Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘When Does Human Life Begin?’ - Even Earlier Than Many Suppose
NCR ^ | December 7 - 13, 2008 | Susan E. Wills

Posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:22 PM PST by NYer

Almost anyone with a high school education can correctly answer the question “When does human life begin?” by responding “at conception” or at “fertilization” of a human egg by a sperm cell. While we may not understand, or only vaguely recall, the precise process by which an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique human being, this basic truth about human life falls into the category of things we can’t not know.

Yet today, many educated people who do know better assert that human life begins at some later stage of development.

They arbitrarily push forward the starting point to implantation or viability, or even birth and beyond, to accommodate their approval of abortifacient drugs and devices, in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, lethal embryo research (including embryonic stem-cell research), chemical and surgical abortion, and eugenic infanticide.

Because such confusion arises more from muddled values than a misunderstanding of basic science, one might think that the white paper “When Does Human Life Begin?: A Scientific Perspective” would have limited usefulness. To the contrary, the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person in Thornwood, N.Y., has done a great service to the public debate and to policymakers by publishing such a paper, authored by Maureen Condic, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Based on her objective review of current scientific evidence in human embryology, Condic convincingly demonstrates that a new human organism (an embryo that is called a “zygote” in its one-celled form) comes into being at the moment when the sperm and egg fuse. This occurs mere seconds after the sperm has penetrated the thin layer of protein enveloping the egg.

Her evidence refutes the recent assertions of some scientists that a human life begins at the eight-cell stage when gene transcription begins, or four days post-fertilization when the inner cell mass forms distinct from placental cells, or at 5 to 6 days when the embryo implants in the uterine wall. Condic demonstrates that each of these events — like a baby’s first tooth or the onset of puberty — are simply milestones along life’s path and “not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity.”

And her proof also counters the claim of some scientists (reflected in many textbooks and even legal codes) that a human organism begins to exist only at “syngamy,” an event that occurs roughly 24 hours after the sperm enters the egg.

Recall that every cell has a nucleus where the cell’s DNA is located. A thin membrane separates the nucleus from the rest of the cell (cytoplasm). In a new human embryo, however, there are briefly two nuclei — one with dad’s DNA and one with mom’s. Before the first cell division takes place, the DNA from mom and dad (23 chromosomes each) have to match up and copy themselves.

To do that, the membranes surrounding their nuclei need to break down. That event is called syngamy.

Condic shows how the zygote is already behaving like an organism before syngamy because factors from the sperm and egg are “interact[ing] coordinately to orchestrate subsequent development.” The zygote already possesses DNA different from his or her mother and father and is “carry[ing] on the activities of life” with “organs that are separate … but mutually dependent.”

For example, within minutes after the sperm enters the cytoplasm of the egg, the new zygote sends out chemical signals that change the outer protein layer to prevent other sperm from entering the zygote.

Within 30 minutes of the sperm entering the egg, factors contributed by the sperm signal the nucleus of the egg to reduce its two sets of DNA to one. Within the first hour, proteins contributed by the sperm interact with chemicals in the zygote to create changes that will allow the zygote to begin dividing and growing. The nuclei are already being directed to line up across from each other for the first cell division.

Also, as Condic notes, the breakdown of the membranes separating the nuclei from the sperm and egg “is not a unique, ‘zygote-forming’ event, but rather it is part of every round of cell division that occurs through life.”

In this summary form I’ve just given, it may be difficult to follow the complex interplay of paternal and maternal factors within the newly formed zygote. Fortunately, Condic takes pains to walk us through these first essential “baby steps” of every new human life. The white paper also contains illustrations and a very helpful glossary to aid in understanding these intricate processes.

Writing as a scientist, Condic criticizes analogies comparing the development of human embryos to manufactured products, even when the embryos’ lives begin in a laboratory. Conceptualizing human procreation as a manufacturing process encourages erroneous thinking that the human being does not fully exist until viability or birth, when all the steps of the manufacturing process presumably are completed — in the case of a car, when it is fully assembled and ready to leave the factory.

But cars, unlike people, are built externally by others acting on them, building and assembling components. In contrast, she explains, the defining feature of the human zygote is that it has the power “both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures.” Thus, from the first moment of fusion between sperm and egg, everything necessary to develop the adult human being is present, provided the new human embryo is allowed to develop in a safe environment and is able to access nutrition.

“When Does Human Life Begin” comes at a critical time. The new administration and many members of the next Congress are already championing policies that will put nascent human lives at even greater risk than they are today.

Federal funding and a vast expansion of human embryonic stem-cell research is almost a foregone conclusion. Our next president strongly supports such funding, and he can reverse the Bush moratorium with an executive order.

The president-elect also has cosponsored legislation to greatly increase government funding of contraception, including abortifacients, and mandate contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies.

Annually, over 100,000 children are born in the United States as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. Most people are unaware that in the process of making these children, hundreds of thousands of sibling-embryos die or are killed.

