A Human Embryo Source: http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_04_img0230.jpg
Compliments of Princeton Pro-Life
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146
“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ’embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“I would say that among most scientists, the word ’embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….
“[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
“The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena — where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation — as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.'”
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
I am saving this page for future reference – thank you!
I must say that this photo of an embryo does not give me a sense of “Oh no, you can’t abort that, it’s a baby.” Not at all.
That embryo cannot smile, cannot give me a hug, cannot suckle at a mother’s breast, cannot take food of any kind, it does not have thoughts or dreams, it cannot kick, and I suspect it is highly magnified. There is a point in its development when it will have these capacities. That point comes some weeks before natural delivery, and it may well come earlier than previous knowledge had led us to believe. All other things being equal, there is no reason to interrupt its development, which is indeed a fascinating and beautiful process. But other things are not always equal.
I must say that this photo of an embryo does not give me a sense of “Oh no, you can’t abort that, it’s a baby.” Not at all.
The problem with this is that your feelings on whether it is a baby don’t really have that much to do with whether it actually is a baby or not.
Peter Singer doesn’t feel that a baby younger than 18 months old is a person because he says they are not “self aware” – but that doesn’t change what they actually are.
If you are basing what you believe on how you feel, you’ll end up with a lot of false conclusions.
That embryo cannot smile, cannot give me a hug, cannot suckle at a mother’s breast, cannot take food of any kind, it does not have thoughts or dreams, it cannot kick, and I suspect it is highly magnified.
Whether it is human or not depends on whether it is able to give you a hug? Nick Vujicic (man born without arms or legs) can’t give you a hug, but that doesn’t take away from his humanity. These things you listed meaningless when it comes to what it actually takes to be a human being.
And by the way, an embryo the size of the one pictured has a beating heart and is responsive to touch. Brain waves have been recorded by this time, and the brain hemispheres have formed. When a baby this size is being attacked through abortion, it tries to resist and does not remain limp.
This is my little baby, Blessing, who died through miscarriage 2 years ago.
I never regarded him/her as meaningless tissue but as a full human being- my children’s sibling. We have him/her buried under weeping cherry trees.
When people decide that it’s okay to kill babies like this one, they also have to dismiss the grief that mothers who have miscarried feel. A person who believes that abortion is morally acceptable can never truly give comfort to a woman who has lost her baby through miscarriage because they believe that what she lost is insignificant. Millions of women today are hurting because their babies are considered “non-persons”, for the fact that other women are willing to kill their children at the same age. It’s truly heartbreaking.
Bethany, that was indeed one of my less thoughtful comments, but I offered it for a reason. People who want to impose their decisions on others, concerning the often heart-wrenching and difficult decisions whether to terminate a pregnancy, appeal to emotionalism by posting exactly this sort of photo, with the implication “how could you abort this cute little thing?” The fact that its cute doesn’t determine whether it is a person, any more than my (or your) personal opinion, or anyone’s choice of label, determines whether it is a person.
Peter Singer and I share the term “self aware,” but I have held an unmylenated baby two days out of a very short hospital stay, and I know I was making a connection with her. I was doing that deliberately, her parents were friends and co-workers and I wanted to be a familiar part of her environment. I knew, and it proved true, that no matter how many adults she became familiar with in her first weeks, she never had any doubt who her mother and father were. She maybe couldn’t talk yet, but she was very self aware.
The manner in which you responded to a tragic miscarriage is entirely yours. I’ve noted many times that, should any nosy social worker ever want to TELL a woman in a similar situation how to deal with it, Roe v. Wade forbids such intervention. It is highly personal, and each family has to reach its own response. I actually don’t have to dismiss the grief of mothers who miscarry — the fact that you grieve says it all. Some women grieve that the infection which invaded their womb has destroyed sensitive fetal tissue before it was strong enough and developed enough to survive without permanent harm. I’m not prepared to dictate to them how they resolve that grief.
The fact that its cute doesn’t determine whether it is a person, any more than my (or your) personal opinion, or anyone’s choice of label, determines whether it is a person.
You didn’t notice the multitude of quotes from biologists and embryologists, explaining the scientific reality of the humanity of the unborn? All you saw in this post was the picture, and you got the idea that the implication was, “it’s cute- don’t kill it?” Did you read the quotes from the post at all?
And of course it’s cuteness doesn’t determine whether it is human or not. Neither does the fact that you don’t “feel” like it is a human doesn’t determine whether it is human or not. What does determine whether it is human is the scientific proof that shows that it is.
Your argument is the one which is emotional and not logical in nature, as you continue to appeal to suffering of one human being as a reason to end the life of another human being.
Peter Singer and I share the term “self aware,” but I have held an unmylenated baby two days out of a very short hospital stay, and I know I was making a connection with her. I was doing that deliberately, her parents were friends and co-workers and I wanted to be a familiar part of her environment. I knew, and it proved true, that no matter how many adults she became familiar with in her first weeks, she never had any doubt who her mother and father were. She maybe couldn’t talk yet, but she was very self aware.
Where is your evidence that children in the womb are not self aware? (or that self awareness has anything to do with being a human being, for that matter?)
