Can We Know When Life Begins?

Discussions about the ethics and legality of abortion tend to follow certain patterns.  One of these patterns works like this:

• The defender of abortion legality (called "Pro-Choice") will admit that the debate hinges upon when an individual human life begins.  

• However, he/she will assert that this knowledge is totally obscure, subjective, and unknowable. 

• Thus, he/she concludes abortion should remain legal.

In fact, that is the very logic used in Roe vs Wade when the court decided upon a constitution right to abortion.  Justice Blackmun wrote:

"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

So that's what I want to look at today.  Is this really the case?  Or are folks just trying to deny an inconvenient truth?


Because Science, That's Why:

Usually religious conservatives get pegged as the enemies of science.  Ironically, in this instance opponents of abortion like myself are more than happy to point out that the question of, "When does the life of a new human organism begin?" is not a religious question at all.  It is a scientific one.  It is a matter of biology - not categorically different from, "How do spiders make silk?"

So rather than quoting to you the Gospel of Luke, I'm more than happy to quote biology textbooks.  Because when it comes to the beginning of a new mammalian organism... biologists are not scratching their heads about this.  We know when human life begins.  And we've know for decades:

 “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” - Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. p 43, 1968

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” - Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29. 1974.

 “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” - J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Pages 17 and 23. 1974 

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception  when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another.” - James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2, 1985

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." - Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. p. 3. 1995

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." -Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. p. 3. 1996

 “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” - Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. pg 2-18. 1998.

 “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” - Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. pg 8. 2001

Soooo.... yeah.  The person who asserts that human life begins at conception is in good company.  That is, the company of biologists, who are quite clear that the life of a new, living human organism begins at fertilization.

This is further confirmed by a recent (and highly unethical) study published in the Natural Cell Biology journal.  The 2016 experiment showed that even in the absence of maternal tissue, human embryos showed "remarkable and unanticipated self-organizing properties".

This makes sense... because we're not talking about "blobs of cells".  We're talking about whole human organisms - complete with unique genetic identity, internal organization, cell division, and metabolism.  You know... life stuff.

Thus when a Pro-Lifer insists that abortion ends a human life, he/she is giving you a straight scientific fact.  Conversely, the Pro-Choicer stands in a position not unlike a 6-Day Creationist - defending dogmas in face of overwhelming evidence.


Bait and Switch:

In response to some of these claims, a friend recently sent me the following article from the Wired E-Magazine:

Now, the promise of this article was that it would show me how the Pro-Life argument from biology is nothing but smoke.  But then the author does a classic bait-and-switch in the second paragraph.  She says:

"The ultimate question is, when does a fetus become a person — at fertilization, at birth, or somewhere in between?"

Notice the change in subject there?  The headline makes it seem like she'll be addressing the question of "life", but then she immediately begins talking about "personhood".  That's a very different question.

Indeed, philosophers can't even agree upon what constitutes "personhood" in the first place, let alone tell you when it starts.  Ethicist Peter Singer of Princeton University even goes so far as to say newborns aren't "persons" yet.

Arguing about when "personhood" begins is like arguing about when "adulthood" begins.  Ultimately it is besides the point.  The Pro-Life argument is that abortion ends a human life - a living member of our species.


Two Attempts:

The author then tries to take two stabs at the Pro-Life fertilization argument.  Regarding conception she says:

"With in vitro fertilization—combining sperm and egg in a lab—scientists could directly observe the process of sperm entering the egg for the first time. It actually takes place over as long as 24 hours."

OK... what does that tell us?

Well, it does nothing to the assertion that life begins at conception.  All it tells us is that it takes a day for the sperm and egg to integrate.  But after that you still have a new, living human organism.  So... nothing to see here.

The next attempt tries to make an argument from implantation success rates of human embryos:

"But even fertilization isn’t a clean indicator of anything. The next step is implantation, when the fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the mother’s uterus. 'There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant,' says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort."

One wonders what she is trying to prove.  Implantation against the inner lining of a uterus is how the human embryo will receive nutrients as it grows.  If it does not do that, it will die.

But in order to die... it first has to be alive.

So merely pointing out that 50-80% of embryos don't successfully implant does nothing to prove that human embryos aren't real human lives.  It's as absurd as someone saying:

"50 to 80% of baby sea turtles don't make it to the water.  Therefore they aren't turtles."

The article then closes with a discussion of the changing standards of "viability" - or, the point at which a human baby can survive outside the womb with medical assistance.  But this fails for the same reason the implantation argument failed:  Because it's meaningless to talk about the "survival" of something which isn't living.

An Alternate Approach:

Now suppose it becomes too difficult to argue for human life all the way back at conception.  There is another way of going about it.  Even if one wants to propose that the beginning of human life is somehow obscure, it doesn't mean we can't know anything about it.

As an analogy, I might give you a picture in which a green swatch grades into blue.  You might not be able to pick out precisely where green stops and blue begins, but you can still indicate a discrete point and say, "I at least know this part is blue."

That is why I find it helpful to ask about discrete moments in gestation.  You can propose, for instance, a 15 week-old baby in the womb.

According to WebMD, a baby at 15 weeks has a heartbeat, can move on her own, will respond to stimuli, and may even be sucking her thumb.  You can even watch a video of a 15-weeker being very lively!

After presenting those facts to a person, I ask:

"Even if you aren't sure about the early stages, can we at least agree THIS is a living human being?  Don't you think this life deserves recognition?"

Sadly, there is no telling how people will respond.  Some will even look at that baby and conclude abortion should still be permissible on that kiddo.

If there is one thing I've learned when discussing abortion with people, it's that you cannot convince a person against his/her will.  There is more at work here than the exercise of reason and evidence.

But luckily... both are on our side.