REPOSTED TO AID SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THE THREADS
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]
It’s amazing to me that there are still those who would argue that the fetus is not human beings when the scientific evidence is so clear on the fact that they are.
Most pro-abortionists nowadays actually will concede they are human beings (but dispute the ‘personhood’ of the child and base their argument on the woman’s bodily autonomy). That, i can understand.
But i just never can figure it out when one of these people tries to claim that the fetus is not a human being- it’s like i’m going back in time!
I think Ricardo Montalban said it best when he asked, “When was I not me?”
It seems a simplistic statement, but it’s got 2000 years of tradition and formation behind, around, and underneath it.
I was not me until I was me. I know I was not me in 1951, when my parents got married. I was not me for the entire history of the universe before that. I think I probably was me around Christmas 1953, or maybe back to the beginning of Advent, somewhere in there, and I was born in March 1954. But my memory only goes back to when I was 1 1/2.
I was going to offer an edit of how to present this information more accurately, based on our past debates, but looking again at several of the above citations, that is not necessary. None of them say, a human being exists from the moment a zygote forms. They say, quite accurately, that the zygote is a new organism, not that it is a human being, that this is the beginning of the development of a human being. Fortunately, there is a period of time in which, if serious errors are observed, we can start over, before we have an independent being, at which point its too late.
Siarlys, if you are not able to remember any time before 1 1/2, how do you know you had enough self awareness to truly be a “person”?
I mean, someone could have killed you before you were truly self aware, or “independent” (18 months), and you never would have known the difference. New beginning, ready for a new independent human being to make it’s way onto the planet. Right?
(Peter Singer believes this is the case- at the very least, he is consistent)
Hi SJ.
You are also implying that your body exists before you did if the embryo is the beginning of a human organism’s existence. In other words, you are a ghost in a machine. What was it that made it so that you entered the body that you now inhabit? This also implies that you are completely distinct from your body. If your body is not you, what is you?
Sorry, the sentence
“You are also implying that your body exists before you did if the embryo is the beginning of a human organism’s existence.”
is not complete. It should read:
“You are also implying that your body exists before you did if the embryo is the beginning of a human organism’s existence but is not identical to you.”
“They say, quite accurately, that the zygote is a new organism, not that it is a human being, that this is the beginning of the development of a human being.”
How many organismic-phases (to use a fake word) does our body go through? In other words, that new organism which is the result of fertilization is not us, so that new organism must at some point become ANOTHER new organism which is finally us. So the body that we reside in (which is not the same thing as me) has to have been at least two organisms.
This dualistic thinking leads to bizarre consequences.
Oh, the consequences aren’t that bizarre. I don’t remember anything before I was 1 1/2, but my parents do, and I’ve seen babies only a few days after birth. I’m confident that, like all the babies I’ve seen, I WAS aware of what was going on around me, even if I can’t remember it. Babies don’t cry randomly, they cry because they are hungry, thirsty, need to be changed (darn those adults keeping that caustic stuff pressed close to their skin), or in pain. There was a baby I used to take care of sometimes in the 1980s; when she was crying for milk, I took her into the kitchen with me so she could see I was working on it. She got the idea all right: she stuck her little hand into the can of powdered formula and put it right in her mouth! Stick that in Dr. Singer’s mouth next time he opens it.
As to whether I was somewhere else and entered my body or not, that depends on what you believe. An Orthodox Jewish rabbi told me that abortion is bloodshed, and therefore prohibited, unless the mother’s life is in danger, in which case the baby is known as a destroyer, and abortion is mandatory, but abortion is not murder, because the living soul (nefesh chayyim) is not yet present. I’m not sure when he says it is present. Thomas Aquinas speculated about 40 days after conception.
But, suppose you don’t believe in God and consider Genesis to be an interesting collection of tribal myths. I was me when all the organs necessary for me to exist were present, and interacting with each other in all the complexity that makes a human being. I didn’t drift like a ghost and enter my body, cells multiplied and diversified until they became me. But I’m reasonably certain the zygote was not me, although it did contain in its envelope a complete blueprint of what chemicals to take in and how to arrange them so that I would be the net result.
“But I’m reasonably certain the zygote was not me, although it did contain in its envelope a complete blueprint of what chemicals to take in and how to arrange them so that I would be the net result.”
As a zygote, you did not merely contain a blueprint for your future development. You also possessed the active disposition to develop yourself to the next stage.
SJ,
Tell us what training, what knowledge that you have that overrules the consistent declaration of Embryology. I recently reposted those quotes with you in mind.
I want to know how and why it is that you prescind from such consistent teaching that the new human organism exists at the moment of fertilization. The organism IS you, albeit at an early stage of organismal development.
If the Supremes relied on the state of scientific knowledge to pass that terrible decision in ’73, then pro-choicers may not prescind from the advanced state of the science simply because it cuts against their agenda.
Hi SJ.
