What does it mean to be human? (CRI, on the beginning of human life)

[Socrates]

by Francis J. Beckwith

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 26, number 3 (2003).

(Full article including notes at www.equip.org/free/DH245.htm )

SYNOPSIS

Debates over embryonic stem cell research and human cloning have forced us to address the question: What does it mean to be human? If embryos are intrinsically valuable as human beings, then embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are problematic, for both involve the instrumental use of human embryos, and if postnatal children are employed, that would be clearly immoral.

The facts concerning embryology and fetal development support the argument that an individual human being, with its own genetic code, comes into existence at conception and remains the same human being throughout its lifetime to adulthood. Some object that twinning proves that an individual human being does not begin at conception. Their objection is faulty, however, because early embryonic cells function as parts of a single organism even though they are unspecialized and have the potential to become another being if separated. Others object that the preborn, while human, are not intrinsically valuable because they lack certain presently exercisable capacities. This argument, however, cannot account for clearly valuable human beings, such as those who are asleep, unconscious, or comatose and who also presently lack certain capabilities; moreover, if intrinsic value is based on the degree of capabilities, then it cannot account for equality among human beings since some have more capabilities than others (e.g., the ability to reason).

********************

Recent debates over issues such as embryonic stem cell research and human cloning have brought to the forefront the question: What does it mean to be human? After all, in order to establish important findings in stem cell research and to perfect human cloning, literally thousands of human embryos must be brought into existence for the sole purpose of experimenting on them, only to discard them later. In fact, some members of the U.S. Congress who want to ban cloning for reproductive purposes support cloning for research purposes in order to create an available supply of stem cells (among other reasons). This recommendation would put the government in an unusual position if it were to become law: it would require researchers to treat embryos as instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, valuable human beings by directing them to kill these embryos or risk facing hefty fines or imprisonment. Unlike the abortion right, which only permits the killing of embryos, this law would require it.

It is now more important than ever to think through what it means to be human. In this article I will argue that a human being begins to exist at conception and that what makes that human being intrinsically valuable is not that it has the present capacity to perform functions we typically associate with intrinsically valuable human beings (IVHBs), but that it has the nature of a moral agent that grounds its capacity to perform these functions. In other words, each human being, regardless of his or her level of development, is entitled to all the rights to which equal moral agents are entitled by virtue of being an equal moral agent. If it is wrong, for example, to kill a 10-year-old child in order to take her kidneys and give them to people the government thinks will benefit society (e.g., scientific geniuses on the verge of curing cancer or AIDS), it is also wrong to kill a 20-week-old fetal-clone for the same purpose since they are equal moral agents.

WHEN DOES A HUMAN BEING BEGIN?1

A human being begins its existence at conception, which occurs when the male sperm and the female ovum combine; in other words, fertilization is a process that culminates in conception. The result is an entity called a zygote. It is a misnomer to refer to this entity as a “fertilized ovum,” because both ovum and sperm, which are genetically parts of their owners (mother and father, respectively), cease to exist at the moment of conception. For this reason, it may not even be correct to refer to the sperm and egg as “uniting,” for, as philosopher Robert Joyce points out, this “suggests that they remain and form a larger whole.” They are not like machine parts, which, when added together, form something larger though remaining identifiable parts; rather, as Joyce argues, “the nuclei of the sperm and ovum dynamically interact,” and “in so doing, they both cease to be. One might say they die together.”2

There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive, and, as the facts reveal, this life is an individual human life. First, the human conceptus, that which results from conception and begins as a zygote, is the sexual product of human parents. Insofar as it has human causes, therefore, the conceptus is human. Second, it is a human individual. The conceptus resulting from the union of a female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and a male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), is a new, although tiny, individual with its own genetic code (with 46 chromosomes),3 which is neither its mother’s nor its father’s. The “genotype” — the inherited characteristics of an individual human being — is in place at conception, and it plays the same role in the human organism as it does in all living organisms: it has highly complex information that instructs the unfolding of the organism’s intrinsic potential.4 This genotype, of course, will remain with that organism as long as it exists. The only thing necessary for the organism’s growth and development, as with the rest of us, is oxygen, food, water, and healthy interaction with its environment, since this organism, like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent, needs to develop only in accordance with its already designed nature, which is present at conception.

From a strictly scientific point of view, therefore, each human being begins its physical existence as a zygote, and it remains a human being throughout its life, from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn to adolescent and throughout adulthood. None of these stages imparts to the human being its humanity.

