When does human life begin?

[polonius]

There was an interesting article in a January issue of Newsweek describing the successful cloning of chimpanzees.

This might raise the question of human cloning.

The immediate issues involved involve birth control, the use of the "morning after pill," and embryonic cell treatment of diseases.

The key concept is when human life begins.

Opinions?

[2timothy316]

a human being regarded as an individual.

When does DNA being writing what an individual will look like? How tall they will be? The color of their skin? The color of their eyes? If they are a boy or a girl? There is even evidence that DNA holds the information that the colors a person might like more than others. Taste and smalls even.

When does the individual begin? Is it not as soon as the women's egg and the male's sperm come together and starting making these things?

RESPONSE: No it is not. That's when a zygote begins a process which if implanted in a uterus will eventually become a human being. Only about half implant.

So what do you wish to stop from happening so that a human life doesn't happen? If the uterus rejects the zygote, that's still stopping the life from happening is it not? Even if it is the woman's own body that is the reason the zygote stopped developing, it is stopping the formation of a human life is it not. Isn't any disruption of the normal development of a human, natural or not, once conceived, ending the life of a unique human being?

[polonius]

a human being regarded as an individual.

When does DNA being writing what an individual will look like? How tall they will be? The color of their skin? The color of their eyes? If they are a boy or a girl? There is even evidence that DNA holds the information that the colors a person might like more than others. Taste and smalls even.

When does the individual begin? Is it not as soon as the women's egg and the male's sperm come together and starting making these things?

RESPONSE: No it is not. That's when a zygote begins a process which if implanted in a uterus will eventually become a human being. Only about half implant.

So what do you wish to stop from happening so that a human life doesn't happen? If the uterus rejects the zygote, that's still stopping the life from happening is it not? Even if it is the woman's own body that is the reason the zygote stopped developing, it is stopping the formation of a human life is it not. Isn't any disruption of the normal development of a human, natural or not, once conceived, ending the life of a unique human being?

RESPONSE: No. That's the point. It is not yet a human being.

“An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, is it clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo. Then, and only then, is it clear that this particular individual embryo will be only this single embryo.�

“First, we concur with Haring and particularly with the analysis of Ford that, given the biological evidence, there is no reasonable way in which the fertilized egg can be considered a physical individual minimally until after implantation. Maximally, one could argue that full individuality is not achieved until the restriction process is completed and cells have lost their totipotency. Thus the range of time for the achievement of physical individuality is between one and three weeks. One simply cannot speak, therefore, of an individual's being present from the moment of fertilization.�

“Two biological data mandate a revision of our understanding of the beginning of individuality: (1) the possibility of twinning, which lasts up to implantation, which occurs about a week after fertilization begins, and (2) the completion of the restriction process, which prevents individual cells from forming another individual, about three weeks into the pregnancy. While one can speak of genetic uniqueness, in that the fertilized egg has its own genetic code distinct from any other entity (except an identical twin, triplet, etc.), we simply cannot speak of an individual until in fact that individual is present, and the earliest that can be is about two or three weeks after fertilization begins.�

REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL STATUS OF THE PRE-EMBRYO THOMAS A. SHANNON Worcester Polytechnic Institute and ALLAN B. WOLTER, O.F.M. Old Mission, Santa Barbara, Calif. This article is available on line at a number of different sites.

But let’s take an example of the question it raises.

If a man has a terminal illness which can only be treated by the use of pre-embryotic tissue , who has the best moral claim on this tissue? The eventual person who does not yet exist or the dying patient who certainly exists?

[2timothy316]

RESPONSE: No it is not.

I disagree. In a fertilized egg all the instructions for an individual are all contained in it's DNA. From eye color to heir color to what that person's voice will sound like. All of that and hundreds of other things are contained in that single fertilized egg just waiting for development. To interrupt that process is to destroy the individual person that has already been 'written' or designed.

“Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book.� (Psalm 139:16)

One translation says, "Your eyes saw me when I was formless;"

So if God's Word acknowledges a person is a person before they are completely developed then I will stand by my God in agreement with Him. I do not rely on the interpretations of men to tell me when a person's life begins.

[polonius]

RESPONSE: No it is not.

I disagree. In a fertilized egg all the instructions for an individual are all contained in it's DNA. From eye color to heir color to what that person's voice will sound like. All of that and hundreds of other things are contained in that single fertilized egg just waiting for development. To interrupt that process is to destroy the individual person that has already been 'written' or designed.

“Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book.� (Psalm 139:16)

One translation says, "Your eyes saw me when I was formless;"

So if God's Word acknowledges a person is a person before they are completely developed then I will stand by my God in agreement with Him. I do not rely on the interpretations of men to tell me when a person's life begins.

RESPONSE: Having worked for many years in molecular biology, I stand by the facts.

A mammalian tissue cell contains all of the DNA which is found in an adult of that species (human or animal) or as found in an embryo of that species. If it is placed in a uterus it will begin to develop until born.

That is what was done with Dolly the Sheep and more recently with a chimpanzee. See Newsweek the last week of January.
If a human tissue cell is placed in culture media it will reproduce clones very rapidly each with same complete DNA complement which is found in the embryo or adult of that species. Are you saying that each of these cultured human cells are persons?

And are you going to argue that each of these cloned human cells are persons with human rights?

When finished with the experiment, these cell cultures are destroyed. Are you going to claim that those who destroyed them are mass murderers?

