a "false 'christian' Archbissect". I'm certain that we believers are called to demonstrate more unity in the face of disputable matters. And frankly we Christians tend to believe that far too many things are indisuputable.

Lest you think this issue is indisputable, let me tell you that I personally am not 100% convinced by your arguments. They are indeed intelligent and compelling but not watertight. The presence of 46 chromosomes does not necessarily connote identity. After all, if someone takes a biopsy of living tissue, the cells taken do not immediately die, and they all have my 46 chromosomes---and nobody would claim that they have the rights of an individual. Now obviously they will die momentarily from lack of nourishment, but so would a zygote forcibly removed from implantation, so in that sense the two are not appreciably different.

I'm sure you have a response for this---but my point is that this is an arguable issue. And between Christians we have to be more gracious.

[syriacus]

I'm not sure how this would add to the discussion but here goes...

Identical twins can differ

Even identical twins can have biological differences. Identical twins do have the same genes but never the same mitochondria (which also contain genetic material). The mitochondria split into two different sets at the very first division of the fertilized egg-before twinning occurs.

[syriacus]

After all, if someone takes a biopsy of living tissue, the cells taken do not immediately die, and they all have my 46 chromosomes---and nobody would claim that they have the rights of an individual.

Because, as they are, those cells would not grow into an individual, even if they were kept alive.

[MattAMiller]

In this instance, I consider "playing God" as determining what is alive and what isn't.

It would be hard to got hrough life without determining whether various things are alive or not. In fact this thread seems to mostly consist of people debateing various ways to tell whether or not something is alive.

[Cultural Jihad]

Archbishop Carnley said that until it was implanted in a womb lining, a fertilised egg was not a human life but rather a genetically novel kind of cell.

More superstitutious nonsense from the Charch of England which likes to try to catch up with the world rather than with the Holy Spirit.

[syriacus]

Genetic causes of phenotypic variation in monozygotic twins with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

...there is substantial evidence that discordance between MZ twins in fact has a genetic component. MZ twins develop from a separation of the embryonic cells at any point from the two-cell stage up until as late as day 8 when the primordial streak has already started to form.[4] The timing of the separation has consequences for the genetic composition of each twin, as the cells become more heterogeneous with time with respect to the mitochondria they carry [5] and the pattern of methylation, and hence potential gene expression, they display.[6]

I wonder if Archbishop Carnley would be willing to change his deadline a little. Maybe, if he is looking for some arbitrary cutoff date, he should say that embryos up to 8 days, not 14 days, can be destroyed.