There is evidence that shows that children from different countries cry with different accents that they learned in the womb. There is evidence that shows that babies recognize the sound of their mother and father’s voice while still in the womb, and responds to it. There is evidence that shows babies in the womb, even in the first trimester, responding to pin pricks, music, and many other things. Go to ehd.org and you can see videos which can quickly disprove your idea that babies in the first trimester cannot kick or eat. Or smile.
Is the fact that you cannot see the baby and let the baby make a personal connection with you proof that the baby isn’t self aware in your mind?
I actually don’t have to dismiss the grief of mothers who miscarry — the fact that you grieve says it all. Some women grieve that the infection which invaded their womb has destroyed sensitive fetal tissue before it was strong enough and developed enough to survive without permanent harm. I’m not prepared to dictate to them how they resolve that grief.
Case in point.
“You didn’t notice the multitude of quotes from biologists and embryologists, explaining the scientific reality of the humanity of the unborn?”
Bethany, there is no consensus among biologists and embryologists as to the humanity or personhood of the unborn. It is more than a matter of science.
very brilliant comment, Bethany.
Asitis,
Speaking as a biologist, you are quite correct in pointing this out. You are also disastrously in error if you rely on biologists to pronounce on personhood. Biology has made the greater pronouncement-that the zygote is a brand new member of our species, a unique and distinct organism with full human organismal identity. Having established that, it is the shame of any who would deny membership in the human family to any member based upon developmental stage or capability, or any other criteria that have been put forth in the same arbitrary and capricious manner.
I would pit one Bethany against any 100 Ph.D.’s, sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the slaughter.
Well done Bethany.
“Speaking as a biologist, you are quite correct in pointing this out. You are also disastrously in error if you rely on biologists to pronounce on personhood. ”
Gerard, thank you for this intellectual honesty.
Personhood is not a scientific issue. And yet prolifers currently argue that it is and suggest that biologists and embryologists agree that life/personhood begins at fertilization. They do not.
Asitis,
I think you misunderstood me. Life DOES begin at fertilization, as the quotes attest. The new human being comes into existence at fertilization; a distinctly new and unique individual member of the species in its earliest stage of a set developmental pattern through which we all have progressed.
I reiterate, it is a new human animal, human being.
Personhood is a legal/moral status accorded to human animals, not Fido or Fifi the dogs. Denying that status, which in reality is intrinsic to the new human animal based on what kind of being it is (human, as opposed to feline or canine), is an act that is at once arbitrary and capricious.
Science has made the greater pronouncement: It is a new human at conception.
Pro-choicers have made the ingominious pronouncement: It’s human if they say so.
No Gerard, I didn’t misunderstand you: I know that you believe life begins at fertilization. I know this loud and clear.
I also know that there is no consensus among biologists and embryologists as to the humanity or personhood of the unborn. It is more than a matter of science. You said I was correct in saying this. And I thanked you for your intellectual honesty.
I said nothing about what your position is based on your scientific knowledge and personal beliefs.
every human being must be a person.
there can be no other way to deal with this question otherwise the line must be drawn arbitrarily and who decides and what criteria will be chosen
no one group of people will ever be able to decide this question because we can not ever know for certain when certain criteria will be present
self awareness? consciousness? etc..
since we do not have perfect knowledge of human development from conception onward it must be so
it also logically develops that a human person exists from the moment of conception since the embryo in question is human
it would seem the only criteria that makes for personhood of the human embryo these days is it’s “wantedness”
If it is “wanted” it’s a baby to be treated and given care and protection.
If it’s “unwanted” it’s a nonperson.
Hence the slogan used by proaborts:
Every baby a “wanted” baby.
I begin to see a bit of circular argument here. If cute works, we appeal to emotion. If that fails, we appeal to scientific evidence. If that proves weak for the intended purpose, we turn to personhood, which is not established by science. Then, we state axiomatically that everything human must be a person.
Every cell in my body contains all the same content as a zygote. That is part of the basis for stem cell research. If we can just get a live skin cell from my body to behave like a stem cell, it could grow into a healthy new heart, to replace a diseased heart, one that my immune system would accept. But every skin cell in my body, while human, isn’t a person.
The truth is, as best I can grasp it, and none of us grasp it perfectly, there is a great deal here that is unknown. I am very cautious about laying down one-size-fits-all rules for every family and every woman and every pregnancy. Bethany speaks very poignantly and from the heart, but there are other families who are equally poignant, who speak with anguished hearts about why they would feel it unspeakable cruelty to bring to term a pregnancy ravaged by rubella, or showing evidence of Down’s syndrome, or many other conditions. I find it incredibly arrogant, given how little we know, that anyone would dictate to these families, any more than that anyone would dictate to Bethany.
I am willing to draw the kind of difficult lines Mary Catherine is not willing to draw. They should be drawn with large safety zones — for example, well before birth, maybe even back into the second trimester, but I won’t draw it at the moment a zygote forms. That would be simple, but also arbitrary.
S, a skin cell is not the same as a human zygote.
Your skin cells are not complete human organisms, nor can they grow and develop in the same way that a zygote can.
You keep insisting that our arguments are circular, and emotional….but all of the arguments I have heard from you are emotional in nature.
