A couple of weeks ago, Martin LaBar posted a response to a comment I left at a post of his concerning the question, “When does life begin?” That original post quoted Norman M. Ford, a Catholic with expertise in embryology. I have another response, and, since it’s longer than a comment, will post it here:
I appreciate that Prof. LaBar has given his time and, as always, careful consideration and thoughtfulness in responding to my comment.
This is a quote from a webpage linked to in his post, in which he says of Ford:
Thus, both because a single human embryo, at very early stages, can become more than one adult, and because two or more genetic individuals can become one, he [Ford] cannot accept that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality.
I also do not believe that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality. Yet, as per my original comment, I still believe that the biological housing, if you will, of human individuality – identity worthy of awe, honor, and protection – is present at conception, if as yet unrealized, or only temporary. (I realize that conception itself is not an absolutely precise term, but it’s adequate for the discussion, I think.)
Even if two human embryos were to “fuse” into one, like the mouse embryos to which Ford refers, it is still not up to us, nor is it possible for us to determine who or what was there first, and who or what disappeared, and when. Nor can we determine the exact point at which God puts the soul into an individual, nor do I think we should try. The Lord gives, and He takes away (Job 1:21– I know this refers to possessions, but I think it applies to life itself as well).
As Prof. LaBar states, the determination of some things, indeed of many things, lies outside of the realm of biology or any other science, i.e., outside of the ability of human endeavor. But we can determine enough of it, I think, to be able to know what is worthy of protection. God is the author of life, both biological and spiritual. No human yet has figured out how to make dead things become alive. Humans have the ability and power to create new human beings from gametes produced within their own bodies, but they are only working with something that’s already been given to them. They do not therefore have the right to decide whether those lives, at any point, should be terminated. A corollary might be whether they have the right to keep a person alive by extraordinary means, and that’s also fraught with difficulty.
Regarding the rationale for a belief that life begins at conception, I certainly agree with Prof. LaBar that Scripture does not explicitly speak to the matter. It’s true that many take a position and then try to use Scripture to support it after the fact. It is also true that people can make Scripture “say” just about anything they want it to say. People can misuse Scripture non-intentionally; I’m guilty of this myself. However, I also think that it’s possible to form a view, or “learn God’s mind/heart” (or however one would like to put it) about things that science reveals based upon truth gleaned directly from Scripture, even if such a view can’t be looked up, verbatim, in such-and-such chapter at such-and-such verse.
But back to the question of when human life begins. It seems to me that if we don’t know, then we ought not make decisions as if we do. If one is out hunting and one doesn’t have a clear target, should one shoot?
If we take an elderly person and go backward in time through that person’s life, we will pass through his/her middle age, “prime” of life, youth, childhood, infancy, and gestation to the point of conception. Should we go back even further, i.e., ask whether the sperm and egg that met to form that person were actually that person, or partly that person, before the sperm and egg met? Some would perhaps say yes, as C. S. Lewis did, sort of, in The Abolition of Man. However, the separate sperm and egg are not yet a unit. The fact remains that the biological matter – the cells – that contains the material that will create a differentiated individual at whatever point a biologist may decide that such differentiation has been achieved are present at conception in a unit.
Ford, however, does not see unity in that unit; he sees totipotency:
It should not be assumed that a genetically unique human zygote is the same ontological individual as the resulting blastocyst, definitive embryo proper, fetus and child, notwithstanding the continuity of the same biological identity at every stage of development. Human twins that are genetically identical are nevertheless different ontological individuals. Furthermore, analysis of the evidence shows that early embryonic cells inside the zona pellucida lack the requisite unity to constitute a single ontological entity. Each is totipotent. They appear to have too much independence of behavior to constitute one individual. This alone would preclude them from being a human individual until the multiplying cells formed themselves into a single multicellular human body. Furthermore, experiments with mice show how single cells taken from three separate early mouse embryos can be aggregated to form a single viable chimaeric mouse embryo. In this case the resultant individual mouse certainly did not begin at the zygote stage. This suggests that perhaps in the normal situation the proliferating and developing cells amalgamate at a later stage to form the definitive individual body, be it that of a mouse or a human individual. (emphasis added)
Totipotency refers to properties, abilities, and characteristics of a cell; it does not define either the beginning of a human life or the ontology of a human life. Because of this, I can’t accept that totipotency, pluripotency, or even multipotency are relevant to the question of when life begins, nor do I believe that they evidence lack of the unity necessary to define a human individual. The unity has already been established, in my view. Those totipotent cells would not exist had the egg and sperm not come together. Those totipotent cells somehow manage, on their own, to become pluripotent and then multipotent, and then whatever stage of differentiation occurs beyond that, etc. How do they do this? I don’t know – I’m not a biologist. But they do. This is what indicates to me that the very, very beginnings of a human individual are present at conception, regardless of form. No one, as far as I know (biologists included – someone correct me if I’m wrong!), even knows why monozygotic twinning occurs.
Potential and realization of that potential will occur throughout the entire life of an individual, in various forms. The totipotent cells present in the morula contain material that will eventually become, for example, the wrinkled skin of old age, since the genetic and other biological material present in those cells contains the precursors/determinants of it, strange as that may be to contemplate. This would not be the case had a sperm and an oocyte not come together into a unit that will form one or more individuals. The zygote therefore represents the beginning of that/those lives, because the coming together of the egg and sperm supplies the material that, once united, will later differentiate to form that/those individuals.
Does God put the “soul(s)” or “spirit(s)” into the resulting biological unit at the moment of conception? That’s the question Prof. LaBar is asking, and one that it seems we can’t know for certain. But being that this is the case (that we can’t know for certain), I think it’s prudent and wise that we not try to create a demarcation based upon mere supposition, but stick to what is clear instead. It is clear that the process that will result in a clearly differentiated human individual or individuals, given proper environment, nutrition, and absence of pathology or defect, begins at conception.
