Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:22 PM PST by NYer
Almost anyone with a high school education can correctly answer the question “When does human life begin?” by responding “at conception” or at “fertilization” of a human egg by a sperm cell. While we may not understand, or only vaguely recall, the precise process by which an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique human being, this basic truth about human life falls into the category of things we can’t not know.
Yet today, many educated people who do know better assert that human life begins at some later stage of development.
They arbitrarily push forward the starting point to implantation or viability, or even birth and beyond, to accommodate their approval of abortifacient drugs and devices, in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, lethal embryo research (including embryonic stem-cell research), chemical and surgical abortion, and eugenic infanticide.
Because such confusion arises more from muddled values than a misunderstanding of basic science, one might think that the white paper “When Does Human Life Begin?: A Scientific Perspective” would have limited usefulness. To the contrary, the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person in Thornwood, N.Y., has done a great service to the public debate and to policymakers by publishing such a paper, authored by Maureen Condic, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Based on her objective review of current scientific evidence in human embryology, Condic convincingly demonstrates that a new human organism (an embryo that is called a “zygote” in its one-celled form) comes into being at the moment when the sperm and egg fuse. This occurs mere seconds after the sperm has penetrated the thin layer of protein enveloping the egg.
Her evidence refutes the recent assertions of some scientists that a human life begins at the eight-cell stage when gene transcription begins, or four days post-fertilization when the inner cell mass forms distinct from placental cells, or at 5 to 6 days when the embryo implants in the uterine wall. Condic demonstrates that each of these events — like a baby’s first tooth or the onset of puberty — are simply milestones along life’s path and “not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity.”
And her proof also counters the claim of some scientists (reflected in many textbooks and even legal codes) that a human organism begins to exist only at “syngamy,” an event that occurs roughly 24 hours after the sperm enters the egg.
Recall that every cell has a nucleus where the cell’s DNA is located. A thin membrane separates the nucleus from the rest of the cell (cytoplasm). In a new human embryo, however, there are briefly two nuclei — one with dad’s DNA and one with mom’s. Before the first cell division takes place, the DNA from mom and dad (23 chromosomes each) have to match up and copy themselves.
To do that, the membranes surrounding their nuclei need to break down. That event is called syngamy.
Condic shows how the zygote is already behaving like an organism before syngamy because factors from the sperm and egg are “interact[ing] coordinately to orchestrate subsequent development.” The zygote already possesses DNA different from his or her mother and father and is “carry[ing] on the activities of life” with “organs that are separate … but mutually dependent.”
For example, within minutes after the sperm enters the cytoplasm of the egg, the new zygote sends out chemical signals that change the outer protein layer to prevent other sperm from entering the zygote.
Within 30 minutes of the sperm entering the egg, factors contributed by the sperm signal the nucleus of the egg to reduce its two sets of DNA to one. Within the first hour, proteins contributed by the sperm interact with chemicals in the zygote to create changes that will allow the zygote to begin dividing and growing. The nuclei are already being directed to line up across from each other for the first cell division.
Also, as Condic notes, the breakdown of the membranes separating the nuclei from the sperm and egg “is not a unique, ‘zygote-forming’ event, but rather it is part of every round of cell division that occurs through life.”
In this summary form I’ve just given, it may be difficult to follow the complex interplay of paternal and maternal factors within the newly formed zygote. Fortunately, Condic takes pains to walk us through these first essential “baby steps” of every new human life. The white paper also contains illustrations and a very helpful glossary to aid in understanding these intricate processes.
Writing as a scientist, Condic criticizes analogies comparing the development of human embryos to manufactured products, even when the embryos’ lives begin in a laboratory. Conceptualizing human procreation as a manufacturing process encourages erroneous thinking that the human being does not fully exist until viability or birth, when all the steps of the manufacturing process presumably are completed — in the case of a car, when it is fully assembled and ready to leave the factory.
But cars, unlike people, are built externally by others acting on them, building and assembling components. In contrast, she explains, the defining feature of the human zygote is that it has the power “both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures.” Thus, from the first moment of fusion between sperm and egg, everything necessary to develop the adult human being is present, provided the new human embryo is allowed to develop in a safe environment and is able to access nutrition.