1.) You have a theory that there are souls awaiting their human bodies, and that they do not want to be born into disfigured or disabled bodies. You said that perhaps they cry “mommy, please don’t make me grow into this body!” This is an emotional argument, and certainly not scientific.
2.) You say that there are women who are anguished at the thought of carrying particular babies to term- therefore, they should be given the opportunity to kill those babies. You give no rational reason that the baby should die except that the mother wants it dead because she is afraid of the burden to her, or the baby’s suffering. It’s an emotional argument.
3.) When someone tells you that there are plenty of disabled people out there, who do not want to die because their disability (some who have actually found a way to be grateful for life despite, or even sometimes because of their disability), somehow you jump to the ludicrous idea that if we believe this, we should want to give everyone the disability… and you give us the emotional argument that we would not want to force someone to have a disability- therefore we should not want to let a baby who has a disability continue living. This is emotional and has no rational basis at all. It does not make sense.
Are there any arguments that you have presented that you feel are actually based on reason, science, etc? I just wonder how you can feel superior to us and call our arguments emotional- when you have presented nothing but emotional arguments so far.
I am willing to draw the kind of difficult lines Mary Catherine is not willing to draw. They should be drawn with large safety zones — for example, well before birth, maybe even back into the second trimester, but I won’t draw it at the moment a zygote forms. That would be simple, but also arbitrary.
on the contrary, it is NOT arbitrary to say that at conception, a new human person is created- in fact, it is a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception and because it is human it is a person who is at a very early stage in their physical, mental and emotional development
however it is quite arbitrary to say at 16 weeks a human embryo suddenly becomes a person
remember most if not all the criteria you apply to the unborn human person can also be applied to the born human person
there are many people alive today who do not meet your criteria for personhood
What would you propose to do with those people?
this is why I think you fit well with Peter Singer who quite openly admits that proaborts are illogical in their reasoning
Mary Catherine you should know that there are biologists and embryologists who would argue that it is NOT a scientific fact that life/personhood begins at conception.
By the way, pro-lifers aren’t the ones who use the personhood argument – pro-abortionists are.
“Personhood” is a status invented by those who separate human beings into different categories of being superior or inferior based on different criteria.
Either you are a human or you’re not. That is our argument.
Pro-lifers don’t place human beings in different categories, or behave as though some human beings are “more equal” than other human beings. That is bigoted thinking which has been the root of genocide over the centuries.
Well said, Mary Catherine!
not as well said, as you did Bethany!
Love that huggy bear too! 😉
Bethany,
You are the lioness of the pro-life movement!! Well said!
“on the contrary, it is NOT arbitrary to say that at conception, a new human person is created- in fact, it is a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception”
Mary Catherine, there are biologists and embryologists who would argue that life/personhood does NOT begin at conception.
Human life and personhood are not the same argument.
Personhood is a philosophical argument. A new and unique human life exists at fertilization- that is the fact that we are discussing.
Putting a slash between life and personhood like that, as though they were the same argument is dishonest.
Okay Bethany, I’ll stick to simply “life” then if you wish: There are biologists and embryologists who would argue that life does NOT begin AT conception.
One such biologist is Dr. Scott Gilbert whose definitive textbook on human development you like to reference Bethany. Care to have me point this out to you? Or perhaps you are already aware of his position on this issue?
Well, that’s a little better, but now maybe you can specify what KIND of life you are referring to now.
No one is going to say that life itself begins at conception, because obviously the sperm and ovum are both alive before they combine to create the zygote –
A new and unique human life begins at conception. This is what is known among biologists and embryologists, and that is what we are talking about.
Bethany, Gerard is having trouble with my commenst going to spam, so I’ll try this by modifying my name …
Bethany, here is what Scott Gilbert has to say. This should clear up for you what I am referring to when I say that life (or if you prefer “a life”) begins at fertilization:
“Are scientists agreed that human life begins at fertilization?”
(Scott Gilbert:)No. There are several scientifically defensible positions as to when human life begins. One position is that human life begins when the human egg and sperm nuclei fuse at fertilization. This is the “genetic view.” A second position is that human life begins when the embryo becomes an individual. This is the time, 14 days after fertilization, when each embryo can produce only one individual, rather than twins or triplets. In religious terms, thi= s would mean that ensoulment (whatever that may be) must occur after day 14, since twins are separate individuals. In the United Kingdom, this 14-day “embryologic view” of human individuality is the basis for human biological research, and it has been adopted by the entire biomedical research community there. It has the force of law in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that licenses and governs Britain’s embryo and stem cell research. A third position is that human life begins when the human-specific electroencephalogram (EEG) is acquired at around 25 weeks. Since our society has defined human death as the loss of the EEG pattern (and not, say, when the heart stopping or the cells dye), some scientists have argued that the acquisition of this EEG pattern be considered the time when the fetus becomes human. The fourth position is that human life begins when it can be metabolically independent from the mother, the traditional “birthday.” So there are several scientifically defensible positions as to when a new human life begins”
Gilbert boxed himself in with his truthful statement relative to organismal identity. What he’s doing here is an attempt to present the reader with the broad range of opinions within the scientific community. Unfortunately for Gilbert, he speaks with great certitude of dogs possessing canine essence from the moment of fertilization until death, but does not apply that to humans for PC reasons.