“I was me when all the organs necessary for me to exist were present”
Okay, that is your hypothesis, fair enough. What reason is there to believe this? This claim goes BEYOND science as in, science tells us that the zygote is the same organism as the adult. So what reason is there to believe that science isn’t able to tell us the whole story here and that there is good evidence to believe that you didn’t exist until a bunch of organs existed?
“…interacting with each other in all the complexity that makes a human being.”
Again, biologically all of this complexity began at fertilization.
“I didn’t drift like a ghost and enter my body, cells multiplied and diversified until they became me”
But again, this is not consistent with your theory. The organism that is your body existed before you did. That is what you believe. The zygote is the organism that is you. The physical constituents of that organism are your body. Hence, your body did exist before you, so you did drift in like a ghost.
“although it did contain in its envelope a complete blueprint of what chemicals to take in and how to arrange them so that I would be the net result.”
The blueprint analogy is terribly flawed. The blueprint of a house never becomes the house. The zygote becomes the baby who becomes the adult etc. Also, given proper environment and nourishment, the zygote grows and develops. There is no environment nor nourishment for which a blueprint will become a house. A blueprint is the ends in-and-of-itself. A blueprint has no other place to go, no other thing to do than be a blueprint. The zygote, however, is not in its final stage. It is going towards something else; namely, developing into an adult. The same can not be said of a blueprint. God love you.
Bobby, excellent post and explanation for why the blueprint analogy is horribly flawed.
Gerard, you keep telling me that I am challenging the accepted consensus of biologists, microbiologists, any and every sub-specialty with expertise in fertility and reproduction. I haven’t questioned a single fact you have presented. As I noted on the post when you quoted from one textbook after another, I don’t find the statements you cite, or the facts they present, contradicts what I’m saying at all. (I won’t repeat all my reasons here, I’m sure we will be discussing it there for a while.)
You expressed that I was calling your science sloppy when we discussed this question earlier. I responded that you are not sloppy, just biased. You are reading a value judgement into the data that the data does not support, except in the mind of a person predisposed to look at it that way. There is another equally educated and experienced biologists, motivated by his son’s debilitating and near-fatal illness, to go into stem cell research. When told that an embryo is the same as a child, he asked “Why does our society accept freezing embryos, but we don’t accept freezing ten year olds?” Yet you and he differ on that point.
This much we can agree on: The science available in 1973 was far inferior to the science we have now. At the time, there was a common understanding of “quickening,” a point where a dormant fetus began to show signs of life, movement, responsiveness. The court, not being medical experts, relied on this common understanding. Today, we have a much more detailed, more nuanced, understanding of a process of development which goes through many more small steps. This knowledge is legitimate to consider in determining at what stage, if any, the mother should have the right to make her own, private decision to terminate the pregnancy.
The Roe v. Wade decision itself states that the interest of the state to intervene is based solely on the existence of an independent human life distinct from the mother — we’ve quibbled a lot about humanness, and personness, and life and distinctness and independence, but somewhere in that mix is the basis for government intervention.
It is certainly simple to say “starting with the zygote.” There is certainly a qualitative change at that point. I often rely on Occam’s razor, but it does not universally dictate the precisely best course of action for all people at all times.
The best “blueprint” analogy is a self-extracting zip file. The zip file itself cannot be read, nor can it run a program. First, it has to be extracted. God and nature did not design the zygote for instant self-extraction. It takes nine months. At the beginning, not much is functional except the early steps of self-extraction. Toward the end, a good part of the program is running, even though parts of it are not. But no analogy is proof, that’s just to tell you how I look at it.
In the past, I’ve also mentioned the distinction between a tadpole and a toad, or a pollywog and a frog. One will become the other, but each is a distinct being. Actually, a tadpole has more conscious self-directed motility than a first trimester fetus does.
It also occurs to me to ask, if a ten year old is NOT a “sexual being” merely because he or she will soon enter puberty, then why is a fetus a “person,” merely because it will soon grow into a person? That’s not proof either, just logic, to point out how much we each think as we wish to, rather than according to some universal standard. (Note on person: to the extent you rely on the fetus having constitutional rights, the language the constitution uses is “person.” So personhood is relevant.)
The zygote was not me. Some unknown number of zygotes naturally miss the uterine wall and are carried out of the body. They never become more than a cell or eight. They don’t know what they are missing. They don’t feel death as a human being feels death. If you removed my liver today, I would not be a living human being, I would be a corpse. When it was all there, I was there.
SJ,
In the rush to do 1,000 different tasks and address points of disagreement, I often forget the essentials, like saying hello and hoping all is well with you and others posting here. Please accept my apologies.
So, hello. Were you affected by this monster storm that we in NY are just digging out from under? My children are reveling in it all. I’ve abandoned all middle-age grumpiness about the mess and have joined in snowman making and snowball fighting.
Regarding your comments, Embryology has pronounced that a new organism exists at fertilization. You are seriously in error to suggest that signals a mere qualitative change.
Regina and me and baby makes three, to borrow a phrase. A new organism means that the egg-which is maternal reproductive tissue-ceases to be such and becomes its own organism. This represents a quantitative change in family topography. Biology recognizes TWO DISTINCT ORGANISMS at conception.
