Human embryo

Whether or not a human embryo, either in vivo or in vitro, has value and should have rights and protections under the law, and to what extent, is an argument worth having.  Arguing about the fact that a human embryo is a new human life is just a waste of everyone's time.

It is unfortunate that I even have to point this out.  I once spoke to a woman with a biology degree who swore up and down that there was no evidence than an embryo was a living human being.  (I asked her why scientists study embryo death if embryos are not living beings.)  She was adamant that her embryology book in no way shape or form said that life begins at conception.

I was going to do some investigating, but Jivin J did some of the work for me already.  Here are some quotes from various embryology books:

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."  (Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."  (Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1)

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."  (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."  (Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."  (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146)

"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."  (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)

I am sorry it has been a while since I have blogged.  Spring has just been crazy for me and it will continue into summer so I am sure there will be light posting until things settle down for the Taylor family. 

I found this piece today that made me think "blob of cells, my a--!"  From Science Daily:

Biologists have long wondered why the embryonic heart begins beating so early, before the tissues actually need to be infused with blood. Two groups of researchers from Children's Hospital Boston, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) -– presenting multiple lines of evidence from zebrafish, mice and mouse embryonic stem cells -– provide an intriguing answer: A beating heart and blood flow are necessary for development of the blood system, which relies on mechanical stresses to cue its formation....

One team, led by Leonard Zon, MD, of the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Children's and Director of its Stem Cell research program, used zebrafish, whose transparent embryos allow direct observation of embryonic development. Publishing in Cell, Zon and colleagues discovered that compounds that modulate blood flow had a potent impact on the expression of a master regulator of blood formation, known as Runx1, which is also a recognized marker for the blood stem cells that give rise to all the cell types in the blood system.

Confirming this observation, a strain of mutant embryos that lacked a heartbeat and blood circulation exhibited severely reduced numbers of blood stem cells. Further work showed that nitric oxide, whose production is increased in the presence of blood flow, is the key biochemical regulator: Increasing nitric oxide production restored blood stem cell production in the mutant fish embryos, while inhibiting nitric oxide production led to reduced stem cell number.

People seem to be deciding first what they want (ESCR, fetal tissue harvesting, abortion), then choosing a definition of "human" that puts the embryos/fetuses/babies they don't want on the wrong side of it, then coming up with some sort of argument as to why their definition of human is sensible and not self-serving.

In my time reading this site, I've seen pseudo-religious arguments for formation of a circulatory system being the dividing line, the formation of a nervous system, the development of rational thought that takes place after birth, and now implantation. I even got exposed to Nancy Pelosi bringing up the cutting edge of Thomas Aquinas' thirteenth century biology to make a point. Half of these arguments make medieval Scholasticism look downright sensible.

I've seen "embryo" swapped out for "pre-embryo" and "blastocyst", and "personhood theory" treating humanity like some kind of prize awarded by a panel of judges at a quiz show. It's starting to become genuinely disorienting.

SparcVark, whoever you are, you made Wesley's day, but you made my week! 

It is not a "belief" that human life begins at conception, it is a fact.  What is a belief is that life has value and should be protected under the law.  This is where we disagree.  The Catholic Church believes that human life is valuable from the very beginning to its natural end.

I often get slammed by other science bloggers for "letting my religion get in the way of reality."  Somehow they think it is my religion that says that human life begins at conception, instead of my religion simply acknowledging the scientific facts of life.  What disturbs me more than anything is when so-called science changes nomenclature to fit an ideological agenda.  For example, the push to use the term "pre-embryo" for any embryo that has yet to implant in a uterus.  Or when doctors insist that IVF embryos have yet to be conceived.  When "science" does this, it is the Vatican that is more scientifically correct.

But do not take my word for it.  Wesley J. Smith has a quote from a Nature editorial from 1987 discussing this very issue ("IVF remains in legal limbo," Nature 387 (1987): 87):

Another [action of British government] might be to ban the use of the word 'pre-embryo', used by the voluntary authority as a synonym for a fertilized human ovum not yet implanted in a uterus. Put simply, this usage is a cop-out, a way of pretending that the public conflict about IVF and other innovations in human embryology can be made to go away by means of an appropriate nomenclature. The fact is that a fertilized human egg is as much deserving of being called an embryo as is a fertilized frog's egg.

