1

In the past, I've taken on the view that the fertilized ovum is already a human being. I'd like to do so again. The argument is at once both biological and metaphysical.

Of course I do not dispute that the fertilized ovum, i.e. the zygote, is alive. Nor do I dispute that it is human. But it is not yet the human being that will come to exist.

Let me first say what I mean. After I'll give the argument. How can it be human and not a human being? It is human but not a human being in precisely the sense that a sperm or an ovum is human but not a human being. (For simplicity, consider only the example of a sperm cell.) A sperm is human in the sense that it originates in a human male. It is thus human and not, say, bovine or canine. But of course it not a human being.

Note that the indefinite article 'a' is crucial here. A sperm is human but is not a human. (Of course a human is human. But a thing might be human and not a human.)

Now begins the metaphysics. I've said that a zygote is human but not a human being, and I've explained what I mean by this. But I've not yet given my reason. The reason takes us into the metaphysics of identity.

When the zygote divides, it gives rise to a pair of new cells. Does the zygote survive its division? If it does, it is either one or the other of the pair of cells to which it gives rise. (It cannot be both, for one thing cannot become two things.) But since the two cells to which it gives rise are exactly similar, we can have no more reason to say that the zygote becomes this one than that it becomes that one. Thus neither of the pair of child cells is the proper successor to the parent zygote cell, i.e. neither is identical to the parent. Conclusion: when the zygote divides, it ceases to exist.

Note that a human zygote is in this regard precisely similar to all cells that undergo division. When an amoeba divides, it ceases to exist. When a bacterium divides, it ceases to exist. Cell division is, in all cases, at once both destructive and generative. The parent cell ceases to exist. The child cells begin to exist.

Now, assume for the sake of reductio ad absurdum that a zygote is already a human being and is not a mere precursor thereof. (Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument in which a certain assumption is show false by the deduction of an absurdity from it). As argued, when the zygote divides, it ceases to exist. Thus when the zygote divides, the human being that by assumption it was ceases to exist. Of course if this were so, we must say at some point in time either at or after zygotic division, a new human being comes to exist, for of course pregnancy does end in the birth of a human being.

This is absurd. Pregnancy does not progress through the creation of one human being, its destruction, and the creation of a new. Rather there is only ever one human being within the womb. Thus the assumption with which be began must be false. It must be false that a zygote is already a human being.

This leaves us with the question of just when a human being does in fact begin to exist. Is it when the zygote divides, or is it after? I suspect that it's not at the time of division but rather some days after. It occurs when the life-processes of the various cells within the embryo are so intergrated that they are subordinated to the single life-process of the human being they together compose. Note, then, that a human being is always composed of some number of cells. One cell is never enough. The fertilized ovum, though it carries the genetic material of the human being that will come to be, is yet only a precursor to that human being.

2

Franklin,

Let me first say what I mean. After I'll give the argument. How can it be human and not a human being? It is human but not a human being in precisely the sense that a sperm or an ovum is human but not a human being. (For simplicity, consider only the example of a sperm cell.) A sperm is human in the sense that it originates in a human male. It is thus human and not, say, bovine or canine. But of course it not a human being.

That is scientifically inaccurate. Spermatozoa is not human in the same sense as an embryo is human. One contains human life while the other is a self-directing human being. As explained by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.:

In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis - each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts - each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are denoted as a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bi-laminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).

Conclusion: when the zygote divides, it ceases to exist.

Nonsense. You do not have any of the same cells in your body that you had ten years ago. Did cell division cause you to cease to exist?

It occurs when the life-processes of the various cells within the embryo are so intergrated that they are subordinated to the single life-process of the human being they together compose.

As any embryologists can tell you, that occurs from fertilization.

Note, then, that a human being is always composed of some number of cells. One cell is never enough. The fertilized ovum, though it carries the genetic material of the human being that will come to be, is yet only a precursor to that human being.