“When Does Human Life Begin” comes at a critical time. The new administration and many members of the next Congress are already championing policies that will put nascent human lives at even greater risk than they are today.
Federal funding and a vast expansion of human embryonic stem-cell research is almost a foregone conclusion. Our next president strongly supports such funding, and he can reverse the Bush moratorium with an executive order.
The president-elect also has cosponsored legislation to greatly increase government funding of contraception, including abortifacients, and mandate contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies.
Annually, over 100,000 children are born in the United States as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. Most people are unaware that in the process of making these children, hundreds of thousands of sibling-embryos die or are killed.
In addition, President-elect Obama has promised Planned Parenthood that his “first act” as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a law that will effectively wipe out 35 years’ of pro-life laws at the state and federal levels. Many of these laws have been shown to reduce abortions and, in their absence, we can expect abortion rates to increase.
Many Americans are weary of political battles and deeply concerned about the economy and other issues that touch their families. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the legalized killing that’s occurring in our country on an unprecedented scale. What lofty ideal does America still represent when its foundational principle — the inherent, God-given right to life of every human being — is violated by the very institutions entrusted with caring for the lives of vulnerable people: the family, the medical profession and the state?
We must urgently convey to our fellow citizens the inherent value and dignity of every human being. From the first moment of conception to one’s natural death, every human being, regardless of size, age, sex, race, mental or physical ability, is a unique and irreplaceable creature, made in God’s image and infinitely loved by God. Every life is, therefore, worthy of protection and concern. There are no exceptions. Laws that tolerate exceptions are unjust and must be opposed.
Condic and the Westchester Institute are to be applauded for rigorously defining the beginning point of each human life from the perspective of science. The white paper should prove to be an excellent tool in our pro-life arsenal to refute claims that entities destroyed by abortifacients, destructive embryo research, IVF procedures, and abortions are something less than fully human beings.
If life does not begin at conception, why was birth control invented?
Uh...the sperm is alive. So is the ovum. It seems to me that life began before fertilization. Maybe it’s been a continuum since our first living ancestor—a virus perhaps—or maybe Adam.
thats funny because I was clicking in here to type just what you did, so if what you say is true, then to “kill” does not mean to “take a life” since you might say the parents are still alive.... very interesting.
First, they are amoral and choose to make money off the ending of human life. Others must do this as a way to deny that the life they are ending is "human" not a puppy, kitty or even "tissue."
How else do they hope to keep the idea in people's heads (especially teens) that what they are doing is NOT ending life but "preventing unwanted pregnancies" and thus eliminating "difficult situations."
True. A liver is also alive, and so is a pancreas. However, none of those will develop into something more than the original: a genetically complete, unique, and maturing human person. The combination of sperm and egg will, under the right conditions.
Read for later
What do lawyers call it? Something about “negligence”, maybe “reckless negligence”, to shoot at movement in the brush when you don’t know if it’s a human being or a deer.
This is the same - if you don’t know when it is a human being, you have no right to kill it.
Life is ongoing. A new human being begins at conception.
Good answer. Good answer.
The amoral, greedy and willfully ignorant choose to play ostrich so that they do NOT need to come face to face with the truth!
At the beginning. Besides, the pro-aborts don’t care about when life begins as is shown in their advocacy of partial-birth abortion. They only care about when life ends, and it is whenever they say it ends according to them.
My life began as a twinkle in my daddy’s eye....
...at least that’s what mom told me.
Yes, that’s a good way to put it. You can transplant a liver into another person, but it doesn’t make the recipient a different person, neither the donor nor the pre-donation patient. He’s the same person with a replacement liver. And yet the liver was alive, and continues to be alive.
Makes a person want to find her bedroom slippers and pour a glass of wine :-).
And haircuts are murder.
You have the right to remain silent.