To see his gross inconsistency, take all of these arguments he makes about humans, brainwave activity, cognition, etc, and change the word human to dog. Then compare that to his original statement about the essential identity of a dog in chapter 2. It’s self-contradictory.
The truth is that an organism’s essential identity, biologically speaking, is contained within its genome, its DNA. Let’s forget God and metaphysics for a moment and argue from a strictly atheistic perspective.
Without the ‘contaminating’ dimensionality of religion, the science becomes clearer.
An organism does not express all of its potential functions at once. Genetically, they come on line at different periods of development. None of my children has become pregnant or sired a child. They’re pre-pubescent. Because they have not reached full expression of their potential, they are no less human. Their humanity is a function of their genetic identity, regardless of developmental stage. A human organism can be no other. It is not a nonidentifiable entity until some arbitrarily established performance. It is a human organism from the moment of fertilization, just as Gilbert’s dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization.
Gilbert can’t spin his way out of this one. All he can do is lay down a smokescreen to ingratiate himself with the widest audience of professors to induce their adopting his book for their courses.
“What he’s doing here is an attempt to present the reader with the broad range of opinions within the scientific community”.
Thank you Gerard. At least you do not try to spread the myth, as other prolifers do, that biologists and embryologists agree that life begins at fertilization.
I don’t think it if accurate to say Gilbert has “boxed himself in” with his truthful statement. How so? He leaves it open that any of those four positions could be argued scientifically. And as such, depending on his personal, religious and ethical view on abortion, he could be pro life or prochoice.
Actually, there s broad agreement that life begins at conception. We know that it isn’t dead! It’s alive, and we all agree on that. We also agree that its species identity is human.
The comes abortion, and 90% of the gang start spinning furiously about personhood.
On the basic science, the species identity and living status, we are all agreed.
“On the basic science, species identity and living status, we are all agreed”.
Well, obviously there is agreement among the scientists on the basic science and that there is no change in species (!). So what exactly do you mean by “living status” Gerard? Are you trying to say that scientists agree that life begins at fertilization? Because as Bethany puts it “that is what we are talking about here”.
a newly conceived human being is most definitely alive by all biological laws known to man.
A zygote is most definitely alive especially since it begins to organize itself and direct it’s own development.
Biologists and reproductive scientists consider that they are working on living human beings when they are involved in IVF – albeit they are working at this stage at a cellular level.
They remove a cell to test for genetic problems and they watch the cellular development of the this early human being.
Of course proaborts don’t want anything to do with scientific truth.
If the zygote is alive this means that the morning after pill and in some cases the BC pill are killing something living.
Doesn’t make for good PR.
So to get around this scientific problem, most realize to deny that the zygote is alive is pretty much ridiculous. It’s not rocket science.
Instead the focus now is on the lack of personhood.
You are about 3 decades out of step with your proabort colleagues. 😉
Asitis,
Try imagining that the zygote is dead. Then see where that takes you.
not sure why my comment ended up in the middle of this discussion?
hmmm……
good point Dr. Nadal re your 4:40pm comment
Gerard, I’m not arguing my position on this. I am not debating any of the scientifically defensible positions. I’ll leave that to the bioethicists, judges, religious leaders, etc.
I am arguing that it is incorrect to say that scientists agree that life begins at fertilization.
Gerard, I’m not arguing my position on this. I am not debating any of the scientifically defensible positions. I’ll leave that to the bioethicists, judges, religious leaders, etc.
I am arguing that it is incorrect to say that scientists agree that life begins at fertilization.
Bethany, all my arguments are based on reason, and I’m not sure there is any firm science in this debate. I offered the speculation about a soul crying for a nicer body as a spin on the common assumption that a “person” is being destroyed by an early abortion. For all we know, the “person” may not even be in that body yet, and may WANT the abortion! No, that’s not an argument, it is offered to point out how little we really know, and how dangerous it is to demand that what FEELS right for you is THE right decision for all women.
Actually, every skin cell contains all the same genetic material as a zygote. One of the great mysteries, and the subject of stem cell research, is what makes one cell become part of the skin, and another become part of a heart, or the intestinal lining, when they all contain the potential for any type of cell, or of an entire new human body. The skin cell holds all the potential of a zygote, and the zygote has all the independent consciousness of a skin cell. Thus, I don’t consider the zygote a person. The skin cell is “alive.” So are the sperm and egg.
I find the EEG a good measure of when a HUMAN BEING exists inside the womb. I have also used a modified form of the metabolic independence definition — but I would move it back, before the “birthday” to the point where the new life COULD be metabolically independent if, like McDuff, it was “from its mother’s womb untimely torn.”
Most people who call themselves pro-life have evaded the cold hard question, what exactly do you want to do about abortion? Do you want to send a woman to prison for life because she had one? Do you want the doctor who performed it executed by lethal injection? OR, are you really saying, “I want every pregnant woman considering abortion to hear my voice and what I have to offer from my experience, before she decides”? IF the last statement is what you are trying to say, I don’t have any argument with you. You MAY be right, for all we presently know.
However, I am not saying that a woman should have the right to kill her baby, because I don’t believe what she is carrying in the first trimester, and at least part of the second trimester, is a baby. We disagree on that point, and you MAY be right, but I don’t believe in killing babies. I love babies.
