The corruption of the science of Human Embryology

American Bioethics Advisory Commission (ABAC) QUARTERLY ^ | Fall 2002 | C. Ward Kischer Ph.D.

[muawiyah]

In brief, there are a lot of folks around who know better, who get a kick out of justifying murder of the innocent.

We should beware of them.

[Hank Kerchief]

The answer is there in the textbooks of Human Embryology, that "human life" begins at fertilization, or conception, which is the same as fertilization.

This is a great mistake, as any highschool biology student knows. If this were true, identical twins would be impossible.

If someone can make this kind of basic mistake, the rest of their, "expertise," is extremely questionable.

How is it these "experts" can be so ignorant about the facts of their own profession. How do they, for example, conlude that the following is a human being:

Jordanian doctors remove 'fetus' from baby

While the above is rare, it is nevertheless one of the many medical facts that refute the absurd notion that an embryo or fetus is a human being.

Hank

[Lorianne]

The modern-day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade written by Justice Harry Blackmun. He wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." He referred to the "disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology" as being "unable to arrive at any consensus."

There will never be any consensus because science and law are entirely different disciplines. The scientific question is a settled point, human life begins at conception. It seems to me what is left is for the "law" to either concur (and grant legal status to individual human life at its earliest point) or dissent (as it has done).

Either way the law goes it is entirely arbitrary, for law itself is an wholly arbitrary endeavor (unlike science). If there is any objective reason at all to law it is when it makes its declaration to err on the side of caution.

[realpatriot71]

A Human Ebryology class completely changed my whole view of the abortion issue.

" . . . I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . ." Ps. 139:14

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

This is a great mistake, as any highschool biology student knows. If this were true, identical twins would be impossible.

I have no horse in this particular race, but I can tell you that it might help if you read the whole article. This point is addressed.

[Hibernius Druid]

The author might ask himself why hardly anyone in the professional community thinks his framing of the argument worthy of reply. Methinks he doth protest too much.

[Hank Kerchief]

...it might help if you read the whole article.

I did, it didn't.

The twins problem is this, at fertilization (conception), the number of embryoes that will result is unknown. It can be one, two, three, four, or, even none.

There is no doubt that a fertilized egg is a potential human being, but it is not a human being.

A fertilized hen's egg is not a chicken, and a fertilized human egg is not a person, and for the same reason.

In the first case no one has any problem understanding the difference. You could certainly sue a restaurant that served egg salad and called it chicken salad. How come? ...since a ferilized egg is already what it is going to become?

Hank

[MHGinTN]

HK, you cite the fetus in fetu exception as if you've proven something. If human life doesn't begin at conception, which mammal is it?... You made the mistake of not specifying 'individual human life', but even that is godlike if you claim the fetus in fetu proves an individual human life couldn't have begun at conception due to a second individual life beginning at a time beyond the first individual human life beginning. [Next time, read the entire article so you don't posing an issue answered in the article, asserting that it is a mistake the author overlooked.]

[Hank Kerchief]

If human life doesn't begin at conception, which mammal is it?...

At conception you have a fertilized egg, not a mammal. I suggest you look up the definition of a mammal. A fertilized human egg is no more a human being than a ferilized chicken egg is a chicken.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

One more time, Hank: when conception occurs, an individual human life begins; a second individual human life can begin at a later moment, 'conceived' from the already existing individual human life, and subsequent development will differentiate the two individual human lives. That a second or even third individual human life may arise from the first conceived individual life is not in embryological doubt and the close identity (but not exact duplication) of the two or three so conceived lends credence to the opposite of what you're trying to assert. The article DID address this, but you must have read so fast that you missed it. Also, I think this man's competence and educational level in the discipline makes him imminently qualified to answer the issues; the PC bias of the 'lusting for more embryos to experiment with' colleagues is evident in their lack of coherent response to the completely valid issues addressed by this man, and their combined lack of coherent response only proves their bias since the textbooks of Embryology fully support the man not the lusting colleagues.

[MHGinTN]

Once conception is accomplished, you no longer have an egg, dufus.

[Hank Kerchief]

Once conception is accomplished, you no longer have an egg, dufus.

So, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg? Is that what you are trying to say?

So what do you call a chicken egg that is fetilized, that is, in which conception has taken place?

Hank

[MHGinTN]

You apparently don't understand human embryology, Hank. Within minutes (at most an hour) after the human ovum (egg, sir) is penetrated by the spermatozoan (the male gamete, sir), a new nuclear expression is present and the original ovum's half complement of chromosomes has been conjoined to the half chromosome complement of the sperm, to form a new, unique, individual human life. Within hours, that new life's single cell will divide, proving the growth process has begun for an individual human life different from the individual human life of the male and female gamete providers. That's as simple as I can make it for you, Hank.

[Hank Kerchief]

...when conception occurs, an individual human life begins...

When conception occurs, no new life occurs. Both the egg and sperm were both alive before conception, and those two lives merge into one. What that new single life will become is at that moment undetermined, because it might not survive at all if it is not implanted, or if it should itself be defective, or ... there are an infinite number of things that can prevent that zygote from becoming anything else.

If everything goes right, the fertilized egg will eventually develop into a human being, which it becomes at birth. This is the reason we determine a persons age based on the date of their birth, not the date of their conception.

Hank

[MattAMiller]

How is this a scientific question? In order to bring science to the table we must define life in such a way that it can be objectively determined to be present or non-present.

[Hank Kerchief]

You apparently don't understand human embryology, Hank. Within minutes (at most an hour) after the human ovum (egg, sir) is penetrated by the spermatozoan (the male gamete, sir), a new nuclear expression is present and the original ovum's half complement of chromosomes has been conjoined to the half chromosome complement of the sperm, to form a new, unique, individual human life.

Wow, what planet do you live on. On our planet, it takes approximately nine months for the zygote to develope (embryo, fetus) and then be born as a human being.

[MHGinTN]

Hank, you refute your own illogical assertions: quoting you, "What that new single life ..." An individual's human life begins way before birth, else medicine wouldn't treat the preborn for anomolous problems and the mother's body wouldn't try early on to reject the foreign tissue of the newly conceived 'new single life'. Embryologists agree that individual human life begins at conception.

Your assertion that an individual is only a new human being after birth is dwonright ghoulish, Hank. Incidentally, there are other human cultures that recognize conception as the date of the new lifetime being counted. My son married a wonderful Korean-American woman and their daughter's age is dated from conception, not birth. I love my granddaughter very much, and she has been with us since her conception, Hank.

This is an individual human being, Hank, despite your wrongheaded beliefs:

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some interesting information at link.