The reason why we do not traffic in zip file analogies is because the analogy is contradicted by the facts. The relative complexity of the organism and its associated functions at various developmental stages is just that-relative.
You were you at the zygotic stage. You were you at every stage, and will remain yourself until death, regardless of how much cognitive function YOU lose. YOU may lose YOUR function, but YOU can never lose YOURSELF.
Similarly, the human acquires new functions and loses others all throughout the lifespan, yet remains itself.
God Bless
Hi SJ.
“The best “blueprint” analogy is a self-extracting zip file. The zip file itself cannot be read, nor can it run a program. First, it has to be extracted. God and nature did not design the zygote for instant self-extraction. It takes nine months. At the beginning, not much is functional except the early steps of self-extraction. Toward the end, a good part of the program is running, even though parts of it are not. But no analogy is proof, that’s just to tell you how I look at it.”
Okay, I agree. How does it then follow that the embryo does not have inherent dignity and moral worth?
“Actually, a tadpole has more conscious self-directed motility than a first trimester fetus does.”
This could be true too. But again, how does it follow that the embryo therefore is not worthy of life and can be killed? Does conscious self-directed motility grant moral worth?
“It also occurs to me to ask, if a ten year old is NOT a “sexual being” merely because he or she will soon enter puberty, then why is a fetus a “person,” merely because it will soon grow into a person?”
I’m not sure if you meant to use the word “person” here both times. But a fetus is a person because it is a human being. I have no reason to make a distinction between a human being and a human person. This is an invention of those who wish to deem a certain class of humans as less valuable. If there is a good reason that this distinction should be made, then I am all for hearing it.
But a fetus is a person because it is an integrated whole which has the a priori or natural potential for rational and moral thought. If we discover aliens with rational and moral thought, great, I deem them persons too.
“Some unknown number of zygotes naturally miss the uterine wall and are carried out of the body. They never become more than a cell or eight. They don’t know what they are missing.”
True. How does it follow that they do not have moral worth? This commits the naturalistic fallacy which says that because a certain phenomena occurs in nature, that phenomena dictates the reality of things. Does one have to “know what they are missing” in order to have inherent dignity and moral worth?
“They don’t feel death as a human being feels death.”
Are you saying that in order to have inherent dignity and moral worth, you have to “feel death”? I’m not trying to be flippant here, but I’m trying to figure out what it is in your view that grounds human dignity and moral worth.
“If you removed my liver today, I would not be a living human being, I would be a corpse.”
But if I did it while you were unconscious, then you would not feel death. So since you did not feel death as human beings feel death, would that mean that you are not a human being? Again, not trying to be flippant, but I just don’t see how these criteria that you keep mentioning in passing infuse the quality of dignity on a being. God love you.
First thank you for the greetings, and I return them to you. I have been sitting in Milwaukee all winter, wondering why my friends in D.C. — which I left in part because there wasn’t enough snow in the winter — are getting a couple of feet, while we aren’t getting any. Well, we finally got ten inches or so, and it was manageable. My niece and nephew in New York are undoubtedly enjoying the snow just as yours are. I actually enjoyed spending a few hours shovelling snow — a good thing, taken in moderation. My regards to your lovely children and to all the snowmen they have designed.
A new organism exists at conception in the same sense that a new organism exists after mitosis by an amoeba. Even a little more so, since the two amoebas have identical genetic characteristics. But it is not yet a human being. It may grow into a human being. It is genetically unique.
The reason I consider it significant that it may or may not implant in the uterine wall, naturally, is that at this stage, nature itself appears indifferent, not only as to which sperm will unite with which egg, but which fertilized zygote may or may not implant and fulfill its potential. Any biologist knows that nature plays numbers games. We all agree that an individual human being is infinitely precious for its own sake — not because it adds to the numbers of the species, or the race, or because any given baby is known to be the future inventor of the potato chip, or a feasible means of fusion power, or whatever. That is a qualitative difference from nature and mere biology.
So, I’m looking for, where does the numbers game end, and where does the infinitely previous individual begin?
The more I read in the 101 Reasons book, the more I recognize that while the vastly magnified photos of fetuses are emotionally compelling, they are, up to a point, empty shells of what they will become — not in the sense that they are literally hollow, but in the sense that the framework is being assembled, the necessary molecules are being obtained from outside the organism itself, and put in place, the rudiments of certain organs are being set in place, but its not a functioning human being.
I know you could take the word “function” and say that I only value people for their function. But that semantical ploy misses the point. Once a human being is functional, it need serve no functional purpose that he or she exists. However, there must BE a functional human being — having the essential function OF a human being.
Motility is not essential, but self-directing is essential. That’s why the 101 book dwells on things like thumb sucking. It doesn’t actually require a brain with conscious intent to such a thumb, but the more this little being is engaging in self-directed activity, however primitive, the more it is a human being. That’s why I consider EEG a good measure, along with metabolic independence of the mother. REM is a pretty good indicator too.
