Need a Medical Document which shows life begins at conception

[SuperDarkMan12]

Can anyone possibly give me such a thing from a prominent health organization? I’m debating with an atheist (well claims to be scientific) who needs one to validate my claim that embryologist do believe that a embryo is a human.

 

[Milasol]

Here is a good one from a PhD from Princeton

“To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species.”

Here he argues scientifically the uniqueness of a fertilized egg as a sole human specie with all attributes and qualities of a human being.

It is somewhat scientific but I hope it helps.

This scientist even argues that sperm and egg are already parts of a distinct human beings from the father or the mother.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Here is an excerpt from this document:

Myth 2: “The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�.”

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother�s tissues”. Quoting Carlson:

"… [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: “The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being.”

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a “potential” or a “possible” human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: “A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings.”

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: “The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy.”

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"…[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: “The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation.” (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. … [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth …"17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: “The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated.”

Fact 7: This “scientific” myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term “pre-embryo” has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

 

[SuperDarkMan12]

Thank you!

 

[phil19034]

Ask him this… If it’s not alive, then how is it growing?

 

[Nan_S]

The atheistic argument is that “it” may be living tissue, but is not legally human until capable of independent life. That independence test is satisfied when “it” is born alive.

Here the artful dodgers are getting around “life begins at conception” by substituting a human standard: “life begins when a child is born that does not need the mother’s womb to continue living.”

Of course, if you’re going to substitute human standards, you can establish all kinds of arbitrary baselines. Pick one and justify it. Why not say life begins when a child turns 18?

 

[ProVobis]

Too bad society doesn’t celebrate one’s date of conception, even if it can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed.

 

[JimG]

Too bad society doesn’t celebrate one’s date of conception, even if it can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed.

I believe that some east Asian societies actually count a person as one year old when they are born.

 

[Ender]

Can anyone possibly give me such a thing from a prominent health organization? I’m debating with an atheist (well claims to be scientific) who needs one to validate my claim that embryologist do believe that a embryo is a human.

Here are all the citations you could wish for. The observation that life begins at conception is frequently found in the first few pages of introductory level textbooks on embryology. This citation is typical:
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. *Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Ender

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Here:

 

[Mulligan2]

Too bad society doesn’t celebrate one’s date of conception, even if it can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed.

Thankfully no. The last thing I want to think of is my parents having sex. My actual birthday is fine for me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is not as simple a question as many here are making it out to be. The reason for considering the question of when life begins is to make an argument against abortion. But for that argument to really apply, we would have to make sure we are talking about “life” in the same sense in both cases (when life begins and why abortion is wrong).

Take for example, the beating heart in a prior posting. While the beating heart in the baby in the womb is definitely worthy of utmost respect as indicative of a life that must not be ended by abortion, a heart that has been removed from an accident victim for scientific study is less so (assuming the victim was too old to be an organ donor). It is still worthy of respect - the kind of respect that we give to the dead. But it is not worthy of the kind of respect that we give to a living baby in the womb. When the medical experiment is done, the heart may be discarded, even if it does still beat when stimulated by electrical impulses.

In fact, I think the whole premise of looking for a medical document that shows life begins at conception as a basis for opposing abortion is flawed. If medical science would somehow declare that life does not begin at conception, our case against abortion should be unchanged. We should not make our case depend on falsifiable science. And all scientific theory is falsifiable. That is the nature of the scientific process. Our religious truth should be built on a better foundation than that. It is only the perversion of our age that makes medical documents have more weight than religious doctrine. I think it should be the other way around.

 

[JimG]

The idea that life begins at conception is simply a shortcut way of saying that all human beings have a beginning, and that embryologically, that beginning point, at which a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species has its beginning, is at conception.

Indeed, to place the beginning of a new and distinct individual of the human species at some other point than conception is merely to obfuscate the science.

 

[Ender]

In fact, I think the whole premise of looking for a medical document that shows life begins at conception as a basis for opposing abortion is flawed.

It may be a flawed basis for opposing abortion, but it is not flawed science. In this case it is embryology 101.

If medical science would somehow declare that life does not begin at conception, our case against abortion should be unchanged.

If the argument against abortion is that it ends a life then that argument is useless unless it can be shown that life exists in the thing being destroyed.

We should not make our case depend on falsifiable science. And all scientific theory is falsifiable.

This seems like a really bad position to take because it encourages those who already dismiss religious positions as mere superstition to also dismiss the strongest source they recognize, that of science.

