| When Does Life Begin? Medical experts debate abortion issue. |
 Pro-lifers generally belief life begins at fertilization. So pro-choicers generally believe no, it doesn’t. … Right?
Wrong. In every political season, abortion emerges as one of the most hotly debated topics. It draws in everybody—from the religious to the political to the activists. But what about the scientists? In 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics published their opinion on “Using Preimplantation Embryos for Research.” In it, they say, “If the preimplantation embryo is left or maintained outside the uterus, it cannot develop into a human being.” Did you catch that: “… into a human being”? The question for many doctors and scientists is not, “When does life begin?” but, “When does that life become a human being?” Pro-lifers say it’s a human from the start. How could it be anything else? “Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth,” says the conservative-leaning American College of Pediatricians on its Web site. “The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”
So the question to our debaters was simply—and yet not so simply—"Do we know when human life begins?"
Now, let the debate begin.
(You can get in on the debate here .)
Since the mechanism by which mammals reproduce has been known for at least the last 150 years, any biologist in the world can tell you that a mammal’s life begins when the sperm from the father unites with the egg from the mother. This process is called fertilization, and when the DNA from the father and mother have combined, the egg is called a fertilized egg, or zygote. When the zygote splits into two cells, it is called a two-celled embryo. When it splits into four cells, it is called a four-celled embryo, etc. The definition of “embryo” is “the youngest form of a being.”
If this being is nourished and protected, it will proceed uninterrupted through the developmental stages of embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teen, adult and aged adult: one continuous existence. This being never develops into a pig, a frog or a tree, but only into a human. This being is therefore, by definition, a living human being. This fact is very inconvenient for those who want to treat embryonic and fetal human beings as property. The real argument in the abortion debate is whether or not this human being is a “person,” with all the legal rights and protections of “personhood.” Those who traffic in human tissue argue that he or she is not. This is the same argument used in the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared that black Americans, though human, are not “persons” under the law. As long as “personhood” is denied to human beings in their embryonic and fetal stages, the holocaust of abortion will continue.
What makes us so sure we know when human life begins? Despite our best efforts, we do not even really know when human life ends, as the Terry Schiavo case reminded us. If it is so achingly difficult to know whether someone is dead or alive when she is in front of people who love her, how much harder it is to be certain when life begins, especially when we cannot see it with our own eyes.
Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate. The genetic view (the position held by the Roman Catholic Church and many religious conservatives) holds that life begins with the acquisition of a novel genome; it is a kind of genetic determinism. Those who hold the embryologic view think life begins when the embryo undergoes gastrulation, and twinning is no longer possible; this occurs about 14 days into development. (Some mainline Protestant religions espouse a similar view.) Proponents of the neurological view adhere to brainwave criteria; life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. (Some Protestant churches affirm this). Interestingly, life is also thought to end when the EEG pattern is no longer present. Finally, one can say that life begins at or near birth, measured by fetal viability outside the mother’s body. (Judaism affirms something close to this position.) After all, somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of all embryos conceived miscarry. So, when does life begin? I do not think we can know this with any more certainty than we know when life ends. People of faith, and people of good conscience, are going to have to agree to disagree—with a good dose of humility—on matters of life and death.
Last updated and/or approved: August 2009. Bios current as of July 2008.