You refer to the natural potential for moral thought. I suspect by that standard, some of the more severe cases of congenital cognitive dysfunction I’ve seen would not be human. I generally don’t know which congenital disease each person I’m think of had, so I don’t specify. A fetus that has not yet achieved the capacity for thought, moral or otherwise, is not yet a human being. Our bodies are awfully similar to chimpanzees, but our thoughts are light years different.
Dignity and self-worth begins where the natural numbers game ends. That’s not easy to define, but its worth the effort. For example, I’m four square in support of aborting fetuses with severe and debilitating genetic diseases, or which have been ravaged, really ravaged, by infection. Nature is imperfect, but nature tends to sometimes spontaneously abort such fetuses, and God may even have designed the pregnancy process to do so. Likewise, one observable problem with in vitro fertilization is that there is an increase in the percentage of genetic problems, compared to natural conception. It appears that the more genetically damaged sperm tend to lose the race to the fallopian tubes. I’m not beyond saying, we have some information here, the process has gone awry, let’s start over. Why don’t I say that about a delivered baby? Its too late to start over — a fully formed baby is here.
There is a difference.
Hi SJ.
“Motility is not essential, but self-directing is essential.”
Now, this points to our position. That is, a zygote is self-directing in the sense that given the proper nourishment and environment, it grows and develops into an adult. Okay, so it needs to do this in a woman’s body- so what? How does that change WHAT the embryo is? We all are subject to our environment in one way or another, but that doesn’t change the kind of thing that we are. Suppose we are able to develop technology to the point where an embryo can be implanted into an artificial womb and grow. Is that embryo worthy of life but not the one growing in a woman’s body? How does the environment change the moral status of the embryo? Now perhaps this leads into the bodily ownership or bodily autonomy argument in favor of abortion, but in any case, the embryo who is in an artificial womb and the embryo in a woman’s womb are the same moral agent. Either they are both worthy of life or neither is.
“That’s why I consider EEG a good measure, along with metabolic independence of the mother. REM is a pretty good indicator too.”
Brain waves determine moral worth? If I give off more powerful brain waves than you, am I worth more than you? If someone only gives off a very small signal, can we do anything to them besides kill them, like torture or make them our slaves? One you start saying that our inherent dignity and moral worth is based on our giving off brain waves, then people with “more” brain waves are worth more than people with “less” brain waves.
“You refer to the natural potential for moral thought. I suspect by that standard, some of the more severe cases of congenital cognitive dysfunction I’ve seen would not be human.”
This is not what I mean when I say natural potential. What I mean is that in light of the fact that a being is of the human species, it has the ability for rational thought even if it can not utilize that rational thought, like someone with severe brain problems. The following thought experiment will illustrate. Consider a child who has severe mental defects. He has the mind of a 3 month old, and it will never mature any further. Suppose that a miracle drug is invented which, when the boy takes it, allows him to think rational and moral thoughts, just like you or me. Now, is the boy a new “kind”? Does he have a different nature or is he of a different essence? No, he is still a human being, but now he is able to utilize his capacity for rational thought. He always had that ability but something was obstructing it. Contrast that to a dog or cat or worm or chimp. Suppose we gave any non-human animal that same miracle drug, and then teh animal began talking, thinking rationally, morally etc. Would that animal be of a different “kind”? Yes, because animals do not have that natural capacity for rational thought. A dog who studies Kant is a completely different thing than a regular dog. But a person who has severe cognitive defects is still a human being who has that natural capacity for rational thought- something is simply obstruction that rational thought, but the existence of that obstruction does not change WHAT that being is, which is a human being with dignity and moral worth.
“Dignity and self-worth begins where the natural numbers game ends.”
I’m not sure what this means.
“Why don’t I say that about a delivered baby? Its too late to start over — a fully formed baby is here.”
What is needed to be fully formed? Babies don’t have kneecaps made of bone until they are around 5 years old, so they wouldn’t be FULLY formed. So is it being “fully formed” that infuses dignity and moral worth on a human?
This is a thoughtful presentation Bobby, and you stop a little short of advocating that a five year old be killed in order to make your point — as some have done, albeit I know they are being rhetorical.
A human body is made up of billions of molecules, most of them some combination of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Are each of these elements “human”? Are the compounds made from these elements human? Are they human only while part of a human body, and do they then cease to be human? No. They are never human. It is the incredibly complex pattern, not merely a static pattern but the continuous pattern of motion of millions of metabolic reactions, within cells, between cells, around cells, between specialized organs, and far from least, along neuronic pathways and within a brain, which add up to a human being, something far greater than the sum of its parts.
Now, the zygote is, in itself, quite a complex organism. I’m not sure if the number of molecules or atoms in a single cell is in the millions — I’m sure Gerard does, but I’d have to look it up — but it is a magnificently complex organism in itself. So is a paramecium. The cell, the fundamental building block of all life, the very first life form God created, is quite a miracle. A hydra is a more complex organism than a zygote, EXCEPT that the zygote contains more complex DNA providing the blueprint for the most complex organism we know of (with the possible exception of the dolphin).