Cell division occurs after the zygote stage. The human conceptus increases to over 100 cells within the first seven days after conception, and implantation occurs between seven and nine days, at which time the conceptus “nests” or implants in its mother’s uterus. During this time, and possibly up to 14 days after conception, the conceptus may split, resulting in the creation of identical twins.5 In some instances, the two conceptuses may recombine and become one conceptus. The “primitive streak” — the spine’s ancestor — appears between days 12 and 17. At about three weeks a primitive heart muscle begins to pulsate. Other organs begin to develop during the first four weeks, such as a liver, umbilical cord, kidneys, and a digestive tract (albeit in their primitive forms). This organism has a head with a developing face and with primitive ears, mouth, and eyes. The fourth week ends with a fully formed human embryo.6 “After the eighth week no further primordia will form; everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.…From this point until adulthood, when full growth is achieved somewhere between 25 and 27 years, the changes in the body will be mainly in dimension and in gradual refinement of the working parts.”7

Given the facts of embryology and fetal development, clearly an individual human organism, with its own genetic code, comes into existence at conception, needing only food, water, shelter, oxygen, and a congenial environment in which to interact in order to grow and develop in accordance with its own intrinsically ordered nature. The conceptus, like the infant, the child, and the adolescent, is a being who is in the process of unfolding its potential; that is, the potential to grow and develop itself but not to change what it is. The same human being that begins as a zygote continues to exist through its birth and adulthood. There is no decisive break in this physical organism’s continuous development from conception until death from which one can reasonably infer that the being undergoes a substantial change and literally ceases to exist and a new being comes into existence (like the substantial change that the sperm and ovum undergo when they cease to exist and a new being comes into existence).

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT THAT AN IVHB BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

It has been argued that an IVHB does not begin at conception. Some believe that the human being comes into existence very early in pregnancy, but not at conception (objection one). Others argue that a human being likely begins at conception, but it does not become intrinsically valuable until sometime later (objection two).

Objection One:
Argument from Twinning, Recombination, and Cellular Totipotency

Twinning (the division of a single conceptus into two) and perhaps recombination (the reuniting of two conceptuses into one conceptus) may occur roughly within the first two weeks of pregnancy. Some argue that an individual human being is not present until twinning and recombination are no longer possible. The early embryo, moreover, consists of totipotent cells (cells with the ability to develop into a new organism or part), any one of which could be detached from the cluster and become an individual human being in its own right. Some thinkers contend that until the cells are differentiated (become more specialized) and lose their totipotency,8 the embryo, though genetically human, is not an individual (human) being. Norman Ford suggests that “the early embryo is really a cluster of distinct individual cells, each one of which is a centrally organized living individual or ontological entity in simple contact with the others enclosed in the protective zona pellucida. It would be difficult to justify attributing the natural unity property of a single ontological individual to the cluster of cells as a whole.”9 According to Ford, the embryo is not a single being, but rather, a cluster of beings held together by the zona pellucida, “a natural surface ‘coat’ that covers the embryo.”10

Objection one may be put this way:

1. The early embryo is not a unified being; rather, it is merely a cluster of totipotent cells that may divide into separate entities and could later recombine.

2. Any entity that may divide into separate entities and that may later recombine is not an individual being.

3. Therefore, the early embryo is not an individual human being.

There are good reasons to reject both premises in this argument. The second premise is clearly false. The flatworm, a being that has the potential to become two flatworms if it is cut in two, is an example of just such an individual being. Patrick Lee explains:

The reason the division does not simply result in death seems to be that the parts of the flatworm have the capacity to de-differentiate. This fact surely does not imply that prior to the division the flatworm is merely an aggregate of cells or tissues. It simply means that the parts of the flatworm have the potential to become a whole flatworm when isolated from the present whole of which they are parts. Likewise, at the early stages of development of the human embryo the cells seem to be as yet relatively unspecialized and therefore can become whole organisms if they are divided and have an appropriate environment after the division. But that fact does not in the least indicate that prior to such an extrinsic division the embryo is an aggregate rather than a single, multicellular organism.11

The first premise, meanwhile, fares no better. First, it does not follow from the totipotency of the early embryo’s cells that it is merely a cluster of cells with no organizing principle (or substantial unity) that unifies these cells as parts of an individual biological entity. “As the flatworm example shows,” writes Lee, “a totipotency of a part does not show that prior to the division the part is not functioning as a part.”12

