Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument
Wednesday, 25 June, 2008The view that human life begins at conception is a favoured view of most of the pro-life camp. By it, they do not mean that the sperm and ova were not alive and only became so at conception, but rather that ‘human life’ – in the special sense of a person who deserves protection under the law – begins at conception. Unfortunately for them, this view is logically inconsistent with that pesky thing called reality. There is absolutely no sense in which life, whatever is meant by the term, could be said to commence during the process of conception.
Conception is a process, not a distinct point in time
The process of conception, also known as fertilisation, involves many chemical reactions and processes. It is not an instantaneous occurrence. Look at the diagram I made:
So somewhere along that set of chemical reactions, which finally result in two cells with a unique human genetic combination (the zygote immediately after the fusion of sperm has two pronuclei – one from the sperm and one from the ovum), are we to say that a single human life has started? If so, at what point does that happen?
The fact of the matter is that conception is no less of an arbitrary ‘line in the sand’ than any other point that one picks, such as the development of the brain, birth or development of self-awareness. But there is nothing wrong per se with something being arbitrary (after all, the time when people are old enough to vote is arbitrary), so we should now look at whether there is a good reason for not using conception as the start of a human being’s life.
Twins, chimeras and clones
The idea that a “human life begins at conception” also has problems with the existence of identical twins and tetrazygotic chimeras and the possibility human clones. Again, I have diagrams to explain these.
Consider the case of monozygotic twins, as explained by the above diagram. Here we have one fertilisation event, but two individuals result. Do those twins have to share the ‘human life’ they had from conception? Surely not, for we treat twins as separate persons. So, when did both lives start, if not at conception? During the twinning process? Or sometime after? And if lives start during the process of twinning, perhaps it is morally wrong not to twin an embryo, as it prevents the cells from realising their potential as multiple human beings.
Also consider the above diagram of the formation of a tetragametic (four gametes, two sperm + two eggs) chimera. Such an individual results when fraternal twins, derived from separate conceptions, merge very early in development to form a single individual with some cells with one genome and some cells with another (if the two zygotes were different, such as one female and one male or one dark-skinned and the other pale-skinned, this can be noticeable on the person). So, do chimeric people get twice as much human life, seeing as they resulted from two conceptions? Or was a life destroyed when the two embryos merged, despite not a single cell being destroyed? If the intentional formation of chimera is morally wrong, why isn’t the failure to twin an embryo?
Consider finally the case of a human clone (see diagram above), which hasn’t yet occurred but is surely possible. In this case, there is no conception event to be found (unless you go back to the one that created the somatic cell), but yet an individual results. Do clones not have any human life? Surely not, for they would be persons like you or I. So if life begins at conception, how can there be life without conception? Does life begin at conception OR nuclear transfer?
As can be seen, the idea of human life beginning at conception has some serious issues with the processes that can, and sometimes do, occur in human reproduction.
Potentiality
It is often claimed that conception should be the marker for a human life because it marks the formation of something that can grow into a thinking, feeling, reasoning human being. Apart from the fact that conception is not a distinct point, but a process, this potentiality argument has two key problems.
First, if a zygote should be protected because it can from a human being, why not also protect the sperm and eggs, for they can form a zygote which in turn can form a human being. And seeing as males can form billions of sperm but females only form thousands of ova, it follows that males are a million times more worthy of protection than females. But seeing as this conclusion is ludicrous, there must be something wrong with the potentiality argument.
The second, a major flaw, is that being potentially something isn’t the same as being something already. To see this, consider extrapolating the potential argument in the other direction: all human beings will die. And, seeing as a zygote will form a human being who will later form a corpse, it follows that we should treat both people and zygotes as if they were corpses. If we can give the right to life for an unborn baby, maybe we should give the right to a decent burial for a pre-dead corpse (i.e. a live baby). Not to mention that skin cells can replace sperm in forming a human being (see the cloning diagram above), so it follows that each skin cell destroyed is akin to destroying a human being. Unless, of course, having the potential to do something or be something isn’t equal to actually doing or being it.
Member of the human species
Perhaps it could be argued that an embryo should be protected because it is human. We don’t morally protect our own skin cells, despite the fact they are living human skin cells. So, what does the embryo have that skin cells don’t? If the answer is potential to develop into a human being, then this is just the potentiality argument again (and by cloning, perhaps a skin cell does have the potential to develop into a human being).
However, if the answer is that an embryo is a human being (and we accept that as truth, even though it is arguably false) then we need to then ask whether being a human being is enough to give the moral weight – the intrinsic value – conveyed by the term ‘human life’. Perhaps being a human being is only special because it usually correlates with having some other property, such as consciousness or self-awareness, that is special. In that case, then we should be using that other property to value the embryo instead of whether or not the embryo is a human being.
