!!!!
My father had a strange saying. Whenever I was obstinate in pursuing some goal he would remark that my “Idea was not in my head but rather in my foot!” It took me a long time to figure out that what he meant was that I just could not sit still but had to pursue my goal regardless of obstacles. He probably said it in exasperation with my stubborness in refusing to drop a subject, but I now believe that he secretly admired my determination to reach that goal, whatever it was.
I thought of my father’s saying while reflecting on my frustration in not being able to construct a simple definition of when human life begins. The problem is that the words we commonly use, like “conception” or “fertilization” or “implantation” with regard to when in human reproduction human life begins are filled with loopholes. As Dr. Diane Irving, the embryologist I consulted, pointed out, politicians and judges have had a field day constructing laws and judicial opinions that used those terms and that still permitted the killing of unborn children.
On the other hand, the esoteric language of science is incomprehensible to ordinary people and is of no value in defending life in the public square. I have felt that there has to be a solution.
I think I have finally solved the problem, at least to my own satisfaction. Here is my definition of when human life begins.
Life normally begins when a cell containing 46 chromosomes begins to divide, begins to become a zygote.
Such a definition does not attempt to fix the precise moment when life begins, but it narrows the time down to a very small segment of time. The definition acknowledges that life now (unfortunately) does begin in laboratories by stating that “normally” this is how life begins; it avoids all the scientific terminology that involves the manipulation of cells in a laboratory. “Normal” beginnings of life usually take place through sexual activity between a man and a woman. I make no attempt to define when life begins in a laboratory.
I believe that it is necessary for ordinary people engaged in the defense of life in the public square to add the scientific term “zygote” to their vocabulary and to learn its meaning.
A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos “joined” or “yoked”, from ζυγοῦν zygoun “to join” or “to yoke”),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through meiosis.
A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.
John Jefferson Davis, in his book Evangelical Ethics, points out that the incarnation of Jesus Christ has an important role to play in affirming the value of human life (p. 158). He points out that the Creed places the beginning of the life of Christ not at birth but when “he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.” Likewise, he references Hebrews 2:17 which applies the efficacy of the incarnation to the fact that “in all things He had to be made like his brethren.” Many of the early Church fathers understood the significance of this in terms of their Christology. The early maxim was ‘whatever is not assumed is not healed.’ Thus, God became a zygote in order to heal all zygotes. God became a morula to heal all morulas. God became a blastocyst to heal all blastocysts. God became an embryo to heal all embryos. God became a fetus to heal all fetuses. God took upon himself the entirety of human nature from conception on. God became human to heal humanity. Thus, abortion, at any stage of pregancy, is an implicit attack on the incarnation.
Posted by Toby at http://havingtwolegs.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-became-zygote.html
Again, if this definition, like my previous definitions, is essentially flawed, I welcome critique of it from embryologists.
– Abyssum
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
Abyssum,
I can see the telos and point of your argumentation, distinction and definition making, etcetera. Searching for vocabulary which can be shared by believers and non believers, scientific atheists as well Christian believing scientists, is the same as Saint Thomas and his promotion of the Natural Law. Your search for vocabulary which is not so easy for enemies of life to bastardize is praiseworthy… we could sit here all day with praise of the Catholic Church and Triumphalistic tooting of our own horns, but such should be reserved for the Church Triumphant and not the Church Militant. As Church Militant, we must messy ourselves with the gook and grime or modern day relativists and non believing “bio-ethicists.” Failure to enter “the mess” which is created by non believing Scientists and unethical “bio-ethicists” (as opposed to TRUE bioethicists) is a sin of omission and the sin of Quietism, which was proclaimed to be a heresy by the Catholic Church.
To me, what you are doing is very similar to what the patristics and scholastics did… they entered the fray and danced to the same music which heretics and enemies of the Church were listening to and promoting.
Your refinement of phraseology reminds me of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s words: “A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.” Keep fighting the good fight!
AnselmusJMJ
Lest there be any doubt, I am actually in complete agreement with His Grace. I agree with what he is doing. I am sorry that I have given the impression that I am somehow opposed. My intention was to “add” something to the truth His grace had stated, not to question it or subtract from it. Let me correct any misunderstandings right now. We must defend the humanity of the unborn from the moment of conception and we must do so with the best science we have. We cannot wait for some future, more perfect science because the unborn are being murdered by the millions right now. The current science of embryology establishes the humanity of the unborn. From the moment of conception the unborn has the 64 chromosomes that define human life. From the moment of conception it is human. It is never anything else but human. Since pro-choice advocates and the non-committal do not accept theological evidence, the only forum where we can prove the humanity of the unborn for skeptics and the morally blind is in the arena of science.
Curt,
Thank you for your comment; you have made a valuable contribution to this blog.
However, I hope that you have not misunderstood the purpose of my quest for a simple definition of WHEN human life begins. Beginning with the majority opinion of SCOTUS in Roe v Wade, and continuing through the decades ever since we have been treated to obfuscation (mainly deliberate, I believe) by judges, politicians and both sides of the abortion debate as to when human life begins. Just as “gay” no longer can be used safely in its original meaning in polite conversation, so the use of the terms fertilization, conception and implantation have acquired meanings that differ according to who is using them. My search was not scientific or philosophical or theological. It was simply to find a definition that is sufficiently correct with regard to all three of those disciplines that it would facilitate discourse in the public square. The primary element of the definition is WHEN it is reasonable to state that human life has begun in the process of human reproduction.