Second, two lines of evidence show that the early embryo is in fact a unified being. The first is that totipotent cells do not detach from the embryo willy nilly; they detach for a reason, either by a force external to the embryo (e.g., a scientist who intentionally splits an embryo or detaches one of its totipotent cells) or perhaps something intrinsic to the entity itself. If the former, then the divided embryo is like the split flatworm, a being whose totipotent cells were detached by an outside force. This does not mean, however, that the embryo(s) and the flatworm(s) are not each a unified being both before and after an artificial detachment. Concerning the possibility that there may be something intrinsic to the entity itself that results in the detachment of one of its totipotent cells, physician and theologian Edwin Hui points out that not every conceptus has the intrinsically directed potential for monozygotic twinning. (Twinning, of course, may occur with any early embryo if it is manipulated artificially, as noted above.) In other words, twinning is not “always present in the normal conditions of embryogenesis.”13 It is, after all, quite rare, “occurring in only three or four out of a thousand births.” Nevertheless, writes Hui, even though “scientists are still uncertain as to why it actually takes place,” they “do know that some unknown agents seem to be needed to break down the intercellular bonds that normally hold the cells together as an individual organism.”14 There is strong evidence that monozygotic twinning has a genetic cause (hence, it runs in certain families). It seems, therefore, that some zygotes have a basic duality prior to their splitting — an intrinsically directed potential that is not present in most other zygotes; thus, according to Hui, “the two beings that emerge as twins are in actuality two from conception, although in a ‘latent’ form.”15

Suppose, however, that the early embryo were to possess an intrinsically directed potential for twinning that may be triggered by some external stimulus. This would only mean that the human being, early in its existence, possesses a present capacity (i.e., twinning) that becomes latent after a certain level of development, just as some latent capabilities become present later in its existence (e.g., the ability to do algebra).

The second line of evidence showing that the early embryo is a unified human being is that the early embryo, though consisting of totipotent cells, behaves like a single organism with an intrinsic goal-directedness for which its cellular parts interact and communicate with one another unless one of the cells is separated from the whole. There are at least four reasons to believe this is the case:

(1) If the early embryo were not a unified organism, Benedict Ashley and Albert Moraczewski point out, the totipotent cells of the embryonic cluster “should each develop into a mature organism”; but because “they do so only if they are separated from the others,” it follows “that at least some interaction is taking place between them within the zona pellucida which restrains them from individually developing as whole organisms and normally directs them collectively to remain parts of a single organism continuous with the zygote.”16

(2) The zona pellucida (which Ford, Shannon, and Wolter admit holds the embryonic cell-cluster together) as well as other embryonic tissues, Anthony Fisher writes, are “formed by the embryo, usually with its genetic constitution, and for its sole benefit and use, and are indeed its organs; they are clearly not the mother’s organs, nor a tumor, nor some alien third organism living symbiotically with mother and embryo.”17 Lee aptly points out that “such activities — formation of organs for the benefit of the whole — constitute the defining trait of organisms.”18

(3) Although the embryo consists entirely of totipotent cells after its initial cell divisions, “genetic restriction of the cells [i.e., cell differentiation] begins after day five, at the blastocyst stage.”19 What is significant in terms of the present discussion, however, is that “the evidence also shows that the time [when this cell differentiation] begins is determined from within by a ‘clock mechanism’ intrinsic to the developing embryo.”20 This shows that the early embryo is a substantial unity whose parts, triggered by an intrinsically directed “clock mechanism,” work in concert with one another for the growth, development, and continued existence of the whole.21

(4) Other evidence for the early embryo’s substantial unity includes the fact that its cells function “in distinct ways even from the two-cell stage,” such as when compaction occurs on day three.22 It also includes the fact that “even before compaction, the positional differences between the cells is important, the top from the bottom, the right from the left, even though this differentiation is reversible.”23 The significance of these activities should not be missed: they show that the cells of the early embryo, though totipotent, are functioning in ways consistent with their being constituent parts of a unified organism. In other words, the cells function in concert with what the early embryo’s intrinsically directed nature has instructed them to do. The unfolding is orderly and goal-directed with the end being the continuing development and subsistence of the embryo itself as a whole.24

[Blemonds]

I love CRI and I miss Dr Walter Martin

[AtheistArchon]

- None of this ever touches for a second upon my argument(s) centered around "human life" at conception. It supposes that all one needs in order to have personhood (a human being, not just human life) is DNA and the ability to undergo mitosis. The simple truth is that a blastocyst has no consitutional protection for the excellent reason that we bestow rights upon people, not incoherent nonsentient biological mass.

