Abortion: When Do Human Beings Begin?

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

Last Updated : July 23, 2006

"Scientific" Myths And Scientific Facts.

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-47

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

(copyright February 1999)

I. Introduction

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a
human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a
scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by
human embryologists-not by philosophers, bioethicists,
theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or
obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a
human person begins is a philosophical question. Current
discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of
mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients
involve specific claims as to when the life of every human
being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various
discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be
rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article
is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific"
myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to
ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the
actual international consensus of human embryologists is
with regard to this relatively simple scientific question.
In the final section, I will also address some "scientific"
myths that have caused much confusion within the
philosophical discussions on "personhood."

II. When does a human being begin?

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological
terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic
difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently
circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This
would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis,"
"oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote,"
"embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific
descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further,
more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating
any well-established human embryology textbook in the
library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note
that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a
matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and
references from some of the most highly respected human
embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human
embryologists internationally.

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs
between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization-the
change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm)
and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an
oocyte-usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which
simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique,
newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a
single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been
transformed into something very different from what they
were before; they have been changed into a single, whole
human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm
and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being
is produced.

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. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism
is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of
chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or
minus, e.g., in human beings with Down's or Turner's
syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being
has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the
early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their
mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes -
which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms
and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the
developing fetus by means of the process known as
"gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46
chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take
place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ
cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their
fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of
chromosomes in a single individual member of the human
species (46) can be maintained-otherwise we would end up
with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as
only possessing human life, and not as living human beings
themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts
involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of
fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products
of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The
products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only
23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization
is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis
refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in
gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new
human being.

1) Gametogenesis

As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis
is the process that converts primordial germ cells
(primitive sex cells) into mature sex gametes-in the male
(spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the female (definitive
oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different in males
and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males
occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The
process involves the production of spermatogonia from the
primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary
spermatocytes, and finally spermatids-or mature spermatozoa
(sperms). These mature sperms will have only half of the
number of their original chromosomes-i.e., the number of
chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they
are ready to take part in fertilization.3

Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total
number of primary oocytes-about 7 million-is produced in the
female fetus' ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the
mother's uterus. By birth, only about 700,000 - 2 million
remain. By puberty, only about 400,000 remain. The process
includes several stages of maturation-the production of
oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become
primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at
puberty. This definitive oocyte is what is released each
month during the female's menstrual period, but it still has
46 chromosomes. In fact, it does not reduce its number of
chromosomes until and unless it is fertilized by the sperm,
during which process the definitive oocyte becomes a
secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4

This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes
takes place by the process known as meiosis. Many people
confuse meiosis with a different process known as mitosis,
but there is an important difference. Mitosis refers to the
normal division of a somatic or of a germ cell in order to
increase the number of those cells during growth and
development. The resulting cells contain the same number of
chromosomes as the previous cells-in human beings, 46.
Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes
that are normally present in a germ cell - the precursor of
a sperm or a definitive oocyte - in order for fertilization
to take place. The resulting gamete cells have only half of
the number of chromosomes as the previous cells-in human
beings, 23.

One of the best and most technically accurate explanations
for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan
O'Rahilly,5 the human embryologist who helped to develop the
classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development.
He also sits on the international board of Nomina
Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be
used in human embryology textbooks internationally):

"Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e.,
spermatozoa and oocytes. These cells are produced in the
gonads, i.e., the testes and ovaries respectively. ...
During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells (those
with a double set of chromosomes, as found in somatic cells
[46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells
(those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes])
are called secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number
... from 46 (the diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid
number or n) is accomplished by a cellular division termed
meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the production of spermatozoa,
continues from immediately after puberty until old age. It
takes place in the testis, which is also an endocrine gland,
the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone.
Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules
of the testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty,
under stimulation from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia
proliferate ... and some become primary spermatocytes. When
these undergo their first maturation division (meiosis 1),
they become secondary spermatocytes. The second maturation
division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids, which become
converted into spermatozoa."6

"Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes,
i.e.; the female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia
(derived from primordial germ cells) multiply by mitosis and
become primary oocytes. The number of oogonia increases to
nearly seven million by the middle of prenatal life, after
which it diminishes to about two million at birth. From
these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several hundred
of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a
reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of
meiosis 1 begins during fetal life but ceases at the
diplotene state, which persists during childhood. ... After
puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed and a secondary oocyte ... is
formed, together with polar body 1, which can be regarded as
an oocyte having a reduced share of cytoplasm. The secondary
oocyte is a female gamete in which the first meiotic
division is completed and the second has begun. From
oogonium to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years
to be completed. Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of
the follicle (ovulation) but only if a spermatozoon
penetrates. ... The term 'ovum' implies that polar body 2
has been given off, which event is usually delayed until the
oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been
fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist.
Moreover the term has been used for such disparate
structures as an oocyte and a three-week embryo, and
therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori should 'egg'."7
(Emphasis added.)

Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm
and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8
each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human
life," since they are parts of a living human being; but
they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They
each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes-the number
of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single
individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm
can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can
produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is
or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.

Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such
as "ovum" and "egg"-which would include the term "fertilized
egg"-is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate
in reality, and is therefore very misleading-especially in
these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would
qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term,
"fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there
is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization
has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an
egg of any sort; it is a human being.

2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature
haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider
is fertilization. O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a
spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its
investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and
paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic
division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the
last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first
cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis
added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte
(with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live
human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46
chromosomes-the number of chromosomes characteristic of an
individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a
sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e.,
an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a
secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when
fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10
(Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces
specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or
frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her
own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth
and development has been proven not to be directed by the
mother.)12 Finally, this new human being-the single-cell
human zygote-is biologically an individual, a living
organism-an individual member of the human species. Quoting
Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with
the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex
cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to
initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13
(Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are
products of gametogenesis-each has only 23 chromosomes. They
each have only half of the required number of chromosomes
for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into
human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and
enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and
development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of
the human species. They are only parts-each one a part of a
human being. On the other hand, a human being is the
immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a
single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46
chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human
species. This human being immediately produces specifically
human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further
growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically
unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't
become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows
bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an
embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental
stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g.,
a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a
bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a
trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to
recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that
have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human
embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation
of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients-and why these
discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The
following is just a sampling of these current "scientific"
myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo
or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life.
But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So
prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of
human sperms and human ova are no different from
abortions-and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section,
there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts
of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human
embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being."
Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a
human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion,
since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does
human life begin, but rather when does the life of every
human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin
cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they
are not human beings-they are only parts of a human being.
If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a
woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply
disintegrate.

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
Kischer and Irving, 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.

The term "pre-embryo" was also used as the rationale for
permitting human embryo research in the British Warnock
Committee Report (1984),21 and then picked up by literally
hundreds of writers internationally, including, e.g.,
Australian writers Michael Lockwood, Michael Tooley, Alan
Trounson-and especially by Peter Singer (a philosopher),
Pascal Kasimba (a lawyer), Helga Kuhse (an ethicist),
Stephen Buckle (a philosopher) and Karen Dawson (a
geneticist, not a human embryologist). Note that none of
these is even a scientist, with the exception of Karen
Dawson, who is just a geneticist.

Oddly, the influential book by Singer, Kuhse, Buckle, and
Dawson, Embryo Experimentation,22 (which uses the term
"pre-embryo," and which contains no scientific references
for its "human embryology" chart or its list of "scientific"
terms), along with the work of theologian McCormick and frog
developmental biologist Grobstein, was used in the United
States as the scientific basis for the 1994 National
Institutes of Heath (NIH) Human Embryo Research Report.23
That Report concluded that the "preimplantation embryo"
(they, too, originally used the term "pre-embryo") had only
a "reduced moral status." (Both the Warnock Report and the
NIH Report admitted that the 14-day limit for human embryo
research was arbitrary, and could and must be changed if
necessary.) It is particularly in the writings of these and
other bioethicists that so much incorrect science is claimed
in order to "scientifically" ground the "pre-embryo" myth
and therefore "scientifically" justify many of the issues
noted at the beginning of this article. This would include
abortion, as well as the use of donated or
"made-for-research" early human embryos in destructive
experimental human embryo research (such as infertility
research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of
chimeras, etc.).

