!!!!

December 5, 2011

Dear Bishop Gracida:

At your request, through the gracious interceding of Mrs. Barbara Kralis, I am responding to your definition of a “human being” as posted on your blog.  I appreciate the opportunity, and you can use any of my comments below as you wish if they can be helpful.

I fully understand the frustration of most people with the annoying details in answers on that question given by scientists.  It is just as frustrating for the scientist who tries to explain the science to non-scientists, or to other scientists who are not in the same scientific field.  On the other hand, since the human embryology is precisely what is at stake in various laws, regulations and other state, national and international documents, it is crucial that the accurate human embryology be used, for at least four reasons:

First, if the “science” is too “dumbed down”, then the average person (non-scientist) is incapable of forming their consciences correctly on all the various issues relating to the human embryo.  Thus, their moral decision making capacity is severely compromised, as well as their capacity to participate morally in any voting.

Second, when such “dumbed down” language is used as a formal definition in any legal document (which is usually done on purpose), the courts are legally required to interpret that law or regulation as “exclusionary” – that is, literally.  If the legal definition does not cover something, or if it is only partially correct, then the law will only cover precisely what that legal definition states.  For example, if a law defines ALL bears as “brown”, then that law will not apply at all to bears that are white or black.  This is precisely how deadly legal loopholes have gotten into our laws and regulations that thus permit all manner of unethical actions involving the human embryo.  It is a legal “trick” to use such “dumbed down” language to allow such unethical activities to continue.

Third, the consequences of such erroneous “science” is the death and destruction of millions of innocent living human beings – something that we should surely try to avoid.  Therefore, it is morally incumbent on the average person to obtain the accurate scientific facts concerning the human embryo, and try to understand them as best they can.  Unfortunately, I agree that this is very difficult to do, especially because the accurate science has been so totally falsified for over 40 years now for political purposes.

Fourth, the “science” – and metaphysics — used in the beginning of life issues is often used at the end of life issues as well – and vice versa.  So we are not just looking just at the unborn or infants, but also all human beings at the end of their lives.

However, the accurate science is out there, has been for over 125 years, institutionalized internationally since 1942 in the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, is understandable, not a “mystery”, and is easier to access now than before.  I will attempt to give both a “common” explanation first – at least one that does not allow any misinformation or legal loopholes — followed by a more carefully executed scientific definition.  I am going to have to be frank with you in order to respond honestly to your question, and I hope you understand that I mean no disrespect.

First, your definition on your blog is all wrong, on several levels.  But rather than pick that definition apart, let me try to provide the accurate definitions in human embryology:

HUMAN SEXUAL REPRODUCTION:

“In human sexual reproduction (i.e., the immediate use of human sperm and human oocyte) — both in vivo (inside the body) and in vitro (outside the body) — the biological beginning of a new human being/organism occurs when a human sperm makes contact with the protective covering of and fuses with a human oocyte (before the “zygote” is developed).  Examples include normal natural sexual intercourse, and artificial sexual reproduction in IVF/ART research laboratories and infertility clinics.”

See Carnegie Stage One:

“Embryonic life commences with fertilization, and hence the beginning of that process may be taken as the point de depart of stage 1.  Despite the small size and weight of the organism at fertilization, the embryo is “schon ein individual-spezifischer Mensch” [definitely and specifically a human person] (Blechschmidt, 1972).  …  Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with an oocyte or its investments and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote (Brackett et al, 1972).   …  Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine tube i.e., fallopian tube – not the uterus], includes (a) contact of spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an oocyte, penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the second polar body, (b) the formation of the male and female pronuclei, and (c) the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of the zygote. … The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will be included here under stage 1, the characteristic feature of which is unicellularity. … The term “ovum”, which has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and a 3-week embryo, has no scientific usefulness and is not used here.  Indeed, strictly speaking, “the existence of the ovum … is impossible (Franchi, 1970).”  [Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, Stage One, at:  http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf%5D

