Embryoes, and human life

[cialovesyou]

I am reading with interest the threads started by kelly, where she is debating with a psychology lecturer on stem cell research.

One of the issues likely to come up is “Why is an embryo a human life?”

I was lying in bed trying to explain this to myself in scientific terms, so I thought I would start a thread and get some (name removed by moderator)ut.

I will list a couple of reasons that occured to me, please feel free to add more if they occur to you, or to refine the ones I post.

Hopefully we can critique each others answers, and get a good standpoint from a purely scientific argument, which will be useful when discussing with those who are not inclined to listen to faith reasons.

It might be helpful if those of you who have science/medicine backgrounds can help in this.

1.An embryo is nutritive. It requires nutrition in order to maintain itself, and withdrawel of that nutrition would destroy the embryo.

1. An embryo responds to stimuli. A change in heat or light will effect the embryo, and even subtle changes in either will lead to its destruction.
2. An embryo is developmental. It develops under natural circumstances into an ever more complex entity.

I will try to add some more as they occur to me, or as I read something on this. Feel free to be critical with my definitions.

Certainly the human bit seems to me to be obvious, but if you have insights, post them.

God Bless you all

 

[Em_in_FL]

Wonderful post… and I think most of your comments point out that the embryo is ALIVE…

Now on the “human being” front…

What defines a “human being” from any other animal?
Our DNA!
It’s similar to other mammal’s DNA… but there are differences that definitively define one species from another.

At the point of conception… when a sperm and egg unite… at that very instant a completely NEW and UNIQUE set of HUMAN DNA is formed. So unique that there has never been, nor ever will be, another one exactly like it. But, it is also distinctly HUMAN… at that very INSTANT.
DNA does NOT change during the course of fetal development. It is a fully ALIVE HUMAN BEING at that very INSTANT of conception.

Pretty cool!

 

[jack_hawkins]

I imagine the line of argument will be when it becomes a “human being”, not as opposed to when it is “alive”. When it should be respected as a human life and why.
You would then get onto what is unique about humans I guess - that we have a soul.

 

[JimG]

Emily is right about the DNA. Every new human being has its distinct DNA. And every new human individual has a beginning. That beginning is at conception, when a new and distinct individual of the human species begins its development.

 

[JimG]

I imagine the line of argument will be when it becomes a “human being”, not as opposed to when it is “alive”. When it should be respected as a human life and why.
You would then get onto what is unique about humans I guess - that we have a soul.

I think we should avoid the argument about the soul, since a soul is not tangible. But I can’t think of any other answer to the question, “when does a new human being begin?” other than “at conception.” Any other answer is purely arbitrary.

 

[puppylove]

I believe its a living thing from conception therefore it should be protected…

 

[cialovesyou]

I imagine the line of argument will be when it becomes a “human being”, not as opposed to when it is “alive”. When it should be respected as a human life and why.
You would then get onto what is unique about humans I guess - that we have a soul.

As for the human being/human person issue, may I propose that for now we simply try to attain the position that it is “human life”.

This seems to me to be the first step, and we can perhaps arrive at higher definitions upon that.

Secondly, I am trying to avoid recourse to issues such as “soul”, and “God”. If we are accused of imposing “faith” on others, let us contruct an argument which simply imposes agreed science, because I suspect we can still win.

 

[cialovesyou]

I looked up an encyclopedia of bioethics, and it seems that the definition of what constitutes “life” is being argued in some quarters.
Although, most seem to argue that “it is based on DNA, is capable of growth, and evolution.”
I guess I would like to head in the direction of proving that an embryo is living, so it is life. It is human, based perhaps on the DNA argument? Thus, it is human life. And that its deliberate destruction is therefore “the deliberate taking of a human life”.

Now, we can argue whether some humans lives are worth more than others (as Peter Singer would), but I think it would be a refreshing honesty from our opponents to arrive in agreement of the definition of what they are proposing.

 

[JimG]

Actually, it is the abortion proponents who like to muddy the waters with arguments about personhood, ensoulment, and when “life” begins. The biology is pretty straightforward: a new individual of the human species begins at conception.

You don’t find scientists arguing about the beginning point of other species, only human beings. Even using the term “life” is ambiguous. An ovum is alive, but it’s not a distinct human being with its own DNA. A sperm is alive, but it’s not a distinct human individual with its own DNA. Each cell of my body is alive, but they are not each distinct human individuals with their own DNA.

