Abs,

We are definitely making progress here. You saw the picture of the baby hatching from his or her shell. Sometimes people show pictures of babies hatching who are not very healthy, or they show an electron micrograph instead of the ordinary view, and this can detract from people's ability to appreciate the event if they are finding out for the first time. The photo from Advanced Fertility isn't the clearest picture, but it's a good one.

I already have given you indisputable evidence that something is "wrong" about the medical definition of human embryo. This is evidence by the fact that Dorland's medical dictionary has changed the definition between the most recent two issues. Thus, at the very least, you would have to concede that modern acceptance of a definitive definition is in a state of flux.

Now, as far as making analogies goes, please fill in the blanks:

1. A sperm is best likened to _______.

A. a flower
B. a seed
C. a pollen particle
D. an egg

2. Sperm is to _______ as ________ is to seed.

A. seed, plant
B. seed, egg
C. pollen, embryo
D. pollen, shell

Answers:

1. [C] A sperm is best likened to a pollen particle.
2. [C] Sperm is to pollen as embryo is to seed.

A baby is an embryo only from conception until hatching. At hatching time the baby breaches the shell of the egg in which he or she was conceived. The shell of the egg is left behind by the baby, who then seeks out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrows in so as to implant.

A sperm is not likened to a seed. This is a historical mistake. Instead, a seed is formed when a pollen particle (grain of pollen), likened to a sperm, fertilizes a plant "egg". At that point, a baby plant is formed and develops as a plant embryo within the shell of the seed. Then the baby plant goes to sleep and becomes dormant until planting time. At planting time the baby plant wakes up, hatches out of the shell of the egg, and burrows roots into the ground so as to "implant". With seeds the hatching event is called germination.

Thus, a sperm is likened to a particle of pollen. Like a human embryo, a plant embryo is formed when a plant sperm (a grain or particle of pollen) combines with a plant egg. Thus, the human embryo is the human seed, not the sperm. Meaning, the sperm is not the human seed, the human embryo is (meaning the baby inside the egg shell).

See how far off people have gotten?

It didn't occur to me until my last posting that you have repeatedly described "hatching" as a human behavior in which you claim an entire body of a baby leaves the egg. I have previously disputed your claim of an entire body being present when discussing blastocysts and embryos, and have provided in my last posting photographs to dispute your assertion. But you were also wrong in your claims that there is any "breaching" of the zona pellucida.

PregnancyMD: Assisted Hatching
"Normally, the 'hatching' process involves dissolving of the zona pellucida at about 120 hours (5 days) after fertilisation. This allows the embryo to leave the protected environment of the zona pellucida and commence implanting into the lining of the uterus.

Besides there not being a sleeping baby within the zona pellucida, there is also no behavior exhibited by the cells within and no breaching to speak of. Whether by natural reproductive processes or assisted hatching procedures, the zona pellucida dissolves.


There is no baby of either sex present in the picture. As the caption suggests, the photograph is of an eight-cell embryo undergoing artificial means of dissolving the zona pellucida.

And again, you cannot adequately compare the reproductive processes of a plant to a human. Except to reproduce for itself, the reproductive process of a plant or a chicken is finalized upon emergence from their respective shells. The human reproductive process is not even 1/4 of the way completed when the zona pellucida dissolves allowing the embryo to implant in the uterine wall. Botanical reproduction is not suitable to describe mammalian reproduction, plain and simple.

I would like to weigh in on Freechildren's side in this discussion but I'm a little puzzled how 100 cells can define a person. There is very little question that it is both alive and human at this point, but a person? That's kind of tough.

When the the embryoic induction the cells begin to specialize but its not until the fourth week that the that they are fully formed. If I'm following here the 'hatching' takes place about the fifth week. (obviously I'm confused about this ) If I'm right about that then I can see how someone would consider this a whole, although not completely, formed human being (AKA person).



I think that this is a defensible position I'm just unclear as to how this constitutes human behavior. I am however, open to the idea that personhood could be defined in this context. I do think that it has to be defined clearly and distinctly.

The baby is an embryo from conception until hatching, and the baby is a person at conception. Hatching is simply a milestone of the baby's development and one of the earliest observable human behaviors. So, to answer your question, the baby is already a person before hatching time. Hatching is simply a behavior that the person performs. The person was already conceived at conception.



I tried to warn you. A lot of members of the public are "upset" to learn that the babies women have been killing with abortions, birth control pills, etc. are beautifully active and they exhibit the miraculous hatching behavior within a few days after conception. So, in response to this (in other words, some would rather accept a lie than be mad at the truth), some "experts" provide a misleading interpretation of the baby's hatching behavior. They will tell you the shell of the egg simply dissolves away. Or they will admit to you that the baby can be observed to breach the shell through a hole, but they will give you the impression that the event is somehow automatically driven by pressure, rather than the animated behavior that it really is.

Check the pictures from Advanced Fertility you posted. The last one called "empty zona" shows that the egg shell has not simply dissolved away. TBut this picture is improperly captioned "the cells of the embryo have escaped". That is nonsense. The baby's body is a coherent organization of cells, like all of our bodies. The baby hatches.