The essence of the controversy over the new human embryology centres rests on the question when, in the course of development, an embryo commands the legal respect to which free-living people are entitled. The issue turns on the necessity of implantation for development, on analogies (necessarily less persuasive) with the randomness of what happens in real-life procreation and on arguments about the reality of the soul (which to many is a figment of the human imagination). Even those who share the British self styled voluntary authority's eagerness that IVF should be more widely and efficiently practiced, will acknowledge that, on the issue of nomenclature, the Vatican is philosophically the more consistent." [my emphasis]

I want to point out three things in this quote.  First, the editors of Nature acknowledge the obvious: if a fertilized frog's egg is called an embryo, then a fertilized human egg is an embryo as well.  Second, they also point out that the debate IS NOT about when a human life begins, BUT AT WHAT POINT THAT LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW.  That is the real debate.

And finally, the editors of Nature admit the Vatican is consistent in the use of scientific nomenclature when discussing the beginning of human life.  Nature acknowledges that it is not some religious spin when the Catholic Church says an embryo is an embryo regardless of whether it floats in a uterus or in a petri dish.  It is simply the Church recognizing the facts.  Amazing!

I have no words for this article written by Megha Satyanarayana where human embryos are called "trash":

At Wayne State University, Carol Brenner and her Tech Town colleagues know that Monday's lifting of federal restrictions on stem cell research means what once was trash could lead to a treasure trove of treatments.

They'll be able to study embryos with genetic mutations for neurological diseases, embryos that once would have been thrown out.

I have been criticized to no end for harping on IVF.  But this is where IVF has brought us.  Embryos have gone from a miracle of life and precious gifts to "trash."  Nice.

This bill fascinates me.  It has some very good things in it, but also some very bad things.  Let us start with the bad.  This bill would allow scientists in New Mexico to destroy embryos left over from IVF treatments, but only with the consent of the "owner."  From the bill:

"embryo" means an organism of the species Homo sapiens formed by fertilization that is up to eight weeks of age post-fertilization...

Research involving the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, as permitted by Subsection A of this section, shall only be conducted with the informed consent of the original owner of the embryo...

So, they admit that an embryo is a human organism, but says it has an "owner."  I wonder who owns an embryo?  Is it the woman who donated the egg?  Or the man who donated the sperm?  Or is it the person or persons who ordered up the embryo?

There are some good things about this bill.  First, it says it bans human reproductive cloning, and as far as I can see it actually bans human cloning:

"human reproductive cloning" means the asexual creation of an embryo

So, it bans the creation of an cloned embryo not just the implantation of cloned embryos.  Also, it prohibits the creation of embryo just for research:

A person shall not knowingly create an embryo with the sole intent of donating the embryo for research.

And it provides a conscience clause for those researchers who are morally opposed to research on human embryos:

An employee shall not be required to conduct scientific research, experimentation or study that involves the creation or use of pre-implantation embryos in relation to human embryonic stem cell research to the extent that such research conflicts with the sincerely held religious practices or beliefs of the employee.

All of these provisions are good, but I just cannot get over the idea that someone can "own" a human being, even if it is only the size of the period at the end of this sentence.  I suppose when you create life outside the womb, "ownership" becomes a problem that necessarily follows.  Maybe, just maybe, that is what the Catholic Church saw coming when it said IVF was immoral.

The first baby in the UK tested before conception for a genetic form of breast cancer has been born.

Considering that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) takes a single cell from a newly formed embryo for genetic testing, I am wondering how that is even possible.  PGD tests 3 day-old embryos to be exact.  That means 3 days AFTER sperm has met egg.  So how can PGD take place before conception?  Well if you change the definition of conception, then it is possible:

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves taking a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage of development, when it is around three-days old, and testing it.

This is before conception - defined as when the embryo is implanted in the womb.

So the nearly half a million human embryos that are sitting in the deep freeze have yet to be conceived?  What utter rubbish!  Conception is when sperm penetrates egg, implantation is when the resulting embryos implants in the womb.

Once again society is being mislead and numbed by language that has no meaning.  If the BBC were to acknowledge that PGD occurs after conception then maybe some of us would actually put 2 and 2 together to make 4 and decide that they are very uncomfortable with this technology.  Especially when we realize that all of the post conception embryos that failed the genetic test got tossed in the biohazard waste.

I am wondering where is the outcry from scientists and doctors?  How can they sit back and let a media outlet tell us the 2 plus 2 equals 5?  Probably because it is good for business.  No doubt the BBC definition of conception was given to them by a fertility doctor.  I am reminded of this quote from Lee M. Silver, professor of biology at Princeton, from his book Remaking Eden.  Dr. Silver discusses the use of the term "pre-embryo" (meaning an embryo that has yet to be implanted):

I’ll let you in on a little secret.  The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific…. The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena—where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation—as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients.

I am disturbed to my core at the redefinition of scientific terminology to fit a political or social agenda.  From human cloning to IVF, there must be a secret memo circulating that says, "never call an embryo an embryo or else the public might just wise up."

