Sperm and Egg Come Together, Life Begins
I have believed life begins at conception long before I became Catholic at age 34 and even before I started practicing the Christian faith at the age of 19. The common sense of the matter has always held up to scrutiny, as far as I am concerned. Sperm and egg come together, and the life of a human person begins.
All of what Aristotle called the "first nature" of a person is contained at the moment after conception -- the "second nature" is what is actualized out of first nature by the influence of nurture and experience. Human beings have a common first nature, but each individual has a completely unique second nature.
Other notions of when personhood, or "life," begins don't hold up under scrutiny. The idea that an unborn child is "dependent" on the mother and, therefore, not a human life ignores the fact that even grown-ups are dependent on others for their lives and well-being. A newborn will be just as dependent on his mother, or someone, after being born as she or he was in the womb. Without care, the newborn will die. This does not make the newborn less human, rather it is indicative of what being human means, or requires; that solidarity is necessary for survival (Remember "It Takes a Village"?)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This is a ill posed question anyway - obviously its not just life we are concerned with, but potential individual human life. If it were just about eggs and sperm, then we got lots of life to save, lots more than is possible.
Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat. Go figure...
However what constitutes human life is really more a philosophical than scientific. Technically Human life begins at conception but is it really "Human". These questions can only be answered philosophically by us as individuals, not by laws and science .
Couple of questions for you.
First of all, Aristotle? Aristotle is relevant in this discussion? Traditionally, one would say "Aristotle says such-and-such and this is why he's right." not just "Aristotle says....so there."
Second, there's a difference between financially dependent, or therapeutically dependent, and organically dependent. You can see this in reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymothoa_exigua
This is a parasitic bug-thing (Don't be put off by my scientific jargon) that attaches to the tongue of a certain fish, drains it of blood, and eventually becomes the fish's replacement tongue. At that point, it stops being it's own bug-thing and becomes part of the fish.
Some male spiders do something similar, where they basically mate, atrophy, and become an organ.
So an individual organism can simply become a part of another organism. Gestation is this process in reverse.
Why this question is asked is far more relevant to the development of an enlightened society than the answer to it. Why do some have such a need to know when life begins? I suggest that the need is what should be investigated, understood, and debated, not the answer to the question.
Short of scientific inquiry, most human beings do not naturally have a need to positively know when human life begins. There is only one reason why this question is important to some. And that reason is to judge the morality and ethics of others to some dogmatic end. In our society, that is the abortion debate.
Our current laws regarding murder and mental illness are not sufficient for those who have a belief-based-judgment concerning the developmental stages of a human embryo. This is religion trying to impose a new morality on humanity in the 21st century. It is their way of exerting a superior morality and ethics that they hope will engender respect and increased membership in their churches.
Religion is the most reprehensible abuse of the human animal ever conceived. Manipulative minds have concocted tens of thousands over the centuries to keep the faithful dependent and beholden to a gross oversimplification of life, its meaning and purpose. We humans are but an infinitesimal component in this spectacular and stunning Universe that holds many wondrous mysteries if we allow ourselves the freedom to boldly and fearlessly look past our fantasies.
¨When does HUMAN life begin?” should be the question asked. Carl Sagan’s book ‘The Dragons of Eden’ argues very convincingly that what separates human life and other nonhuman life is the development and functioning of the neocortex. Therefore he argues that a rational acceptable legal compromise in the abortion debate should be that human life begins with the first neocortical EEG signals. This happens in a human fetus near the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy. When neocortical EEG signals ends is also a rational legal definition of when a human dies.
The EEG signal is an excellent beginning point. I do find it unlikely that there is really only one point that divides development, not human/fully human.
The EEG signal is an excellent beginning point. I do find it unlikely that there is really only one point that divides development, not human/fully human.
In what way is this common sense? It took thousands of years of investigation to determine the mechanisms of fertilization and heredity - so its not just obvious by looking! Modern people are split on this issue - so your opinion is not held by some vast majority. Calling your beliefs common sense is an attempt to end debate prematurely. You should apologize for your bad choice of wording.
This is going to be a deeply deranged argument, because the terms in which it is couched are badly flawed.
What do you mean: 'life'?
On purely biochemical grounds, sperm and ovae are 'alive'. So the embryo will obviously be 'alive' as well. But to extrapolate from this to the conclusion that an embryo represents 'human life' and thus should be afforded full human rights is ludicrous weaselling and sophistry.
What distinguishes my appendix from an embryo? They have the same chromosomes - does my appendix deserve 'rights'? Should I be allowed to have it surgically removed?
Some will object that an embryo has potential to become a human. But so does a sperm or ovum - to which we accord no rights of humanity whatsoever - given circumstances that are only slightly more complex.
And so, in fact, does a cell from my appendix, if certain procedures are followed and the nucleus is extracted and inserted into an oocyte. If potential is the yardstick, any living human tissue has it, and I can see no sensible line of argument for special treatment of fertilised ovae that would not also apply to other tissue, or to gametes.
Happily, apart from some religious ideologues and dogmatists, few people try to maintain such nonsense. Most tend to adopt an uneasy acceptance that somewhere along the process of gestation, a lump of tissue acquires sufficient similarity to a true human to acquire the rights that a human has. Unfortunately, this feeling is heavily influenced by the instinctive protective drive that all animals have for their young, and biased by it.
Interestingly, the Old Testament has a much more pragmatic approach, in which children are not considered people for practical purposes until they have reached the age of around one month.