That is the nature of the scientific process. Our religious truth should be built on a better foundation than that.

We should use both.Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God … hence there can be no contradiction between them (Aquinas). … Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. (Fides et Ratio #43)

It is only the perversion of our age that makes medical documents have more weight than religious doctrine. I think it should be the other way around.

Faith cannot diverge from fact; we should not ever have to choose one or the other.The church has always recognized that, even with Galileo.
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. (Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It may be a flawed basis for opposing abortion, but it is not flawed science. In this case it is embryology 101…
If the argument against abortion is that it ends a life then that argument is useless unless it can be shown that life exists in the thing being destroyed…

The difficulty with this argument is that it plays on the ambiguity of the word “life”. We use that word in many different ways. We speak of generic life, as in the sum total of all life on earth. We also use it to refer to specific lives - i.e. the life of an individual creature. It is also used over various time spans. It can refer to the process that occurs over time. It can also refer to the current state of an individual, as in “is this dog dead or alive?”

When we say that life begins at conception, what sense of the word “life” are we referring to? What is it that happens at the moment of conception that justifies the transition from “not life” to “life”? Looking at the wriggling sperm and the egg, one could say that life in a more generic sense existed before conception too. That is, the sperm and the egg appear alive, and have the potential to come into contact and develop into an independent being. What has been cited very often is that the moment of conception is when the unique DNA pattern of that human person is first defined. But why is that event taken as the defining event of the beginning of the person? Sure, the DNA pattern has a great deal to do with how that person will appear and act. But so does his upbringing and experiences. Also, the exact DNA pattern is not exactly fixed. Subsequent infections by viruses or even cosmic rays have the potential for making slight alterations in that DNA, so the pattern is only approximately fixed.

The argument is also made that after conception, all that is needed is food, water, and protection to grow to an independent being. But you could say that the egg is also alive, because all it needs to grow is a sperm, food, water, and protection. Why shouldn’t we look at the sperm as just another thing the egg needs to develop and call the egg “alive”? Other than having only half the normal number of chromosomes, the egg certainly appears just as alive as all the other cells in the body.

The only thing that can be said of conception is that after conception, the chances of this egg developing into an independent being are greatly increased. But this is a quantitative change, not a qualitative one. According to some sources, even after conception, it still has less than a 50% chance of developing to birth.

 

[Ender]

The difficulty with this argument is that it plays on the ambiguity of the word “life”. We use that word in many different ways.

The word is indeed used in different ways, but I would think it better to insist that its meaning be clear rather than give up on the word entirely. That is, we should not aid those who benefit from misdirection and fuzzy thinking by giving up the very term that causes them the most difficulty.

When we say that life begins at conception, what sense of the word “life” are we referring to? What is it that happens at the moment of conception that justifies the transition from “not life” to “life”?

There are rather straightforward, scientific answers to these questions that we should be comfortable using.

Looking at the wriggling sperm and the egg, one could say that life in a more generic sense existed before conception too. That is, the sperm and the egg appear alive, and have the potential to come into contact and develop into an independent being.

Again, there is a rather clear scientific distinction between an organism and a part of an organism. All parts of a living organism are themselves alive but no part is considered an organism.

What has been cited very often is that the moment of conception is when the unique DNA pattern of that human person is first defined. But why is that event taken as the defining event of the beginning of the person?

Life is not defined as the creation of a DNA pattern. From the moment of conception the embryo begins self-directed growth from one stage to another that is altogether as seamless as progressing from toddler to teen. A fertilized egg is fundamentally different from anything before it; there is no other point in development that separates life from not-life.

The argument is also made that after conception, all that is needed is food, water, and protection to grow to an independent being. But you could say that the egg is also alive, because all it needs to grow is a sperm, food, water, and protection.

I think this is on the order of saying iron ore is also a building since all that is needed is smelting, fabrication, and construction. Would you also claim the reverse, that a person really isn’t alive because all that’s needed to stop growth is a bullet?

The only thing that can be said of conception is that after conception, the chances of this egg developing into an independent being are greatly increased. But this is a quantitative change, not a qualitative one.

The chances for development are not greatly increased, they are infinitely increased since the chance of an unfertilized egg developing into anything else are exactly zero, and if this doesn’t represent a qualitative difference then that term has no meaning.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The chances for development are not greatly increased, they are infinitely increased since the chance of an unfertilized egg developing into anything else are exactly zero, and if this doesn’t represent a qualitative difference then that term has no meaning.