Hat Tip: Wesley J. Smith

My second child is in the 4th grade and her school does not do any sex education until 7th grade. So, like with my oldest, I recently took it upon myself to sit her down and give her the facts of life. (Her response was a resounding, "That is so gross!")

To facilitate our discussion, I checked out several books from the library that had the visuals of the female reproductive system I was looking for. While reading these books designed for children, I noticed something very profound.

Not one of the secular children's books on the subject of human reproduction was ambiguous about when human life begins. See, children could care less about the broad philosophical question "When does human life begin?" They want to know when they began.

No children's book on the subject of human reproduction would say to little Johnny that "no one is really sure when your life began." No parent in their right mind would tell their little Sally that "knowing when you began is above my pay grade."

Here are some of the excerpts from the very non-religious books that I got from my very public library:

"In the very beginning, you were an egg -- a special egg inside your mother's body."

"At the begining of your life, you were a tiny egg that was smaller than a grain of salt. You didn't have any arms and legs. You didn't have a head! You certainly had a lot of growing to do!"

"When you were still very small, you took an exciting journey. You needed a place to grow, so you floated down your mother's Fallopian tube and into her uterus. You attached yourself to the wall of her uterus -- your home for the next nine months."

"But nine months before, when you first began, you were just one little cell, even smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. Half of this cell came from your mother's body, and the other half came from your father's body."

"At the very start of your your life you began as two microscopically tiny cells. These fused together and then developed inside the safety of your mother's womb."

Sounds simple because it is simple. Even a child knows when human life begins; when their life began. Even a child knows they have been a continuous organism from the moment Daddy's sperm penetrated Mommy's egg.

Once again here is more proof that the so-called debate over the abstract "when does human life begin?" is not really about that at all. The real debate is whether that life has value. Whether or not that life deserves protection under the law.

I find it more and more disturbing the ways in which adults commit verbal acts of contortion to obfuscate this issue and others like it. I truly fear for a society that can take something so simple as the moment of conception and not only deny the facts of what has occurred, but then pat themselves on the back for being intellectually honest. All the while accusing those who acknowledge the fact that a new human life is formed at the moment of conception of being "religiously biased."

If I am "religiously biased", then so is every children's book on "how babies are made" in my public library.

There is the obvious "sanctity of life" connection, but this passage from Dr. Nuckols really put it together for me:

According to the Daily Mail, [Lady Warnock] now supports a "duty to die."

Lady Warnock, 84, was the head of the committee which during the 1980s opened the way for legal research on human embryos.

Influential in education as well as in medical ethics, she became an open supporter of euthanasia after her ill husband was helped to die by his doctor in 1995.

She told the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work: 'I've just written an article called A Duty to Die? for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there is nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.'

She added: 'I am absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there is a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they are a burden to their family or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.'

Does it surprise me that someone who advocated for the destruction of human embryos for research would also advocate death for those that feel like a burden to their families? Absolutely not.

But what I realized is that Lady Warnock and others who share her opinions really think there are humans that have a "duty to die." Not just the sick or elderly who are a burden on their families, but also the "left-over" embryos from IVF.

This twisted logic says that "left-over" human embryos in the deep freeze have a "duty to die" to give the rest of us "cures." It is the frozen embryo's duty to be ripped open for the "betterment of society" just like it is the duty of the sick and eldery to get rid of themselves.

I shudder to think where this "duty to die" will end. Do the disabled have a duty to die? Do the mentally ill? Do the obese?

I am guessing that Lady Warnock thinks everyone has a duty to die as long as it is not her or anyone she loves.

It is unfortunate that I feel compelled to write this entry at all.  The rhetoric surrounding Roe vs. Wade has crippled us in this discussion.  It has confused biological fact with questions that cannot be answered by science.

Let me be very clear.  The debate IS NOT when human life begins.  A new human life identifiable by his or her unique DNA is created at conception. 

What we are REALLY discussing is whether or not that life has VALUE. 

Now, that IS a question worth debating.  If you think that a human embryo does not deserve protection under the law then say so.  It does no one any good trying to assert that a human embryo or fetus is not a human life.  Focusing on the wrong debate really gets us nowhere.

From Catholic Online:

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (CNS) - Saying that it sent a "contradictory message" for a Catholic institution to raise funds by featuring a musician who supports abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis announced April 25 that he had withdrawn his support for an upcoming benefit for SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center.