I agree that giving every baby a disability because some people have found enrichment in the disability they have is ludicrous. You may be surprised that some people have said oh yes, if that’s what it takes to win this argument, we should do that. I raised the point because there is a huge difference between working with the disability one has, and citing the “enrichment” it has added to one person’s life as an argument that such a disability should be welcomed by anyone.
Mary Catherine, you say there are many people alive today who do not meet my criteria for personhood: name one.
As to the question of life, human, person, we all destroy life every day, and we all destroy human cells every day, so the question really is, is THIS cell, or THIS mass of cells, a person, an organic, complete, human BEING? If a rectangular grid of steel girders has been erected on a building site, is it an “office building”? Well, you couldn’t get an occupancy permit until the outer walls were in place. Then the inner walls, then the plumbing and electrical, possibly gas, then… A human being is not a building. It is far more complex, and does not require a permit to be born either. But I believe only the physical framework of a human being exists for the first 25 weeks or so.
but Asitiss, you don’t believe that life begins at conception (this after all problably suits your lifestyle choices)
however, the vast majority of biologists and scientists do believe that a new life begins at conception – there is not some vast controversy going on here since it’s still taught like this in med school
those like Gilbert are definitely in the minority
as for ensoulment, there is no reason why ensoulment can happen at conception and then if a second living being comes in to place with cell division, another ensoulment
those of us who believe in God, do not place limits on his abilities! 😉
SJ,
Have you picked up that copy of Embryo yet?
“but Asitiss, you don’t believe that life begins at conception (this after all problably suits your lifestyle choices)”
You have this backwards Mary Catherine.
It is my lifestyle that follows my belief that life does not begin at conception. Not the other way around.
The vast majority Mary Catherine? Gilbert is in the minority? Sorry but I can’t just take your word on that. You’ll have to show me some evidence. It just doesn’t make sense given the support that contraception, IVF and ESCR have.
Bethany, all my arguments are based on reason, and I’m not sure there is any firm science in this debate.
I think there is plenty of firm science to make it quite clear that a living human being exists at fertilization.
I offered the speculation about a soul crying for a nicer body as a spin on the common assumption that a “person” is being destroyed by an early abortion.
Pleaes define “person”, as you see it. And may I remind you that the personhood argument is one from abortion proponents, not the other way around.
For all we know, the “person” may not even be in that body yet, and may WANT the abortion!
Again, that would be a supernatural argument, and it has nothing to do with science. Pro-lifers are not talking about ensoulment when we explain that a new and unique human organism exists at the moment of fertilization. We are talking about something that can actually be witnessed and proven. What you are talking about is a completely different argument.
No, that’s not an argument, it is offered to point out how little we really know, and how dangerous it is to demand that what FEELS right for you is THE right decision for all women.
It is a fallacious argument because it doesn’t actually respond to our argument accurately, S. I’ve explained what our argument is, which is based on science, but you keep coming back to this idea of ensoulment, which has nothing to do with it.
Actually, every skin cell contains all the same genetic material as a zygote. One of the great mysteries, and the subject of stem cell research, is what makes one cell become part of the skin, and another become part of a heart, or the intestinal lining, when they all contain the potential for any type of cell, or of an entire new human body. The skin cell holds all the potential of a zygote,
No, actually a skin cell does NOT hold all of the potential of a zygote. If it did, every skin cell in our body could grow and develop into full term newborns.
Not a single skin cell in my body has that capability- and I’m pretty sure that I’m safe in saying that neither do yours.
and the zygote has all the independent consciousness of a skin cell. Thus, I don’t consider the zygote a person. The skin cell is “alive.” So are the sperm and egg.
The sperm and egg are not human organisms which, if left to grow and develop, will develop into full term babies. A zygote, on the other hand, is.
I find the EEG a good measure of when a HUMAN BEING exists inside the womb.
Define “human being”. I think you are again referring to the personhood argument.
OR, are you really saying, “I want every pregnant woman considering abortion to hear my voice and what I have to offer from my experience, before she decides”? IF the last statement is what you are trying to say, I don’t have any argument with you. You MAY be right, for all we presently know.
If there is any doubt in your mind that you are right and you think that there is a possibility that a human being exists at fertilization, why would you err on the side of death, rather than life? That is illogical.
If you were holding a box that you were told might have a baby in it, and you were 50 percent sure that there might be a baby in it – would you, for any reason, take a baseball bat and smash the box in? What if you were only 30 percent sure there might be a baby in that box? 10 percent? Would that make any sense at all?
However, I am not saying that a woman should have the right to kill her baby, because I don’t believe what she is carrying in the first trimester, and at least part of the second trimester, is a baby. We disagree on that point, and you MAY be right, but I don’t believe in killing babies. I love babies.
You may really love babies (which meet your criteria for personhood), but i think you need to really think about what you are advocating here, when you allow a woman to decide to kill what you yourself do not even know for sure is a baby or not.
I agree that giving every baby a disability because some people have found enrichment in the disability they have is ludicrous.
Then why offer the argument?