We know that the hatching event is not driven by pressure alone because of experiments people have done with assisted hatching. In some of these experiments, people have artificially made holes in the shell of the egg. In cases where two or more holes have been made, it would be impossible for the baby to escape if hatching was a pressure driven event. The reason is that there would be no way to prefer one hole over the other, and so the baby would blob out of both holes simultaneously. Similarly, even with only one hole, once the baby had escaped somewhat, the pressure that previously existed would have been relieved. Thus, since it is known that babies hatch in both of these cases, there is no scientific doubt that hatching is an animated behavior the baby performs.

phaedrus,

Hatching occurs a few days after conception, about six days after sperm meets egg. A baby is conceived in an egg about 120 microns in diameter. One millimeter is 1000 microns. The shell thickness is about 10 microns. So the inner diameter of the egg is about 100 microns. 100 microns is one-tenth of a millimeter. The baby is about the size of a small period at the end of a sentence. (A micron is a micrometer.)

God is a sphere of perfection. When we are created, we are very near to God. For this reason, we our created in God's image as a sphere. This is the shape of the human body at conception: A sphere. This first cell of the human body is the human body of a person. Inside the cell are all of the organs needed for life. Microbiologists call these organs "organelles" which is French for little organs. For brain power, babies at conception rely exclusively on molecular computing based on nanotechnology inside the single cell of the body. As the baby grows more cells, some of the cells will differentiate into specialized interconnects called neurons. However, the ultimate "thinking" still takes place inside the cell in the form of molecular computing within the cell.

Unless every single member of the medical and scientific community is involved in some conspiracy, you should be able to provide us with some credible support for your claims that there is an active breach of the zona pellucida or that there is any conscious behavior on behalf of the embryo. Continuing to repeat yourself when faced with cited evidence to the contrary isn't going to make the evidence go away or your claims any more true.

Edited to respond:
Spiritual belief and dogma is not science. Claiming that the shape of a cell is in the image of a personal deity and therefore a human body is conjecture rather than fact. Trying to interpret the presence of organelles within the cells involved in human reproduction as evidence of a human being with brain power also fails, as organelles are common among cells regardless of their place or purpose.

Edited to add: Please avoid double posting, freechildren. If you are the last person to have posted on a subject within 12 hours, you may simply click the edit button at the top of your post and make the appropriate changes to your last posting.

Unless I'm mistaken Freechild is a member of the 'medical and scientitific community'.



Naturalistic assumptions and dogma aren't either. To say nothing of the nebulous definitions of personhood and viablility. He is offering an opinion and a personal interprutation just as we are. The science is not in dispute here, just the taxonomy and semantics of prenatal development. There is no clear line of departure from chemical processes and human behaviour and I for one appreciate Freechilds perspective on this difficult issue.



I see nothing unreasonable about this statement. It is very much in keeping with a theistic interprutation of natural science. I don't know that I agree with it entirely but coming from a scientists its refreshing.

There has been no corroboration of freechildren's qualifications as a medical source. There is only an unverified claim as the innovator of what is being referred to as the Micro ICU Project. Direction to a UCLA professor's website failed to supply the suggested acknowledgements including any of the following identifications offered us by freechildren:

• Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
  Embassy of the Juridic State of Nature
  
  
• H. E. Mr. Eurica Califorrniaa
  
  
• The Most Honorable Chief Justice of the Universe
  His Clemency Eurica Califorrniaa
  
  

In addition to being unable to verify any connection to any Micro ICU Project or present any qualifications as a self proclaimed medical source, none of the formal titles offered us include M.D. or PhD.

Considering this, there is nothing I can see that freechildren has offered to lead any members of the site to believe him a member of any scientific or medical community.

While you may appreciate freechildren's perspective on the issue, phaedrus, the science of embryology is in dispute here. Among the disputes are freechildren's assertions that the blastocyst actively breaches the zona pellucida as a demonstration of early human behavior, that a single cell contains all the organs needed for a separate human individual and that a single cell following conception constitutes the entirity of a separate human individual.


The question as to whether this is coming from a qualified scientist aside, current medical knowledge understands that groups of cells form tissue and organs, they do not contain within them vital organs or entire bodies to house them. While it may satisfy "theistic interpretations" of natural science, it stands contrary to the facts as they currently are in science and medicine.

Abs,

In a previous post, you quoted a fertility website that said, "Normally, the 'hatching' process involves dissolving of the zona pellucida at about 120 hours (5 days) after fertilisation." You put the word "dissolving" in bold. Then, I pointed out that pictures you had previously posted show clearly that the egg shell does not typically dissolve, instead, the empty shell is left behind. The shell of the egg is called the zona pellucida ("clear zone" in Latin) or zona for short. Look at the last picture titled "empty zona". Remember what I said about the fact that this fertility center has improperly captioned the picture saying "the cells of the embryo have escaped" when really the whole baby has breached the shell of the egg, not merely some cells. This kind of misleading information is typical. For example, the PregnancyMD website told you the zona pellucida (egg shell) "dissolved" even though clearly you see from the picture at the Advanced Fertility website that the whole egg shell (zona) is left in tact, except for the hole or "crack" where the baby breached. Also look at the picture of the baby hatching.

The acknowledgment reads: Discussion with E. CALIFORRNIAA for m-ICU program is appreciated. Micro intensive care unit is abreviated m-ICU or mICU, usually with the m being the Greek letter mu for "micro". You can also read a letter I wrote to a medical journal once.

The science of embrionic development has determined that the cells that divide, differentiate and interact forming tissues and organs, the basic elements are there just not formed, this leads to the ethical question of personhood which is at the heart of the debate. This buisness of personhood is ethical in nature and not confined to the realm of clinical biology. Freechild is concerned about the ethics of this practice and so are others. I trust you'll forgive the length of the following quote as well as the extreme pro-life position of the author but I feel it is directly related to the discussion and hopefully will shed some light on the true nature of the issue in question. I'm not advocating this position just pointing out that the issue of 'personhood' is ethical in nature. Clinical science is rather limited in this debate.