But, that doesn’t make the zygote a human being. It is the seed of a human being. I do not recognize the presence of a human being until there is a complete interacting pattern. Now you can point to certain things that continue to develop after birth, but these are not qualitative — even puberty doesn’t create a whole different person, it just adds a few capacities and perspectives. It is not on the order of magnitude of a caterpillar, a chrysalis, and a butterfly.
I’ve been studying the “101 Reasons Not To” book, because I am trying to distill the proven facts from the advocacy and interpretation. Are there facts which make an impression on me? Yes. When the baby can feel pain is very important to me. The evidence isn’t complete on what is a reflex and what is conscious pain, but there is no question that at a certain point in pregnancy, there are nerves capable of carrying a pain message, and a cortex capable of receiving and interpreting them. Basically, EEG waves indicate that there is an organism with a sense of self, as distinct from the framework in which that organism can grow. I know that to you this is a distinction without a difference, but to me it is a huge difference.
The relative quantity of brain waves means nothing. The presence of brain waves means almost everything.
If a medicine is developed which cures a cognitively disabled person, restoring full capacity for rational and moral thought (you’ve mentioned both), it would make a tremendous difference in that person’s status. With the intelligence of a three year old, they could never be independent. They cannot make decisions for themselves. They must always be supervised. Having spent several years transferring such people from group home to day program and back again, I am thoroughly familiar with what detailed regulations exist putting liability on their various caretakers for allowing them to make decisions for themselves. In most cases, that is for the person’s own protection. It would not make a difference in whether they should live, but it would make a huge difference in how they could live. First, of course, they would have to go through the years of education and socialization necessary to function at a more than three year old level.
Unfortunately, particularly with congenital cognitive disability, we are not dealing with a mere obstruction, but with the absence of capacity for thought. Its not there. It is missing. It has been destroyed, or it was never grown in the first place.
Now if a zygote could be transferred to an artificial womb, this would be an answer to a woman who says, I don’t want to go through nine months of pregnancy. Right now, you might be able to threaten and intimidate her and make her go through it, but you are forcing HER to do that. You can’t step in, at that stage, and say “give me the child.” (You believe it is a child, and would call it that). But if you could take the entire period of pregnancy off her hands, that’s not an imposition on her.
That would not resolve the moral dilemma for a woman who says “I don’t want to be responsible for bringing a baby into the world who is blind, crippled and missing half their brain.” That woman might feel morally compelled to refuse the services of your artificial womb.
But would the availability of an artificial womb make the zygote more of a person? No. No matter what host is available for it to grow in, it is not a person until it is a person. (See first two paragraphs).
SJ,
I’m not sure what you are saying in the first two paragraphs. Are you saying that the human body is complex, much more so than the zygote? It isn’t about the zygote being complex; rather, that the zygote is an integrated whole who, given the proper environment and nutrition, will grow thorough all stages of the human experience. The zygote stage is the first stage of this organism’s existence which has the natural potential for rational thought and therefore is worthy of life.
“But, that doesn’t make the zygote a human being. It is the seed of a human being. I do not recognize the presence of a human being until there is a complete interacting pattern.”
I don’t know what a complete interacting pattern is, nor why the existence of a complete interacting pattern is that which infuses dignity and moral worth on an individual.
“The relative quantity of brain waves means nothing. The presence of brain waves means almost everything. ”
This is just an assertion. How can the existence of brain waves mean something but not the quantity? If brain waves are good, why should I not value the amount? This seems to me to be ad hoc to say that the existence of something gives value to something else but that the amount of that something has no bearing whatsoever.
“Unfortunately, particularly with congenital cognitive disability, we are not dealing with a mere obstruction, but with the absence of capacity for thought. Its not there. It is missing. It has been destroyed, or it was never grown in the first place.”
What reason is there to believe that it is not an obstruction? That was the purpose of the thought experiment. If I was able to take a pill which allowed me to fly, I would be of a different kind, a different nature. The reason is because in my human nature, I do not have the natural capacity to fly, and any “human” that can fly is not a human but something else because humans don’t fly. Contrast that with rational thought. Would someone who goes from having severe cognitive defects to rational thought change natures or not? I think the clear answer here is no, which illustrates that a human who does not have the capacity for rational thought is not of a different kind than humans with the capacity for rational thought. Thus all human beings deserve protection under the law simply in light of the fact that they are human, not based on anything they do.
“Now if a zygote could be transferred to an artificial womb, this would be an answer to a woman who says, I don’t want to go through nine months of pregnancy. Right now, you might be able to threaten and intimidate her and make her go through it, but you are forcing HER to do that. You can’t step in, at that stage, and say “give me the child.” (You believe it is a child, and would call it that). But if you could take the entire period of pregnancy off her hands, that’s not an imposition on her.”
