Life starts after 14 days, say Anglicans

The Age (Australia) ^ | November 5, 2003 | Peta Rasdien

[nickcarraway]

Life does not begin when sperm meets egg, but 14 days after, according to the head of the Anglican Church in Australia.

Primate Peter Carnley told the Fertility Society of Australia in Perth yesterday this meant objections to IVF, genetic testing and stem cell research should fall away.

Archbishop Carnley said that until it was implanted in a womb lining, a fertilised egg was not a human life but rather a genetically novel kind of cell.

The fertilised egg must also pass the point that it could split to become an identical twin, which was at about 14 days. After that, the embryo should be accorded the status of an individual human with rights to care, protection and life.

Dr Carnley's position clearly contradicts that of the Catholic Church, which holds that life begins when an egg is fertilised.

But Dr Carnley said the debate about the beginning of life within the Christian faith did not come to that view until 1869, when Pius IX declared all abortion was wrong from the beginning of conception.

Dr Carnley argued that scientific knowledge had moved forward since then and must be taken into account.

If conception was defined as the meeting of gametes - egg and sperm - then the cloned sheep Dolly was not conceived, because Dolly was the product of cell nuclear transfer, where the ovum nucleus was replaced by DNA from an adult cell.

"I think it is now clear that we must begin to think of conception less as a moment and more in gradual and continuous terms as a process," Dr Carnley said.

He said since 1984 Anglican moral theology had concluded that conception was a 14-day process and this helped shape legislation around the world.

"Given that twinning can occur up to the 14th day of this process, it is not logically possible to talk of the conception of a unique human individual prior to the completion of this process.

"Each of us can say that we came to be in the sense that we were each conceived, as a potential human individual, 14 days after the fertilisation of an ovum, not before." He said the natural 60 per cent wastage of ova during IVF procedures need not be considered the killing of conceived human individuals.

"We do not have some 70,000 frozen people on ice at various places around Australia," he said.

Embryo experimentation and stem cell research were also morally acceptable.

"If there is a utilitarian argument for the possible benefit to mankind of experimentation on embryos, this could be tolerated in a controlled way under licence up until the 14th day in a way that after the 14th day it would not," he said.

"Stem cell research becomes also thinkable, for stem cells are harvested well within the 14th day period."

[beavus]

I don't believe that it matters

You don't think the time of the beginning matters? Is it that you don't want to tell me when it is, or is it that you are unable to tell me when it is? I assume you still think that it does exist.

It does matter to physicists, chemists, and molecular biologists, who, despite your contention, presume the existence of a time continuum (on the scales at issue). It seemed to matter to YOU previously by the way you were intent, until now, on arguing for the existence of a nonarbitrary beginning time.

[MHGinTN]

An individual-human-lifetime-is-in-evidence-when-the-embryonic-genome-is-activated bump

[hispanarepublicana]

Life doesn't actually start until all the kids are out of college and employed (Mom & Dad's life, anyway).

[hocndoc]

I believe it was Hobbes who said something to the effect that between true science and erroneous beliefs lies ignorance.

I'm comfortable with fuzzyness at the first 24 hours of being, although I prefer to count the beginning at the fusion of the sperm with the oocyte membrane or sometime after the sperm contents enter the oocyte, when the oocyte cell membrane becomes completely impermeable to other sperm. Most definitely, I would choose no later than that moment when no other sperm are able to enter the oocyte.

But, in light of the practice of sperm injection in assisted reproduction (in vitro) and the possibility of cloning human zygotes by many techniques - or even in contemplation of parthenogenesis - I will accept the very first moment when the cell begins producing the proteins which will make up the spindle fibers, or, perhaps, the moment the sperm or sperm-equivalent begins replicating its centromere.

However, as I'm sure you notice, this is preference, based on imperfect knowledge. As humans do, I choose to find a pattern and choose which factors of that pattern are significant.

I have argued, in response to Carnley and your queries, that the human life begins before 14 days, at fertilization. If you'll review, you'll see that our conversation has been one of a pattern of interogation by you and answer by me, but that I've been fairly consistent.

Which brings us back to the question that you've rejected: *why* we make the decisions that we do about when and whether or not to intentionally kill human beings.

