When Human Life Begins

American College of Pediatricians ^ | March 2004 | American College of Pediatricians

[hocndoc]

When Human Life Begins

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

For hundreds of years physicians have pondered on the origin of human life. Aristotle’s work on embryos is considered as the “beginning of the turning of man’s mind away from superstition and conjecture, toward observation.”1 Even though Aristotle is generally regarded as the founder of the science of embryology, his work was actually preceded by that of Hippocrates in his writings about the development of the chick embryo. In the 15th century, Leonardo da Vinci published observations of embryonic and fetal development. In the following century, Marcello Malpighi, aided by the invention of the microscope, erroneously put forth the preformation theory of human development arising from the homunculus. It was the cell theory developed by Schleiden and Schwann in 1839 which recognized that a spermatozoon fuses with an oocyte and forms a zygote, the conception of a new human life.

For over thirty years pediatricians have been advocates for the child from conception.2 Likewise, for over twenty years pediatricians have demanded the full recognition of the rights of the child before birth including “the right to be accepted by family and society, the right to be loved and cared for, and the right to grow and develop without environmental hazards or aggressions.”3

Pediatricians assert the “inherent worth of all children,” considering them as “our most enduring and vulnerable legacy,”4 and they affirm as their mission “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults.”5 For generations pediatricians have regarded the term “children” as inclusive of life from conception.

[biblewonk]

As a Christian a d a pro-lifer I usually get in trouble when I point out that the sin involved in all of these extramarital conceptions is a bigger deal, biblically, than when life begins.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping, BB.

[Skooz]

bump for later

[conservonator]

As a Christian a d a pro-lifer I usually get in trouble when I point out that the sin involved in all of these extramarital conceptions is a bigger deal, biblically, than when life begins.

Only if no attempt to end that life is involved in the equation.

[biblewonk]

That's what I said. "When life begins" being abortion.

[DumpsterDiver]

At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism...

I have zero medical background so can you (or somebody) tell me what the "process of fertilization" entails? Is it completed after the sperm cell breaks through the cell wall of the egg, after implantation, or when?

[conservonator]

That's what I said. "When life begins" being abortion.

That's not at all clear from you post. But then, I may be having a moment... and if that is your point, then why would it make any Christian mad?

[hocndoc]

Don't worry about any lack of medical background. Unfortunately, too many doctors don't understand human embryology as a factual science, and allow their own personal prejudices to dominate their thinking.

Here's an answer from the article:

"""n the words of the ethicist Renée Mirkes: “At the completion of the process of fertilization when the male and female pronuclei of the human progenitors’ sperm and ovum are indistinguishable and lose their nuclear envelopes, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic human organism. This individuated human organism actually has the natural capacity for the person-defining activities of reasoning, willing, desiring, and relating to others. The human individual also possesses the actual, natural capacity to develop continuously into the mature (maximally differentiated) organism of a functional adult human being, the organic structural development of which is under the control of a sequence of primordial centers which begin with nuclear DNA or the genome, and eventually develops into the central nervous system, especially the fully developed brain with its cerebral cortex…The new zygote, a member of the species homo sapiens, with its particular (that is, genome-specific) bodily “matter” unified and organized, that is, formed or enlivened by means of its life principle—the soul and all of its person-defining natural powers---is a whole, living, human person. The difference between the individual in her adult stage and in her zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”19"""

[4CJ]

Bump for the unborn!

[oldcomputerguy]

I'm sorry but life begins when a baby takes it first breath not when a math formula says it does. I am neither prolife nor prochoice, it is just logic to me and in my view to nature too.

[DumpsterDiver]

"At the completion of the process of fertilization when the male and female pronuclei of the human progenitors' sperm and ovum are indistinguishable and lose their nuclear envelopes, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic human organism."

So far, so good but I'm still wondering if this occurs before or after implantation. I'll go read the entire article and maybe check Google. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Drago]

"I'm sorry but life begins when a baby takes it first breath..."

I would love to hear the logic behind that statement! (I think he is tying it into the "viability" argument...but of course the viability age of a baby has changed drastically in the last 30 years, and you can't say that what constitutes a baby today was NOT a baby in say 1960)

[betty boop]

dear Patrick, you're welcome!

[Trinity_Tx]

"At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development."