Consider whether it would be acceptable to kill a member of a non-human species that was capable of thinking human-like thoughts, was conscious and felt their lives were valuable, such as the intelligent aliens (think E.T. or Jar Jar Binks) or robots of science-fiction. If such a species (biological or not) is also worthy of protection, due to the fact they have certain psychological characteristics, then isn’t it safe to say that is those characteristics that are truly being valued here?
In addition, applying rights based on what group you belong to, rather than what you are able to do, seems a lot like bigotry or prejudice. History shows us many applications of rights based on being of a certain economic class, race, gender or religious group. Why should doing the same for being part of a species be any different?
Unique genetic combination
It is often said that because the zygote is a new human being because it has a unique human genome. This is a relatively weak argument, because a unique genome is not required to form a human being (e.g. identical twins, or clones, or human parthenotes) and unique genomes often do not form human beings (e.g. mutated genomes of cancers or the modified genome of induced pluripotent stem cells). Unless we are willing to admit that melanomas are actually human beings because they have a different genome, and that a woman who is pregnant with her clone (or identical twin) is not actually pregnant with a human being, then this argument should be abandoned.
Failure of an embryo to implant
The fact that only a fraction of zygotes go on to form a human being also hits hard the “life begins at conception” dogma. Firstly, the results of most conceptions are not viable embryos, and these abnormal embryos are usually passed out during a menstrual cycle. If such embryos are human beings, should we hold a funeral? Should we feel bad for not even realising they existed in the first place? Also, assisted reproductive technologies are much like natural reproduction in that far more embryos are conceived than result in pregnancy, and therefore shouldn’t IVF and sex be just as much of a problem as abortion? Or is the death of dozens of lives justified if it creates a life in the process (if that is the case, shouldn’t doctors and nurses be making babies instead of saving lives)?
Further, the oral contraceptive pill is known to make the uterine environment more hostile to any embryos that would implant there. The hormone progesterone released during breastfeeding acts in the same was as the oral contraceptive pill (in fact, progesterone analogues are the key ingredient of the pill), which is why breast-feeding is a ‘natural contraceptive’. Therefore, shouldn’t both the contraceptive pill and sex while breast-feeding be complained about just as much as abortion and embryonic stem cell research?
Conclusion
It is evident that the idea that life begins at conception is at odds with reality. Many human beings can result from a single conception, many conceptions can result in just one human being and theoretically human beings could develop without any conception event occurring at all. The idea that conception is a key point in the process of development is unfounded, as the potential to develop into a human being is not only possessed by sperm and eggs, but is completely logically fallacious in the first place. In addition, it doesn’t even appear that being a human being qualifies as having the intrinsic value required to convey moral status, as it is possible that non-human beings should have same intrinsic value attributed to ‘human life’. Neither can genetics rescue this argument, for a unique genetic composition is possessed by some non-human beings, and some human beings don’t have a unique genetic composition. Finally, the way most people act normally, and the way nature is, is very wasteful of zygotes, making the conclusions of this argument very difficult in practice.
It is not a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The truth is that human life, in the sense of a person like you or I, emerges slowly from the genetic information and molecules that made up the sperm and eggs in your parents body, from the processes of controlled growth of the resulting embryo and foetus, using nutrients that nourished you in the womb. Science informs us that it is a continuous process. Those looking for a nice distinct point in time that can be used as the starting point of each person’s existence will be sorely disappointed if they look at the science. Philosophically, I’d argue that no intrinsic value of human beings exists, except for the value applied by a being to itself. Although this may be criticised for being overly restrictive (not attributing any intrinsic value to neonates), this criticism only works if we have a another significant reason to think neonates should have such value – I do not believe such a reason exists (see also the latter part of this post).
[...] the human embryo is a human person (which would have been ineffectual anyway, for it relied on the species argument and the potentiality argument anyway). This, in turn, completely undermines their objection to the methods of biotechnology that [...]
[...] Amendment 48 in Colorado was rejected , which sought to define human life to begin at conception (which doesn’t make sense) [...]
your statement that life is a process is undeniably true. and like any processes it has a beginning. and likewise that process may take different paths, also undeniable. however i disagree that conception as the beginning of life is arbitray. at the moment when sperm and ovum are joined a unique life is created, needing only time and nurturance to develop, the same as any newborn, toddler or young child. granted changes may occur, either in dividing into twins, or even 2 zygotes combining into 1, but these actions are only events within the process. life in utero is fragile and subject to natural forces. a key to this understanding is that the process is natural, not forced in any way, hence the “potential” of skin cells is irrelevant.
Sperm and ova are living, and have unique genetic material. You pick any pair of a sperm cell and ovum, and they will be both living and unique. I don’t see why that is any less significant than after conception, when those two cells merge into a single cell.
True, but it still hasn’t developed. So it’s not at the stage we need to recognise it as human life…yet.