Bioethics

The cited acknowledgement of discussion says nothing for responsibility in the innovation of a Micro ICU Project. Letters to the editor also say nothing for the innovation of any medical project or your credibility as a scientific or medical source. In addition to not presenting anything for your own credibility, you have provided no additional sources to validate the claims you are making in this topic.

No information provided by the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago supports your claims that the embryo within the zona pellucida makes any conscious decisions or exhibits any conscious behavior. Following their page regarding assisted hatching reveals the empty zona to be the result of assisted hatching which artificially breaches the zona rather than allow for the natural dissolvement and release.


So you say... again without support. All photographs and research I have come across details a collection of cells, not a "whole baby" or body of any type. Until you can provide credible support for your positions that current knowledge in the study of embryology is incorrect, you seem only to be espousing personal opinion in direct conflict with scientific fact.


The basic elements are within any and every living skin cell, inside the genetic code of each individual human cell. I am aware of the ethical questions associated with determining personhood, but it seems impossible to address the issue without consideration of the natural sciences. Arbitrary assignment of personhood to cells with potential would be too broad as cellular potential does not imply success.

From a scientific perspective, the extremely profound biologic nature of human individuality is readily confirmed at earliest life by the observation of monozygotic twinning with dichorionic, diamniotic placentation. In an analysis of twinning, conjoinment refers to the state of being conjoined. As a baby develops, the baby develops a peripheral body in addition to the formal body. The peripheral body is discarded at birth. In reference to monozygotic twinning, monochorionic, diamniotic placentation and monochorionic, monoamniotic placentation represent peripheral conjoinment, whereas Siamese twins as they are sometimes called represent formal conjoinment. However, in the case of dichorionic, diamniotic placentation, monozygotic twins show no degree of conjoinment, discounting possible fusion, whether respecting their formal or peripheral bodies. Such an absence of conjoinment constitutes an extremely profound display of individuality, for in this case the twinning takes place inside the egg, leaving two children together with virtually identical genetic make-up, and with the live cells of their naked bodies being pressed together inside the shell of the egg; yet, they develop individually with no conjoinment whatsoever. From this observation it must be understood scientifically that individuality is indisputably confirmed at conception. Noted is that in cases of conjoinment, it is generally understood that the twinning event has taken place after the (asexually) parenting twin has developed peripherally such that the parented twin is not created outside of the peripheral anatomy of the parenting twin, thus resulting in an inevitable case of peripheral conjoinment.

It may be noted that the terms totipotency and individuation are often misused to dispute individuality in a very unscientific way. Totipotency is refuted by the observation that asexual reproduction is serially limited with respect to sexual reproduction, because the reproductively mature quality of the gametes used to produce the first baby sexually are in effect diluted by successive divisions. Individuation is refuted on the basis that the human genome is the genetic equivalent of a mental lexicon; thus, it is clear that differentiation is a process of disambiguation rather than individuation, because the word senses of the genetic code inherently relate to the body of an individual whose lexicon the given genome establishes; as has been shown, this remains the case even in monozygotic twinning. In similar regard, it may be noted that mosacism is not a question of individuality, because most individuals will experience at least some degree of mosaicism in life, although the consequences can be more severe early on; instead, mosaicism simply means that differing copies of an individual’s genome are distributed among the cells.

It may also be noted that claims of “embryo fusion” or “embryo splitting” represent bad science at its finest, because the supporting experiments are based on attempts to create assumptions to prove assumptions, not to mention the fact that these experiments are extremely unethical when performed on humans. For example, if two blastomeres are separated from what appears to be a single mouse embryo, and two mice are born, it is incorrect to assume that twinning was produced artificially. Instead, one must consider whether the twins already existed and were merely separated by the intervention, meaning two embryos may have been present before separation when there was thought to be only one; similarly, if one observes a higher than average birth rate of twins according to such intervention, one must take into account the likelihood that an improved survival rate resulted from reduced competition based on early separation of the twins. Thus, claims of “embryo splitting” reflect bad science. Similarly, “embryo fusion” clearly amounts to a confused attempt at organ donation or conjoinment; in other words, if one of two embryos dies in the “fusion” process but the cells live on, then the other is an organ recipient, the cells of early life being organs, and thus the organ recipient is chimeric as is the case for organ recipients in general; or if both live, then they are conjoined. In none of these cases is there any scientific contest of individuality. For example, if human twinning could be induced by splitting it would be an example of asexual reproduction by artificial means taken without consent of the asexually reproducing parent (the first baby); accordingly, rather than being a contest of individuality, the interpretation of events would obviously parallel sexual reproduction by artificial means taken without consent of both parents. Thus, once again it is found that poor ethical consideration goes hand in hand with extremely bad science.

Some have made the assertion that babies are not individuals during the first few days of life because “genomic activation” has not taken place. However, it should be understood that if early development is likened to a “symphony” of differentiation, then one of the first “movements” is geared to the formation of a thermodynamic base. This base comprising a plurality of cells is needed to provide a buffer against thermodynamic perturbations of the metabolism at the cellular level. And because the metabolism of the cells relies primarily on the mitochondrial genome for basic energy purposes, nuclear genomic activity is not as essential until the process of more specific differentiation begins.