In order to accept this conclusion we would be required to reject the claims of modern embryology in favor of a metaphysical interpretation of the importance of cell division. I see no reason why we should to that.

3

Franklin, it is obvious that it is physically different: one cell vs. multiple cells. The difference between a zygote and the cellular mass that results from some number of divisions is more of a definition than a reality. Two "half-cells" with certain attibutes (sperm and egg) join to become a a "full" cell, which is defined as a zygote. The definition is descriptive of a process more than a physical or genetic description of the cell properties. Therefore, by definition, it did not "survive" since it is no longer the single "full" cell, or zygote, created by fertilization.

The next definition problem is when does the cellular mass become human? You propose that humanity begins when "..the life-processes of the various cells within the embryo are so intergrated that they are subordinated to the single life-process of the human being..." The process of a single cell making that first crtitical division into two cells is a pretty important life process, and intregal to the function of that first cell. After all, all of the resulting cells will continue to divide as a necessary function of life. Perhaps you mean that we begin to see cellular specialization.

As far as stem cell research is concerned, it is a moot point. In vitro fertilization produces zygotes, true, but no implantation or cyrogenic processes are done until it is clear that the zygotes have become viable embryos, hence the desciption "embryonic stem cell research." Unless we interrupt the cellular division process by freezing or harvesting before the cellular mass whatever number of divisions required to reach humanhood, we are still killing humans. The same applies to abortion. If your definition is accepted, the window to abort a non-human cellular mass is pretty small.

4

Whoo-hoo! Bash the libertarians!

5

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period.

Regardless of what Dianne N. Irving M.A., Ph.D., asserts, the totipotency of the early embryo does make it qualitatively different than later developmental stages. The ability of an embryo to be cut in half (either naturally or artificially) and not die but form two complete embryos demonstrates that the embryo does not simply "grow bigger and bigger" but rather becomes something different in kind. Whether that difference is morally significant is another matter, but the ability of a single embryo to form two embryos, or two embryos to form a single embryo, does suggest that they may not fit Franklin's description of a single integrated life process. Simply asserting that a morula is a blastocyst is an infant really won't fly.

Nonsense. You do not have any of the same cells in your body that you had ten years ago. Did cell division cause you to cease to exist?

Nonsense. Your neurons are postmitotic. If you are completely replacing all your neurons every 10 years, please contact your nearest university neuroscience department. I'm sure they would like some tissue samples for research. If all your neurons were continually dividing, that probably would cause you to cease to exist as Joe Carter.

Incidentally, your citing of Dr. Irving's degrees suggest that they are somehow relevant to embryology. A google search suggests that her degrees are in Philosophy, and a Medline search suggests very limited research experience as a technician (two publications, none as primary author and none related to development). You aren't trying to pull an "appeal to authority" are you?

6

Joe, just so you know, I've updated the links post to more accurately reflect your position. I blog corrected.

7

Joe,

You say: "You do not have any of the same cells in your body that you had ten years ago. Did cell division cause you to cease to exist?"

You misunderstand my point. I am not a cell. Rather I am an organism composed of a multiplicity of cells. When a cell within my body divides, it ceases to exists and gives rise to a pair of child cells. But I am not that cell. I am something greater, and I survive the loss of individual cells.

Please do distinguish a single cell from the organism of which it's part, and do not confuse the ceasing to be of the former with the ceasing to be of the latter.

8

The first is a simple brute fact of biology while the second is the implication of being made in the image of God and being the property of our Creator.

You are, of course, entirely right on both points above. In admitting them, however, you've just forfeited your claim to enacting any social policies that hinge on the distinction between biological existence and personhood.

"Dignity" - a spectacularly vague and empty notion - is entirely a religious concept, one that serves as a convenient catch-all for moral claims that are grounded on no rational basis or observable fact. It has meaning only for those who believe it does, on the basis of further beliefs which themselves cannot be defended or even explained clearly (I refer here not to religion itself, though it might match the above description, but of the idea that "creation" imparts "dignity" - a claim that is even less explicable than the notion of "dignity" itself).

