The definition of when human life begins and when pregnancy begins has enormous implications to us in this day of abortion, the-emergency-contraception pill (which is not truly contraception but is abortion if we count human life and pregnancy as beginning at conception and not beginning at implantation) and human embryo use and study.
Boyd states:
Dr Ling blames the British Council of Churches for “an entirely novel way of thinking about the early days of human life to say that pregnancy did not begin until implantation”,
I believe it is wrong (medically and theologically) to state that life does not begin until implantation.
"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]
The association of pro-life physicians seems to equate conception and fertilization. I agree with their assertion that from the very first moment that a new separate organism is formed, that is the beginning of life, even though a successfull implantation may not occur (all docs, after all, call an ectopic pregnancy a pregnancy even though implanation in a viable way is not accomplished).
Here is my position, from the same Association of Pro-Life Physicians:
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.
...
Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body.
Thus, it appears that not only Dr. Ling disagrees with Daniel Boyd, but the Association of Pro-Life Physicians does, too, equating conception with fertilization and stating that the beginning of a human life begins then. And, theologically, this would appear to be the time of "ensoulment."
Boyd states the following and I am looking for reliable proof of this assertion:
However, there are multitudes of fertilised human eggs which disappear every month in a woman’s menstrual flow
Really? Multitudes? Every month?
There are some fertilized eggs that do not successfully implant and I would call these pregnancies. And 18 US states would, too. Therefore, even if the term "contragestive" has become popular to avoid the term "abortifacient" I believe that to prevent the implantation of an already fertilized egg (a new life, with its own dna) is to commit murder. Thus, Wal-Mart know dispenses murder pills for babies.
Therefore, it seems that "ensoulment" occurs at conception because that is when human life begins.
Thoughts?
---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
-
-
From the Pro-Life Action League:
When does life begin?
Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life.
Since there can be no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not "persons," until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions can be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy or belief.
As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception.
What happens at the moment of conception?
At the moment of conception, a male sperm unites with a female ovum. The single-celled entity formed by the sperm and oocyte (egg) is known as a zygote.
At conception, the zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes and approximately 50,000 genes from each parent, which combine to determine all of one's physical characteristics, including sex, facial features, body type, and color of hair, eyes, and skin.
[Back to Top]
What's the difference between "fertilization" and "implantation"?
Fertilization, also known as conception, is described above. Fertilization occurs in the Fallopian tube.
After fertilization, the tiny human being travels down the fallopian tube. Implantation, which occurs 8 to 10 days after fertilization, refers to the point at which the baby (now scientifically referred to as an "embryo"), implants in the mother's uterus and begins to draw nourishment.
Also, stating that the OT refers to the "womb" and not the "fallopian tube" as proof of an argument is very weak. The bible is not a biology book and speaks of body parts very generally or in ways other than literal (bowels of affection, gird up loins, etc)....
---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------
The next thing to notice is that the consistent biblical idea of ‘conceive/conception’ is that the mother conceives the child Gen 4:1,17; et passim. Obvious – but completely overlooked by Dr Ling and in most discussions of the subject. Conception is a comment about the mother’s state, not about the stage of embryo development. Conception is to be with child, to be pregnant 2Samuel 11:5. To equate fertilisation with conception is to confuse two completely different issues. Thus we can say that the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘conceived’ by His mother Mary, but no egg was fertilised.
Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist Lk 1:24,36 and Mary conceived Jesus Lk 1:31; 2:21. The Greek word sullambano means “to take hold of, seize, capture, catch’. Various Hebrew and Greek words are translated ‘conceive’ but exegesis and analysis shows that the general idea is that the womb ‘takes hold of’ the blastocyst (the technical term for development at the stage of implantation) so that the mother is “with child” or becomes pregnant. Shortly after this she becomes aware that she is with child. By this stage, God has breathed the human soul into the conceived child. The obvious ‘discontinuous’ events which makes the difference are implantation sullambano and ensoulment Gen 2:7.
“Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb” Lk 1:31 – implantation takes place in the womb but fertilisation takes place in the fallopian tubes.
Biblical exegesis of ‘conception’ is the crying need of the hour and Dr Ling has not supplied it.
I found this weak, also.
Doesn't the egg initially receive the sperm such that implantation (of the new and separate organism) need not usurp the place of conception as the sullambano?