Rock musician Sheryl Crow, a native of Kennett, Mo., has been an outspoken supporter of keeping abortion legal. She also supported Amendment 2, a Missouri initiative passed last fall that constitutionally protects human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

Crow was scheduled to perform at the annual Bob Costas Benefit April 28 at the Fabulous Fox theater in St. Louis. Sportscaster Costas and comedian Billy Crystal also were to participate in the benefit, with tickets ranging in price from $35 to $100.

At an April 25 press conference at the archdiocesan offices, Archbishop Burke said Crow's connection to the benefit event was "an affront to the identity and mission of the medical center, dedicated as it is to the service of life and Christ's healing mission."

This quote is my favorite:

"If I, as archbishop of St. Louis, were simply to let this pass, it would give people the impression that as long as the purpose is to raise money, you can associate with people, even feature people, who are public proponents of the killing of unborn children and embryonic human life," the archbishop said.

Ask a Catholic youth when human life begins and you may be surprised by the answer.  This weekend I spoke at a local Catholic youth conference on stem cell research and cloning.  I have also given courses in local middle schools on the subject.  I always begin by asking them when science says a new human life begins.  Out of probably 200 teenagers, only one of them got it right: conception.

They answered with "when there is a heartbeat," "at birth," "when there is blood."  But only one girl answered correctly.  I am astounded and dismayed everytime I ask the question because most of them have been educated in Catholic schools.  In fact, one girl was the daughter of friends of mine who I know have taught her about abortion and she said, "science says life begins at three months."

The light bulbs go on when I say that what we debate isn't when a new human life begins (or it shouldn't be). That is clear: a new distinct human organism, identifiable by his or her unique DNA, is created at conception.  What we debate is whether we should assign value to that life.  The hotly argued question isn't whether a human embryo is a human organism, but whether it has moral worth.

Then I ask them when the Catholic Church says human life begins, and they always say in unison: conception.

What a disconnect.  So next time you have the opportunity to talk to a Catholic youth, ask them when human life begins.  Their answer will no doubt surprise you.  Then it is your turn to enlighten them because clearly their science teachers aren't doing their job.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I will say it again, we abandon the protection of the human embryo at our own peril. 

What do I mean by that?  Well, once we decide that one kind of human life can be exploited for harvestable biological material, then all of a sudden we start seeing other human life the same way.  If we leave the embryo to be experimented on and destroyed for transplantable cells, then we all look like organ factories and guinea pigs.  Organs for those people deemed "more human" because of stage of life or over-all health.

I am sure some of you may think I am crazy.  I get that.  But, this isn't just something that will happen in the future, it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW under our noses.  We just need to see the signs.

Consider the following: 

1.  Recent proposals for using those in a "persisitve vegetative state" (which is often mis-diagnosed) as guinea pigs in experimentation or as organ donors without their consent.

2.  Proposed legislation that would reduce the prison sentences of those prisoners that agree to be organ donors or guinea pigs in drug trials.

3.  Proposed guidelines that would make the consent to be an organ donor take precedence over any living will or medical advanced directive.

Think this is just a coincidence that at the same time we are pushing for the harvesting cells from abandoned embryos, other humans are starting to look like organ repositories?

Wake-up people!  If you ever become what society deems "less than human," your organs may not be considered yours anymore and your wishes will no longer matter because someone else who is deemed "more worthy" needs your harvestable biological material.

I will repeat: we abandon the embryo at our own peril.

Tips of the Hat: Wesley J Smith, Biopolitical Times, and American Journal of Bioethics.

We all know words are powerful.  No more so than in the contentious debates over embryonic stem cell research and cloning.  The tendency is to dehumanize the embryo as much as possible so that destroying it for research doesn't hit so close to home.

We have all heard embryos called "clumps of cells" and "blobs of tissue" and such phrases left over from the debates on abortion.  The problem with these phrases is that are inaccurate.  An embryo is a whole human organism which, scientifically, differs greatly from just any "clump of cells."  Or to put it another way, if a human embryo is just a "clump of cells" then so am I.

But this story really takes the cake for me.  According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislators replaced the word "embryo" in legislation funding embryonic stem cell research with the phrase "certain material" so that the legislation would get more support:

It looked like Maryland legislators had stepped back from their support of embryonic stem cell research by striking the word "embryo" and replacing it with the nonspecific phrase "certain material" in a 2006 bill meant to fund such work.

But looks can be deceiving. "We substituted language that really meant the same thing," said former Sen. Paula C. Hollinger, a Baltimore County Democrat who sponsored the much-amended bill, which likely wouldn't have passed had the loaded word "embryo" remained. "It was changed to get votes. ... It was a big win."