The range of opinions on this matter - whether there is such a thing as "dignity", what it consists in, and how it instantiates itself - is likely as broad as the range of people who hold them (or broader, taking into account the many who do not). And there is no way to resolve the differences between them, because the concept is arbitrary and rests on religious beliefs that themselves are arbitrary. To put that anothe way, religion is, both legally and socially, famously one of the realms in which we recognize freedom of opinion and action; the long history of religious people's behavior to the contrary has taught us how important that is. And it is for this reason that purely religious concepts, like "dignity", are not recognized as a compelling basis for public policy.

You have grounded your central moral concept on an area of belief which cannot, in a civilized nation, be appealed to as a basis for policies that compel the behavior of those who disagree with you. You are right in doing so - there is no other grounding for it - but you must accept the consequences of that fact.

While I find the concept of "personhood" valuable and useful, I think it becomes problematic when used to determine bioethical questions of life and death. Personhood, like rights, has become something that must be given or at least recognized by society rather something that is inherent and inalienable. I find this to be one of the most dangerous ideas in history.

Why is it surprising that the basis of the human treatment of other human beings should be discerned and defined by human rationality? Only we know our own values and interests; only we can determine what best serves them. For those reasons, morality must be grounded on practices and concepts that arise from our understanding of ourselves. No one else is going to do it for us - or can.

You are right, too, that morality incorporates dangerous ideas, ones susceptible to misuse. How could it not? (So does physics, so does biology, so does every product of human ingenuity, however indispensible.) The challenge is not to misuse them. Often we fail that test. That's a good reason to keep trying.

9

Mr. Kevin T. Keith,

Have you ever read Jean-Francois Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge?

10

"The fertilized ovum...

Y'know, I've got a lot of problems in my life. My neighbor lets his dogs run loose. They damage my yard. That's a problem.

My tax dollars fund some geek in khakis to put on a blue rubber glove and violate the dignity of our captives, that bothers me.

Major US corporations are making money hand over fist by selling weapons of major death and destruction, and they make money repairing the damaged caused by those weapons. That bothers me.

A lot of elderly Americans have to make tough choices between food and medicine, and big pharma laughs all the way to the bank. That bothers me.

There are so many serious issues that face us as a species, from energy to pollution to the extinction of life on the planet, and the last damned thing I'm going to be worried about is some ectoplasm in some woman's hypothetical womb! That doesn't even rate on the scale.

When does life begin? Who gives a damn? I don't. My daughter gets pregnant, we'll figure out what's the best thing to do if and when. Most people feel that way - you take life's punches and make the best decisions you can. Worrying about theoretical blasocysts and zygotes is like... Well, you figure it all out and get back to me. Right now, I've got a neighbor with a noisy leafblower and I'd better deal with that first.

11

Raven -

Major societal moral issues vs. a leafblower... hmm... missing the forest for the trees, maybe?

It's actually the big, overarching worldview issues that have to be settled first, or the mudanities of life overwhelm and depress you. Your worldview and beliefs about overall moral issues are the framework into which you mundane life fits. It makes the little things make sense.

Just my $.02

12

Well I am sending a blessing from www.onlineblessings.com to the Google map maker. I use their service religiously to find my way to my congregation and our events.

13

bloggers with subject matter expertise could provide a valuable service by compiling essential articles and arguments into "chapters" like this. Anyone have other examples where this has been done?

An academic press contacted me last winter wanting to reprint one of my old blog posts in a textbook of "pro/con" articles on controversial topics. Apparently they are assembling textbooks on the cheap by culling blogs rather than paying authors to write commissioned pieces. (They did offer payment, but probably less than they would have for a for-hire article.) I suspect we'll see more of this. (I hope we'll see more of it from me. I can be bought.)