|
|
|
|
What science tells us
about the unborn Abortion kills a living organism of the human species Part Three of Four By Paul Stark Editor's note. This is reprinted from the newspaper of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC's Minnesota affiliate. Before deciding how we ought to treat the unborn--a moral question--we must first be clear about what the unborn is. This is a scientific question, and it is answered with clarity by the science of human embryology. Yet there is still much confusion about the biological nature of the unborn, particularly among those who defend killing him or her by abortion or embryo-destructive research. Many pro-lifers are ill-equipped to articulate the relevant facts and answer the toughest scientific objections. When sperm fertilizes egg The facts of reproduction are straightforward. Upon completion of the fertilization process, sperm and egg have ceased to exist (this is why "fertilized egg" is an inaccurate term); what exists is a single cell with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) that is called a zygote. The coming into existence of the zygote is the point of conception--the beginning of the life of a new human organism. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus all refer to developmental stages in the life of a human being. Four features of the unborn Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don't grow. Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to "look" human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are. Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman's body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises. A whole organism Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism--an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life. Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism--a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being. Affirmed by textbooks, scientists This fact is confirmed by embryology textbooks and leading scientists, who could be cited here ad nauseam. In 1981 a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee heard expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The official subcommittee report reached this conclusion: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." The report also noted that "no witness [who testified before the subcommittee] raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are 'human beings,' insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species." In my next column I will respond to scientific and popular objections to this conclusion. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |