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.
You'd think.....
*shakes head in disbelief....*
Pro-abortion arguments just don't cut it on FR, you know....
Let me know when asking about unintended consequences is verboten.
True, but it adds, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This is the point people use when saying that we are not required to recognize the children of illegal immigrants (or other foreign nationals) as U.S. citizens, even if they're born on our soil.
Declaring unborn children to be citizens would be a stretch, but declaring them protected by law would not. Animals aren't citizens, but abuse or killing of animals can be punished by law.
So every time a woman bleeds it needs to be investigated as a possible homicide? You need to get a grip. It's nowhere near in the same category as crib death.
Just when you think you've heard it all from an evo....
Why not investigate the cause of miscarriages, with hormone-level checks, for example? It’s common for women who’ve miscarried to have a blood test, anyway, to see if they might still be carrying a twin, or if they were even pregnant (if that hadn’t been tested) or if the symptoms of pain and heavy bleeding had another cause.
If it’s a natural loss of pregnancy, then the blood-test information could be useful to that woman or others in avoiding further miscarriages. If there’s indication of induced abortion, then (in the hypothetical situation of any abortions being illegal), that might be a subject for legal action.
And counts your age for purposes of things like voting or military service as starting at birth. Say you're born already 9 months old may be rhetorically justifiable, but there's going to be a lot of legal issues involved in actually codifying that into law.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I think there needs to be some consideration of the the questions and issues that are going to be involved.
It's not just about what I think. It's also about what the government might do with it if they want to make your life hell.
Murder is the taking of a life. It isn't dependent on the citizenship of the person being murdered. You get prosecuted for taking the life of a human being, citizen or not.
There’s a difference between investigating the cause of a known miscarriage, a suspected miscarriage, and an *apparent* miscarriage.
Miscarriages are signaled by bleeding and cramping. Any bleeding and cramping could therefore be construed as an *apparent* miscarriage.
The whole medical system would be overwhelmed if it had to investigate every instance of cramping and bleeding in a woman who was sexually active in some way.
It’s not even reasonable.
I agree. Would evidence of alcohol use or poor diet be a basis for legal action?
Can a reasonable case be made that a woman may endanger the health of a developing fetus by neglecting her own health?
Okay. A woman is examined by her doctor, and he determines she's a couple of months pregnant. He examines her again a month later, and now she isn't, How would you characterize that?
Few women see a doctor for most cases of bleeding and cramping, especially if they experience this every month, as most of us do. Many see a doctor if they believe they are having or have had a miscarriage, or have a frightening level of bleeding. I’d say there’s an obvious difference in the experience for most.
Pain and extreme cramping can be symptoms of STDs or other serious health problems, as well.
My point is that many women are seeing a doctor in this sort of circumstance. Just as women are regularly screened (by law) for STDs when they seek prenatal care, it wouldn’t “overwhelm the system” for them to be screened for signs of induced abortion, if that were considered a public issue, when they’re at the doctor having a blood test anyway.
There have been some cases of women’s being subject to legal action for drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or other dangerous behavior when pregnant. This is quite bizarre, considering that the same woman could have a legal abortion and deliberately kill the unborn child at any point.
Obviously, there’s a lot of flux in this area. I was simply observing that medical follow-up in the case of miscarriage is already commonplace.
Okay, then we're talking about the state having the responsibility for and authority over a fetus from the time of conception as they do over any other child in their jurisdiction.
We don’t see an ob/gyn (or any doctor) monthly, as a rule. If a woman has gone to a doctor presenting a pregnancy, and the pregnancy is verified, then it can be assumed that both she and the doctor will want to know what happened if the pregnancy terminates prematurely. At the 2 month-3 month increment you present, she might not know there’s a problem until the doctor identifies it. Unborn babies can die without immediate symptoms for the mother.
How many times have you been pregnant, anyway?
Oh, then, I guess you’re right.
Since we can’t figure out when to protect a fetus from murder,
let’s just let it be killed at any time for any reason at the whim of the woman carrying it.
That would be the “right” thing to do, now wouldn’t it?
I'm just considering what the consequences might be. Laws don't always get applied as they were intended when they were written, and sometimes end up having the exact opposite result of what was intended.
I must be evil to ask if there could be any unintended consequences.
That's true. However, practically every state has had laws against abortion in the past. The general result was fewer, but not zero, abortions. I don't recall anything about doctors' being expected to investigate or report on apparent miscarriages.
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.