So, when does life begin?

Mad Raunter, in a response to an earlier post of mine stated:

...life begins at ejaculation. In fact, men's seed contains the life, and that seed is "sowed" in the ground of the female. We must make ejaculation (except when in the process of creating a baby) illegal! Let's start telling men what to do with their penises and see how well that goes over. Let's lay off of poor women's utereri for a change.

If I understand his argument correctly, it is something like this:

  1. A fetus shares more in common with a sperm cell than with a born child
  2. A sperm cell is obviously not a human being
  3. Therefore, a fetus is not a human being
  4. Therefore, abortion is not the taking of human life

Obviously, I agree with (2). I disagree with (1), however. While there are host of philosophical and scientific issues behind what constitutes personhood which are beyond the reach of a simple blog entry, here are a couple reasons why I think a fetus should be considered a human being, rather than in the same realm as a sperm cell.

First, there is the basic and fundamental level of DNA. A sperm cell only has 23 chromosomes, while the embryo has the requisite 46 that define it as a member of the human species, differentiate it between the sperm and ovum, and contain all the necessary material to define what makes that embryo a unique human person. A sperm cell is necessarily genetically incomplete whereas there is no difference in the level of genetic information between an embryo and a full-grown adult.

Second, a sperm cell left to itself will quickly die, just like any of the other cells that our bodies slough off each day. An embryo, however, rapidly begins growing and expanding upon the genetic information. A full description of fetal development can be found here at the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health's online medical encyclopedia. Some quick highlights include:

  • Week 3: brain, spinal cord, and heart have begun to develop
  • Weeks 4-5: heart has begun to beat and blood circulation has begun
  • Week 7: all essential organs have at least begun to form
  • Weeks 9 to 12: the fetus can make a fist with its fingers
  • Weeks 13 to 16: the fetus makes active movements

Obviously, there are still differences between a developing unborn baby and a full-grown human. But the differences are in degree, rather than the differences between him/her and a sperm cell, which are in kind. An embryo at 3 weeks may only have smaller, underdeveloped versions of what a full-grown human has, but it does have them. This is in distinction to a sperm cell, which does not.

Lastly, there is the common-sense/intuitive argument. Here is a sperm cell:

And here is a 4 1/2 month-old fetus (picture taken from here):

I am well aware of the controversial nature of this subject and the deeply-held feelings on both sides and do not want to enter into any sort of a shouting match. Still, I have no problems with being challenged on anything that I have said, as long as the debate is civil, rational, and mature.

June 3, 2004 11:22 AM
15 Comments

Sorry, but what's a chromosome?

Pondered by Mad Raunter at June 3, 2004 01:00 PM

Week 2,087: Fetus begins first Baltiblog.

Pondered by Mad Raunter at June 3, 2004 01:02 PM

Sorry, but what's a chromosome?

I have no idea whether you are serious or not. For the sake of argument, though: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chromosome

Pondered by maphet at June 3, 2004 01:10 PM

Unfortunately, Mad Raunter still shows us how irrelevant he believes the possibility of a child being brutally killed is.

Pondered by Jeff Price at June 3, 2004 02:09 PM

Thank you for the very detailed response to the much needed question of when life begins, Maphet!

Pondered by Jeff Price at June 3, 2004 02:11 PM

Thoughtful as your argument is, Maphet, I'm not quite sure why you're bothering to make it. Your interlocutor only seems interested in baiting and mocking you. His debate is not "civil, rational and mature." It is not a debate. He just dislikes you, and wants to make fun of you.

I guess I'm just curious whether you're continuing this conversation in hopes of starting a constructive dialogue about the genesis of life, or whether you're hoping to turn away wrath with a gentle answer (a more-than-respectable motivation).

Pondered by mesh at June 3, 2004 04:46 PM

A bit of both, I guess. If nothing else, it was fun studying back up on the arguments. Some of the stuff is really interesting, like the relationship of the subject of identical twins to the DNA argument.