You may be surprised that some people have said oh yes, if that’s what it takes to win this argument, we should do that. I raised the point because there is a huge difference between working with the disability one has, and citing the “enrichment” it has added to one person’s life as an argument that such a disability should be welcomed by anyone.
I’m sorry but this particular statement makes so little sense I just can’t figure out how to respond.
What Gerard said.
on the contrary it was YOU who claimed that there are many scientists who have this view Asitiss.
once again making statements you cant’ back up. 😦
I’ll come back and respond when I see that you have a list of scientists who have published textbooks that are used in med schools around the world.
I have no intention of debating someone online who can’t back up what they state.
“Again, that would be a supernatural argument, and it has nothing to do with science. Pro-lifers are not talking about ensoulment when we explain that a new and unique human organism exists at the moment of fertilization”
“I’ve explained what our argument is, which is based on science, but you keep coming back to this idea of ensoulment, which has nothing to do with it.”
Thing is Bethany, one can argue scientifically that life begins at fertilization. But one can also argue scientifically that it begins at later points. This issue isn’t only about science. And science doesn’t provide the answer.
Despite your efforts to distance yourself from the religious aspects of the issue, you cannot honestly deny that your religious beliefs have nothing or little to do with your position.
Onthe contrary Mary Catherine, I have said that not all biologists and embryologists agree that life begins at fertilization. Prolifers try to argue that they do and that science dictates life begins at fertilization. Period. And I have backed this up with the example of Scott Gilbert, a scientist whose definitive book on human development is so often referenced by pro lifers.
Think Gilbert is the only one? Gerard himself has acknowledged that scientists do not agree that life begins at fertlization and that there is a broad range of opininon on this in the scientific community.
So you see, I have backed up what I state.
Can you do likewise?
Sorry, that should read:
“you cannot honestly say that your religious beliefs have nothing or little to do with your position.”
Asitis,
The Cell Theory states that all life arises from pre-existing life. Cells come from pre-existing cells. This is the cornerstone principle of all biology. The zygote is ALIVE. Period.
You sound foolish by insisting that the zygote is not alive. In so doing, you implicitly advocate for the Spontaneous Generation of Life hypothesis disproved by Pasteur in the 19th century. This is the 21st Century. You have some catching up to do. Life does not begin at some point distant from fertilization. This is simply absurd.
Move the conversation forward.
Asitis,
The next time you put words in my mouth, I’m deleting the comment. FAIR WARNING! I’m not wasting my time getting tied down in your lies. I’ve stated repeatedly that science holds that life begins at conception, and that scientists only argue the moral and legal status of the new human based on arbitrary criteria. Cut it out or move on.
you’ve proven NOTHING Asitis.
You have ONE textbook. Definitive? I think not. He is mainly an editor of most of the texts his name appears on.
He also is heavily influenced by feminist thought and how that applies to science.
Stop wasting people’s time and energy.
Argue about something that has meaning.
I think Dr. Nadal has more than proved his point.
funny thing about Dr. Gilbert:
his 8th edition of Developmental Biology has a chapter entitled:Fertilization: Beginning a new organism.
hmmmm wonder WHAT that means? 😉
Good find, Mary. He explains the process pretty well in that chapter too- here is the text:
Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents.
Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from the two parents) and reproduction (the creation of new organisms). Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring, and the second is to initiate in the egg cytoplasm those reactions that permit development to proceed.
Although the details of fertilization vary from species to species, conception generally consists of four major events:
* 1
Contact and recognition between sperm and egg. In most cases, this ensures that the sperm and egg are of the same species.
* 2
Regulation of sperm entry into the egg. Only one sperm can ultimately fertilize the egg. This is usually accomplished by allowing only one sperm to enter the egg and inhibiting any others from entering.
* 3
Fusion of the genetic material of sperm and egg.
* 4
Activation of egg metabolism to start development.
gee thanks for that cute-teddy bear Bethany!:)
I just wondered (**innocently**) why he might title a chapter that way? 😉
I agree that this argument can become tiresome. Science definitely disproves that “life” begins at “conception.” Life, as almost everyone has admitted somewhere in the course of this discussion, has been continuous from one generation to the next, back to the first cell, which in some manner or other was the ONLY case of spontaneous generation, life from non-life, whether by random accident or divine creation. I for one find the former highly unlikely and the latter almost certain.
A zygote is, most certainly alive, as is an anthrax spore. What we are debating is, does a unique human being, fully distinct from the mother, a distinct person fully worthy of the protection of the law, exist from the moment of conception?
The argument that the answer is “Yes,” relies on the undoubted fact that the zygote contains within itself a unique new combination of 23 chromosome pairs (or maybe an extra one in case of Down’s syndrome), plus the undoubted fact that this cell, if its growth is not impaired in some way, accidental or deliberate, organic or mechanical, will naturally grow into a baby which will emerge by live birth into the world.
The argument that the answer is “No,” relies on the fact that the zygote, and many successive stages yet to come, are completely dependent upon, and necessarily reside within, an individual woman, from which they cannot be removed or transferred without destruction, and, that these stage lack some essential characteristics of humanity, such as awareness of their surroundings, consciousness of itself as a person, ability to respond in a uniquely human way to their environment, not the response of a tadpole, or a frog, or a fish, or a chimpanzee, but the response of a human being. From this viewpoint, the fetus is a partial construction of what may become a human being.