So now you’re beginning to defend bodily autonomy. Are you willing to defend 3rd trimester abortions, the idea of torturing the fetus for fun, etc? Because if this is about HER and HER BODY, then the question of the humanity of the fetus is irrelevant, and we can assume for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person just like you or me.
“But would the availability of an artificial womb make the zygote more of a person? No. No matter what host is available for it to grow in, it is not a person until it is a person.”
Again, I”m sorry, but I can not see how your first two paragraphs address this question. In fact, you begin paragraph three with the sentence “But, that doesn’t make the zygote a human being.” as if to imply that what preceded the sentence could be construed as evidence that the zygote IS a human being. Then you make the assertion that “It is the seed of a human being. I do not recognize the presence of a human being until there is a complete interacting pattern.”
I’ve seen a viability argument, a sentient argument, a conscious argument… I know you’re saying that the issue of personhood is complex, but if it is so difficult to pinpoint or convey exactly when the fetus is a person, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution and not kill what could be a human?
At this point Bobby, you are indulging in a lot of rhetoric, because you don’t wish to respond directly to what I’ve said. Asking why more brain waves aren’t better is ludicrous sophistry. There is a qualitative difference between “I think” and “I have no capacity for thought.” The quantitative difference between little thought, some thought, and lots of thought, might even be a little better or worse, but its not a question of is there, or isn’t there. A very crude analogy might be, if you live in a village where money does not exist, you can’t spend any money for anything anytime, and you don’t even know what money is. That is a different matter than, we have money, I wish I had more. More doesn’t even make sense if you don’t know what money is. How can you want more of something you’ve never had, never heard of, and never even thought about abstractly?
I would even take “I think, therefore I am” a step further, and say in the absence of thought, I was not.
The zygote is NOT self-directing. It is chemically programmed. Nothing inside the zygote says “Ah-hah, I see a uterine wall. Bosun! Man the progesterone pumps. Stand by for mitosis!” It just willy-nilly does what it does. As long as that is what is going on, I have no problem interrupting the process, any more than I have a problem with the fact that millions of sperm cells die for every fertilized egg.
I do give some weight to a woman’s autonomy. What I find eminently sensible about Roe v. Wade is that it recognizes, at one end of pregnancy, a woman is entitled to make her own decision, at the other end of pregnancy, she delivers an independent, distinct, new life. In between, there is a continuum from one to the other.
You will find written over and over again on this site that I fully support the ruling which left up to states to prohibit abortion in the third trimester, unless the mother’s life is in danger. What I’ve read in 101 Reasons confirms my sense that this is wise and appropriate. I even think it may be wise to move the line back a bit from the beginning of the third trimester. Maybe 22 or 24 weeks, rather than 28. Some time before delivery, there is a baby, which if delivered, could live, breath, eat, metabolically independent of the mother, and, which is self-aware, and self-directing, however inchoate, in a way infinitely different from a zygote.
It is possible that you won’t ever “see” what I’m saying. John Thayer Jensen understood it perfectly. He said he flatly disagrees, but he sees exactly what the basis of my thinking is. If you can’t, perhaps you should stop trying. Or, maybe you just don’t want to, because you might have to question your own beliefs as often as I’ve had to question mine.
Well SJ, I could just as easily accuse you of the same thing seeing as how I’ve been asking basically the same question of you through out this entire thread. This is why I put what you write in quotes- to make sure that I respond directly to what you are saying and touch on all the pertinent points. Anyone can just accuse anyone else of sophistry or not responding. I’ll let those who are reading this be the judge.
And of course I see the basis of your thinking. I just don’t think it’s coherent and I’m trying to point that out to you. How that translates into “me not wanting to because I might have to question my own beliefs” I don’t know.
So I’m done. You can have the last word.
too bad you aren’t interested in answering questions in an intelligent manner, SJ.
To say that the zygote is “programmed” is disingenuous at best.
We are all “programmed” to develop. SO WHAT?
A 10 year old girl is “programmed” to begin puberty.
She doesn’t just say, “oh, wow! I’d like to develop into a woman now, cuz gee whiz, I find boys cool.”
A middle aged woman is programmed to undergo menopause.
Please. Let’s have some rational thought here.
You know that the zygote develops independently from the woman’s body. It needs her body for a mere 9 months and then like all of us, it passes onto the next stage in life – that of a newborn.
your basis of personhood is that of location and development.
these are arbitrary and illogical.
I honestly don’t think you are being honest here, SJ.
There is of course no more difficult conversation to have, than one where one participant holds to the premise “This is a human being” and the other responds “No, it is not.” Assuming each remains firm in the conviction that their premise is correct, they are not going to agree. They may eventually decide the other is incoherent, disingenuous, or indulging in rhetorical sophistry. A visitor from another planet, who had no stake in the matter at all, would probably say, of course you’re not going to agree, your premises are so different you can’t agree on anything.