...That's the image embryonic stem cell opponents want people to see, which led lawmakers on a long road of editing in order to pass Maryland's Stem Cell Research Act, which allocated $15 million in state funds for stem cell research

Key to the passage was the replacement of the words "human embryo" with "certain material," Alt said. "[Lawmakers] deliberately changed the wording so they could get it passed. ... I thought that was pretty clever."

Oh yes, terribly clever...and terribly inaccurate.  I have to ask myself, "Where is the outcry from the scientific community over such a blatant disregard for scientific terminology?"  They must be too busy salivating over the $15 million to be too outraged.  And therein lies the problem.

This piece also points out what I have written about before: that stem cells from aborted fetuses are technically "adult stem cells" because they do not come from embryos.  Fetal stem cells are often called "adult stem cells" to avoid controversy and hide their source, which is usually procured abortion:

Stem cells could lead to life-saving treatments as well as jobs and new businesses, many contend. Still, that hasn't been enough to alleviate moral concerns over the destruction of early-stage embryonic cells or using later-stage, adult cells taken from aborted fetuses....

McGlynn's company works with adult stem cells, the kind taken from fetuses, but he acknowledges it takes some digging to learn this. On its Web site's home page, StemCells Inc. says it is using "cells derived from adult (i.e. non-embryonic) brain tissue."

"You start off with more general descriptors. As you go deeper and deeper into the Web site ... it really peels the onion," McGlynn said, adding that it was not an effort to mislead or avoid controversy.

So, be on your guard.  It seems any semantic acrobatics are acceptable these days when it somes to embryonic and fetal stem cell research.  Ask questions and dig deeper before you decde to put your vote, or money, where your mouth is.

Hat Tip: Jivin J

I have to marvel at the lengths people will go to rationalize away the humanity of a human embryo.  I am more surprised when they put pen to paper and write down arguments that make no sense to anyone but them.  From an open letter to Florida Gov. Crist:

Fundamentalist Christians believe that the blastocyst that is destroyed to harvest stem cells is human. And, in the same way that an acorn is an oak tree, that's true. Both the blastocyst and acorn contain the genetic material to become human and a tree. But neither has a mother.

To become a tree, the acorn requires nutrients from Mother Earth, along with sunlight and water. The blastocyst needs the nutrition supplied by a woman to have a chance of growing up to write angry letters to the editor....

If it's not in the womb, a fetus isn't human; therefore, destroying a blastocyst to obtain stem cells isn't abortion.

Funny how those fundamentalist Christians actually believe what science tell us: that a human embryo is actually human.  My baby needs nutrients from me and Mother Earth too if she is going to grow up to write angry letters to the editor.  Without them she would die.  I guess I should just donate her to science now and get it over with.

I agree that ripping open a human blastocyst to get at the goods inside isn't the classic definition of "abortion", but to say that if it isn't in the womb, a fetus isn't human...well that is just plain stupid.

Contrast the above nonsensical drivel to the intelligent words of Dr. Jerome Lejeune on the humanity of the embryo:

And to let you measure how precise the detection can be: if at the beginning, just after conception, days before implantation, a single cell was removed from the little berry-looking individual, we could cultivate that cell and examine its chromosomes. If a student, looking at it under the microscope, could not recognize the number, the shape and the banding pattern of these chromosomes, if he was not able to tell safely whether it comes from a chimpanzee being or from a human being, he would fail in his examination.

To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.

Tonight I was reminded of one of my favorite episodes of The Twilight Zone and I realized it had a lot to say about the acceptance of embryo-destructive research.  I don't remember the episode name, but it goes something like this:

A man knocks on the door of a run down hotel room.  A desperate soul, let us say it is a woman, opens the door and lets the man in.  The mystery man gives her a box with a red button.  He says that all she had to do is push the button and she will receive a large amount of money.  There is one catch: if she pushes the button "Someone, somewhere, that she doesn't even know, will die."

The mystery man says he will return leaving the occupant to mull over the decision.  Should she push the button or not?  At first, she is sure that it is wrong, but slowly she begins to rationalize.  After all, it is only one person that she doesn't even know that will die.  It is not like it will affect her at all.  She needs the money.

She ends up pushing the button and the man returns with a case full of the much needed cash.  As the mystery man is leaving, she stops him and asks "So what happens next?"  He replies, "I give the box to someone, somewhere, that you do not even know."

There is a powerful lesson to be learned here.  It is simple.  By rationalizing away the inherent value of a human embryo, we devalue all human life, including our own.

Just take a look around.  It is no coincidence that with the commoditization of the human embryo comes the argument that we should use those in a persistive vegetative state as guinea pigs in medical experiments without their consent or stories of babies in the Ukraine being stolen from nurseries and found dismembered, apparently for their stem cells.  And I am afraid this is just the beginning, if we cannot stop and say that all human life has value, and should be protected, simply because it is human.