– Abyssum
With fear and trembling, I would like to offer a theological opinion. I offer it humbly and tentatively and subject to correction, especially by correction from the Holy Spirit that teaches infallibly through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But before I offer this theological opinion, I wish to make a short statement.
Many people living today are consciously or unconsciously of the opinion that science has given us a fairly complete picture of reality and that what we have now is something similar to a puzzle where only a few of the pieces are still missing. I would like to challenge that opinion and call it into question. I would like to ask what evidence we have for this opinion. I would like to suggest that we have fallen into a conscious or unconscious gnoseological pride. What if, instead of being quite close to completing the puzzle, we are in fact quite distant? What if, instead of just lacking a few pieces of the puzzle we are lacking almost an infinite number of pieces? What if, far from being near the end of science, we are still at the beginning? Do we have any evidence that we are at the end? There are only inductive arguments that can be brought forth that we are at the end of science. And inductive arguments lack certainty. It is not self-evident that we are at the end of science nor can that belief be derived deductively from first principles. Each new discovery of science contradicts the opinion that we are at the end of science.
We are conscious of having come very far from Ptolemaic astronomy and the prescientific belief that everything was composed of earth, air, fire and water. But what if modern physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and so forth are still quite primitive and what if instead of being close to completing the puzzle we are still merely scratching the surface. I offer these speculations as questions, not conclusions. I am asking whether a little gnoseological humility is in order?
“There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” said Hamlet. Perhaps we can dare to say the same of the natural sciences. I would like to suggest that there may be more factors involved in the development of the unborn than are dreamt of in our current science of embryology. In the proper scheme of things, science is the handmaid of philosophy and philosophy is the handmaid of theology.
One of the interesting things about science is that it offers surprises. In ancient times it might have been the case that “scientists” fretted over which element, [fire, earth, air or water] predominated in the constitution of human beings. The surprise was not that any of these four elements won, but that the entire four element scheme was rejected and replaced by the Periodic Table of the Elements. We are living in a time when even the most highly respected theories of Albert Einstein are called into question. So I think a little intellectual humility is in order.
It is a dogma of the Church that God’s nature is incomprehensible to men and that God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. In light of this,
one can only ask then whether we have even come close to understanding Creation.
I would like to suggest [only as a theological opinion] that unborn children from the moment of conception possess human souls. I would like to suggest this based on a deeper understanding of Matthew 18:10: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of my Father Who is in Heaven.” I would propose that the Greek word “mikron” has a deeper theological significance than it is currently being given in theological circles. Admittedly this argument is somewhat between sententia pia and opinio tolerato.
I would dare to say that science is very far from explaining how Divine causality operates through secondary causes because science itself is methodoglically atheist. I would say that what embryology is observing is God creating a child through the secondary causality of the parents. And that the invisible dimension is even more important than what can be visibly observed. I would say that we are in the presence of a great mystery and a long, long way from understanding it. Divine and parental causalities collaborate throughout the entire process. Since this is so, there is never a time where the parents causality alone is operative.
If any of the above statements are found to be false or not in harmony with the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, I stand corrected. I also stand corrected if any of my statements contradict philosophical or scientific truth.
Something which very few people like to talk about with respect to this issue is the way in which birth control pills can cause silent abortions. This is why chastity is so important. One way that birth control pills cause early abortions is by interfering with the flexing motions and the cilia movement of the fallopian tubes. These changes slow the transport of the newly conceived from the fallopian tubes to the womb. Unfortunately, many of the newly conceived starve to death in the fallopian tubes because chemicals caused changes that prevented them from reaching the womb in time to be nourished. Many birth control pills can also cause the lining of the womb to become thin, shriveled and unable to support implantation. This is why the respected Physican’s Desk Reference [PDR] notes that all the currently available birth control pills provide not only contraceptive but also abortofacient effects. With over 17 millions American women using some form of the “pill”, it is estimated that breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy occurs so often that between 7 to 12 million newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb each year and that most of these women never even knew they were pregnant.
Abyssum, praise be to God for this dogged and tenacious determination which He has given to you. You have given to us ordained ministers a great tool, whether we use it at the pulpits, for formal presentations or informal discussions. This is also a great tool for God’s beloved laity, who wish to be on the frontlines in this battle for the protection of innocent life. Your definition is at one and the same time scientific as well as practical for ordinary layman’s language. This layman’s language is necessary for those of us, ordained and unordained alike. Maybe this definition can or will be used by doctors, biologists and bioethicists in the future? I hope and pray so! Again, thank you! A blessed Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception to you,
Anselmus
Abyssum,
I sincerely ask to be pardoned if I am overlooking any obvious facts here, because admittedly I am nowhere near being as learned as I should in this field of knowledge, but why can’t we say that human life begins with the completed zygote? The zygote is the first “union” or “unity” which forms after the male and female gametes (ovum and sperm) make contact. And if we reflect on it, we can see that the human being, the human person, is a “unity” or a “union” of many things: a union of sub-atomic particles, a union of atoms, a union of molecules, a union of organic tissues, a union of organs/limbs/members and a union of body and soul. Thus, the first “union” of two or more things, I would say, is when life begins. And from what I can tell, the zygote is this first union, the first unity which can be called human life. And so, as far as my knowledge goes, the zygote, when it has completed its formation, is the beginning of human life. For when it is still forming, it cannot be properly called a “union” or “unity” of two things, the male and female gametes. Thus, the emergence of the mature zygote is the emergence of a human being, a human life.
– Ignatius