HUMAN ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION:

“In human asexual reproduction (i.e., without the immediate use of human sperm and human oocyte) — both in vivo (inside the body) and in vitro (outside the body) — the biological beginning of a new human being/organism occurs when the status of the DNA in a mere human cell or cells is regulated or reversed back to that of a new human being/organism.  Examples include naturally occurring human identical (monozygotic) “twinning” within the woman’s fallopian tube and/or uterus, and artificial “twinning”, pronuclei transfer, somatic cell nuclear transfer, germ line cell nuclear transfer, and other genetic engineering and regenerative medicine research techniques in IVF/ART research laboratories and infertility clinics.”

See Carnegie Stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 where asexual reproduction by “twinning” is addressed.  Also, the human molecular genetics textbook by Strachan and Read:

The term ‘clones’ indicates genetic identity and so can describe genetically identical molecules (DNA clones), genetically identical cells or genetically identical organisms. Animal clones occur naturally as a result of sexual reproduction. For example, genetically identical twins are clones who happened to have received exactly the same set of genetic instructions from two donor individuals, a mother and a father. A form of animal cloning can also occur as a result of artificial manipulation to bring about a type of asexual reproduction. The genetic manipulation in this case uses nuclear transfer technology: a nucleus is removed from a donor cell then transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has previously been removed.  … The individual providing the donor nucleus and the individual that develops from the ‘renucleated’ oocyte are usually described as “clones”, but it should be noted that they share only the same nuclear DNA; they do not share the same mitochondrial DNA, unlike genetically identical twins. … Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an adult sheep. For the first time, an adult nucleus had been reprogrammed to become totipotent once more, just like the genetic material in the fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had ultimately developed. … Successful cloning of adult animals has forced us to accept that genome modifications once considered irreversible can be reversed and that the genomes of adult cells can be reprogrammed by factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent once again. [Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (New York:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1999), pp.  508-509]. (emphases added)

LEGAL DEFINITIONS:

In order to use the accurate science in any legal documents so that there are no legal loopholes formed, here are the legal definitions for “person” and “personhood”:

Person:  applies only to all living human beings from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms – regardless of age, race, sex, gender, capacity to function, condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of sexual or asexual reproduction used, whether existing in vivo or in vitro.

Personhood:   is the legal recognition of a human being’s full status as a human person, that applies to all human beings, regardless of age, race, sex, gender, capacity to function, condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of sexual or asexual reproduction used, whether existing in vivo or in vitro.

DEFINITIONS OF OTHER TERMS USED WITHIN THE MAJOR DEFINITION:

In vivo:  within the body (including the fallopian tube and the uterus).

In vitro:  outside the body, e.g., in IVF/ART and other research laboratories and infertility clinics.

Human Being:  any human organism, including the single-cell human embryo, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with an individual member of the human species, regardless of age, race, sex, gender, capacity to function, condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of sexual or asexual reproduction used, whether existing in vivo or in vitro.

Human Genome:  the total amount of nuclear and extra-nuclear DNA genetic material in a cell that constitutes an organism as an individual member of the human species – including the single-cell human embryo.

Human embryo:  all human beings during the first 8 weeks of their biological development, including single-cell human embryos from the beginning of their biological development.

Human fetus:  all human beings from the beginning of the fetal period of their biological development (the beginning of 9 weeks) through birth,

Documentation of the accurate human embryology:

(1) The original Carnegie Stages at the National Museum of Health and Medicine (Human Developmental Anatomy Center), which also gives the history of the science of human embryology and the institutionalization of the Carnegie Stages in 1942;
See Carnegie Stage One (phases a, b, and c) at: http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf;   see all 23 stages of the early developing human embryo at: http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Select_Stage_and_Lab_Manual.htm.   Click into the “textbook” at the bottom left side of the screen to access more extensive details of each stage and the extensive scientific references.