I have had better discussions with people whose pro-life credentials are no less than your own. Some of them, it is simply that we have other principles in common, so we can put this disagreement in better perspective. I’ve found that I agree with most sentiment on this site when it comes to mandatory education of ten years olds as “sexual beings,” and Gerard puts out some good material on Lent. We also agree that a good way to avoid STD’s, the best way, the only reliable way, is to make a life-long monogamous, affectionate, commitment to a single partner, preferably married. I’ve also noticed that hardly anyone else even bothers to comment on some of the posts where I find the most agreement, or the discussion ends very quickly. Apparently, these others are something of a lightning rod. I’ve already posted elsewhere at some length everything I really have to say on this subject, which includes thorough and detailed answers to the questions some people keep saying I haven’t answered. I suspect you just don’t like my answers. Try this, and follow the links it leads to:
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/continuing-the-life-and-choice-dialog-on-a-familiar-anniversary/
There is of course no more difficult conversation to have, than one where one participant holds to the premise “This is a human being” and the other responds “No, it is not.”
Especially when the one who is saying “no it’s not” refuses to provide ANY evidence to support that statement.
Bethany, that observation borders on amnesia.
There is a difference between providing no evidence, and providing an argument that you still disagree with. Our premises are miles apart. Therefore, no matter how many facts we consider, our conclusions will still differ.
I put together a lengthy article based solely on the fact in “101 Reasons,” and you will say I have REFUSED to provide ANY evidence. You have a remarkable capacity to blank out anything that does not conform to your pre-existing world view. I don’t expect to change your mind. I have a harder time with this discussion than you, because I am always thinking about what Gerard is putting forward, and what Serena put into her book. Even though I don’t suddenly see it their way, I have to stop and consider it. You have an easy time — you just blind yourself to any alternate viewpoint, and then announce that you haven’t seen anything at all.
No, siarlys, I have read everything you have written, and I have seen NO evidence that the unborn child is not a human being- not because I am blinded to it, but because it’s NOT THERE.
What you always are referring to is personhood, and the problem here is that you refuse to admit that.
You refuse to admit that you place some human beings on higher ranks than other human beings.
How hard would it be to just admit that yes, the fetus is a human being, but you dont believe that it has developed enough to be considered a full person, according to your philosophy?
You have shown NO science that would prove that a human being is not in existence at conception. Nada.
Everything you come up with- the brain development level, the consciousness, the age (which you keep changing) etc…those are arbitrary concepts, and philosophical, which do NOT biologically change the zygote from something non – human to human once those things are fully developed.
You have yet to show me or anyone else here how there is ANY actual biological change that occurs between conception and the third trimester to make a non-person all of a sudden “poof” become a human being. until you provide that scientific, and not philosophical, evidence, then I stand by what I said.
Bethany: you are absolutely correct. The notion that a human being need not be a person is something that was invented by those who support abortion, precisely because they understood that they could not, with any credibility, deny that a human embryo is a human being.
Siarlys obviously has a lot of catching up to do.
[…] First, a word about apologetics (argumentation). I’ve published on this blog a series of quotes from embryology texts which state that a new human organism comes into existence from the moment of fertilization. Click here for that list. […]
People who study logic teach that there is no way to prove a negative. It is not my responsibility to PROVE that a fetus is NOT a human being. It is the responsibility of those wish to impose restrictions on the choices of others to prove that it IS a human being. You are no doubt satisfied with, indeed, passionately committed to, the arguments on that point which have been offered here. I am not. There is no lack of facts discussed and responded to.
I’ve told you in detail what I consider necessary before the pregnant woman’s autonomy is limited by the indisputable existence of a distinct, independent human being. You are committed to other criteria.
The zygote is indeed a human zygote. It is not a human being. It is the seed of a human being. It is capable of becoming a human being. It is not there yet. Again, you disagree, but I haven’t left anything out about what I believe and recognize. I have detailed every biological change which differentiates a zygote from a human being. You don’t consider those changes significant. One cell or a billion, no organs (only organelles) or a dozen, that doesn’t change the status of what exists inside the womb to you. To me, those differences are quite essential.
Personhood? It’s a word. Its not a bad word, but not one that adds clarity to this discussion. I looked up person in a paperback American Century Dictionary, since it didn’t have a separate listing for personhood. (1) individual human being, (2) living human body. Then there is persona, aspect of the personality as shown to or perceived by others. I don’t see any meaningful distinction from the terms I have been using.
That more than answers Dan’s little footnote.
And, I have answered at length and in detail the series of quotes from embryology text books previously posted. Not even Dr. Nadal has directly responded to what I’ve said about those citations, he just keeps referring to the citations I’ve already responded to.
People who study logic teach that there is no way to prove a negative. It is not my responsibility to PROVE that a fetus is NOT a human being.
I can prove that a cat is not a human being.
Could it really be much more difficult to prove that a fetus is not a human being, if it is true?
Personhood? It’s a word. Its not a bad word, but not one that adds clarity to this discussion. I looked up person in a paperback American Century Dictionary, since it didn’t have a separate listing for personhood. (1) individual human being, (2) living human body. Then there is persona, aspect of the personality as shown to or perceived by others. I don’t see any meaningful distinction from the terms I have been using.