When assessing the chances that an egg will develop into a person, why not take into account the very real probability that it will encounter a sperm? In which case the chances of an egg developing into a person is definitely not zero. It is unrealistic to insist that the egg be considered isolated from this possibility, just as it is unrealistic to insist that the egg be isolated from the food it also needs to develop.

 

[on_the_hill]

Can anyone possibly give me such a thing from a prominent health organization? I’m debating with an atheist (well claims to be scientific) who needs one to validate my claim that embryologist do believe that a embryo is a human.

I don’t know about medical texts. However, I came across the American Bar Association’s guidelines for lawyers who represent defendants in death penalty cases. Guideline 10.11 “The Defense Case Concerning Penalty,” states:

"F. In deciding which witnesses and evidence to prepare concerning penalty, the areas counsel should consider include the following:

1. Witnesses familiar with and evidence relating to the client’s life and development, from conception to the time of sentencing, that would be explanatory of the offense(s) for which the client is being sentenced, would rebut or explain evidence presented by the prosecutor, would present positive aspects of the client’s life, or would otherwise support a sentence less than death;"

I added the emphasis. The ABA directs attorneys to regard life as beginning at conception. What more of an authority does one need?

 

[Orogeny]

When assessing the chances that an egg will develop into a person, why not take into account the very real probability that it will encounter a sperm? In which case the chances of an egg developing into a person is definitely not zero. It is unrealistic to insist that the egg be considered isolated from this possibility, just as it is unrealistic to insist that the egg be isolated from the food it also needs to develop.

So, in your opinion, when does human life begin?

Peace

Tim

 

[Ender]

When assessing the chances that an egg will develop into a person, why not take into account the very real probability that it will encounter a sperm? In which case the chances of an egg developing into a person is definitely not zero. It is unrealistic to insist that the egg be considered isolated from this possibility, just as it is unrealistic to insist that the egg be isolated from the food it also needs to develop.

What is the possibility that a tree will develop into boards? Is there not also a real possibility that the tree will encounter a lumberjack and a sawmill? A fertilized egg is no longer an egg any more than a tree sawed into boards is still a tree; it has been fundamentally changed by processes external to it.

What does it mean to suggest our understanding of something should not be limited to what it is but should include what it might become? Why would we speak of anything as being alive when it is not only possible but inevitable that at some point it will be dead? Why do future possibilities affect our understanding of what something is at any particular moment in time?

A zygote can develop into a person; an egg cannot.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the possibility that a tree will develop into boards? Is there not also a real possibility that the tree will encounter a lumberjack and a sawmill? A fertilized egg is no longer an egg any more than a tree sawed into boards is still a tree; it has been fundamentally changed by processes external to it.

I see what you are getting at. A tree does not “develop” into a board, but it can “become” a board. We don’t say “develop” in this context because that implies the tree itself is the agency for the change, when in fact the tree is changed by an outside agency. And I suppose that you would say a fertilized egg can develop into a human because it is its own agency for the change. But an unfertilized egg becomes a person only through the outside agency of encountering the sperm. However, if you consider all the egg “does” to make itself a suitable attachment for a sperm, it seems that an egg also “develops” into a person. The process of providing a suitable coating that attracts and “pulls in” a sperm is a lot like spider waiting for a fly to enter his net. In the case of the spider, he eats the fly. In the case of the egg, “she” uses the sperm to supplement her deficient number of chromosomes. If you didn’t know about the role played by the sperm, but only observed the impregnation process, you might say that the egg is devouring the sperm. In which case the moment of conception was brought about partly by the agency of the egg being an effective egg. It was clearly designed to do just that. The distinction between “eating” and “grabbing for purposes of building chromosomes” is not what I would call a fundamental difference, enough to say that the resulting fertilized egg is a fundamentally different thing. It now has something that it needed to develop further. The fact that we call it something different now that it has 46 chromosomes instead of 23 chromosomes is entirely a classification invention, although not without a very good basis.

What does it mean to suggest our understanding of something should not be limited to what it is but should include what it might become? Why would we speak of anything as being alive when it is not only possible but inevitable that at some point it will be dead?

Yes, it will be dead some day, but for now it is alive. I don’t see the problem.

Why do future possibilities affect our understanding of what something is at any particular moment in time?

We would never call a zygote a separate living organism if we were not aware of its potential to develop into a clearly separate being. Its potential is the only thing that distinguishes it from other random cells in the mother, such as skin cells.