Obviously, we differ on these criteria. Science has not unambiguously resolved this question. That is why we are debating it.
I’m not sure where THIS will appear, but I just attempted to respond to the tense confrontation between Gerard and asitis near the end, and my response appeared way up the list. Sorry about the discontinuity
Again you mix the human life argument with personhood- and the two are not the same argument.
You asked:
What we are debating is, does a unique human being, fully distinct from the mother, a distinct person fully worthy of the protection of the law, exist from the moment of conception?
What we are actually debating is whether a unique human being, fully distinct from the mother, exists from the moment of conception.
And the answer to that is yes, from the moment of fertilization, such a being exists.
“Person fully worthy of the protection of the law” is another argument, which has to do again with the man-made idea of “personhood” which determines based on arbitrary criteria whether certain human beings are more worthy of protection than others.
It was the same argument that made it legal to own human beings as slaves, here in America – to treat them as their property. They weren’t considered “full persons” based on arbitrary criteria which was NOT logical or right.
Science easily could show that a black person was just as human as a white person, but it was those who refused to be realistic and refused to accept the very clear facts, and continued to debate “personhood” who kept slavery legal for so long. They considered the slaves to be non-persons.
History repeats itself. Now the criteria for being a “person” according to these bigots is not the color of your skin, but the place you reside (the womb or outside of the womb.)
Just as arbitrary. Just as prejudiced. Just as irrational. Just as evil.
You are quite right Bethany, we are talking about what scientist say about when LIFE begins. Personhood is a separate issue.
What do scientists say? Well it depends on who you ask. As descibed by Gilbert there are four different points at which it is argued SCIENTIFICALLY that life begins
We know Gerard’ s answer is “at fertilization”, just as your is. But ask another biologist and you could get a different answer.
You are quite right Bethany, we are talking about what scientist say about when LIFE begins. Personhood is a separate issue.
What do scientists say? Well it depends on who you ask. As descibed by Gilbert there are four different points at which it is argued SCIENTIFICALLY that life begins
We know Gerard’ s answer is “at fertilization”, just as your is. But ask another biologist and you could get a different answer.
I notice that you ignored Mary Catherine’s post about Scott Gilbert’s explanation of how a new living organism is created at fertilizaton?
OK, I’m starting to get this REPLY function down. I see why this discussion is so difficult: we don’t even agree on the question. No wonder we go around in circles.
Bethany says the question is when life begins. Asitis agrees, and says personhood is a separate question. I disagree with both. Life is NOT the question, HUMAN life is the question, and in my view a human being is a person. It is one, complex, fully integrated question. We all destroy life every day. Bethany is really arguing that being a unique new genetic pattern in a single cell constitutes a new PERSON. I don’t believe it is. We’ve gone around and around about why.
Now Bethany drags out the tired old analogy. Gay marriage advocates like to wrap themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, “pro-life” people like to wrap themselves in the mantle of the abolitionist movement, as does PETA by the way. The fact that the same people can’t be mobilized to agree on all three questions should give a hint to what is wrong with that. Every cause should stand up on its own two feet, to be judged on its own merits, not try to survive by analogy to issues nobody would seriously question any more.
Many enslaved women, by the way, attempted to abort their fetuses, so they would not be born into slavery. Were they depriving their “babies” of redemptive suffering? Young women being marched off to execution by Napoleon’s soldiers in the attempt to retake Haiti were told by their mothers “Rejoice that your wombs will never bear children into slavery!”
But that is a bit of a tangent. It is not that science “could” show that a “black” person is “just as human” as a “white” person. Science has NEVER shown otherwise. History is more than clear that the distinction was made up by Spanish and Portuguese merchants no more than 500 years ago (where do you think the term negro came from? Anglo Americans picked up on it because, having demanded liberty, they needed to EXCUSE denying it to someone. (Spanish conquistadors didn’t need the excuse; they felt free to abuse anyone as their social inferior). Black people are not “equal” to white people, the very terms are hollow artificialities. There is no such thing as a “black” person, nor a “white” one. We’re all shades of brown, that’s all.
Abortion does not enslave anyone. Either it kills a human being, or it interrupts the process of growth of something that is not yet a human being, but would become one if not interrupted. When Planned Parenthood comes up with away to make aborted fetuses into zombies and sell them at auction to do menial work around the house, you can make comparisons to slavery.
Everyone understands the difference between a frog and a pollywog, between a toad and a tadpole, because these two stages of life both exist outside the womb, hatching from eggs that are laid outside the mother’s body. Frog mothers have no womb. Frog mothers also do not pay attention to their eggs, or their pollywogs, most of which are in fact going to be eaten, part of some other animal’s food supply. Mother frog may well be dead by the time the eggs hatch, certainly by the time pollywogs become baby frogs, which then still have to grow into adults.
But, because mammalian eggs are fertilized within the mother, and because the zygote goes through all its growth stages within the mother, because the growth process does not have two distinct stages, the claim is made that this is a human being from the moment of fertilization. Its not a human being until it can climb out of the pond — or, since there is a single continuous growth process, we don’t wait until the water breaks, we accept that there is a change in viability three months earlier, or perhaps a little more.