Additional info about monozygotic twinning:

• Monozygotic Twinning
• X-chromosome Inactivation and Monozygotic Twinning
• Human Zona Pellucida Micromanipulation and Monozygotic Twinning Frequency After IVF

It is understood that there are different (individual) ways that fertilized eggs may develop, including the different ways in which twins may develop. This says nothing for any individuality as it might pertain to your claims of there being an entire person within a single cell or a cluster of cells acting consciously or any demonstration of individual human behavior.

Cellular activity, be it that of white blood cells or of gametes and blastocysts, does not indicate any individuality in the sense of a person.

I would again ask that you provide support for your assertions, both past and future, freechildren.

Abs,

When we have a case of identical twins, there are essentially three kinds of arrangements of their birth sacs. The birth sac has an inner lining called the amnion and inside is the amniotic fluid. The outer lining of the birth sac is called the chorion.

Case 1. The babies have completely separate birth sacs. This is called dichorionic, diamniotic placentation.

Case 2. The babies have separate amnions, so that they have separate capsules of amniotic fluid, but they share a chorion, meaning the outer lining of their birth sacs covers both of them, but inside they have separate capsules. This is called monochorionic, diamniotic placentation.

Case 3. The babies share the same amnion, which means they also share the same chorion. This means the babies are in the same capsule of amniotic fluid together. This is called monochorionic, monoamniotic placentation.

From the observation of Case 1 it must be understood scientifically that individuality is indisputably confirmed at conception. The reason for this is that in the case of Case 1 (dichorionic, diamniotic placentation) the twinning event occurred inside the egg. Afterwards, two babies were together inside the egg. But even though the cells of their naked bodies were being pressed together inside the pressure of the shell of the egg, and even though their genetic make-ups are almost exactly identical, they still managed to develop individually without any joining of their bodies whatsoever. Not even part of their birth sacs is joined.

In the other cases, the twinning takes place after the first baby has developed a chorion (Case 2) or amnion (Case 3). Thus, a joining of the birth sacs occurs because there is no way for the second baby to get outside of the birth sac of the first baby. So they have to share. The first baby is the one who parented the second baby asexually by twinning.

Thus, because human babies still develop individually even though their genetic make-up is virtually identical, it shows that human individuality is established in a profound biological way at conception. Of course it is. That is how I know who I am and you know who you are. We are individuals. That is the way God made us.

Where do you get this! In meiosis, the genetic material replicates only once then distributes it into two cells twice. The result is four haploid nuclei, which may be packaged into cells called gametes. Here BTW is an answer to your question about the difference between gametes and the zygote. During the replication the DNA undergoes changes (i.e. first meiotic division reduces, irreversibly, the number of chromosomes to 23). Later the exchange chromosomal material starts the crossing over process and result in the unique characteristics that define the individual biologically. The point is that the DNA in the skin cell is uniquely divided after the independent assortment which is a basic law of inheritance. Now had you said stem cells I would agree that not only could it be virtually any kind of a human cell, conceivably it could even transpose into a plant cell. A skin cell is so meticulously defined due to independent assortment that it cannot ever transpose into anything other then a skin cell

Really cool grapics of gastrula

The three-layered structure of the primordial embryo (gastrula) consists of the Ectoderm cells develop into the nervous system,sense organs, skin, hair...etc. Mesoderm cells develop into bone, muscle, blood...etc. Endoderm cells form into organs and digestive and respiratory systems. Thats why I said that all the elements that make up human characteristics are present because they literally there with the entire array of essential elements and characteristics that define a human being scientifically. It is on the, other hand, impossible for skin cells after the independent assortment, some 8,388,608 ways, to be anything other then skin cells.

Skin Cells and Cloning Efficiency
Stem Cells (with cloning links)
Advances in Cloning



From the last link:
I don't recall disputing that basic elements are present, phaedrus, but based on the information I've read regarding cloning, skin and other non-reproductive cells are also capable of use in the development of embryonic stem cells or perhaps even an embryo or fetus. In regards to stem cells I would state again that I think arbitrary assignment of personhood to cells with potential would be too broad as cellular potential does not imply success.

The American public expects big advances in medical progress from its research programs. When cures are not forthcoming, the public gets angry. Consequently, the news has adopted the role of putting a carrot on the end of a stick. Really big past carrots include "interferon" and the "Human Genome Project". The carrot being dangled by the Human Genome Project was especially large. The idea was that by deciphering the genetic code of the human genome, we would finally get all the cures we have been waiting for for so long. But, when the project was completed, it was a big let down. It turned out to be the Alphabet Soup Project.

So, rather than facing retaliation from the public, the press simply swapped carrots. This is why "stem cell research" emerged in the news as the new carrot, at the same time as the Human Genome Project was completed. With the new carrot, the public was being led to believe that by coaxing the cells to change into any kind of tissue or organ, "we would finally get all the cures we have been waiting for for so long." But stem cell research was not a new thing. It had already been around for two decades.

In order to get grant money, researchers have to "market" their ideas. But when the press gets on a bandwagon and makes the subject matter household knowledge, then in effect the press has already done the marketing for the researchers. Thus, because the public is already "sold" on the idea, this creates a demand for the research, and so researchers respond by supplying the research. In other words, people who had nothing to do with a given kind of research suddenly start jumping on the bandwagon too.

What happens is that people who had nothing to do with the research read a few summaries (kind of like finding out about celebrities' lives by reading the tabloids) and then they become "familiar" with the research. Then they try to find an angle on their present research objectives so as to incorporate the new "thrust" (the carrot) into their own research. Take nanotechnology for example. Because the press has created the fanfare, suddenly out of the woodwork are coming people who have studied things in the past that are now being called "nanotechnology" just so they can be part of the bandwagon.