Scientists know that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo."  At the moment of fertilization, or nuclear transfer, an embryo is created.  But some people who would like to harvest biological material from embryos try to define an embryo that is less than fourteen days old as a "pre-embryo" which I guess really is supposed to mean "pre-human." 

Robert P. George debunked the term "pre-embryo" in a recent talk at Church of St. Michael and St. George in Missouri.  This article from the St. Louis Review Online is full of gems so you must read it all.  Here are the parts I liked the best.  On a cloned embryo versus a embryo created by IVF:

But what if the embryo is produced through cloning rather than through the combination of a sperm and egg? Is that embryo considered a subhuman organism?

"The answer is surely no," said George. "Just as fertilization ... generates a human embryo, cloning produces the same result."

Both kinds of embryos, he said, contain the full genetic code needed to produce a "new, complete, healthy and mature organism of the (human) species."

"Cloned embryos, therefore, ought to be treated as having the same moral status, as other human embryos," said George. "I don’t think there can be a distinction between the status of an embryo created by the union of a sperm and egg, and an embryo created by cloning."

On the term "pre-embryo":

In 1996, Dr. Ward Kischer, a human embryologist at the University of Arizona, wrote a letter to the nomenclature committee of the American Association of Anatomists, asking that the word "pre-embryo" should be rejected from inclusion in the Terminologia Embryologica, the official lexicon of scientific terminology used in the field.

"He was concerned some were trying to depict early human embryos as something other than what they are — namely individual members of the human species in the embryonic stage of development," said George.

In 2001, the committee decided to reject the words "pre-embryo," "pre-embryonic" and "individuation."

"The reason is simple. The term pre-embryo has no scientific basis for validity," said George. "There is no such thing as a pre-embryo. From the zygote stage forward, what exists is a human embryo."

George also noted that Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver, who George called a leading advocate of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the procedure used to create a cloned embryo, has said that the word "pre-embryo" has been used by in vitro fertilization doctors as a political term.

According to George, Silver said the word "is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between ... what biologists call a 6-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a 16-day-old embryo.

"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena, where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo experimentation as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to (help dispel) concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients," George cited Silver as saying.

And I think this is my favorite:

Implantation of an embryo in a uterus does not cause a "ball of cells" to become a human being, [George] said. Rather, the embryo already was a human being.

It is really despressing that our society has come so far down the path of devaluing human life that the above statement of the obvious isn't so obvious to many.

A reader writes to the Ayn Rand Institute about the article written by David Holcberg and Alex Epstein that tries to redefine a human embryo as something other than a human being:

David Holcberg and Alex Epstein have embarrassed themselves, as well as the Ayn Rand Institute, with their anti-scientific definition of what and who a human being is. Their argument (that the size and incipient development of a human embryo means that (s)he is not a human being) is laughable. We know not from religious tracts but rather from countless embryology textbooks that a new individual's life is begun at the moment of fertilization.
 
Holcberg and Epstein argue that human embryos "have no body or body parts." Presumably, they must believe that a pregnant woman swallows a pill to add the arms, another to add the legs, another to get the heart beating, and so on -- sort of a pre-natal Mr. Potato Head doll. But the embryology textbooks (not to mention dictionaries) clearly refute the arguments of Holcberg and Epstein. No mystery third component or "ingredient" (the first and the second being sperm and ovum) must be added to the embryo to make that embryo into a human being. All that is required is a hospital environment and nutrition -- two things that, we notice, we born human beings need, as well, in order to live.
 
It is not the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research but rather its supporters who are pushing their brand of "religious dogma," as they cling to a poetic, pseudo romantic, nearly superstitious belief that life begins at birth, or quickening, or implantation, or at some other arbitrary time. But, again, basic science corroborates our view, not theirs. Someone needs to inform Holcberg and Epstein that we were not actually brought here by the stork.

Embroiled in a debate on the ethics of ESC research in the comments section of another blog, someone wrote that embryos are not alive.  Specifically, they wrote, "It is a collcetion [sic] of cells with no life."  Huh.  Not according to these researchers:

A research team from Columbia has, for the first time, identified criteria through which embryo death can be confirmed. The implications for stem cell research are huge - by confirmation of embryo death, embryos could be harvested, just as organs are for transplantation, in order to generate stem cells for research and, ultimately, therapeutic purposes. The team report their findings in a special report entitled Hypocellularity and absence of compaction as criteria for embryonic death published in the landmark journal Regenerative Medicine [1], published by Future Medicine.