I had an interesting discussion about this with a co-worker of mine one time. He's one of these libertarian types, you know, fiscally conservative but socially liberal. He kept insisting that believing that life begins at conception is a "religious argument". I explained to him that it is simply illogical - religion having everything or nothing to do with the argument - to think that life begins anywhere BUT conception, since from conception on the development of the child is a continuum on which there is no place at which a stage is abruptly passed whereby you can markedly say that something has happened to the growing child which would say "life began at this point". The only place where something like this happens is at conception, and this argument includes the act of giving birth. One MUST accept that life begins at conception, unless one wishes to be entirely arbitrary and question-begging.
He tried to argue with me that life begins at the point where the child is viable to live on their own. I pointed out to him that, depending on how you define that, this could mean children all the way up to 12-18 months old aren't really "alive" since they're pretty much incapable of fending for themselves even in the sense of finding food on a table to feed themselves with. He got a little red in the face at this point.
Thank you. It’s a point worth bringing up, I think, that we’re talking about not just “life,” not just “living tissue that’s part of a human body,” but the origination of a unique human being who is neither the father nor the mother. As I said in another post, that isn’t the result of any other transfer or combination of human tissue.
Like Horton said, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
The ovum is alive, and has been the woman's entire life. The ovum actually begins its cellular division while the woman is still in the womb.
Early philosophers thought the sperm cell contained a little tiny person inside it, but then someone wondered if the sperm person was male, would it not have even smaller sperm-people inside its testicles; and wouldn't the males inside the sperm-person’s testicles also have sperm-people inside their testicles, etc, etc, reducto ad absurdum.
If you can’t mark the point at which there is a bright line between “no human life” and “human life”,
killing that life is gross criminal negligence.
There are those that claim the USSC has defined this bright line at 3 months. I’ve actually heard someone argue this - that one day prior, it is not a human life, and one day after it is. (Yet they didn’t support outlawing partial birth abortion - go figure)
I once read where someone said “Everything is present at fertilization. Nothing is added, only developed” A simple statement but it contains all the truth.
And before you know it, he’s 8” taller than you and eating everything but the cat, who has sensibly disappeared.
This would apply also BEFORE the sperm and egg physically meet. No egg should go unfertilzed. No sperm should be left wanting for his egg.
And haircuts are murder.LOLOLOLOL : )
It's been too long, Romulus.
Actually it could be a lot older than that. Would we turn a ten year old loose ? If he'd had no training, no interaction, been "nailed into a barrel and fed through the bunghole" ?
Your argument is even better than you think. And your libertarian needs to try his argument at a meeting of Libertarian Party members. He'd get creamed by at least 50%.
Of course, the other ~50%, acting on the "alien intruder" idea (demonstrably false) would disagree.
The truth: Every embryo is a potential human being. Yet at least 50% of them, probably much more, depending on the age of the woman who produced the egg, are incompatible with growth beyond the 12th week of pregnancy. Most of that 50% who would not make it, don’t even make the implantation. Some make it a couple weeks, and a very few make it to 11 or 12 weeks.
We are talking about aneuploidy here, chromosomal abnormalities that will not allow growth to fetus stage. (We are not talking about other problems that would leave to viable kids but with disorders.) Many, many embryos are aneuploid to the point of never making it, even some that are formed by a young couple in their 20s. It is 95% due to the egg and not the sperm, because sperm “naturally select.” The bad ones don’t get to the egg.
But we do not know (without special testing that has only come into being commercially in 2008) which embryos are going to be viable. That’s the key. Each embryo MIGHT grow to be an 80-year-old one day.
Saying something is essentially "religious" means that its confirmation depends on faith—which St. Paul called "evidence of things not seen." Well, with electron microscopy, you can't say the beginning of life is not seen. I've seen the pictures. What's "religious" is the denial in the face of physical evidence of the fact that life begins at conception.
What the socially liberal fellow meant to say is that the origin of life is a fact with moral implications—which many people who are religious happen to be interested in. He finds those implications inconvenient, but has no facts to protect himself with. So he makes recourse to his "faith" that the videos do not show life beginning, even though they plainly do.
It’s not news to me but informing the willingly ignorant isn’t easy.