In the case of stem cell research, it has been known for at least 15 years that no mammalian cells have been found to be totipotent. The idea of totipotency is that a given cell can become any tissue or even the entire organism. The issue of totipotency in mammalian cells was raised early on because of bad science. However, it is easy to understand that if mammalian cells were totipotent, then lines of twin mice, for example, could be created. These mice would be extremely valuable to research because they would be identical. But mouse cells are not totipotent. Instead, in mammals it has been observed that asexual reproduction is serially limited with respect to sexual reproduction. This means that when a mouse is formed sexually as cell A1 and then, rather than undergoing ordinary division, the first mouse parents a second mouse asexually as cell B1, then the mouse in cell B1 has less of a chance of parenting a mouse asexually than mouse A1 did. This is because each cell division dilutes the powers of asexual reproduction with respect to power conferred by the original gametes (sperm and egg) that were used to parent the first mouse sexually (when cell A1 was formed). In other words, asexual reproduction is serially limited in mammals. This explains why you cannot get a continuous line of identical twin mice by asexual reproduction.

But to give you an idea of how corrupt medical science can be, researchers recently told the public they had found a way to clone a continuous line of identical rats by nuclear substitution. But these rats are not identical. When nuclear substitution is used, a mismatch exists between the nuclear DNA in the nucleus and the mitochondrial DNA in the rest of the cell called the cytoplasm. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for cell metabolism and so this mismatch can lead to a number of metabolic disorders. So, to show you how corrupt and clever these researchers are, what do you think they said were the first diseases they would use these rats to study? Metabolic disorders! That way when the rats exhibit metabolic disorders, the diseases under study can be blamed. In other words, they are using the diseases under study to mask the inherent metabolic problems introduced by the so called cloning process.

Unfortunately, unethical practices in medical research abound, and there is a strong reception in the public for the "big promises" that many researchers have to offer. People who have lost hope like Nancy Reagan and Chris Reeve are easily made followers of the big carrots being dangled in front of them in the name of finding cures.

What I was addressing was the claim that the skin cell somehow has the potential for being a person which, do to the assortment process, is a genetic impossiblity. The stem cell is basically whatever the environ dictates, there is no self contained genetic predisposition as with fetus or the zygote. It certainly does not have the essential elements of personhood the way the embrionic disc, tranforming through gastrula, clearly does.

The basic elements are not enough, I'm sure we can all appreciate that. The potential of stem cells and gametes to become part of the human being fail as a person because there are essential characteristics missing. I can accept that. However, within weeks all the essential elements and characteristics that define a human being are present and we are not talking about potential anymore, I think it crosses the line of viability.

My view: a collection of cells become a "person" when they can live without their host. Until then, they're just a parasite, at the mercy of the host (mother) for its survival.

Hmm... so how does this relate to Terri Schiavo, who is being kept alive with no chance of survival without her "hosts" (feeding tube, nurses, etc.)?

Is it the same discussion from a different direction? Can a "person" just become a collection of cells?

Sorry if this takes a turn for the abstract; but don't we merely switch hosts? There is no such thing as an independent organism. While we may not be reliant on the biological host, we are reliant on a plethora of hosts - the planet, the sun, the atmosphere, the labors and goodwill of others, and obviously many more.

The philosophical question here, beyond and yet encompassing the biological debate is, what is personhood? Is a "person" more than a collection of cells? For those who believe in the existence of a soul, the question is, at what point does the soul merge with the being? It seems to me that existence of the individual soul is not self-evident; therefor we cannot conclude with any finality what exactly defines a person.

So I guess my answer to the question posed is never. Here I think our reliance on language to define our universe can dominate our perception of reality; "person," "tree," "duck," these are all mental constructs - symbols which only point to physical reality, but do not define it.

I have to agree. This is the most subjective of all questions. My final (personal) answer would be, a cluster of cells is a person at the point of which complexity indicates it is entitled to at least as much consideration as a dog. This would eliminate the spherical zygote form, which freechildren assumes to be the image of God. Most species of entamoeba (a protozoan parasite) are spherical as well.

Try human. What constitutes a human being because believe it or not, science has an answer for that. Is it brainwaves? Is it the functional organs? Because this is not that intangable. Just because we don't have a gage for how well develped the mind, will and emotions have developed doesn't mean we have no idea what a human being is in all the elements and characteristics, of does it? If we are going to be scientific about this, science must establish the essential elements and characteristics. I keep drifting back to the zygote, I see no where else to go. I am open to the idea that there is a point where the spirit enters the body, if we can agree that there is such a thing as the spirit, as distinguishable from the physical frame.

Scientifically we know what the essential elements of a human being as well as the characteristics. Now the spirit has become a point for debate and I thought this was excluded by default since science can neither confirm nor deny. So is there such a thing as the spirit as distinct from the body, or is the human spirit how we define the human being (AKA personhood)?

I'm curious as to what you are considering to be the essential elements and characteristics that define human beings. I currently disagree with you, but perhaps a better understanding of what you're referring to would help me align myself with your position.


Might it be said that that our ability to form mental constructs in an attempt to understand our world could be a characteristic of human persons, quark?

As far as spirits are concerned, without any evidence of their existence I don't personally feel the conjecture of a spirit or the arbitrary assignment of their hypothetical arrival could possibly serve as a measuring stick for the recognition of personhood.