To begin with, it has been demonstrated above that the
immediate product of fertilization is a human being with
"46" chromosomes, a human embryo, an individual member of
the human species, and that this is the beginning of the
embryonic period. However, McCormick and Grobstein24 claim
that even though the product of fertilization is genetically
human, it is not a "developmental individual" yet-and in
turn, this "scientific fact" grounds their moral claim about
this "pre-embryo." Quoting McCormick:

"I contend in this paper that the moral status-and
specifically the controversial issue of personhood-is
related to the attainment of developmental individuality
(being the source of one individual) ... It should be noted
that at the zygote stage the genetic individual is not yet
developmentally single-a source of only one individual. As
we will see, that does not occur until a single body axis
has begun to form near the end of the second week post
fertilization when implantation is underway."25 (Emphasis
added.)

Sounds very scientific. However, McCormick's embryology is
already self-contradictory. Implantation takes place at 5-7
days. The "single body axis" to which he refers is the
formation of the primitive streak, which begins to take
place at 14 days. McCormick often confuses these different
periods in his writings. But McCormick continues:

"This multicellular entity, called a blastocyst, has an
outer cellular wall, a central fluid-filled cavity and a
small gathering of cells at one end known as the inner cell
mass. Developmental studies show that the cells of the outer
wall become the trophoblast (feeding layer) and are
precursors to the later placenta. Ultimately, all these
cells are discarded at birth."26 (Emphasis added.)

The clear implication is that there is absolutely no
relationship or interaction between these two cell layers,
and so the "entity" is not a "developmental individual" yet.
However, quoting Larsen:

"These centrally placed blastomeres are now called the inner
cell mass, while the blastomeres at the periphery constitute
the outer cell mass. Some exchange occurs between these
groups. ... The cells of this germ disc (the inner cell
layer) develop into the embryo proper and also contribute to
some of the extraembryonic membranes."27 (Emphasis added.)

Similarly, it is not factually correct to state that all of
the cells from the outer trophoblast layer are discarded
after birth. Quoting Moore:

"The chorion, the amnion, the yolk sac, and the allantois
constitute the fetal membranes. They develop from the zygote
but do not participate in the formation of the embryo or
fetus-except for parts of the yolk sac and allantois. Part
of the yolk sac is incorporated into the embryo as the
primordium of the gut. The allantois forms a fibrous cord
that is known as the urachus in the fetus and the median
umbilical ligament in the adult. It extends from the apex of
the urinary bladder to the umbilicus."28 (Emphasis added.)

Since scientists, in trying to "reach" young students in a
more familiar language, sometimes use popularized (but
scientifically inaccurate and misleading) terms themselves,
the ever-vigilant O'Rahilly expresses concern in his classic
text about the use of the term "fetal membranes":

"The developmental adnexa, commonly but inaccurately
referred to as the 'fetal membranes,' include the
trophoblast, amnion, chorion, umbilical vesicle (yolk sac),
allantoic diverticulum, placenta and umbilical cord. They
are genetically a part of the individual and are composed of
the same germ layers."29 (Emphasis added.) Consequently, it
is also scientifically incorrect to claim that only the
inner cell layer constitutes the "embryo proper." The entire
blastocyst-including both the inner and the outer cell
layers-is the human embryo, the human being, the human
individual.

Finally, McCormick claims that this "pre-embryo" has not yet
decided how many individuals it will become, since the cells
are totipotent and twinning can still take place. Therefore,
they argue, there is no "individual" present until 14-days
and the formation of the primitive streak, after which
twinning cannot take place.30

However, twinning is possible after 14 days, e.g., with
fetus-in-fetu and Siamese twins. Quoting from O'Rahilly
again:

"Partial duplication at an early stage and attempted
duplication from 2 weeks onward (when bilateral symmetry has
become manifest) would result in conjoined twins (e.g.,
'Siamese twins')."31 (Emphasis added.)

And even Karen Dawson acknowledges this as scientific fact
in her article in Embryo Experimentation:

"After the time of primitive streak formation, other events
are possible which indicate that the notion of 'irreversible
individuality' may need some review if it is to be
considered as an important criterion in human life coming to
be the individual human being it is ever thereafter to be.
There are two conditions which raise questions about the
adequacy of this notion: conjoined twins, sometimes known as
Siamese twins, and fetus-in-fetu. ... Conjoined twins arise
from the twinning process occurring after the primitive
streak has begun to form, that is, beyond 14 days after
fertilization, or, in terms of the argument from
segmentation, beyond the time at which irreversible
individuality is said to exist. ... This situation weakens
the possibility of seeing individuality as something
irreversibly resolved by about 14 days after fertilization.
This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of using
the landmark of segmentation in development as the
determinant of moral status."32 (Emphasis added.)

It is unfortunate that the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel33
did not read this particular portion of the Singer et al
book before making their recommendations about the moral
status of the early human embryo.

The scientific fact is that there is no such thing as a
"pre-embryo" in the real world. The term is a complete myth.
It was fabricated out of thin air in order to justify a
number of things that ordinarily would not be justifiable.
Quoting O'Rahilly, who sits on the international board of
Nomina Embryologica, again:

"The ill-defined and inaccurate term 'pre-embryo,' which
includes the embryonic disk, is said either to end with the
appearance of the primitive streak or to include
neurulation. The term is not used in this book.34 (Emphasis
added.)

Unfortunately, the convenient but mythological term
"pre-embryo" will be used to "scientifically" justify
several of the other "scientific" myths to follow, which in
turn will be used to justify public policy on abortion and
human embryo research world-wide.

Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the
blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."

Fact 8: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to
accommodate the introduction of the process of in vitro
fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially
outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is
artificially introduced into the woman's uterus so that
implantation of the embryo can take place. Obviously, if the
embryo is not within the woman's body, she is not "pregnant"
in the literal, traditional sense of the term. However, this
artificial situation cannot validly be substituted back to
redefine "normal pregnancy," in which fertilization does
take place within the woman's body in her fallopian tube,
and subsequently the embryo itself moves along the tube to
implant itself into her uterus. In normal situations,
pregnancy begins at fertilization, not at implantation.
Quoting Carlson:

"Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a
sperm, but a great deal of preparation precedes this event.
First both male and female sex cells must pass through a
long series of changes (gametogenesis) that converts them
genetically and phenotypically into mature gametes, which
are capable of participating in the process of
fertilization. Next, the gametes must be released from the
gonads and make their way to the upper part of the uterine
tube, where fertilization normally takes place. Finally, the
fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its
way into the uterus, where it sinks into the uterine lining
(implantation) to be nourished by the mother."35 (Emphasis
added.)

Myth 9: "The 'morning-after pill,' RU486, and the IUD are
not abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception."

Fact 9: The "morning-after pill," RU486, and the IUD can be
abortifacient, if fertilization has taken place. Then they
would act to prevent the implantation of an already existing
human embryo-the blastocyst-which is an existing human
being. If the developing human blastocyst is prevented from
implanting into the uterus, then obviously the embryo dies.
In effect, these chemical and mechanical methods of
contraception have become methods of abortion as well.
Quoting Moore:

"The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens
('morning-after pill') for several days, beginning shortly
after unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not
prevent fertilization but often prevents implantation of the
blastocyst. Diethylstilbestrol, given daily in high dosage
for 5-6 days, may also accelerate passage of the dividing
zygote along the uterine tube ... Normally, the endometrium
progresses to the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle as
the zygote forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters the uterus.
The large amount of estrogen disturbs the normal balance
between estrogen and progesterone that is necessary for
preparation of the endometrium for implantation of the
blastocyst. Postconception administration of hormones to
prevent implantation of the blastocyst is sometimes used in
cases of sexual assault or leakage of a condom, but this
treatment is contraindicated for routine contraceptive use.
The 'abortion pill' RU486 also destroys the conceptus by
interrupting implantation because of interference with the
hormonal environment of the implanting embryo. ... An
intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through
the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation
by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain
progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the
development of the endometrium so that implantation does not
usually occur."36 (Emphasis added.)

And since the whole human blastocyst is the embryonic human
being-not just the inner cell layer-the use of chemical
abortifacients that act "only" on the outer trophoblast
layer of the blastocyst, e.g., methotrexate,37 would be
abortifacient as well.

Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell
research, and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds
of research because until implantation or 14 days there is
only a 'pre-embryo', a 'potential' human embryo or human
being present. A real human embryo and a human being (child)
do not actually begin unless and until the 'pre-embryo' is
implanted into the mother's uterus."

Fact 10: These claims are currently being made by
bioethicists, research scientists, pharmaceutical companies,
and other biotech research companies-even by some members of
Congress. However, they too are "scientific" myths.

Scientifically it is perfectly clear that there is no such
thing as a "pre-embryo," as demonstrated in Fact 7. As
demonstrated in the background material, the immediate
product of fertilization is a human being, a human embryo, a
human child-the zygote. This zygote is a newly existing,
genetically unique, genetically male or female, individual
human being-it is not a "potential" or a "possible" human
being. And this developing human being is a human being, a
human embryo, a human child whether or not it is implanted
artificially into the womb of the mother.

Fertilization and cloning are different processes, but the
immediate products of these processes are the same. The
immediate product of human cloning would also be a human
being-just as in human fertilization. It is not a
"pre-embryo" or a "potential" human embryo or human being.
Stem cell research obtains its "stem cells" by essentially
exploding or otherwise destroying and killing a newly
existing human blastocyst who is, scientifically, an
existing human being. The formation of chimeras, i.e., the
fertilization of a gamete of one species (e.g., a human
oocyte) with the gamete of another species (e.g., a monkey
sperm) also results in an embryo that is "half-human." All
of these types of research have been banned by most
countries in the world. And all of these types of research
are essentially human embryo research-for which the use of
federal funds has been banned.

Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human
embryo and fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral
fish gills or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet a human
being, but is only in the process of becoming one. It is
simply 'recapitulating' the historical evolution of all of
the species."

Fact 11: This "scientific" myth is yet another version of
the "potential," "possible," "pre-embryo" myths. It is an
attempt to deny the early human embryo its real identity as
a human being and its real existence. But quoting once again
from O'Rahilly:

"The theory that successive stages of individual development
(ontogeny) correspond with ('recapitulate') successive adult
ancestors in the line of evolutionary descent (phylogeny)
became popular in the 19th century as the so-called
biogenetic law. This theory of recapitulation, however, has
had a 'regrettable influence in the progress of embryology'
(citing de Beer). ... Furthermore, during its development an
animal departs more and more from the form of other animals.
Indeed, the early stages in the development of an animal are
not like the adult stages of other forms, but resemble only
the early stages of those animals."38

Hence, the developing human embryo or fetus is not a "fish"
or a "frog," but is categorically a human being-as has been
already demonstrated.

III. When does a human person begin?

The question as to when a human person begins is a
philosophical question-not a scientific question. I will not
go into great detail here,39 but "personhood" begins when
the human being begins-at fertilization. But since many of
the current popular "personhood" claims in bioethics are
also based on mythological science, it would be useful to
just look very briefly at these philosophical (or sometimes,
theological) arguments simply for scientific accuracy as
well.

Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called "delayed
personhood"-that is, "personhood" does not start until some
point after fertilization-involves the theoretical disaster
of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split
has any correlate in or reflects the real world.
Historically this problem was simply the consequence of
wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally
indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment
after Plato's time (even by Plato himself in his
Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to
time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now
again with contemporary bioethics.40 And as in the question
of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground
these philosophical "personhood" arguments is incorrect, the
conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that
incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid.

Myth 12: "Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a
human person does not begin until after 14-days, when
twinning cannot take place."

Fact 12: The particular argument in Myth 12 is also made by
McCormick and Grobstein (and their numerous followers). It
is based on their biological claim that the "pre-embryo" is
not a developmental individual, and therefore not a person,
until after 14 days when twinning can no longer take place.
However, it has already been scientifically demonstrated
here that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo," and that
in fact the embryo begins as a "developmental individual" at
fertilization. Furthermore, twinning can take place after 14
days. Thus simply on the level of science, the philosophical
claim of "personhood" advanced by these bioethicists is
invalid and indefensible.

Myth 13: "A human person begins with 'brain birth,' the
formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of
the cortex-all physiological structures necessary to support
thinking and feeling."

Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the
product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts
on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to
back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D.
Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between
"brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid.
"Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the
functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual
acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system.
This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions,
in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological
reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for
consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this
point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry
is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has
yet to be provided with a firm biological base.41

Myth 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active
exercising of 'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking,
willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world
around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of
'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."

Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts,
which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific
data. The scientific fact is that the brain, which is
supposed to be the physiological support for both "rational
attributes" and "sentience," is not actually completely
developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:

"Although it is customary to divide human development into
prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods,
birth is merely a dramatic event during development
resulting in a change in environment. Development does not
stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth,
occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female
breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16
years; most developmental changes are completed by the age
of 25."42 (Emphasis added.)

One should also consider simply the logical-and very
real-consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of
the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of
"sentience." What would this mean for the following list of
adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes":
e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed
elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts,
alcoholics-and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g.,
the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics,
and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or
other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they
then be considered as only human beings but not also as
human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the
same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult
human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really
such a "split" between a human being and a human person?

In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as
the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer,43 the
recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values
at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher
primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys, are persons-but
that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and
disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist
Norman Fost actually considers "cognitively impaired" adult
human beings as "brain dead." Philosopher/bioethicist R.G.
Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings
on the above list are not "persons," and suggests that they
be substituted for the higher primates who are "persons" in
purely destructive experimental research.44 The list goes
on.

IV. Conclusions

Ideas do have concrete consequences-not only in one's
personal life, but also in the formulation of public
policies. And once a definition is accepted in one public
policy, the logical extensions of it can then be applied,
invalidly, in many other policies, even if they are not
dealing with the same exact issue-as happens frequently in
bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and of
"person" that have been concretized in the abortion debates
have been transferred to several other areas, e.g., human
embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation
of chimeras, the use of abortifacients-even to the issues of
brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation, the removal
of food and hydration, and research with the mentally ill or
the disabled. But both private choices and public policies
should incorporate sound and accurate science whenever
possible. What I have tried to indicate is that in these
current discussions, individual choices and public policies
have been based on "scientific" myth, rather than on
objective scientific facts.

Notes

1. B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New
York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.

2. William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill
Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola MÅ¸ller, Human Embryology &
Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M.
Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St.
Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N.
Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders
Company, 1998).

6. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller 1994, pp. 13-14.

7. Ibid., p. 16. See also, Larsen, op. cit., pp. 3-11; Moore
and Persaud, op. cit., pp. 18-34; Carlson, op. cit., pp.
3-21.

8. Note: The number of chromosomes in the definitive oocyte
are not halved unless and until it is penetrated by a sperm,
which really does not take place before fertilization but is
in fact concurrent with and the beginning of the process of
fertilization. However, for simplicity's sake, many writers
(myself among them) will sometimes assume the reader clearly
understands this timing, and simply say, "before
fertilization the sperm and the oocyte each contain 23
chromosomes."

9. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 19.

10. Moore and Persaud, p. 2.

11. E.g., as determined in extensive numbers of transgenic
mice experiments as in Kollias et al., "The human
beta-globulin gene contains a downstream developmental
specific enhancer," Nucleic Acids Research 15(14) (July,
1987), 5739-47; also similar work by, e.g., R.K. Humphries,
A. Schnieke.

12. Holtzer et al., "Induction-dependent and
lineage-dependent models for cell-diversification are
mutually exclusive," Progress in Clinical Biological
Research 175:3-11 (1985); also similar work by, e.g., F.
Mavilio, C. Hart.

13. Larsen, p. 1; also O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 20.

14. Larsen, p. 19, 33, 49.

15. Carlson, p. 31.

16. Carlson, p. 31.

17. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 55; Carlson, p. 407.

18. Ethics Advisory Board, 1979, Report and Conclusions: HEW
Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization
and Embryo Transfer, Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, p. 101.

19. Clifford Grobstein, "External human fertilization,"
Scientific American 240:57-67.

20. Clifford Grobstein, Science and the Unborn: Choosing
Human Futures (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).

21. Dame Mary Warnock, Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into Human Fertilization and Embryology (London: Her
Majesty's Stationary Office, 1984), pp. 27, 63. See also the
writings of, e.g., H. Tristram Engelhardt, John Robertson
(in legal writings), R.M. Hare, Bedate and Cefalo, William
Wallace.

22. Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson,
and Pascal Kasimba, Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990).

23. National Institutes of Health: Report of the Human
Embryo Research Panel, September 27, 1994 (National
Institutes of Health, Division of Science Policy Analysis
and Development, Bethesda, MD).

24. Clifford Grobstein, "The early development of human
embryos," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
1985:10:213-236; and Richard McCormick, "Who or what is the
preembryo?" Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991:1:1-15.

25. Richard McCormick, ibid., p. 3.

26. McCormick, ibid., p. 3.

27. Larsen, p. 19, 33.

28. Moore and Persaud, p. 131.

29. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 51.

30. McCormick, op. cit., p. 4.

31. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 32.

32. Karen Dawson, "Segmentation and moral status," in Peter
Singer et al., Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990), p. 58. See also Moore and Persaud,
p. 133.

33. For extensive comments on the make-up of the NIH Human
Embryo Research Panel and on its Report, see several of my
articles in my book, co-authored with human embryologist C.
Ward Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time to Tell The
Truth! (Clinton Township, MI: Gold Leaf Press, 1995) (1st
ed.); (2nd. ed. published by authors 1997; distributed by
the American Life League, Stafford, VA).

34. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 55.

35. Carlson, p. 3.

36. Moore and Persaud, p. 58.

37. But see Albert Moraczewski, "Managing tubal pregnancies:
Part I" (June 1996) and "Part II" (August 1996), in Ethics
and Medics (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center).

38. O'Rahilly and MÅ¸ller, p. 8-9.

39. The use of massive historically incorrect and
theoretically indefensible philosophy in the "delayed
personhood" arguments has been addressed in my doctoral
dissertation, A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the
Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, 1991); see
also several of my previously published articles in my book,
co-authored by C. Ward Kischer, supra, note 33, The Human
Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, which gives
extensive references pro and con these bioethics arguments.

40. For an excellent and easy to read analysis of the
problem of a mind/body split as one of the fundamental
theoretical problems in contemporary bioethics theory, see
Gilbert C. Meilaender, Body, Soul, and Bioethics (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995); see also
many of the excellent articles about this problem in
bioethics theory in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of
Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994); also
Edwin R. DuBose, Ronald P. Hamel and Laurence J. O'Connell
(eds.), A Matter of Principles? Ferment in U.S. Bioethics
(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International,
1994)-especially the "Preface" by Albert Jonsen. Even Daniel
Callahan has admitted that the bioethics principles don't
work, in "Bioethics: Private choice and common good," in The
Hastings Center Report (May/June 1994), pp. 28-31.

41. D. Gareth Jones, "Brain birth and personal identity,"
Journal of Medical Ethics 15:4, 1989, p. 178.

42. Moore and Persaud, p. 2; see also Jones, p. 177.

43. Peter Singer, "Taking life: Abortion," in Practical
Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 118;
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, "For sometimes letting-and
helping-die," Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1986,
3:4:149-153; Kuhse and Singer, Should the Baby Live? The
Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985), p. 138; Singer and Kuhse, "The ethics of
embryo research," Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1987,
14:13-14; Michael Tooley, "Abortion and infanticide," in
Marshall Cohen (ed.) et al., The Rights and Wrongs of
Abortions, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974),
pp. 59, 64; H. Tristram Engelhardt, The Foundations of
Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 111.

44. R.G. Frey, "The ethics of the search for benefits:
Animal experimentation in medicine," in Raanan Gillon (ed.),
Principles of Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1994), pp. 1067-1075.

Source : Information taken from the abortiontv.com web site