BTW, I remembered a beautiful book that I have, "From Conception to Birth," by Alexander Tsiaras and Barry Werth (published by Doubleday last year). The information on the moments surrounding fertilization is very short, and I'll type it in here. The pictures of "Day 1" are incredible, using immunoflourescence to show the chromatids, the spindle fibers and the movement of each, while the text is anthropomorphic and slightly male-gender biased. The authors are evidently human, at least by my choice of the pattern of human actions.


p. 42
""And then, if success is to be obtained, come the final selection. Once the first sperm penetrates and fuses with the egg, the membrane rapidly changes electrical charge, in effect demagnitizing. All other competing sperm literally drop off. less than five minutes later, a second, more permanent chemical blockin mechanismis triggered, safeguarding the unique mixture of parental genes. In reproduction, nature abhors threesomes. Sitll, like jilted suitors, the excluded sperm continue to flutter around the ovum for several more days.""


p. 50
""Day 1
First of Trillions
MITOSIS: Inside, one of the the [sic] most thrilling and important - and routine - of all biological events, slowly beings [sic] to unflold: cell fusion. Through some force that is not understood, the egg's protoplasmstarts to shimmy, violently. The nuclei of sperm and egg sidle towards each other, enlarge, and shed their protective membranes.
Within 12 hours, the nuclei merge, followed by the commmonest of miracles. The 23 maternal chromosomes and 23 paternal chromosomes attach, creating the first edition of the 46-volume set of instructions for turning this one cell into the trillions that will make a complete individual. From now on, every time the daughter cells of this cell - now called a zygote - split in 2, each will carry a perfect copy of this blue print.""

Now, before any one objects to the phrases "complete individual" and "perfect copy," note that this book is not written for professionals, and that the language reflects our every day pattern of speaking. The zygote is a "complete individual" at that stage of the individual's life. (Once again, we return to Carnley's position that twinning, etc., is possible.)

[hocndoc]

This is a "look at where we're going on this" ping for some of you.

Marvin,
Strictly speaking, the embryonic genome, at least as far as is currently known, is not activated until there are several divisions, and after 3 -5 days. (See the quotes from O'Rahilly and others, above.)

Even though the maternal and paternal cytoplasmic organelles are stll the producers of proteins, according to the parent's DNA/genomic blueprints, the zygote still functions as an individual according to Darwin's definition of the primary laws governing life (remember, "even a stopped clock......"): "Growth with Reproduction, Inheritance, and Variability." The oocyte and sperm cells did not have this capacity separately.

[hocndoc]

Then, I still don't have a life ;)

[MHGinTN]

Thank you, Lady. I like to express the concept as follows:

Human fertilization establishes the genome of a new member of the human species ... an individual who is called a zygote at earliest age.

The first mega-cell is a totipotent stem cell because it will (can) give rise to the placenta as well as all the tissues and organs of the body at least one new individual organism will use upon exiting into the air world. When the zygote duplicates the 46 chromosome nucleus, and divides up the collection of mitochondrial grains, and separates into two distinct cells—each having a nucleus of 46 chromosomes as set from fertilization, the new conceived life has become two totipotent cells sharing the interior of the oocyte’s outer cell membrane, the zona pellucida, the original coat—two cells arising from one individual cell, each of the two capable of giving rise to a placental organ and all the other organs and tissues of an individual. The genome has not yet activated, because ‘construction tasking’ has not yet begun.

Within a few more hours, one of the two totipotent cells will divide to net three cells inside the zona pellucida. From the three stem cell stage onward, in normal reproduction, assigning of tasks for the new cell lines to come (stem cell lines) will begin, tasks such as building the placenta and building the embryo body to be used months later for survival in the air world.

[Coleus]

totipotent stem cell >>>

That's a big topic of consternation among the biologists, pharmaceutical companies and politicians. Seems "they" think that the undifferentiated totipotent cells are fair game for embryonic/human stem cell research since they have not yet differentiated themselves to the various 120 tissues. Seems some freepers agree with them.

[beavus]

I'm comfortable with fuzzyness at the first 24 hours of being, although I prefer to count the beginning at the fusion of the sperm with the oocyte membrane or sometime after the sperm contents enter the oocyte, when the oocyte cell membrane becomes completely impermeable to other sperm.

I don't deny your consistency, and I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

Do you think that "fuzzyness" comes from our current ignorance of the precise time, or do you think it is a function of the fact of the continuity of physical time?

[MHGinTN]

Some pundits stubbornly continue to refer to the morula as a fertilized egg because the blastomeres remain inside the parent oocyte’s outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23-chromosome oocyte (their 'egg') no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes—of the newly conceived individual life.

The incorrect term ‘pre-embryo’ is used by some, referring to the new individual ... pre-embryo being the designation until approximately fourteen days after fertilization. Such an arbitrarily choose perspective is proposed because it is believed no twinning will occur after the embryo has implanted and begun attaching to the uterine lining ... one can suspect such an arbitrary dehumanization is made because of the uses to which these folks want to put the ‘pre-embryo’.

[Coleus]

one can suspect such an arbitrary dehumanization is made because of the uses to which these folks want to put the ‘pre-embryo’>>>>

"uses" that says it all, because we all know there is only ONE use for the blast in God's plan.

[hocndoc]

The fuzzyness that I am comfortable is a matter of hours, less than 12. And it's due to ignorance.