Interesting.  Doesn't a definition of embryo death pre-suppose embryo life?  Another commenter from the same camp suggested that those of us who believe that human embryos are human and alive are seriously lacking in intelligence.  I guess the research team from Columbia is pretty stupid then too.

HT:  Wesley J. Smith

According to David Holcberg and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute, human embryos are not human beings.  From the American Chronicle:

But embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are manifestly not human beings--not in any rational sense of the term. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While they have the potential to become human beings--if implanted in a woman's uterus and brought to term--they are nowhere near actual human beings.

So let me get this straight: human embryos are not "human" even though they have all 46 human chromosomes and they are not "beings" even though they exist and are alive.   Well, I am glad they cleared that up.  I guess it is time to rewrite every human embryology book ever written.  There is more:

What, then, is the "pro-lifers"' reason for regarding these collections of cells as sacred and attributing rights to them? Religious dogma.

I guess it is also time to expose the scientific community as religous dogmatics because they make the distinction between "cells" which are subunits of an organisms and complete organisms.  How dare scientists confuse the public by classifying a human embryo as a complete human organism instead of just a "collection of cells."  The Pope must have forced them to do it:

The opponents of embryonic stem cell research claim that their position is rooted in "respect for human life." They say that the embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are human beings with a right to life. In Pope Benedict's recent words: "The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning."

When I read Atlas Shrugged, I got that it was wrong to expect another human to sacrifice to make your life better.  I thought Ayn Rand was against forcing anyone to surrender anything for the "good of society".  I think the Ayn Rand Institute needs some of their own professed rationalism to see they are dead wrong on the issue of embryo destructive research.

From Science Daily:

The "rhythm method" may kill off more embryos than other contraceptive methods, such as coils, morning after pills, and oral contraceptives, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The method relies on abstinence during the most fertile period of a woman's menstrual cycle. For a woman who has regular 28 day cycles, this is around days 10 to 17 of the cycle.

It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesn't interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course.

It is believed that the method works because it prevents conception from occurring. But says Professor Bovens, it may owe much of its success to the fact that embryos conceived on the fringes of the fertile period are less viable than those conceived towards the middle.

Is it not just as callous to organise your sex life to make it harder for a fertilised egg to survive, using this method, as it is to use the coil or the morning after pill, he asks?

Am I getting smarter or are supposedly smart people getting dumber?  What has happened to fundamental education when so-called medical ethicists confuse the word "killing" with the word "dying."  From Dictionary.com:

Kill: To put to death

Die: To cease living; become dead; expire

I suppose the distinction between "active" and "passive" is lost on these people.  I am guessing that logic was not one of the courses in Prof. Bovens graduate curriculum.  One more time:

It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesn't interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course.

Communiqué From Pontifical Academy for Life from Zenit.org:

Is the embryo already a person?

It can be concluded from this data that the human embryo in the phase of pre-implantation is already: a) a being of the human species; b) an individual being; c) a being that possesses in itself the finality to develop as a human person together with the intrinsic capacity to achieve such development.

From all this may one conclude that the human embryo in the pre-implantation stage is really already a "person"? It is obvious that since this is a philosophical interpretation, the answer to this question cannot be of a "definite kind," but must remain open, in any case, to further considerations.

Yet, on the precise basis of the available biological data, we maintain that there is no significant reason to deny that the embryo is already a person in this phase.

Of course, this presupposes an interpretation of the concept of the person of a substantial type, referring, that is, to human nature itself as such, rich in potential that will be expressed during the embryo's development and also after birth. To support this position, it should be noted that the theory of immediate animation, applied to every human being who comes into existence, is shown to be fully consistent with his biological reality (in addition to being in "substantial" continuity with the thought of Tradition).

The Psalm states: "For you did form my inward parts, you did knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for you are fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are your works! You know me right well" (Psalm 139[138]:13-14), referring to God's direct intervention in the creation of every new human being's soul.

From the moral viewpoint, moreover, over and above any consideration of the human embryo's personality, the mere fact of being in the presence of a human being (and even the doubt of this would suffice) would demand full respect for the embryo's integrity and dignity: Any conduct that might in some way constitute a threat or an offense to its fundamental rights, and first and foremost the right to life, must be considered as seriously immoral.

To conclude, we would like to make our own the words that the Holy Father Benedict XVI spoke in his address to our congress: "God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26) in each one.

From Science Daily:

The researchers say their study involving the formation of an embryo and a placenta before implantation might have implications for in vitro fertilization techniques that are widely used in human fertility procedures.

Professor R. Michael Roberts and colleagues found that when a mouse egg is fertilized and begins cell division, the first two cells are not created equal.

One of the cells expresses a protein known as Cdx2 and will create others that form the placenta. The other cell that doesn't express the protein will form the fetus.

