| When Does Life Begin? Medical experts debate abortion issue. |
 The generally recognized pro-life stance is life begins at fertilization. So the pro-choice stance is, 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? “Scientifi c 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.” “Pro-choice docs would say that it is not their business to determine for a patient when life begins,” says Diana Philip, interim executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers and its sister organization, the Abortion Conversation Project. “Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and that definition lies within her own mind and heart.”
So the question to our debaters, who kindly agreed to tackle this controversial topic, 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 . Scroll down to "Debates!") YES 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. NO 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
RELATED ARTICLES Debate on Abortion: Does when life begins really matter? Last updated and/or approved: January 2009.
Comments (17)
  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. written by Merz , November 17, 2008 human life begins at the moment of conception and never ends... i found a great website to help me explain this. this article is all one needs so please check it out. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/when-does-life-begin-faq.htm written by Dr. J , November 07, 2008 Abortions will always exist, my concern is to provide a safe environment for the procedure. I find it curious that people who are against abortion rights for religious reasons do not seem troubled with the extreme efforts that are often provided to keep obvious miscarriages from happening. A miscarriage is natures natural way. written by Day Of Fame Game Guy , November 06, 2008 Two very passionate sides to the argument. I don't think anybody knows when life starts. Nobody knows when some threashold is met, and an embryo instantly is considered alive. This argument is like an argument over who's religion is right. No matter what side you are on, you can't win this argument. written by V. , November 06, 2008 Considering continuous process of development, life needs to be defended. Just like black were not considered humans and Jew where used for experimentation in Germany.....the same is happening to HUMAN embryos. Who speaks for them? written by clement charles , November 04, 2008 And He clearly is, since it His creation (image and likeness and all that). Why take a chance unless one is absolutely sure. And if you don't believe in God, then life won't be much of a problem believing in anyway, unless it's your own. written by Justin , November 03, 2008 To respond to Kyle (I guess I'm a pro-lifer) if back alley abortions are a problem with making abortion legal then that is a system issue that would need to be addressed by enforcing laws and offering services to help moms cope with the desire to get an illegal abortion. Much like drug counseling, etc. If the justification for making something legal is because people would do it anyway then drugs, speeding, etc. should be legalized also. I came to this article wondering what pro-choice advocates consider to be the start of the beginning of human rights. I was surprised that scientific entities cannot take a stand on that determination. written by kyle , October 28, 2008 I don't think the debate between this side and that has anything to do with the medical community or the government. I don't think the issue should be left up to lawmakers to decide. There will always be opponents and proponents on both sides of this one, and I can only see bad news on one side of this if it is banned. back alley abortion and those women dying. What do the pro-lifers have to say about that? Just some food for thought. I'm not trying to incite a riot. written by James Hubbard, M.D., M.P.H, , September 18, 2008 I think that is the question being debated, David. Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