I really don't have a formal list of the requisite functional elements but during othogenesis (Transformation of the structurally simple three-layered body with distinct organs) we have a complete human body. Thus a human being AKA, person. Now as far as the characteristics by the twelfth week the baby sucks its thumb, kicks, and makes fists and faces. I was just entertaining the notion that all the element were present in the Ectoderm, Mesoderm, and Endoderm and could be considered nothing other then human. Person is not a strech here even though attempts to demonstrate human behavior may be.

Let's keep in mind that there are two extremes here. Since this discussion is largely philosophical I would suggest you consider a quote from a famous ethical philosopher.


(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)

This kind of an issue is marked by strong emotion, excessive and deficiancy in both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. We should be mindfull of the extremes that tend to carry us away. Perhaps gastrula is a little early to clearly establish the characteristics of a person, but the fully formed fetus is not.

To kind of tie these two posts in without straying from the topic at hand, I think the recognition of those brain dead individuals to no longer qualify as persons offers some insight into my issue simply recognizing a developing body to be not merely human but a human person. While I agree that after developing a body a fetus is nothing other than human, not all that is human is a person.

I think we may be drawing different conclusions as to when a fetus is "fully formed," phaedrus, as I would consider that time to be somewhere between the 20th and 30th week, when the lungs and brain are more likely to be developed to such an extent that a fetus has the chance for survival outside the womb. While much of the body is formed before this stage of a pregnancy, vital organs such as the lungs and brain seem to me to be necessary for considering a fetus "fully formed."

It is interesting to note that in the history of American law, patent rights did not begin until the “stork” delivered the invention into the hands of the examiner at the Patent Office. Eventually, the law evolved to recognize “conception” as the onset of rights. Unfortunately, for bitter sociologic reasons, civil law is stuck in the abominable interpretation of not commencing rights until the “stork” delivers the baby into the hands of the doctor at the hospital. Hopefully, American law may soon evolve to employ reason so as to recognize “conception” as the onset of our constitutional rights.

Conception is by its very nature an originating event, whereas delivery is merely a transitional event. Thus, a contradiction would ensue if one were to endeavor to base universal rights upon a transitional event; for such rights, being denied to those originating before the transitional event, would not be universal in the application to all persons; they would merely be post-transitional rights. Therefore, it is self-evident that we are conceived equal.

The fallacy of post-transitional rights is readily exposed in the case of biologists who presume to teach us about the "scientific orgins" of humanity yet who still go by age measured from birth rather than by the "scientific age" of persons measured from conception. This fallacy occurs because birth is merely a transistional event, it is not an originating event. The same fallacy is exhibited by Princeton's Peter Singer, who advocates making one month after birth the "point" at which rights are recognized. Singer's advocacy shows the social arbitrariness with which transitional events can be ascribed the lofty implication of determining rights, which in principle must be inherent. For this reason, and to avoid these types of fallacies, inherent rights must be ascribed to an orginating event, rather than to a transitional event such as birth or the passage of time.

As pointed out in my recent post on the implications of dichorionic, diamniotic placentation in the observation of monozygotic twinning, the profound nature of human individuality is established at conception. And although an individual's conception may be difficult to track or enumerate in the manner of a constantly updated census of persons, we must nevertheless respect according to the use of reason that person status commences with the orginating event known characteristically as "conception".

Brain activity of the twelve week old fetus

This is very different from a coma patient who has irreversable brain damage. Now I realize that the cerbral cortex is not connected at the twelvth week. Lets not discount the signifigance of activity of the thalmus area. This is a relay station from sensory input and the Cerebrum (the intelligence, learning, perception, and emotion center) which is formed in the fifth week.



The unborn fetus and brain development

I realize that the concept of viability has gotten tied up with the baby surviving outside the womb. I find this element to be completely beside the point of whether or not the fetus is a person. A born baby without help doesn't stand much of a chance without help, that does not mean its not a person.



Abs like Jesus You can be a human being and not a person? Now you have me completly baffled. I appreciate your open minded and suprisingly balanced approach to this difficult topic but I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you to qualifiy that statement. When is a human being not a person?

I didn't say that a human being was not a person, phaedrus. Look again at what I said:

While I agree that after developing a body a fetus is nothing other than human, not all that is human is a person.

Whatever the condition of the human body, a human body is undeniably human. The humanity of a body does not inherently imply the representation of a person.


Is there some other reason for you finding viability to be beside the point? From the outset I have argued from the position of viability in the sense of being able to survive independent of another particular person's biological functioning. Like those persons who at times require medical technology to assist them, I consider a fetus capable of surviving independent of specific biological function to similarly be a person.


While I know of nothing right off hand to dispute the assertion that we are conceived equally, I haven't seen an argument yet in this topic supporting the position that personhood occurs only upon birth or a month following birth. As Peter Singer is not here to debate you, and his position is not actively being debated here, I don't see the point in your bringing it up.

You seem to continue your position that personhood is present immediately upon conception in the rest of your post. But short of your arguments contradicting science and relying on abstract religious beliefs, I have yet to see you support that position.

Yes I do for the reasons in my previous post. Especially the development and activity in the Cerebrum and thalamus region of the brain. It is these two centers that process and examine sense data and if consciousness can be defined in naturalistic terms it would be exactly here that the mind exists. It has been pointed out repeatedly that the newborn baby cannot survive after birth independantly. Also as far as the independant functioning of vital organs, at one time judges considered it contraception to drowned newborns because they had not taken their first breath. By the twelvth week all the essential elements have formed comprising all that we define humanity by scientifically. They are demonstrating characteristics of human behavior and react to their environment.