Pondered by maphet at June 3, 2004 05:04 PM

Sorry if that question came off condescending. Isn't it great how, every once in a while, a debate sparks real fascination with a part of creation? (That's how I started writing my SIP, actually.)

Pondered by mesh at June 3, 2004 05:18 PM

I didn't think it came off as condescending.

Pondered by maphet at June 3, 2004 05:30 PM

Yeah so you responded to my comment with gab about chromosomes and pictures of sperm. How about my point that if you had enough money, you could get an aboortion even when they were illegal? And that if abortion were made illegal again, anyone able to afford a plane ticket to where abortions were still legal could get one? So really you're just talking about another way to keep poor folks down? How about that? Huh?
It's a big planet. You'd have to make abortion illegal world-wide. Not likely, given the global over-population problem.

More Than 100,000 Irish Women Have Obtained Abortions in England

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=19758

Pondered by Mad Raunter at June 3, 2004 10:56 PM

World Population-

1 billion in 1804,
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 (33 years)
4 billion in 1974 (13 years)
5 billion in 1987 (12 years)
6 billion in 1999 (12 years)
7 billion in 2013 (14 years - projected)
8 billion in 2028 (15 years - projected)
10.7 (high) or 8.9 (middle) or 7.3 (low) billion projected for 2050


The world is adding about 78 million more people every year, the population of France, Greece and Sweden combined, or equivalent to a city the size of San Francisco every three days.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

Pondered by Mad Raunter at June 3, 2004 11:04 PM

Mad Raunters mad logic strikes again. Sounds like a bad comic book title, but still seems fitting.

Little Guy
I wonder how he would feel about making guns easier to obtain and legal to be carried around concealed or otherwise. Worse case scenario, we’re able to stave off the “over population” by a few years. After all, gun laws are just in place to keep the “poor folks down” too.

Traveling Abortions
Of course we could always say that if you had enough money then a “he” could become a “she” or vice versa, but that would be as equally irrelevant as traveling to another country to have an abortion. While we would love it if other countries embraced our laws, America is not an imperialist nation. Our laws are not created to govern the societies of the world, but the society that exists here in the United States of America. Thus any laws limiting abortion or making it illegal altogether are limited to our borders. But a world-wide crusade against abortion, while a daunting task indeed, does not sound like an altogether bad idea.

Population Control
This rational behind abortion seems to be focused on limiting the rate we produce. May I suggest for those concerned about the population over growth of human beings to check out http://www.vhemt.org/ so that they may do their part. I doubt many objections would be raised.

Pondered by Jeff Price at June 3, 2004 11:54 PM

Mad Raunter -

How about my point that if you had enough money, you could get an aboortion even when they were illegal?

Briefly, people rape, steal, and kill today, but last I checked there were still laws against those things. If something is morally wrong (i.e., murder), then that should be fought against, even if people will work to circumvent it.

The world is adding about 78 million more people every year

But this is with abortion in full swing and something like 1.5 million abortions a year in the US alone. What are you proposing? Do we need more abortions?

You also seem to be vacillating between two defenses of abortion. Either
1) Abortion is not the killing of a human being, or
2) Abortion is the killing of a human being, but it is worth the necessary outcome (the Peter Singer approach)

If the point in question is (1), then the "gab about chromosomes and pictures of sperm" are imminently relevant and your other objections secondary. If (2), then an entirely different debate must take place.

Pondered by maphet at June 4, 2004 08:42 AM

Maphet says-

Briefly, people rape, steal, and kill today, but last I checked there were still laws against those things. If something is morally wrong (i.e., murder), then that should be fought against, even if people will work to circumvent it.

Mad Raunter replies-

Wow! What a great idea! I'm going to buy a plane ticket to Iraq, where I can legally rape, steal and kill! Hmmm. I wonder if abortions are legal there?

Pondered by Mad Raunter at June 4, 2004 12:10 PM

How many is too many?

Pondered by Curious George at June 8, 2004 05:44 PM