As I said in this blog post, each of us only needs time before we become a corpse. That’s no reason to treat me as if I’m dead, until I actually am.
I don’t understand why the process being natural or unnatural is at all relevant.
This argument is clearly floundering in its writer’s incompetency. It flies around to different minor points and scientific diagrams that make no conclusive argument…
You say life begins as a long process of development. The beginning of this process (conception) = LIFE (unique and human). I don’t care if this life is multi-celled, dividing, possibly a set of twins, or dies in menstrual cycles – it is still a human life developing into the physical form we recognize.
I could spend pages deconstructing every facet of this reality you have created for yourself. If your interested please email me at tmagic610@Yahoo.com. Also, to anyone interested in sending arguments or hate mail to that email address I say this: It will affect me in no way and will be childish and pointless, thank you.
I’ll take you up on that offer of an email correspondence. I’m sure there are key points in my argument that I failed to make clear above, so this will help me find those.
To form a constructive criticism of just your first point: you say there can be no distinct point where conception begins. On the contrary, there IS a distinct point, and there MUST be a distinct point logically speaking. Falling asleep is a process. Yet there is a distinct point in time where one passes from a state that must be defined as NOT asleep to the state that must be defined as ASLEEP. There is a distinct point in time where one falls asleep. The same must be said for conception. Reason demands that there must be a point in time where one passes from the state of not having life to the state of having life. Even if this happens in levels, there CANNOT exist a state other than NOT having life or HAVING life. Thus at some point a transition must be made between these two states. This is the distinct point which you claim cannot exist. I agree conception is a process, but the distinct point does exist nonetheless. The pro-life movement claims that this point where life begins is in conception. Even if you claim that it is later in the pregnancy (and thus embryos can in fact be used), you cannot deny that it exists. I am arguing not in favor of pro-life ideas, but in favor of reason. Your first argument is illogical. I mean that with all due respect.
Well, technically I would argue that sperm and ova are alive, so there is no state of non-life involved in this. But I didn’t elaborate this argument here, so I can see the confusion.
Not necessarily. What is the transition point between having a beard and not having a beard? Between being bald and not being bald? Even between being alive and being dead (viruses exist in this fuzzy area between live and dead). There is no distinct point – some things exist continuum.
Maybe. True, the fact that no sharp line between the moral status of sperm/ova and a human being like myself doesn’t necessarily imply that the two states are identical. It would indeed be fallacious for me to argue as such.
I didn’t mean to argue that at no point in development does moral significance appear, but I merely aimed to cast doubt on the idea that conception is that clear defining point (because it clearly isn’t).
I also should have been more specific, because I agree that the sperm and ova are alive. However, the sperm and ova, either being taken ALONE, cannot result in human life. Consequently I do not consider either of them, taken alone, to be human life in any way. This might be at odds with an argument you made later. So i hold to the position that there must necessarily be a distinct point between a state of NON-HUMAN life and HUMAN life. Together, the sperm and ova can make a human life. Consequently I contend that at some point (where that point is is another debate) there must be a distinct point between non-human life (sperm or ova alone) and human life (baby).
I continue to disagree with your statement. The processes you mention (going bald or growing a beard) can be described as processes, BUT at some point you pass from being DEFINED as not bald to being defined as bald. if you are speaking LITERALLY, you cannot describe someone as being neither bald nor not bald. the process of balding is what we call the process of our hair reaching its ultimate stage of baldness, whatever that may be. But again, there is a distinct point where it BEGINS that you may be defined as bald.
You close by saying the following: I didn’t mean to argue that at no point in development does moral significance appear, but I merely aimed to cast doubt on the idea that conception is that clear defining point (because it clearly isn’t).
This is a completely different subject, although one I am interested in discussing. My only point i wished to establish is that there is a distinct point where life begins. maybe it would be best that we agree to disagree on this point rather than endlessly argue without really accomplishing anything on either side
In some animals, ova can develop into a full organism without needing fertilisation. Parthenogenesis, as this process is called, does not seem to occur in humans, but there is no theoretical reason why we cannot stimulate it artificially. So ova, at least, may have the potential to result in some being that will be agreed to be human life.
So one sperm and one ovum = human life? Even before fertilisation has taken place? If so, I don’t believe I’ve heard that before (still makes more sense that fertilisation being the defining line).
Sure I can. An intermediate state such as ‘balding’ may exist, such that a person may not be bald yet, but also could not be described as being free from all signs of baldness. Some things do exist on a continuum.
But if you are one of those people who say 10,000 grains of sand make a heap, and removing one grain of sand makes the remaining 9,999 grains no longer a heap, then I guess we are destined to argue (with me using fuzzy logic, and you using binary logic).