I think it is wrong to discount the capacity of the unborn for personhood based of their dependancy on their mother to survive. They have the natural mechanism for thought and in the words of Descartes, Ego Sum, Ego Existo, I think therefore I am. Whether I am dependant on external support or not I still am a person.

I still don't see the distiction between Human being and person. Maybe one is tangible and the other intangible, I dont know. I have tried to figure this out from differant angles but I think the crucial element and primary characteristic that marks personhood is the mind. In the twelvth week the fetus has one.

I'm not making any such distinction. Mine was one between simply being human and being a person/human being.


How Your Brain Works
Fetal Brain and Cognitive Development

This is likely where we will ultimately fail to agree as I consider the capacity for consciousness (i.e. cognition) to be a key characteristic in defining a human person. While I suppose I could superficially agree with you in terms of quoting Descartes, it appears to me that you are more willing to consider spontaneous reflexes as thought whereas I set the bar at the capacity for consciousness. From the information I have been exposed to this capacity arises later in the pregnancy with the development of the forebrain.

I find myself wondering at how the brain not being fully formed somehow negates the concept of consciousness and thus being. The brain will continue to develop well beyond birth and early adulthood. Perhaps my insistance on rudimentary elements and characteristics is difficult to qualify empirically, that doesn't make it impossible. It is clear from the above quote that the forbrain while vital to the healthy natural process of thought is not essential for consciousness. The responses of the fetus to external stimulas is often interpruted as reflex action implying no conscious mechanical control of the reaction. But consciousness the mind, as I have stated before, is located in the cerebrum and sense perception is the domain of the thalamus. I fail to see what crucial element or characteristic is not apparent in the twelfth week that is apparent in the 25th.

I think we have established one thing almost unanimously, cognitive consciousness is the key. The functioning of vital organs (apparent very early) and some kind of physical manifestation indicating consciousness directed behaviour. You may be right Abs, we may not be able to come to a full agreement about what constitutes the crucial element of 'being' but we have at least agreed on the particular elements and some of the general characteristics required. That for me is best thing that can come out of a debate like this.

However, I stand by my assertion that the vitals once functional, not withstanding their immaturity, are evident and obvious well within the first trimenster.

This might sound to you as surprising as the fact that babies hatch a few days after conception: Babies use molecular computing for brain power at conception. Babies at conception are very smart. As a mass of interconnects grows (brain, nerves) linking the baby to large-scale input and output functions, the baby's thought abilities are slowed down, like a computer running many programs at once and using large amounts of memory. What you do not realize is that your focus on "parts of the brain" is merely a focus on particular interconnect (brain, nerves). The actual "thinking" still takes place in the form of molecular computing within the cell. Babies are very intelligent at conception.

abs,

Babies build their own spacesuits. That is not a layman's term. That is the precise medical and scientific terminology. The key components of the baby's spacesuit are the umbilical cord, the spacesuit covering, and the spacesuit plug adapter. The umbilical cord goes from the baby's belly button to the inside of the spacesuit covering. The spacesuit coverning covers the baby in a somewhat spherical way. On the outside of the spacesuit covering, opposite where the umbilical cord is connected, the spacesuit plug adapter plugs into the maternal body. After building the spacesuit, the baby's body during gestation may be categorically divided into the peripheral body and the formal body. The peripheral body is the spacesuit and is discarded at birth. The formal body is the little astronaut inside the spacesuit who goes home from the hospital in the car seat. Before the baby leaves the shell of the egg, the baby has already built a spacesuit out of some of the cells of the body. Some biologists call the baby's formal body at this point the "inner cell mass". The baby's formal body is inside the peripheral body at hatching time. The baby needs a spacesuit to survive inside the mother's body after leaving the egg. The mother's uterus forms a capsule for the baby and the mother is like the mother ship. At birth, the baby leaves the mother ship.

Let us honor these astronauts of life.

Sorry for the late reply, ABs, but have been busy lately. Someone on life support could not survive were it not for another person putting them on it and maintaining it, ergo they could not survive without being dependent on other biological function just as surely as a fetus. The point is, neither could survive on their own, both require external assistance merely to stay alive. If this is truly the criteria, those on life support fail it just as surely as a fetus--in fact, in the case of late term fetuses, they probably fail it more completely. Ditto for consciousness as a definition.

The real point I am trying to make here is that the various definitions being proposed are given solely in the scope of the abortion debate. Any definitions should be capable of being easily applied to any other situation as well, else they are either invalid, or at least severely lacking.

I realize this may very well be asking a lot of you, freechildren, but do you think you could possibly take some time to support your assertions with some links to credible medical sites? Your claims about zygotic intelligence and embryonic space suits is very intriguing, but I think I'd like to see a little more support rather than simply take your word for it.

Hobbes, I agree with you that whatever definitions offered should be applicable outside the abortion debate. I also understand that other people are in charge of overseeing the operation of life preserving medical technologies. That is why I was very specific in my wording from the start and in my response to you:

Comatose patients and those on life support are not without the capacity for consciousness or dependent upon the biological function of another particular person's biological function, Hobbes...

Whether patients in a coma ward or ICU, an incubated premie or a healthy newborn, there are many people dependent upon the lives of others. None of these, however, are dependent upon the biological functioning of any one particular person as is the case for a zygote, embryo or early stage fetus. Any number of nurses could care for a comatose patient or patient on life support. Neither patient would necessarily cease living if one of thirty nurses were to die in a car accident an hour after his or her shift.

Hopefully this has helped some.
(Don't worry about the time to respond, we all get busy!)