Bethany says the question is when life begins. Asitis agrees, and says personhood is a separate question. I disagree with both. Life is NOT the question, HUMAN life is the question, and in my view a human being is a person.
Then you should absolutely agree that human life begins at fertilization. This is what I have been trying to say all along. S, at the moment of fertilization, a HUMAN LIFE is created, which is complete and unique. It is a biologically alive human life. What more could it need in order to be a human? You are still referring to the soul, I believe, when you refer to personhood. I don’t think that it is enough for you that it is a complete human life. THAT is why I say that you are still debating personhood rather than human life. You can’t seem to separate the two.
It is one, complex, fully integrated question. We all destroy life every day. Bethany is really arguing that being a unique new genetic pattern in a single cell constitutes a new PERSON. I don’t believe it is. We’ve gone around and around about why.
Define “person”. You SAY that you think a human being is a person, but you don’t seem to really believe this, as it’s been proven that a biologically living human organism DOES exist at the moment of fertilization. THAT in itself should constitute a person to you, if you truly believed that human being = person.
Now Bethany drags out the tired old analogy.
Call it tired all you like, but you have not yet refuted it or explained how it is irrelevant. I think the analogy fits perfectly.
Many enslaved women, by the way, attempted to abort their fetuses, so they would not be born into slavery. Were they depriving their “babies” of redemptive suffering?
No, they were depriving their children of LIFE, which is exactly what they would be doing if they had killed their newborn babies in order to prevent them from living in slavery. That would be no more morally acceptable to me than abortion.
But that is a bit of a tangent. It is not that science “could” show that a “black” person is “just as human” as a “white” person. Science has NEVER shown otherwise.
It’s obvious, isn’t it? But back then, not so much- not everyone agreed.
Just like it’s obvious that human life begins at fertilization, as you can actually witness it! But guess what- some people still don’t agree, regardless of facts.
Abortion does not enslave anyone. Either it kills a human being, or it interrupts the process of growth of something that is not yet a human being, but would become one if not interrupted.
Thats right. it’s worse than slavery- it’s murder.
When Planned Parenthood comes up with away to make aborted fetuses into zombies and sell them at auction to do menial work around the house, you can make comparisons to slavery.
Another comparison which makes no logical sense.
Well, if we’re going to take all of our moral examples from the animals, we could all eat our newborn babies when we feel they might possibly be in future danger from strangers (like rabbits do).
Or we could just ignore and neglect our fully born children, not allowing them to come into our home again, when we’re ready to have more children, like convict cichlids we have do with their young when they’re ready to have another batch of babies. (They just leave them to be eaten by other fish and don’t care for them anymore.)
Or maybe we could learn from the example of male rats, who go to a random mother rat and eat her babies, so that he can have a chance to start a new litter of his own with her.
So, all kinds of examples can be learned from animals, but they aren’t always moral or ethical examples. Neither are they always logical, except in the animal world!
My last comment didn’t come in order- it is in response to Siarlys Jenkins Jan 12, 2:47 post.
These comments keep coming in the wrong order. The post above was in reply to one closer to the center of the thread. Hopefully it isn’t getting too confusing for everyone.
Bethany,
I’m trying to get an answer on this glitch from wordpress. Bear with me.
I notice that you ignored Mary Catherine’s post about Scott Gilbert’s explanation of how a new living organism is created at fertilizaton?
she fled! 😉
No I didn’t. Still here Mary Catherine!
I ignored it for the same reason I gave to Gerard below (on jan 10@ 4:53pm) in answer to a similar comment.
sure ya did! 😉
Not yet, I took advantage of a number of cut-rate book offers before and after Christmas, and have a lot of material on the Civil War to read through, plus I finally pulled a copy of Pearl Buck’s The Living Reed off the shelf, that I picked up a couple of years ago at a book sale. I will probably have to look for Embryo at a library, and if the public system doesn’t have it, the Marquette library would charge me $10 even to enter the door. Since you asked, I tried Google books to take a look, but there is no preview available.
Ah, but without ensoulment, the human being, made in the image of God, does not exist. Without a soul we are merely a dumb animal, a slightly smarter chimpanzee. Have those who call themselves “pro-life” really come to rely entirely on science, and not on any moral argument that goes beyond science?
ANY argument about ensoulment is necessarily speculative. But the position that calls itself “pro-life” was formulated long before sonograms, and would be little changed if the sonogram had never been invented.
The bottom line, in any discussion of LIFE, is what makes a HUMAN life different from that of any other mammal. It is different. The more human it is, the more different it is. We have no problem butchering cattle, sheep (although a friend of mine won’t eat lamb because she thinks they are just too cute), chickens, for food, putting horses to sleep when they are in pain, or dogs when the shelter is overcrowded and not enough people are adopting, exterminating rats and mice. We don’t do that to people. We don’t kill people legitimately except in self defense. What is it that makes a human life different? Its not just that we are a bigger, badder animal.
[…] https://gerardnadal.com/2010/01/07/more-from-the-scientific-community-on-the-identity-and-status-of-t… Categories: Abortion, Stem Cells Tags: conception, human life Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback […]
The truth is: a person’s life begins at the beginning.