Why do you pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about?
We both know as a matter of common sense that a cat is not a human being. But can you PROVE it? Most people would say “I don’t need to prove it. What do you mean prove it. Everybody KNOWS a cat is not a human being.” Its easy when there is nothing to disagree about or debate.
Come to think of it, there are PETA people who honestly are starting to advocate that dogs and cats have rights. Why should only people have rights, not dogs and cats? I have no patience for that argument, but I believe the county board for the city and county of San Francisco voted that pets in that county no longer have “owners,” they have “guardians.” As someone who relies on the Bible, I’m sure you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between a human being and any other kind of mammal. But PETA doesn’t. Can you PROVE that just because they belong to another species, they are not entitled to the same rights as we are? It’s really a value judgement, ours or God’s.
When the movie “The Fly” came out, theaters advertised “We will pay you $1000 if you can prove this could not happen” (a man’s head getting stuck on a fly and a fly’s head stuck on a man). One kid kept going back offering one “proof” after another, and finally the manager said “You can’t prove a negative kid.” Logically, you can’t. You can reduce liklihood to 0.00000000001, but you can’t prove it couldn’t happen. Of course most of us also dismiss it as not worth worrying about.
The word person simply adds no clarity to our discussion. It’s not a matter of what you are talking about.
We both know as a matter of common sense that a cat is not a human being. But can you PROVE it? Most people would say “I don’t need to prove it. What do you mean prove it. Everybody KNOWS a cat is not a human being.” Its easy when there is nothing to disagree about or debate.
Absolutely I can prove it. If you asked me to prove it, I would show you the biological and scientific evidence which shows that a cat most certainly is a different species than a human being. It’s very easy.
Can you PROVE that just because they belong to another species, they are not entitled to the same rights as we are? It’s really a value judgement, ours or God’s.
Siarlys, you have again jumped to another issue and missed the point. I never said anything about whether cats have value or rights. I said that a cat is not a human being. It is not the same species as “homo sapiens”. That is easily provable by using science and logic.
And if the unborn child, at any stage of development, was not a human being, it would be easily provable using biological and scientific evidence as well.
Siarlys, did you leave this discussion?
No, I check it now and then, but I really don’t spend all day living in cyberspace. I live in the real, four dimensional world, and I talk to live people face to face. I generally check in here about once a day, sometimes more like a day and a half to two days. The last couple of days, as you know, I’ve focused on giving lengthy, detailed, responses to you and Michelle on two points, and haven’t tried to cover each and every comment anyone may have made on each post. I think its better use of my time, and develops a more productive discussion.
Further, this discussion is wandering way off topic, so I’ve been thinking about summarizing my original point in relation to Gerard’s original post, rather than continuing what amounts to a verbal fencing match over small sub-points that we know we aren’t going to agree on. We won’t agree on this either, but at least we could perhaps refocus the conversation.
“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]
Like all the citations Gerard has assiduously researched and provided, this is undisputably factually true. Whether the data provided therein shows that a human being exists from the moment of conception requires interpretation. Key phrases in my view are “beginning” and “primordium.” Likewise, from another citation, “growing into another individual of the species.” Indeed the zygote is the beginning stage of a process that will grow into another individual of the species. Where we differ is whether interrupting that process destroys a human being, or removes cells that WOULD have grown into a human being.
What is actually present in a zygote is a uniquely coded set of 23 chromosomes, and epigenetic chemical coding for diversification into a variety of more specialized cells. That is not, in itself, sufficient basis to make it independent of the woman in whose body it exists, or to rescind her autonomy. When the basic organs of a human body have all grown and are functional, then, as Justice Blackmun wrote, state interest in protecting this independent life becomes paramount.
Further, this discussion is wandering way off topic, so I’ve been thinking about summarizing my original point in relation to Gerard’s original post, rather than continuing what amounts to a verbal fencing match over small sub-points that we know we aren’t going to agree on. We won’t agree on this either, but at least we could perhaps refocus the conversation.
So instead of admitting I have a point, you are going to just change the subject?
What point might that be?
I think my post is pretty self explanatory, Siarlys.
Well, if we both think our posts are self-explanatory, and we keep talking right past each other, we can both wander off feeling self-righteous. That’s not much of a conversation. I think perhaps we are wearing out some posts, by continuing to tack on response after response. Its hard to even remember what the original point was. Let’s focus on the latest articles instead. I’m finding some good points in them.
Siarlys, I think my post that you haven’t responded to is right on topic. Look at the title and content of Gerard’s post, then look at my 8:53 post. It is quite relevant.
“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]
This is of course true. We are ourselves from the moment of conception. We were all once teenagers developing into adults, toddlers developing into teenagers, babies developing into toddlers, fetuses developing into babies and embryos developing into fetuses, but we were always alive and ourselves.
“None of them say, a human being exists from the moment a zygote forms. ” SJ
Really?
“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 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]
This is of course completely true.