(2)  The new website, “The Virtual Human Embryo”, housed at the Louisiana State University’s Health Sciences Center (probably the easiest to follow).
http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/DREM/DREM_home.htm.  From there click “Enter”;   and then click into “Demo” on the left of the page.  This brings you to a listing of all the Carnegie Stages.

(3)  The most recent updating of the Carnegie Stages online (Jan. 2011) by the international nomenclature committee on human embryology, i.e., the Terminologia Embryologica Committee (TE) which has operated internationally and updated the Carnegie Stages continuously since 1942 to the present.  Go to:    http://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/ViewTE/TEe02.html. You are viewing “Page 8”; now use buttons at top to move to Page 10 to arrive at description of Carnegie Stages 1-5 in Chart; The right side of chart provides the following documentation of the first 5 Stages; see especially “Single cell EMBRYO [St. 1].]]

(4)  For asexual human reproduction, see Carnegie Stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 (identical twins/triplets).  Also human molecular genetics, e.g., Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (New York:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1999)

SOME GENERAL POINTS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED:

I assure you that even scientists who are not academically credentialed in human embryology often have a hard time understanding the scientific details – much less the average non-scientist.  Let me also offer some thoughts that might help with all the confusion out there as well with some “guidelines” to try to understand:

—  Not all human beings begin to exist by means of fertilization (sexual reproduction, the fusion of the sperm and oocyte), although many do.  Some human beings begin to exist by means of asexual methods (without the immediate use of sperm and oocyte).  So to say that SOME human beings begin at fertilization is accurate; but to say that ALL human beings begin at fertilization is not.  By saying “human beings begin to exist at fertilization” you are leaving out all those human beings who do not begin to exist at fertilization, but rather begin to exist by asexual means;  and if such language is used in a legal document, that document will not apply to them (and thus, by default, they can be used and killed).

The same is true if using the term “conception”, but worse.  If the term “conception” means “fertilization”, then again, all those human beings asexually reproduced are not covered.  And if “conception” means “implantation” (which it already does in many state laws and in many professional organizations), then even the sexually reproduced human embryo who is moving through the woman’s fallopian tube toward her uterus is not covered, much less all human embryos sexually reproduced by fertilization in IVF and ART research laboratories and infertility clinics.

Besides, the term “conception” does not refer to Christ or His Body or how He was reproduced in the phrase “Immaculate Conception”, and any Catholic who thinks so should be better educated about that.  As I’m sure you understand, the term “conception” in “Immaculate Conception” refers to Blessed Mary – that her soul was created by God without the stain of original sin.  But one way to sway the uneducated Catholic (especially voter) that “conception” refers to fertilization or the human embryo (and thus leave out all asexually reproduced human beings) is to appeal to their religious sentimentality – and that has obviously worked, unfortunately.

Obviously, most people are aware of “sexual reproduction” (fertilization), and that a new living human being begins to exist.  Examples of asexual reproduction include:  naturally occurring human identical twins/triplets that are formed in the woman’s body (in her fallopian tube, or even weeks after implantation).  It also includes human embryos asexually reproduced in the lab or clinic by means of literally dozens of different kinds of genetic engineering methods.  Most are familiar with somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), but there is also an artificial kind of “twinning”, as well as many other techniques.

I have explained the difference in sexual and asexual reproduction in several articles, especially helpful might be:  “Playing God by manipulating man:  Facts and frauds of human cloning” (October 4, 2003), presented twice at the Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at:  http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html.  See the section in the middle of the article addressing “methylation” and “regulations”.  See also my article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia:  —  “Human Embryology and Church Teachings” (September 15, 2008), at:  http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/em/em_132embryologychurch1.html;  also published in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., Supplement 2009, (Detroit:  Gayle), pp. 287-312,  as “Embryology, Human”;  see http://www.gale.cengage.com/NCE/;  also at:  http://www.personhood.ca/pdfs/embryology_human.pdf.