[Snarf]

- None of this ever touches for a second upon my argument(s) centered around "human life" at conception. It supposes that all one needs in order to have personhood (a human being, not just human life) is DNA and the ability to undergo mitosis. The simple truth is that a blastocyst has no consitutional protection for the excellent reason that we bestow rights upon people, not incoherent nonsentient biological mass.

You got it! Besides, since abortion will always remain legal, prolifers who keep fighting the same lost battle only display their impotence.

[Blemonds]

- None of this ever touches for a second upon my argument(s) .

Ah Yes, a legend in your own mind

[AtheistArchon]

Ah Yes, a legend in your own mind

- Feel free to debunk me:

http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/abortion2.htm

[Blemonds]

- Feel free to debunk me:

http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/abortion2.htm

You mean the same old boring fingernail tripe that starts out with the same old boring ad hom

Unfortunately, it's a lot more complex than mere 1st-century sheepherder dogma.

[Socrates]

The simple truth is that a blastocyst has no consitutional protection for the excellent reason that we bestow rights upon people, not incoherent nonsentient biological mass.

The US Supreme Court once declared black slaves non-persons without rights, and the Nazis did that for Jews. Blackmun's pseudo-consitutional gymnastics to deny rights for the unborn are in the same vein.

[Bob Jenkins]

This isn't a "fun" thread - more than half the posts are blocked out by ignore

[AtheistArchon]

You mean the same old boring fingernail tripe that starts out with the same old boring ad hom

- I'm sorry you're bored, but that's not a refutation. Next.

The US Supreme Court once declared black slaves non-persons without rights, and the Nazis did that for Jews. Blackmun's pseudo-consitutional gymnastics to deny rights for the unborn are in the same vein.

- Then Soc, you tell me how many people lack brains. Not just 'are dumb', but physically lack a brain. This isn't about race or religion, it's about personhood, and it's not me jumping through hoops here with slavery and Nazism.

[salvationfound]

I mentioned in another thread about Bills that have been passed.

Here is one that says once a child leaves the mother it has its own rights.

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Ali...sdrawsfire.htm

This means that the world record baby who lived after being born at 22
weeks has protection even though legal abortion can occur at a later date.

This is another Bill that says murder against a fetus is murder even if the
mother survives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040401-3.html

So a murdered fetus has the same status as a murdered baby.

So if a third party is not allowed to murder a fetus why are abortion doctors?

Its this whole time limit a mother has that gets to me. If a woman is
pregnant she has a time limit to murder it. If she waits too long oops she'll
have to have the baby after all. Either a mother should be allowed to murder
her child from conception to after birth and beyond or a mother shouldn't be
allowed to do it at all.

[Bob Jenkins]

I mentioned in another thread about Bills that have been passed.

Here is one that says once a child leaves the mother it has its own rights.

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Ali...sdrawsfire.htm

This means that the world record baby who lived after being born at 22
weeks has protection even though legal abortion can occur at a later date.

This is another Bill that says murder against a fetus is murder even if the
mother survives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040401-3.html

So a murdered fetus has the same status as a murdered baby.

So if a third party is not allowed to murder a fetus why are abortion doctors?

Its this whole time limit a mother has that gets to me. If a woman is
pregnant she has a time limit to murder it. If she waits too long oops she'll
have to have the baby after all. Either a mother should be allowed to murder
her child from conception to after birth and beyond or a mother shouldn't be
allowed to do it at all.

You seem to avoid the distinction that what is "on the books" is not a constitional law. You ignore that Roe v Wade and the three following cases affirm the rights of women over the rights of a zygot, embryo and early fetus.

[salvationfound]

You seem to avoid the distinction that what is "on the books" is not a constitional law. You ignore that Roe v Wade and the three following cases affirm the rights of women over the rights of a zygot, embryo and early fetus.

Ok I'm not too familiar with American law. (Comes with being Canadian).

What do these Bills mean that Bush signed? Are they anything? Or
are they worthless pieces of paper? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't
understand what it means that Bush signed these things and what they do.

[DunnySaze]

This is another Bill that says murder against a fetus is murder even if the
mother survives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040401-3.html

So a murdered fetus has the same status as a murdered baby.

So if a third party is not allowed to murder a fetus why are abortion doctors?

Legal abortion is specifically exempted from the law, as even the National Right to Life say in their website.

The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. The National Right to Life Committee strongly supported enactment of the law because it achieved other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the just punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.