The answer is that human life began a long time ago and the cells in question are never not alive. There is no point in the process where there is an absence of life. The real question is when does the child become a distinct individual that is no longer a part of either parent.
It certainly has been too long. Good to see you. I’m well and I hope you are.
Life begins at the moment of contraception! ;)
Michael Tooley has a fairly (in)famous essay that defends both infanticide and abortion, not only because an infant can’t take care of itself but because the reality is that infants are born with brains that are still developing and with capabilities not all that different from those found in many adult animals. So the debate boils down to two criteria which are looking at the capabilities of the child (being able to take care of itself, mental capacity) which is going to lead you to draw the line (as honest abortion supporters like Tookey and Peter Singer do) after even birth and looking at the likely future capabilities and existence whichis goint to lead you to draw the line at fertilization. Any line drawing between those points is arbitrary. The only other argument one can make is that an unborn child is, in fact, a person but that a pregnant woman should have the authority to kill that person, anyway.
Embryos that will not survive are irrelevant to the abortion debate because they will abort themselves.
The sperm and the ovum can’t become a brand new human being on their own.
However, the moment conception happens, we have a brand new human organism, completely separate from the parents on a genetic level.
Hence the focus on ‘conception’.
Sperm = Who cares?
Ovum = Who cares?
Sperm + Ovum = Developing human being = I care!
Should a doctor report an apparent miscarraige to the police to be investigated as a possible homicide?
A better way to express that query is to ask, “If life doesn’t begin at union of sperm and ovum, why was contraception invented?” You see, the dead souls have been using abortion as a form of birth control for too long, and we don’t make sense by not opposing the wrong use of language in the issue. Precision is vital, especially now, with a ‘president-elect’ who manipulated language to cancel the Constitutional rights of newly born alive struggling infants in order to make absolutely legal the murder of these preemies as a means to protect the left’s precious Roe v Wade rites or slaughter. When up against such wickedness, precision is vital.
Notice as ‘exhibit A’ the post which followed yours, where a sycophant to murdering alive unborn children tried to play the word game over ‘life’ sperm and such. The poster can be negated instantly with the proper words, for the union of a cell (sperm) and an ovum (a cell from the female’s body), when conception occurs, bring into being a new ORGANISM. The poster was trying to exploit the ambiquity regarding organism and cell or subunit of an organ. That’s the typical dead soul approach and it works because of being imprecise with words. Pricks like that try to sow confusion and dissonance. [For reference, prick = niggling little nettle, an irritant, nothing more.]
Actually, an ovum can spontaneously become an organism on its own. And now scientists are achieving the transmogrification of a particular sperm cell, to transmogrify it into a totipotent zygote cell/organism.
Ever noticed how so many people will respond to:
-a little girl that has fallen down an abandoned well in Texas
-some men trapped underground in a coal mine in Wext Virginia
-people trapped under collapsed bridges after an earthquake in California
and they will root for the victims; and gather their resources
and go to extroidinary means; because there is just a chance
it is a slim chance, but still, yet there is a chance
they those people just might possibly be alive;
and if we try, we might possibly be able to save them...
But in the case of “when does life begin”, is this a life or not?
Many will say well maybe life begins here, and maybe there,
but we just don’t know for sure.
These two ways of thinking seem so at odds with one another to me.
If there is a chance, even a slim chance
that the fertilized egg is a new life, why not then
go to extroidinary means to save it?
You can spell it out in black and white and there will still be naysayers.
I can't wait to use that line.
With eight children, we don’t have a lot of food going begging, except meals people didn’t like. I usually greet announcements of “I’m hungry!” with “Great! Eat some leftovers!”
And each 2-year-old might grow to be an 80-year-old one day (actually, after 78 years of days), or might die tomorrow. I think the presumption ought to be in favor of letting both embryos and 2-year-old live as long as they're naturally going to, however long that is.
And tha tis why we need to protect it right from the beginning.
I think it is true and I absolutely know the second I became pregnant with my second child, it was as if a light had been switched on inside of me. A very startling feeling, but I somehow knew what it was. I’ve often wondered if any other women had this experience. Anybody out there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.