Important Caution. Please Read This!

Use the information on this site AT YOUR OWN RISK, and read the disclaimer.

Easy Email Delivery

Get the best survival-medicine tips on the Interwebs.



 Subscribe in a reader

Find The Survival Doctor on FacebookFollow The Survival Doctor on TwitterFollow Me on PinterestSubscribe to me on YouTube

This survival-medicine website provides general information, not individual advice. Most scenarios assume the victim cannot get expert medical help. Please see the disclaimer.

When Does Life Begin? Medical Experts Debate Abortion Issue

When does life begin? Two experts share their opinions on this issue, as it relates to abortion. They discuss scientific and religious views. Share your opinions here too.

[Editor's note: This article was originally hosted on MyFamilyDoctorMag.com, our sister site.
It's now featured here as part of our new general-health section.]

When Does Life Begin? Medical Experts Debate Abortion Issue | The Survival Doctor

 

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. 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 website. “The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”

Rules of Engagement

We invited each participant to write an argument, then read the opponent’s argument and, if desired, write a rebuttal. Neither was allowed to read the other’s initial argument before writing his own, and neither could read the other’s response before rebutting.

“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 was simply—and yet not so simply—“Do we know when human life begins?”

Now, let the debate begin.


Argument: YES, any biologist in the world can tell you when life begins.
Debator:

Donna J. Harrison, M.D., president, American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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.

Home remedies + science = do-it-yourself survival medicine! Get prepared for disasters with TheSurvivalDoctor’s e-books.


Argument: No, we don’t even know when life ends, much less when it begins.
Debator:

Suzanne Holland, Ph.D., bioethicist; chair, Religion Department, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Wash.

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.

The Survival Doctor's Guides to Burns and Wounds, by @James HubbardThose 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.

 

REBUTTALS

Dr. Holland’s
-
Dr. Holland declined to submit a rebuttal.
Dr. Harrison’s
-
Dr. Holland’s arguments are essentially religious, obscuring the basic biological question:  When does mammalian life begin?
-
Her “moments” only highlight notable characteristics along a continuum of human life already biologically existing. The “views” she misrepresents are scientifically incoherent and biologically inaccurate. (In her “genetic view” identical twins would not be considered alive since they don’t have a unique genome, a human corpse alive because it has one.)
-
The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death.
You May Also Like:


Original article appeared in July/August 2008 edition of My Family Doctor magazine. This general health-care information is not meant as individual advice. Please see our disclaimer.

  • guitarman14

    not sure what the final answer is, but i do reject the argument “at or near birth” that states the new life cannot live outside the womb, therefore, life has not yet begun. to accept this, one would also have to accept that a new born baby cannot live outside its home in the wilds of alaska by itself; hence, even a 5 or 10 year old would not considered to be “alive”. using the outside the womb argument does not cut it.

  • Siphelele Zwane

    apart from the Biblical view life begins at conception. the change in a woman after cojnception simply enotes a beging of a new life within their womb.Sionce I believe that after conception develops life thus if a person were to stop that life from development that would be akin to murder. feretilisation itself must show that there is a formation of new life within the women. but however that Bible also proves that life begins at conception when God calls Jeremiah as says he had known him from his his mother’s womb while he was an embryo

  • ratchett sasquatch!!!!!!

    LIFE BEIGINS WHEN I FREAKING WWANT IT TO, DAMN IT. SO STFU.

  • Cripe

    There are major differences between deciding when life/personhood begins based on religious or scientific or legalistic reasoning. While most people come at this from a religious/philosophical/scientific perspective, if this type of discussion is ever intended to shape public policy then it must be examined in a legalistic perspective as well. I would like to momentarily put aside the moral and scientific arguments and see what implications personhood prior to birth would arise.

    Would an unborn person be included in the census (and thus possibly shift seats allocated to each state for the House of Representatives)?
    Would a pregnant mother be able to drive in the HOV lanes with just her unborn child as a passenger? Would she be required to show proof of pregnancy if pulled over by an officer?
    Would a pregnant mother be able to claim an unborn as a dependent on her federal income tax return?
    Would businesses be able to (or even be required to) charge a pregnant woman an additional entry fee for her unborn child?
    Could a pregnant woman (even if she doesn’t know she is pregnant) be charged with child endangerment if she rode a horse? What about if she refused to get pre-natal care? What if she drank alcohol/smoked (while not knowing that she was pregnant)?
    How many doctors would stop giving pre-natal care for fear of being charged with child endangerment?
    Does an unborn child need a passport to return to the US after visiting a foreign country?
    For US Citizenship, does the child need to be born in the US or conceived in the US?

    The list goes on and on. Redefining the definition of personhood without examining the ramifications of that change is extremely reckless. It guarantees further problems/challenges. From a legal standpoint, it is extremely difficult to safely and clearly define personhood as starting at conception.

  • Donna Carlaw

    I agree with the premise that life begins at conception. There are a number of reasons as to why I agree. Here are some.

    1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child him or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned – not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.

    2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until they turn 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub human or not human yet? A mother’s answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.

    3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it – and I believe He does – then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers’ wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?

    Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child’s life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or that someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro choice women say to the contrary. .

    Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn. In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.

    We shall see how the murder case in Philadelphia plays out. Will the abortion doctor be acquitted, since there was no intention of letting the babies who survived his botched abortions live in the first place?

    What about Sen. Boxer’s strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:

    “In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html

  • Shyam

    I’m neither a pro-lifer nor a pro-choice advocate. I’m just a pure, peaceful, loving and happy conscious soul. The time when life enters a human being in the progression of the human body from conception to at-or-near-birth…. came about to console those who had miscarriages (both parents and their near and dear ones.) For argument sake, I’ll call “it” the baby. If the baby died on the 14th day, they said, don’t worry the embryo had no life. Similar explanations they had for the baby’s death in the fetus stage, or the at-or-near-birth stage, No matter what name you may give the state of that baby – an embryo, fetus, newborn – life starts at conception. Like it or not.

  • Shawn

    Dr. Holland,

    You mentioned 4 possible points to where life can be said to biologically begin:

    1) Conception (genetic)
    2) After twinning is no longer possible (embryologic: about 14 days into development)
    3) Brainwave criteria (neurological: about 24-27 weeks into development)
    4) At or near birth (measured by fetal viability outside of the body)

    I noticed one very obvious point was not mentioned by you: when the embryo has a heartbeat. As we consider someone with a heartbeat whose heart stops to be dead, why therefore would you overlook when he heartbeat begins (about 4-5 weeks into development) as one of the possible beginnings of human life?

    • imussuallyright

      We don’t consider a person who’s heart stops to be dead, we consider them dead when their brain ceases to function. Hearts stop all the time and the heartbeat is restored routinely. It is true that if the heart stops for a prolonged period of time, then the person will die, but ultimately the reason for that is the brain is not supplied with oxygen.

  • Anomylous

    The debate over abortion involves a lot of biological issues, but it is fundamentally ethical in nature. Therefore, I feel that Dr. Harrison’s attempt to frame the issue in purely biological terms is misleading. Note that, while she ridicules Dr. Holland’s “genetic view”, it is clear from her argument that this is exactly what she believes.

    On the other hand, Dr. Holland, rather than espouse one particular viewpoint, has simply outlined several prevailing ones, while claiming none as her own. As an argument, this falls rather short. However, assuming that her information is accurate, it provides some very useful insight on the controversy surrounding abortion.

  • Pingback: Doctors Debate Universal Health Care: Pros and Cons From the Experts

  • Pingback: Medical Marijuana Pros and Cons: Expert Opinions