Great article... but y'all better correct them about their misguided use throughout it of that specious, politically-created "zygote stage". <huge grin>

[MHGinTN]

I wrote something just for folks like you wishing to understand this 'stuff' better. Please feel free to download and share the manuscript linked at http://weneedtalk.blogspot.com [ CLICK HERE SHORTCUT ]

For quick reference, the first cell of a new individual (the conceptus formed by union of a human sperm and an human ovum) is the zygote age of at least that individual human (and perhaps one or two more if twinning occurs later). The zygote age is several days before implantation ... and the gestational development of a human individual need no longer occur in a woman's body! This is all explained in the manuscripted linked above. And thank you for asking, rather than scoffing like some do when they don't get it at first glance.

[MHGinTN]

I usually leave off the "s" & "t", since a new individual human is present so the aging has begun.

[aruanan]

I'm sorry but life begins when a baby takes it first breath not when a math formula says it does. I am neither prolife nor prochoice, it is just logic to me and in my view to nature too.

Remember, logic is never a guarantee of truth. It's only a way of moving to the correct conclusion from the premises, even if the premises are contrary to fact.

All creatures with wings are butterflies.
The bat is a creature with wings.
Therefore, the bat is a butterfly.

The logic is sound. There is no doubt about the conclusion. It just happens to be factually incorrect, though entirely logical.

Saying that a baby isn't "alive" until it has taken its first breath is simply an arbitrary distinction. One could say, though, that a baby that isn't respiring is not alive. But a baby pre-birth is respiring from the moment of conception--the means just changes as developmentally appropriate. As the individual develops, its means of respiration changes from the simple diffusion needed by a single or small multicelled organism to the organ-based respiration of placental gas exchange to the organ-based respiration of pulmonary gas exchange. A living developing baby doesn't take its first breath until it is developmentally appropriate for it to do so. And, were it not alive and developing, it could never reach the developmental stage where respiration via breathing is necessary. It is, though, without doubt, a respiring individual. To state that only respiration involving the use of lungs makes the baby alive is, as stated above, simply an arbitrary distinction.

The origin of the "not alive until breathing" criterion is most likely the "not human until breathing because that's when the soul enters the body" argument. And the origin of this is probably the story of God breathing into Adam and Adam becoming a 'living soul'. Notice, though, God didn't breathe life into Eve. Her life was derived from Adam's. So does that mean that women have no soul?

Some would say (and I have heard them say it), well, it's when they start breathing that the spirit enters into them. If that's so, then they can't use God's breathing into Adam as the justification for the concept of breathing in air as the vehicle of soul delivery. God may have breathed into Adam, but he doesn't do it for anyone else. There is no such doctrine taught in the Bible.

For that matter, all air-breathing animals are described in Genesis as having 'the breath of life', but they are described as being qualitatively different than Adam and Eve. The animals having the 'breath of life' doesn't constitute their getting a soul and being human because of it. The word translated as 'living soul' isn't referring to the concept of an immortal spirit anyway. It's better translated as 'living being'.

Besides, as far as what the Bible teaches about the unborn, it is about as far as one can get from an idea of the unborn child not being human: "Lord, you knew me before I ever was; before I put on flesh, you knew me." The unborn John was said to have leapt in Elizabeth's womb for joy at hearing Mary's salutation. This doesn't support the unbreathing non-souled fetus hypothesis.

But maybe that happened after 'quickening', after the soul entered the fetus. "quickening" is another idea used to excuse abortions, as though before this point the fetus was inert and soulless, after which it was obviously active and living. This is merely a matter of phenomenology. Though there may be a point before which a woman can feel the fetus move, there is not a point before which the fetus isn't actively developing according to its own time table. Weird, though not surprising, that people should use some point where something about the fetus becomes obvious to them as the point before which they can feel comfortable in deciding to off it. If obviousness is the criterion, then the obviousness of the missed menstruation should be enough. And, also not surprisingly, it is enough for those who were anxiously hoping for conception. That point marks for them them beginning of their child.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Years ago, I heard an obstetrician giving an interview on television.

He said he feels so fortunate, because on a daily basis he gets to witness miracles as they happen.

I think the doctor's wisdom is a miracle, too.

[hocndoc]

You have expressed a personal statement of faith which is not consistent with science - or the fact that the child moves within the uterus, can be observed in the petri dish as well as by ultrasound from fertilization.

Did you read the position statement or notice that the sponsoring group is a group of well respected Pediatricians ?(and a few associate members like me - I'm a family physician)

[hocndoc]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

No, the fertilization takes place in the fallopian tubes or a petri dish/flask. The new member of the species begins life about 5 to 8 days (in nature) before implantation.

The location does not determine species.