[bluethread]

“An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, is it clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo. Then, and only then, is it clear that this particular individual embryo will be only this single embryo.�

The life form may end up being two and not just one? So, your argument is that since it may be two and not one, they can both be destroyed? Interesting logic. So, once we have established cloning technology, we can kill anyone, because that one can really be considered two or more?

But let’s take an example of the question it raises.

If a man has a terminal illness which can only be treated by the use of pre-embryotic tissue , who has the best moral claim on this tissue? The eventual person who does not yet exist or the dying patient who certainly exists?

So you want us to presume the conclusion, by refering to one human life form as "pre-embryotic tissue" that "does not yet exist" and the other as "the dying patient". Why don't we ask if we should kill a human life form that has the potential for living another hundred years to provide another human life form with the possibility of living a few more years? One could just as easily argue that we should harvest the organs of one terminally ill patient to provide for another less terminal "dying" patient. What this amounts to is nothing more than an elitist ethic.

[bluethread]

RESPONSE: Having worked for many years in molecular biology, I stand by the facts.

A mammalian tissue cell contains all of the DNA which is found in an adult of that species (human or animal) or as found in an embryo of that species. If it is placed in a uterus it will begin to develop until born.

That is what was done with Dolly the Sheep and more recently with a chimpanzee. See Newsweek the last week of January.
If a human tissue cell is placed in culture media it will reproduce clones very rapidly each with same complete DNA complement which is found in the embryo or adult of that species. Are you saying that each of these cultured human cells are persons?

And are you going to argue that each of these cloned human cells are persons with human rights?

When finished with the experiment, these cell cultures are destroyed. Are you going to claim that those who destroyed them are mass murderers?

That is a deceptive response. Dolly was not produced by placing a tissue cell in a uterus. First the "half" DNA of an egg was removed and "full" DNA of a tissue cell is injected. This is not much different than natural fertilization, where "half" DNA is injected into a natural "half" DNA egg. That said, I would not call those who engage in these procedures "mass murderers". I would call them ghoulish eugenicists. We are not on the S&R thread, where every possible manipulation of human flesh, living or dead, can be justified, simply because it is possible. This is the TD&D thread, where judgements can be made on principle and not just ambition or personal convenience.

[2timothy316]

RESPONSE: Having worked for many years in molecular biology, I stand by the facts.

Congrats.

You're still no Jehovah God who determines who is a person and who isn't.

[polonius]

RESPONSE: Having worked for many years in molecular biology, I stand by the facts.

Congrats.

You're still no Jehovah God who determines who is a person and who isn't.

RESPONSE:

One doesn't have to be a "Jehovah God" to know that 2 +2 = 4

One does not have to be a "Jehovah God" to know that chemical set is not a human person.

[polonius]

“An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, is it clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo. Then, and only then, is it clear that this particular individual embryo will be only this single embryo.�

The life form may end up being two and not just one? So, your argument is that since it may be two and not one, they can both be destroyed? Interesting logic. So, once we have established cloning technology, we can kill anyone, because that one can really be considered two or more?

RESPONSE: Actually I think that there are up to 24 nuclei in a blastocyst which theoretically can result in separate births. But the highest number of offspring from a single pregnancy is eight. Of course, all might be reabsorbed and hence not even on person result.

Reread the article :Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11656166

Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, OFM, "Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo, Theological Studies 51 (1990) 603-626.

“Given the findings of modern biology, there is no evidence for the presence of a separate ontological individual until the completion of either restriction or gastrulation, which occurs around three weeks after fertilization. Therefore there is no reasonable basis for arguing that the pre-embryo is morally equivalent to a person or is a person as a basis for prohibiting abortion. That is, there is no biological support for the position that the fertilized egg is from the beginning of the process of fertilization a distinct individual needing no outside agency to develop into a person.�

CONCLUSION: Until there is a individual, there cannot be a person. You will also find this concept in theology textbooks.

But let’s take an example of the question it raises.

If a man has a terminal illness which can only be treated by the use of pre-embryotic tissue , who has the best moral claim on this tissue? The eventual person who does not yet exist or the dying patient who certainly exists?

So you want us to presume the conclusion, by refering to one human life form as "pre-embryotic tissue" that "does not yet exist" and the other as "the dying patient". Why don't we ask if we should kill a human life form that has the potential for living another hundred years to provide another human life form with the possibility of living a few more years? One could just as easily argue that we should harvest the organs of one terminally ill patient to provide for another less terminal "dying" patient. What this amounts to is nothing more than an elitist ethic.

RESPONSE: Because we are not talking about a certainly existing human person. No individual, no person. Only a cell collection that might eventually (if given the right conditions might become a person at some point. A simple concept.

But if it only might be possible ,again, which would have the greater claim? A person certainly in existence, or a person not certainly existing?

[2timothy316]

RESPONSE: Having worked for many years in molecular biology, I stand by the facts.

Congrats.

You're still no Jehovah God who determines who is a person and who isn't.

RESPONSE:

One doesn't have to be a "Jehovah God" to know that 2 +2 = 4

One does not have to be a "Jehovah God" to know that chemical set is not a human person.

Again, you are not who I listen to to tell me when a human life begins.

Jehovah 'saw' David while he was formless. Before he had a brain, a heart, lungs, hands, feet etc. Jehovah recognized David as a person before he had all of those things. If God does then so do I. Your 'many years in molecular biology' pale in comparison to the Person that made that biology. Jehovah the one that measures the span of our whole universe with the span of his hand.

"Who is this who is obscuring my counsel And speaking without knowledge?...Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand." - Job 38:1-4