In addition, President-elect Obama has promised Planned Parenthood that his “first act” as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a law that will effectively wipe out 35 years’ of pro-life laws at the state and federal levels. Many of these laws have been shown to reduce abortions and, in their absence, we can expect abortion rates to increase.

Many Americans are weary of political battles and deeply concerned about the economy and other issues that touch their families. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the legalized killing that’s occurring in our country on an unprecedented scale. What lofty ideal does America still represent when its foundational principle — the inherent, God-given right to life of every human being — is violated by the very institutions entrusted with caring for the lives of vulnerable people: the family, the medical profession and the state?

We must urgently convey to our fellow citizens the inherent value and dignity of every human being. From the first moment of conception to one’s natural death, every human being, regardless of size, age, sex, race, mental or physical ability, is a unique and irreplaceable creature, made in God’s image and infinitely loved by God. Every life is, therefore, worthy of protection and concern. There are no exceptions. Laws that tolerate exceptions are unjust and must be opposed.

Condic and the Westchester Institute are to be applauded for rigorously defining the beginning point of each human life from the perspective of science. The white paper should prove to be an excellent tool in our pro-life arsenal to refute claims that entities destroyed by abortifacients, destructive embryo research, IVF procedures, and abortions are something less than fully human beings.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conception; embryo; fertilization; humanlife; life; moralabsolutes; prolife; scientism; zygote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-184 next last
To: Question_Assumptions; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"...infants are born with brains that are still developing and with capabilities not all that different from those found in many adult animals."

True. Back when I was a public speaker, I used to tell audiences, "There are two kinds of human beings: developing, and dead. Is there anybody here who has stopped developing?" Nobody ever raised their hand.

The fact that an infant, or embryo, or zygote, is still developing is not what makes them different from the rest of us: it's what makes them the same as the rest of us. And what makes them interesting.

As for animal capacities: First off, I do think we owe animals more respect than we generally give them.

I'm not talking about PeTA nonsense, I just mean we ought to ponder the thought that God said they were "Good," and not just good for us, but good in themselves, in the general scheme of things. That doesn't give animals priority over humankind, but it does mean that we have the role of protecting, managing, yes even harvesting them, in a humane and intelligent way, because of what they are (good creatures) and what we are (fellow creatures; and, what's more, the image and likeness of God.)

Nevertheless, we all approximate animal capacity most of the time, especially, e.g. when we're asleep, which is about 1/3 of our entire lifetime. Human-level rational cognitive function is a very sporadic, intermittent thing, even in the geniuses amongst us. In none of us does it develop perfectly, and in none of us does it manifest continuously.

No system of human rights can depend on rational cognitive functions, because such functions are unequal, partial, intermittent, and revocable.

I can NOT be considered human, rational, and "a person in the full sense of te word" until I've had my first cup of coffee in the morning. :o)

121 posted on 12/05/2008 11:39:31 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mammalia Primatia Hominidae Homo sapiens. Still working on the "sapiens" part.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Thank you, this is a fascinating article. :)


122 posted on 12/05/2008 12:47:19 PM PST by Crolis (Kill your television!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Tax-chick
even regular birth control pills will be illegal

It should be, for the reasons you explained.

123 posted on 12/05/2008 1:01:29 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Just tossing my two cents in.
I heard in the days before abortion legal, woman were not held in comtempt of preforming an abortion, but the abortionist were considered the one’s commiting the crime. They were the one’s prosucuted, not the mothers (who considered second victims)


124 posted on 12/05/2008 1:14:00 PM PST by Toki ("Palin Pingers" Freepmail Liberity Rocks or me to get on the list today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: annalex
It should be, for the reasons you explained.

What I find disturbing is that this aspect of it will have the most far reaching consequences, yet is very rarely discussed openly when the issue is debated.

125 posted on 12/05/2008 1:14:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Yes. I think I’ll go with Mildred.


126 posted on 12/05/2008 1:18:30 PM PST by Savage Beast ("Your grandchildren will live under communism." -Nikita Krushchev)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bookmark.

thanks for posting this.


127 posted on 12/05/2008 1:22:03 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Toki
I heard in the days before abortion legal, woman were not held in comtempt of preforming an abortion, but the abortionist were considered the one’s commiting the crime. They were the one’s prosucuted, not the mothers (who considered second victims)

This seems to be a different philosophy. If a woman took one of her children to a doctor to have them killed, she would be at least guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This appears to put having an abortion in the terms.

128 posted on 12/05/2008 1:22:45 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The realistic political goal is restricting, as severely as possible, surgical abortion. Everyone understands that laws protecting the embryo at early gestational stages are nearly impossible to enforce.

You are correct, however, that the moral implications for pill users, or pregnant women who risk the health of the baby, are quite dire.

In absence of the mockery of justice that Roe v. Wade regime represents, torts regarding abortifacient contraception or induced miscarriage could be sorted out in case law. It is no different than other behaviors that carry risks to others, e.g. driving vehicles, discharging forearms, or fixing the electric.