In common parlance, sexual reproduction can be envisioned as when the unspecialized DNA in a cell begins to become more and more specialized.  This is done by means of the biological process of “methylation”.  Simply put, a methyl molecule is place on places of the DNA that have the effect of “silencing” the DNA – the DNA will not be able to “speak”, i.e, make certain biological products.  Or, that methyl molecule can later be removed, once the cell or body doesn’t need those products any more.  And so, in sexual reproduction, the initial (relatively) undifferentiated or unspecialized DNA is allowed to speak, and when a certain product is no longer needed then a methyl molecule is stuck on it to silence it.  This process goes on and on throughout development.  By adulthood most of the DNA in the cells of the body are very specialized, i.e., full of methyl molecules that prevent unwanted products to be produced.  In my article I refer to this as “zipping up”.

In asexual reproduction the reverse happens.  You can take a very specialized adult cell in which the DNA is “silenced” a great deal, and then take those methyl molecules off at desired intervals.  What is happening is that the cell is going back in developmental time, back to early times when the DNA was not so “silenced” by methyl molecules.  You can theoretically stop this reversal at any time in order to get certain desired products from the cells.  Or, you can take it all the way back to what the DNA would be without such silencing.  If that happens, then you would end up with a new living embryo, a new human being.  I refer to this process as “zipping down”.

Involved in both zipping up and zipping down is a natural biological process called “regulation”.  Regulation is the ability of a cell or organism to repair and heal itself if it has been damaged, or even to revert a separated totipotent cell back to a new single-cell organism, a human being.  This is what happens in the asexual reproduction of natural twins in the woman’s body.  First, a new human embryo is reproduced by means of fertilization.  Then the embryo begins to grow, the cells (blastomeres) of the embryo begin to divide.  These cells of the early embryo have a special capacity that ranges from all totipotent to a mixture of totipotent and pluripotent cells in the later blastocyst.  If they are totipotent, and IF SEPARATED FROM THE ORIGINAL EMBRYO, the process of regulation can both heal the original damaged embryo, as well as revert the separated totipotent cells back to whole new embryos.  Sometimes regulation works;  sometimes it doesn’t.  One third of natural human twins are formed in the woman’s fallopian tube from the 2-cell phase of development to the blastocyst stage.  Two thirds of natural twins are formed in the woman’s fallopian tube at the blastocyst stage, and even weeks later after implantation (e.g., Siamese twins).  None of these asexually reproduced human embryos are ever “zygotes”!  This natural process of “twinning” is also artificially performed in the lab or clinic as “infertility” treatments or to produced new embryos for destructive research.

Or, in the lab or clinic it is possible to use many other genetic engineering techniques to asexually reproduce new human embryos.  In fact, one need not even start off with an embryo reproduced by fertilization;  it is possible to “fabricate” the genes, chromosomes and nuclei used.  Again, many people are at least aware of the cloning technique using nuclear transfer.  Keeping in mind the biological processes of “methylation” and “regulation” noted above, here is what happens.  The nucleus of an adult cell is used.  Since that cell is from an adult, then the DNA in that cell is already specialized, differentiated (zipped up), only that part of the DNA that is desired is allowed to speak;  the rest of the DNA is silenced by methylation molecules.  You then take that nucleus and insert it into an oocyte that has had its nucleus removed, leaving only the cytoplasm containing a number of cell organelles, including the mitochondria (which also contains DNA!).  Once the adult cell nucleus is inserted into the enucleated egg, the cytoplasm of the egg triggers the process of “regulation”, and the adult DNA is “zipped down” – all the way down to what it should be for a single-cell human organism.  That is, the methyl molecules used to originally silence that DNA is removed, allowing all of the instructions in the DNA to “speak” once again.  You now have a new human embryo, asexually reproduced.

Well, your Excellency, I do hope some of the above is helpful.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to let me know.  And thank you sincerely for even caring about these issues.  Keeping you in my prayers, I remain,

Faithfully yours in Christ,

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