The upshot for IVF and cloning:

The researchers say any disruption of the Cdx2 expression might lead to an improperly formed placenta or a pregnancy failure. Disruption can occur when material is either injected or replaced in the cells, including during animal cloning techniques and in vitro fertilization procedures.

I like the last part:

"These findings and our future research may have considerable implications in how babies develop, whether they are mice or humans," said Roberts.

Obviously, this guy didn't get the memo.  The term "baby" is so passe.  He needs to use "clump of cells" or "blob of tissue" instead. 

The following entry is an exercise in futility, especially since I am no botanist or philosopher. (Although, I did spend a year studying philosophy at Oxford.)  This discussion is probably not worth the virtual ink, but I found it stimulating all the same.

Recently, I have noticed the use of the acorn and oak tree analogy in the discussion of abortion and research on cloned or IVF embryos.  The arguments goes something like this: 

A human embryo or fetus is like an acorn.  An acorn is only a potential oak tree, therefore an embryo or fetus is only a potential human being.  Therefore, there is no moral objection to abortion or research on embryos and fetuses.

Here is an example of the argument in use. (hat tip: Art Caplan from blog.bioethics.net)  Katha Pollitt writes:

I do not think terminating a pregnancy is wrong. A potential person is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

This is a sophisticated argument.  Yet, I found the analogy lacking.  Surprisingly, it took some time for me to pin point why.  Of course, there is the problem of the moral equivalency.  It is tough to make analogies between other species and humans because, as a society, we do not give any other species (plant or animal) the moral status of a human being.  For example, we would not imagine practicing widespread euthanasia on humans where suitable homes could not be found.

Moral status aside, is the analogy of the acorn and the oak tree still relevant?  Well, from a reproductive cycle stand point, the reproductive cycle of the oak tree does not correlate well with the human reproductive cycle.  The analogy would be better if it was used in mammals.  But then it isn't as compelling.  Imagine if Katha said the following instead:

I do not think terminating a pregnancy is wrong. A potential person is not a person, any more than a monkey fetus is a monkey.

Doesn't really hold up does it?

But if we could make the analogy between the reproductive cycle of humans and the oak tree, it still doesn't hold up.   Remember the quote, "A potential person is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree."  Well, an acorn and an oak tree belong to the same species.  They are simply different points in the growth of the species, Oakus treeus. Just kidding, its really Quercus ilex for the Evergreen Oak.

Let us imagine that oak trees had the moral status of human beings.  Imagine there were oak trees of the species Martinus Kingus, or Motherus Teresaus or even Billus Clintonus.  Imagine that each oak tree was considered unique and precious.  Imagine that taking a chain saw to such an oak tree was such a heinous crime that it was punishable by death.  Imagine it was a crime to pull a single leaf off of an oak seedling.  Would it be legal and an established practice to rip a germinating acorn (which is an oak tree seedling) out of the ground before the first leaf could break through the surface and see the light of day?  I suspect not.

Which brings me to the following quote from Answers.com that turns the analogy on its head:

In the United States, botanists joke that even the greatest oak was once a little nut.

Warning! Here comes a rant...

Recently, I have come across a few things that really tick me off.  This is by no means a complete list, but it is a start.

1.   I am tried of hearing that when "life begins" is a matter of opinion or there is a debate on when "life begins."  An excellent example is this interview with Douglas Melton.  Melton says, "I don't believe I have the right to tell others when life begins. Science doesn't have the answer to that question; it's metaphysical."

Okay, this guy, with his background in embryology, knows perfectly well when life begins.  Science DOES have an answer to that question.  The debate is not about when life begins.  It is about at what point life should be protected.  They are not the same thing and I am sick of people who should know better confusing the two. 

2.  Along the same lines as #1.  Why is it we even think we need to debate when life begins in humans?  We don't debate about when life begins in animals.  If we humans "are just animals" then why should we be any different?  A new dog's life begins at conception.  Also, Snuppy's life began the minute a somatic cell nucleus was transplanted into a dog egg.  I doubt anyone would hotly debate these facts.  Why is it debatable in humans?

3.  The euphemistic renaming of terms surrounding stem cell research.  It seems some people are adopting the purposefully undescriptive term "early stem cells" to replace "embryonic stem cells."  Could it be that it is totally ridiculous to claim that the product of SCNT is not an embryo and in the same breath call stem cells from SCNT "embryonic stem cells"?  Absolutely! So instead of conceding that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, they just call them "early stem cells" and then they never have to acknowledge that an embryo is involved in anyway.

 So, if you survived that rant: Thank-you for listening.  I think I feel better now!