Do you expect me to pull "credible medical sites" out of thin air? I cannot make medical professionals competent in a given area just because you think they should be. For example, your neighborhood doctor most likely still believes "the egg attaches" to the uterine lining rather than realizing the baby has to hatch first.

Let me give you another example. I am going to pick on taxi drivers in this comparison, but by that I do not mean to offend them.

Sometimes a lady takes a taxi to the hospital to give birth, and sometimes the taxi does not make it all the way and so the taxi driver has to deliver the baby instead of the obstetrician. Usually, things work out. But sometimes the baby is stillborn.

In a given case where the baby is born dead, the taxi driver might look for an explanation to give to the mother. If the taxi driver sees the baby was not breathing, and the baby's skin is all blue, and the umbilical cord is wrapped tightly around the baby's neck, then the taxi driver might tell the mother that it looks like the baby "strangled" on the umbilical cord.

Coming from a taxi driver, that analysis would be innocent enough. But what do we really know about the situation? We know that babies do not breathe through the neck at that stage in life. In fact, the pressure of the birth canal is so tight that it even cracks some babies' ribs. So we know the baby could not have "strangled" on the umbilical cord.

But, just like taxi drivers, it turns out that this is also what obstetricians thought. So, doctors called it "cord strangulation" and that is what the doctor would tell the parents had happened to their baby.

So what is the truth? What is really going on?

There can be a number of problems with the umbilical cord. It can be weak and have a kink in it or get pinched. But in cases where the healthy cord is wrapped around the neck or shoulders, the significance is that slack is being taken up in the umbilical cord. Doctors did not understand this situation correctly because historically they did not learn about the baby's spacesuit. Instead, they thought the baby was an "ovum" throughout pregnancy and that the tissues they called the "placenta" were part of the mother's own body. Then even when they found out they were wrong, they still did not learn about the baby's spacesuit.

If the baby's spacesuit is plugged in opposite the birth canal, this creates the longest distance for the cord to be extended when the baby is being born. What happens is that when the slack in the cord is taken up (by being wrapped around the baby's neck or shoulders) and tension is put on the cord, then the spacesuit plug adapter can be pulled loose prematurely. Then the baby dies from lack of oxygen.

So, the doctor is supposed to tell the parents, "It appears the plug adapter for the baby's spacesuit became unplugged prematurely, such that the baby died from a lack of oxygen before being able to breathe from the atmosphere. In view of the fact that the umbilical cord was found to be wrapped around the baby's neck and shoulders, the cause of the unplugging appears to have been due to tension from a loss of slack in the length of the umbilical cord during birth."

Midwifes were the first ones to realize that as long as the concourse of the umbilical cord from the belly button to the plug adapter remained in tact, and the the spacesuit stayed plugged in, then the baby could breathe through the umbilical cord just fine, even outside of the spacesuit's covering. This is how they invented underwater birth technique.

But because doctors were unfamiliar with the workings of the baby's spacesuit, when underwater birth technique first came out, obstetricians were found standing next to taxi cab drivers saying, "I never knew something like that could be possible!"

So, to make a long story short, finding "credible medical sites" on certain subjects is not as easy as you think. First you have to have competent physicians with the discipline and integrity to explain to people the truth. Then you can do your search engine search. Until then, you are out of luck, even in this country.

I'm assuming people here are operating under the premise that personhood is a crucial factor in the overall debate.

And yet here we are attempting to define what a person is. Can we say that personhood is a qualifying factor (in any discussion) without first having an established definition?

It would seem to me then, that the notion of personhood only has a weak relevance at this point, since it is not clear what is meant in a consistent fashion.

Perhaps we can get closer nonetheless to where we want to be.

It seems that most people believe that personhood is a state that must meet certain criteria focsed primarily around the biological and/or psychological functions. What are the true necessary and sufficient characteristics?

Since we do not regard lower animals to be persons, so is the genetic/biological basis itself insufficient? What about the human animal suggests personhood that a mouse or lizard lacks? Commonly accepted is the rational soul or intellectual reasoning/questioning capacity that is innate in human persons. This innateness is a quality that is inseparable from the biological aspect. That is to say, a human person is a unity of the biological and psychological modes.

If this is the case, that a human being is a person in virtue of our inborn nature as rational animals, the extent to which we can or do act in our biological or psychological modes is not essential to the definition. It would be a mistake to argue that physical size, the degree of physical development, the mental capacity or level of conscious awareness would have a bearing on the determination of membership in this category of personhood. We would easily fall victim to the dissociation of those with weaknesses, such as the sick, the drugged, the elderly, such as the unborn, the newly born.

What makes us persons is the innate nature of a living human individual, which is the unity of body and soul. If inter-dependent siamese twins can be considered individual human persons, despite the lack of independent viability, what reason is there to exclude those who are just getting started?

I think one additional central question to the idea of personhood is the notion of individuality. If abortion is truly governed by women's rights issues, then we are implicitly acceding the any individuality to the fetus. Personhood implies a distinctness. Dependence and distinctness are not mutually exclusive. Once you have distinctness of a developing human individual, i.e. conception, we have personhood. I cannot fathom any other criteria that does not seem arbitrary, such as brain-wave activity, size, gestational duration, etc. Any chosen moment or milestone after conception would seem logically difficult to embrace, since the essential nature or definition of the entity in question has not changed.

A tomato grows from a small bud attached to a vine. It changes in size, color, and structure, but all the while it is a tomato in virtue of its essential characteristics, without which, it could not be, become, or have been, a tomato.

The same considerations apply to human persons.

I'm sure I'll receive replies to this, so I'll pause to receive feedback.