Comments (20)
  written by Alicia , November 24, 2009 I have a problem with prolife people calling prochoice people pro-abortion or anti-life. Family planning programs usually promote education and part of being prochoice is having access to this education. I would say many or most prochoice people would like to at least avoid abortion if it is possible. We try to educate people on proper contraceptive use for this very reason. Studies show that when these programs are enacted, abortion rates go down. Outlawing abortion does not prevent it from happening. It does not even decrease the numbers,in some instances, abortion rates go up. Also,in Latin America, it is illegal in most circumstances to have an abortion, but they have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Per capita, Chili has a higher abortion rate than Latin America. In Chili, abortions are not allowed in any circumstance. 70,000 woman in Latin America die each year from illegal abortions. If the number of abortions do not decrease when outlawed, but the number of woman dying does increase, how is this prolife?  written by Jenny , November 21, 2009 i am intrigued by the argument that one should offer counselling to talk women out of having an abortion. What if one were in the situation where BOTH mother and baby would die, and an abortion would at least save the mother's life? Or what if continuing the pregnancy would be of detrimental effect? There is much talk of politics and religeon, but little of actual medicine, and also no mention of the mother's own personhood. What about the mother's rights? Likening her to a drug addict is a poor comparison. I also find it interesting that many of the 'pro-lifer's' compare the unborn baby to repressed races, yet fail to see the negative ways in which women have been given subservient roles in society in nearly every major religeon. The personhood of the embryo is debatable-but surely even the pope will admit that in the 21st century the personhood and associated rights of the mother are definite. Begin your argument with her!  written by Dr. A.C.James , July 30, 2009 simple solution life started thanks to one asteroid with a single cell organism landing a pool of water. with the current earths atmosphere the cell grew and adapted to the climate. with this cell mulitiplying it split into different cell edgeing towards the edge of the pool of water, changing the cells key features. the best way of acknowledging this is that we share genes with all animals and plants e.g monkey 99% and a bananna 50%. therefore it is easy to see that we all (life) came from one single cell organism which developed.  written by Bres , June 25, 2009 The real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Life begins at conception and should be protected by the laws of our country. Abortions might sometimes still be necessary because you are dealing with 2 lives that are linked together in a very special way. It is unlike any other situation in the medical field. You cannot force one person to die or suffer for another. Therefore, pregnancies that were the result of rape should always have that option available to the mother as should any cases where the mother's life is in serious danger. Inconvienience, fear, lack of money, etc. should never be used as an exscuse to take a baby's life. All of this needs to go hand in hand with major reforms concerning adoptions once the baby is born.  written by Diane Mardis , May 30, 2009 Although I've researched when life begins scientifically, I don't need scientific facts to determine if a baby in the womb is a baby. Anyone with eyes that want to see will admit, an unborn child is a baby and not pregnancy tissue and left alone will become a you or a me or one of your children. Life is precious and everyone in it is precious. Pro-life or Pro-Choice???? Whatever the government decides you will make your own choices either behind closed doors or with legal permission. Try not to defend a position and take a good hard look and decide with an open heart and an open mind.  written by Byron Tatti , April 13, 2009 Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Seems to me the answer is already out there. This is the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Let's enforce it  written by Sally , February 04, 2009 Dictionary.com - life 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Dictionary.com - organism 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. Dictionary.com - embryo 1. the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month. Wouldn't an organism (embryo) within a human womb then be classfied as a human organism, i.e. human life? written by Sean K. , February 02, 2009 The argument posed by Dr. Holland confused me a bit, for she was supporting the definitive stance of NO on abortion with the ethos of ambiguity. If we aren't certain when life begins or ends, then wouldn't the correct ethical choice be to ban abortion? I mean, if abortion may or may not be murder, then I would want to remain on the safe side of the issue, right? I also agree that it is a travesty when a mother is driven to back alley abortions, but this is an easy emotional appeal without much foundation in logic. Murder cannot be endorsed by the government, no matter how bad we feel for the murderer. I understand the baby and the mother lives will be difficult, but if you support abortion, then what are you saying? That it's better to be dead than poor? That's an unfortunately selfish notion, engendered by an increasingly irresponsible and unloving culture. So please stop acting like a bunch of ignorant hicks and listen to the science. Just say NO to bad logic. written by Bert Brocato , January 24, 2009 The title of this commentary equates each of these sad moments in human history with the current "Culture of Death." The proponents of abortion and embryonic stem cell research ignore the fact that the zygote is a human being and is due the rights of a person protected by law. By continuing the debate of when the embryo is a person allows these thriving industries to benefit from an economic and social windfall. The pro abortionists want to eliminate this " inconvenience" for economic or social reasons and the stem cell industry expects an unlimited financial bonanza from "alleged cures." Ironically the proponents of the death culture are appalled at the barbaric antics of the 19th century slave owner or 2oth century fascist. Remember, always revert to the tried and true method of convincing the masses that you are not dealing with human beings,rather sub-humans or vermin that need to be eliminated outright or harvested for the good of the superior beings. The important point here is to cause doubt, promise incredible cures, until the majority considers the lie to be truth. Once entrenched in the minds of the populace you can procede to the next step of when should life end for the good of the society. written by Mike , November 19, 2008 There can be no discussion about when life begins. It is obvious when life begins. Pro-Choice/pro-abortion folks should just fess up and admit that they just plain don't care. They care about a murderer ondeath row; they care about a spotted owl; they care about everything but the obvious. If a fetus stands in the way of getting an education or job, it is sacrificial. To say you are pro-choice is like Pilate washing his hands and letting the Hebrews choose to kill Jesus. It is sickening and a sign of our selfish times. Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