Reproduction, for any species, is the process of creating new individuals of that species. For humans and many other species, the new individual with distinct DNA comes into existence at conception.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Emily is right about the DNA. Every new human being has its distinct DNA. And every new human individual has a beginning. That beginning is at conception, when a new and distinct individual of the human species begins its development.

…and where do monozygotic twins fit into this framework?

 

[jack_hawkins]

As for the human being/human person issue, may I propose that for now we simply try to attain the position that it is “human life”.

This seems to me to be the first step, and we can perhaps arrive at higher definitions upon that.

Secondly, I am trying to avoid recourse to issues such as “soul”, and “God”. If we are accused of imposing “faith” on others, let us contruct an argument which simply imposes agreed science, because I suspect we can still win.

by saying “human life” I think you are not really saying much unless you are implying all the philosophical and religious connotations?
a tumour has a life of its own and often different DNA to the patient - is that human life?

 

[JimG]

…and where do monozygotic twins fit into this framework?

The zygote is distinct from the parents. If it subsequently separates into two distinct individuals, then there are two new human individuals, each distinct from the parents. I’m assuming that the separation occurs early enough for each to undergo its own individual embryogenesis.

 

[Orogeny]

by saying “human life” I think you are not really saying much unless you are implying all the philosophical and religious connotations?
a tumour has a life of its own and often different DNA to the patient - is that human life?

Is a tumor the natural result of conception?

Human life is the only term possible. It certainly isn’t going to be a mouse or a snake. The DNA is clear - it is human.

Peace

Tim

 

[Jennifer123]

Is a tumor the natural result of conception?

Human life is the only term possible. It certainly isn’t going to be a mouse or a snake. The DNA is clear - it is human.

Peace

Tim

In my experience debating this on other secular forums when the opportunity arises, the science is irrefutable. It is alive and it is human due to DNA. Most pro-lifers will concede this, so the issue always reverts back to what makes a human a person or some such nonsense - it’s usually a consciousness argument or argument about dependancy.

The idea that human life has inherent dignity is completely lost to them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

1. 
   *]Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!
   
   *]Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.
   
   *]But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.
   
   Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[kellyb32]

Hi all. I am done with this module where we were discussing human life and embryo research. Now we are discussing phobias.

Anyway, the last post I made about this discussion I made at the risk of getting in trouble since the professor is a stinker when it comes to quoting things. According to her anything directly quoted that has more than 7 words, even if there is quotations and a reference source, is plagerism. She has reported many students for this. She already warned me once about this at the beginning of the class when I directly quoted a website for info on another topic.

I said that this sums it up better than I can ever paraphrase it…

“If man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be.”
C.S. Lewis “Abolition of Man”

Thanks again for everyone’s insights and help when I needed it most on this topic.

God bless!

Kelly

 

[StCsDavid]

To me it all comes down to when as a culture do we decide that a person is too small and/or too dependent for us to consider that person worthy of the most basic fundamental right to simply exist? To me that’s something the culture should not try to define, and it is better that error on the side of life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To me it all comes down to when as a culture do we decide that a person is too small and/or too dependent for us to consider that person worthy of the most basic fundamental right to simply exist? To me that’s something the culture should not try to define, and it is better that error on the side of life.

If the culture, or “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life, then there is no right to life – it is merely a privilige. What the government grants, it can withhold.

If the right to life is not inherent in the human condition, and not granted or “decided upon” by human, then there are no rights at all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

by saying “human life” I think you are not really saying much unless you are implying all the philosophical and religious connotations?
a tumour has a life of its own and often different DNA to the patient - is that human life?

Jack, if you can’t tell the difference between a tumor and a baby, you need to surrender your medical license.

 

[StCsDavid]

If the culture, or “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life, then there is no right to life – it is merely a privilige. What the government grants, it can withhold.

If the right to life is not inherent in the human condition, and not granted or “decided upon” by human, then there are no rights at all.

That is precisely why the government should not get involved with redefining that which is already inherent. Human life, regardless of its size, intellect, or independence begins at conception. That’s something unchangeable by society. Thus, society ought not to try to govern such an absolute other than to protect it just as it protects its citizens from murderers.