129 posted on 12/05/2008 1:24:28 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Everyone understands that laws protecting the embryo at early gestational stages are nearly impossible to enforce.

Some would argue that's irrelevant - if it's wrong it should be illegal, whether it's consistently enforceable or not.

You are correct, however, that the moral implications for pill users, or pregnant women who risk the health of the baby, are quite dire.

The moral implications have always been there. The question is what the legal and political implications will be.

130 posted on 12/05/2008 1:32:17 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; annalex; metmom; Mrs. Don-o
this aspect of it will have the most far reaching consequences, yet is very rarely discussed openly when the issue is debated

Well, many people are absolutely petrified at the thought of life without birth control pills. I'm not, but maybe you've been pregnant more often than I have. That's neither here nor there. What's "here" is the contention that some undefined situation "will" have the most far-reaching consequences, etc., etc., as tacticalogic posted. There are no laws proposed at this time to regulate any contraceptive or abortifacient drugs. Attempts even to reduce the usage of surgical abortion often crash on Roe v. Wade. So this far-out whatiffery is not particularly useful, imo.

There are some people, including annalex, Mrs. Don-o, and me, who believe the country would be better off without the use of birth control pills or equivalents. However, to affect this by law is extremely, massively improbable, and we all understand that. Fantasy scenarios should not be allowed to stand in the way of reasonable discussion on an issue of objective fact, such as the time at which a unique human life begins.

131 posted on 12/05/2008 1:38:49 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

If the legislation gets passed, and someone is determined to make the government enforce banning of birth control pills under that law, I think it’s entirely possible that it’s going to end up in court. They’ll force the judges and politicians to have to choose between overturning or repealing the legislation or banning birth control pills


132 posted on 12/05/2008 1:47:04 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Tax-chick

Far-out whatiffery.


133 posted on 12/05/2008 1:52:18 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."--- Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Far-out whatiffery.

Congress can "find" that hate crimes have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce", but the idea that anyone would try to ban birth control pills because they may take a human life is "far-out whatiffery".

Color me skeptical.

134 posted on 12/05/2008 1:59:19 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What legislation? There is no "legislation," except in imagination. But in the fantasy world,

I think it’s entirely possible that it’s going to end up in court. They’ll force the judges and politicians to have to choose between overturning or repealing the legislation or banning birth control pills

Okay, fine. Imagine a law is passed banning abortifacient drugs. (Imagine I look like Catherine Zeta-Jones, too - why not?) Then birth control pills will no longer be sold legally in that state. Maybe millions of women will say, "ONZ, I feel great! Why in the world was I doing that to myself?!?" Or maybe millions of women (not to mention men) will say, "Shoot! Is *that* what that law said?" Then they'll strongly encourage their state representatives to repeal the law.

Frankly, I'm puzzled by what's so frightening about any of the *reasonably* possible outcomes of any of this.

135 posted on 12/05/2008 1:59:41 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Mrs. Don-o

Hey, that was MY far-out whatiffery! Mrs. Don-o owes me royalties.

And *our* Congress, with Kennedys and Nancy Pelosi in it, and that psychopathic Boxer woman? It’s more likely that the people will take the Russian Option and go after the place with rocket launchers and tanks than the U.S. Congress would attempt to ban birth control pills.

Congress doesn’t generally act on issues of medicine, anyway. It’s the FDA.


136 posted on 12/05/2008 2:03:56 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Ideally, I would like to see a scenario when

- It is illegal to provide a surgical abortion or obtain one; penalties vary and consider mental state of the mother, rape or deformity of the child as extentuating circumstances.
- Amnesty given for past abortions.
- Abortifacient contraception is outlawed. Chemical contraception should be subject to the same regulatory regime as any medicine with the health of the potential emerging embryo in mind.
- All contraception is subject to sale and advertisement restriction similar to that on tobacco. That is not on the grounds of harm to the embryo, but on the grounds that contraception is an enabling tecnhiology of adultery and is not in the interest of society.
- A case law is gradually built up regarding risky behavior during pregnancy, which is based on the legal recognition of the rights of the fetus. For example, a father might sue the mother for neglecting her pregnancy. What the outcomes of such torts might be, I don’t know and I trust the courts to, by and large, get to the truth.


137 posted on 12/05/2008 2:07:39 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Somebody could sue the drug companies directly, like they did with the tobacco companies.

You submit that "everyone knows it can't be done".

I submit that it's entirely possible there one or a group of people out there who think it can, and can find a lawyer who'll be willing to go for it if it means a possible wrongful death class action suit payoff.

138 posted on 12/05/2008 2:09:35 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: annalex

State or federal legislation?


139 posted on 12/05/2008 2:10:29 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; tacticalogic; metmom; Mrs. Don-o
Fantasy scenarios should not be allowed to stand in the way

Exactly so. Personally, I don't think much can be achieved politically even under a sympathetic administration. The true progress will occur when the culture changes for the better. See my previous post, too.

140 posted on 12/05/2008 2:12:11 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-184 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson