Lesson No. 1 - When Does Life Begin?
Before we get started with 'deep philosophical questions' it is important that we position some foundations. First, we need to answer the question, “When does human life begin?”. The answer to this question needs to be predetermined because as I have witnessed in my own life and in others’, ambiguity here may very quickly lead to Intellectual Dishonesty in later discussions.
In the most simple of terms, I understand there to be basically 3 points at which one could argue that life begins.
1. The point that the sperm meets the egg.
2. The point that the zygote (the new cell created by the sperm / egg union) implants in the uterus.
3. The point of birth, when the new baby is physically separated from the mother.
I will argue that the point at which the sperm meets the egg is the best place to call the ‘beginning of life’. My reasons are two fold. First, this formation of unique, novel DNA is unlike any other DNA on the planet. There is enough unique DNA in this new cell to separate this new cell from every other collection of cells on the planet. Finally the death of this new cell would terminate the possibility of re-generating an exact duplicate by natural causes (you could probably replicate it with lots of time and a science lab).
Others would argue that implantation is the best point of reference. The two major arguments that I have come across for this position are: (1) After implantation the likely hood of a mother’s inability to carry baby to term decreases, and (2) implantation sparks exponential growth in the zygote. I propose that the quality of exponential cell growth is a poor indicator for initial formation of life because children continue to replicate / generate exponential cell growth through adolescence, post-partum. The former argument is equally poor because it has nothing to do with the zygote itself and everything to do with the mother. We are trying to measure life in the ‘newbie’ not the mother.
Others would argue that birth is the best point of reference for designating the beginning of life. The major argument for this position has been dismantled by ultrasound: the baby does not display emotion, volition, or characterization pre-birth. Another argument states that at this point the baby is no longer obligated to require assistance from the mother; it is autonomous. This is clearly intellectually dishonest because the baby requires milk for feeding (from the mother or formula usually provided by the mother). Without assistance from others (usually the mother) the baby would deplete the intrinsic energy stores and eventually die of starvation.
In the most simple of terms, I understand there to be basically 3 points at which one could argue that life begins.
1. The point that the sperm meets the egg.
2. The point that the zygote (the new cell created by the sperm / egg union) implants in the uterus.
3. The point of birth, when the new baby is physically separated from the mother.
I will argue that the point at which the sperm meets the egg is the best place to call the ‘beginning of life’. My reasons are two fold. First, this formation of unique, novel DNA is unlike any other DNA on the planet. There is enough unique DNA in this new cell to separate this new cell from every other collection of cells on the planet. Finally the death of this new cell would terminate the possibility of re-generating an exact duplicate by natural causes (you could probably replicate it with lots of time and a science lab).
Others would argue that implantation is the best point of reference. The two major arguments that I have come across for this position are: (1) After implantation the likely hood of a mother’s inability to carry baby to term decreases, and (2) implantation sparks exponential growth in the zygote. I propose that the quality of exponential cell growth is a poor indicator for initial formation of life because children continue to replicate / generate exponential cell growth through adolescence, post-partum. The former argument is equally poor because it has nothing to do with the zygote itself and everything to do with the mother. We are trying to measure life in the ‘newbie’ not the mother.
Others would argue that birth is the best point of reference for designating the beginning of life. The major argument for this position has been dismantled by ultrasound: the baby does not display emotion, volition, or characterization pre-birth. Another argument states that at this point the baby is no longer obligated to require assistance from the mother; it is autonomous. This is clearly intellectually dishonest because the baby requires milk for feeding (from the mother or formula usually provided by the mother). Without assistance from others (usually the mother) the baby would deplete the intrinsic energy stores and eventually die of starvation.
posted by OS Hopper at Friday, December 23, 2005
3 Comments:
I vote for fertilization. Why? Well, when sperm and egg meet, there are changes that occur within the new zygote that prepare it for implantation and the ensuing "exponential growth" and development of the fetus, etc, etc, etc. How do those changes come about if the newly formed blast isn't "ALIVE"? The union of the male and female DNA creates a being with unique genetic properties. The ovum is a living cell, right? The zoosperm is a living cell as well, wouldn't you agree? So, this makes it apparent (at least to me) that a NEW life has been created once there is a union of the LIVING gametes. The rest of the time, there is just a symbiotic--some might say parasitic--relationship between the mother and the baby in utero.
As a side note, a heartbeat doesn't necessarily equate with life. They can keep a brain-dead person's heart beating so that organs can be harvested. Just a thought.
Points two and three are determined by the location of the zygote/fetus. Physical coordinates relative to the mother seem like a rather arbitrary method for defining the beginning of life. Point one is the only one that uses anything unique about the new being to define when it began to live.
It is also intriguing to me that we can use DNA to identify a criminal, but we cannot use it to identify a new human being. (If a fetus committed a crime and left behind DNA evidence, could he be convicted?)
I must say my favorite quote would be this, "the incredible irony of it all is that one day, as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." I'm sure even Howard Stern will sound reverent when he says those words."
Post a Comment
<< Home