The fuzzyness the law tolerates is a matter of up to 9 months, and due to wishful thinking in order to justify the intentional, elective killing of human beings by other human beings.

[beavus]

The fuzzyness...is...due to ignorance.

So you contend that a precise time of beginning exists but that we just don't know specifically when it is.

So, not being able to observe it, how can we know that such a nonarbitrary dividing time nevertheless must exist?

[hocndoc]

Observation. The difference between the gametes and the zygote is obvious.

Another reason is the very question that Bishop Carnley attempted to answer: When may interference in function, killing and experimentation be allowed on human cells and groups of cells?

What is your interest in pinning down the exact moment of the beginning of an individual's life?

[MHGinTN]

Your comment, "The difference between the gametes and the zygote is obvious," is why I keep the following quote at hand.

"It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being."
[When Do Human Beings Begin? By Dianne M. Irving, MA., Ph.D; copyright 1999 http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html ... L4L is Libertarians For Life]

[beavus]

The difference between the gametes and the zygote is obvious.

I don't think that is in dispute. Why is that fact relevent to my point?

What is your interest in pinning down the exact moment of the beginning of an individual's life?

I'm a bit saddened since I've already explained it to you at length in prior posts. Maybe I just wasn't clear. The point is simple. The physical world works along a time continuum. Quantum mechanics may give exceptions, but those are well below the molecular scales we are discussing. So then you come along, and I learn that the universe moves along smooth continua, except for during one stage in the process of sexual reproduction. If this exception is true, then it is an earth-shattering revelation to our knowledge of physics. As such, it ought to be substantiated. There must be some nonarbitrary dividing point where 10^-30 seconds afterwards we obviously have a human being, and 10^-30 seconds before we obviously don't--some skip in the normal continuous flow of time.

[MHGinTN]

Interesting ... how to prove time 'flows'??? Well, lessee, I wonder if the poster can prove any event in the present of the event, rather than cite observational (as in measurable phenomena) reflection upon data that is evidence of a past occurrence?

[beavus]

Interesting ... how to prove time 'flows'??? Well, lessee, I wonder if the poster can prove any event in the present of the event, rather than cite observational (as in measurable phenomena) reflection upon data that is evidence of a past occurrence?

My, you do have a deep understanding, don't you?

[hocndoc]

You're mixing apples and oranges.
Events happen within the continuum. Those events have physical manifestations that have beginnings that are discreet points in time.

I push a button, and pixels change on my monitor. We know there are events that lead up to my seeing the letters, we know there are events between the actual change on the montitor and my perception of the light changes and then more before I "know" what I'm seeing. Nevertheless, at one point, there's a white patch then there's a letter.

[beavus]

Events happen within the continuum. Those events have physical manifestations that have beginnings that are discreet points in time.

Of course there are points within a continuum, but it is the nature (and the definition) of any continuum that adjacent points are not significantly different. Thus any chosen beginning becomes arbitrary.

Nevertheless, at one point, there's a white patch then there's a letter.

With photon generation, you chose an example where quantum scales may be significant for one photon of each dot of the letter (on a CRT, electron excites phosphur atom which emits a photon without apparent smooth transitions). However, for the entire letter that you see, there is a delay between each dot on the grid, which are not lit simultaneously. These photons leave the screen phosphors at different times, travel a distance from the phosphors to your eyes, through your cornea, aqueous humor, lens, vitreous humor, plasma membrane of a photosensitive retinal cell, and excite a molecule of rhodopsin (another quantum event). Then, the 11-cis-retinal moiety of rhodopsin changes shape to form 11-trans-retinal, a series of chemical reactions produces metarhodopsin from rhodopsin, metarhodopsin activates cyclic-GMPases which, through another series of chemical reactions that lead to ion transfer, changes the transmembrane potential of the cell. Then, when enough photons excite enough rhodopsin molecules, the membrane potential changes sufficiently to stimulate electrical signal propagation to an optic gangion cell, then through the optic nerve, optic chiasm, opic tract, optic radiations, to the visual cortex of the occipital lobe. These propagating signals can also be broken down into a series of chemical events. From there signals propagate to other areas of your brain that result eventually in perception of the letter on your computer screen. I say eventually, because a single photon, especially in a lit room, will not be sufficient for you to "see" even one dot of that letter, let alone the entire letter. It will take several retraces of your CRT to generate enough photons for you to perceive the letter.

Of course, I've left out many steps in this process. But where among this continuum would you place a nonarbitrary dividing line to call the "beginning" of that letter? All time points in the gradual transition from 'no letter' to 'letter' are essential, but no adjacent points are different enough to place a nonarbitrary dividing line. The letter does not just poof into existence.

Nature transitions everything too smoothly (above quantum scales) for specific dividing points to be nonarbitrary.