You're argument rests on a false interpretation of the idea of potential.
The definition of potential is, "all the necessities of y are contained innately within x and x will become y without prevention by an outside source."
For example, a seed in the ground has the potential to become a plant and will become a plant unless it is uprooted, eaten by animals, refused water, etc.
A single random cell cannot replicate itself into a human, it needs a tremendous amount of human intervention. A sperm will also not become a human, but must be combined with an egg first and be within the uterus to be classified as a potentially human.
Additionally, your appendix is a part of your person-hood, as it contains your DNA. A fetus is a different entity with distinct DNA and will be a distinct person.
You have the right to kill your own person-hood, including any bodily organ that is of your own DNA. Now, if it were actually cloned, it would become a separate entity because your mind is not split between two entities, but that is an entirely different argument.
Actually, you're not allowed to make up definitions of words to suit your argument or your prejudice. Words like 'life' or 'potential' already have meanings, and your redefinitions don't help the matter. My use of the word 'potential' was employing the definition given by a dictionary, to whit:
"The range of capabilities that someone or something has; powers or resources not yet developed or made use of."
But, since your argument is tied so heavily into your personal definitions, let's see where they lead us:
o According to your definition, my appendix cell would not qualify for human rights because it would take 'tremendous amounts of human intervention' to make it into a developing embryo.
o In that case, I presume that you would not accord human rights to an embryo (or a child?) produced via artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation or single sperm injection. Is that right? These require 'tremendous amounts of human intervention', and some techniques have only become possible in the last few years. Presumably you'd have no objection to even late-term abortion of a fetus resulting from these techniques.
o And, according to another definitions of yours, 'a sperm will also not become a human'. No? What if I took sperm cells - perhaps from two different men - extracted the chromosomes from each, combined them, injected the full complement into a denucleated ovum and caused it to start dividing? That's not a human baby either, according to you - so I can do pretty much whatever I like to it, right? I bet it'll taste like chicken.
You don't have to struggle with the underlying morality thrown up by these entirely plausible - if a little premature - scenarios. If you really believe that a sperm+ovum is a human being, I doubt you have the 'capacity'. That's another word like 'potential'. Make of it what you will.
Our definitions are essentially the same, you just misapply the definition.
"The range of capabilities that someone or something has; powers or resources not yet developed or made use of." While, like most dictionary definitions, this is vague and not completely accurate in a philosophical sense, it is still mostly correct.
My definition is essentially the same as well, but taken from Aristotle's definition of potentiality, "Referring to potentiality, this is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if it is not prevented by something else."
Common definitions are a slippery idea. For example, presently the word "liberal" (in a political context) is defined as one who seeks greater government regulation and an expansion of welfare programs. However, the original definition of "liberal" defined a person who believed in severely limited government and free-market capitalism. In fact, many founders of the Libertarian movement considered themselves "liberals."
Even using your "exact" definition (assuming that we have an exact definition and not just a colloquial summary, you are still confusing potentiality with possibility.
In effect, you are interpreting the definition as if you could say, "a person has the potential to be hit by a car." This makes no logical sense. That person however exists with that possibility.
Indeed, you could argue that the wood has the potential to be a table. Yes, this is correct when certain linguistic obscurities are overlooked. The can the wood actually do? Nothing. That is, until it is made into something. So what we should say is the wood has the potential to be made into a table, not to be a table.
Now, considering your absurd example, If your appendix cell where on the street completely alone, it would not have human rights. It is no longer part of your entity. This is the same idea as, if your hair falls out in my house or car, I can dispose of it. It is no longer "your" hair. As long as a thing is connected to you and is of your person-hood it is completely yours and I cannot touch it
A fetus is connected to the mother, but it is not of her person-hood and should at least qualify for certain basic rights.
Your example of in vitro makes no logical sense. I never said that a scientifically engineered human wouldn't be human. I said, the cells that they make them out of are not potential humans, when the cells are considered individually. Once they have been engineered into a fetus, then they are definitely potential humans.
You are quoting me out of context. My argument was that a single sperm is not "a potential human until it unites with an egg." No, a single sperm will not become a human of its own accord. It would have to be made into a human. In essence, it is a potential potentiality, but anything can be broken down into degrees or potential potentiality. So that is a concept we should stay away from.
Anyhow, I would appreciate it if you would not take my statements out of context and apply meanings to them that I never stated.
Don't be mistaken, I never once said or implied that I would make abortion illegal, nor do I speculate as to the application of these certain basic rights of a fetus or whose, mother's or fetus', rights take precedence in what cases.
All I said was you misapplied the concept of potentiality.
I agree, when sperm and egg come together there is nothing else needed to determine whether it will grow to be a human or not. The DNA is set for that person forever. The only thing left is growth. Just as a baby from one month to one year living in his natural environment will grow, so does a baby from conception to nine months grow in his natural environment, the womb.
Question: Why is it considered a double murder in our law when a woman pregnant with child is killed?
"when sperm and egg come together there is nothing else needed to determine whether it will grow to be a human or not"
Are you sure you're not forgetting something? I think you'll find that the result of mixing those two in a dish will result in a smelly mess, and not a human.
And if you're taking the presence of a uterus and functioning placenta, blood supply protective host immune system and the rest for granted, then why bother with niceties like mixing the sperm and ovum? Why not say that the mere presence of sperm and ovum is enough for the die to be cast?