For purposes of this argument, clearly it is of no concern what happens in other animals, unless you regard a different animal life as being equal to that of a human being, which I do not. AS for artificial stimulation of an ovum, if it would even be possible, then once the ovum is thus “stimulated”, I would regard it as equivalent to a zygote, i.e., an egg fertilized with a sperm.
I hold that a zygote (sperm + egg) is the beginning of conception. I do not necessarily say that they are human life. Even in the quote of mine that you used, I said that they CAN MAKE a human life.
This argument is a purely logical one. I continue to hold to my position as you hold to yours, and i don’t think we will get anywhere. Your statement about the sand heap is not the same argument as the process of balding or birth. Anyone who says that about the heap (9,999 is no longer a heap) is speaking totally illogically
Looking back I think we are getting sidetracked from the main point of our discussion, i.e., whether or not there can be a distinct point of conception.
My belief is that there is a distinct point, and that this point takes place when the sperm unites with the ovum to form a zygote. In the same way, aritifical conception would take place if an ovum was “stimulated” as your proposed above.
In addition, in my mind I cannot conceive of the possibility of a process WITHOUT a distinct point of change between the two states, i.e., dead or alive or bald and not bald.
My contention here is that to say that someone is “going bald” i.e., in an intermediate state,assumes that the person is losing his hair even further. Yet how would we notice that the person is “balding” if he is not already bald? I consider the term balding to actually mean a further progression of the baldness ALREADY ATTAINED. If I am not bald at all, why would I be described as balding? And if I am already balding, i must be already bald at least minimally in which case THE DISTINCT POINT OF HAVING ATTAINED BALDNESS HAS PASSED. If you wish to describe balding as the internal process of the hair, i.e., the process that we cannot see, it doesn’t change the fact that the distinct point would still take place IN THE VISUAL HAIR. At some point, the hair cannot be described as bald in any way. At a later point, the hair may be described as bald. In the necessary progression between these two points (in a potentially infinite reduction of the time it took to traverse between these two points) there is a distinct point in time that baldness took place.
If you wouldn’t mind in your reply, try to tie this discussion back into the distinct point in conception issue so that our mind isnt totally on hair.
Also I think I should explain I am taking an ethical philosophy class in college and am required to write on a topic similar to the one you presented in the pages above. My goal is not to convince you, nor be convinced myself, but rather to give myself food for thought so that I understand better, modify, and perhaps even reject my own ideas.
At what stage during fertilisation do you believe such a union occurs? When the sperm binds to the recognition molecules on the surface of the ovum? When the zona pellucida is breached? When sperm enters the ovum? When the ovum undergoes the second, and final, meiotic division? Or after the first mitotic division, when there are now cells containing both the maternal and paternal DNA withing a single nucleus?
Just wondering where during conception you draw the line…
God created us before we were even conceived
We were all created for a purpose and a specific plan that no one else can complete but us.
Aborting a child is putting an unnecessary end to an unfulfilled plan.
Which is wrong. It is not our decision to take life, we need to leave that up to God.
Im guessing your not a Christian not because of your lack of moral, but i dont care.
KILLING IS WRONG
period.
just because they arent out of the womb yet, doesnt make killing the child any more justifiable.
Wouldn’t that mean that if we choose not to conceive a child, we are also ‘putting an unnecessary end to an unfulfilled plan’? Any choice not to have sex, or to use contraception, would be akin to abortion?
Except, that God knows our future, and knows what we will choose, so won’t create a person if the conception won’t happen. But why create a person if God knows that person will be aborted shortly after?
No
God isnt stupid, hes not going to make a child for you if hes knows your not going to have sex. What a silly question.
‘But why create a person if God knows that person will be aborted shortly after?’
I honestly don’t know. Sorry, but im not God. Im a 13 year old girl who thinks that taking the life of defenseless babies is wrong.
Pro-choice- Do you think those babies had a choice on whether or not to end their lives? Do you thinks those babies would have chosen to have their head punctured and their brain vacuumed out while their 3-4 inches from life? Do you think those babies chose to have a highly toxic saline burn them alive? Do you think those babies chose to have their arms and legs ripped off while they are still in their mother’s womb?
Of course they didn’t. But it’s not like they chose to live and we went against that choice. They just can’t choose at all, so why ask what they would choose?
Are you a vegetarian? It’s not like fish choose to be caught and chickens choose to be slaughtered. And we don’t ask plants for their opinion on being turned into salad either. Why? Because plants don’t have the ability to choose. Fish and livestock can’t choose either.
And neither can a human embryo make that decision. But the mother can, so it’s her choice that matters.
Interesting point of view you have here. But may I ask you about your comment above. Do you think that 1 days old baby can chose to live or not ? and can the mother (or father) decides for her whether she is going to live or not ?
To answer the first question, no. So for the second question, I answer yes.
[...] Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument [...]