The question is simple, even if the debate proves not to be:

• When does a cell or collection of cells become a person?

This topic comes from the variety of abortion specific topics already here at America's Debate, including Abortion(murder) and Abortion.

The first of the two previous threads I mention asked the question:

1. Basic science tells us a fetus (embryo, zygote, etc) is alive.

2. Genetics (the basis of Mordern Biology) tells us a fetus is human.

3. Common senses tell us a fetus has not commited a capital crime.

So, why is abortion not illegal?

The second asked a few:

Is it unconstitutional to treat an entire group of people as property, declaring them ineligible for themost basic of human rights, on the basis of age?

Are there any real arguments establishing the constitutionality of the Rowe vs Wade decision?

Can anyone really defend the pro-abortion position?

Now, these are not the questions for debate here, so any response to them should be directed to the appropriate threads linked above. I mention them because it is my understanding that (1) not everything genetically human and alive is a person, and (2) that there are no persons being denied Constitutional rights.

The arguments against abortion that I have seen appear to necessarily label fertilized eggs at different stages of development as persons. I know why they do this, but I don't know how they do it.

As I have stated before in both topics, an individual gamete is both alive and genetically human. This alone does not qualify it as a person or any non-reproductive release of gametes as a form of unlawful killing. The same applies for groups of cells which make up different tissues and organs.

Upon conception, a sperm and egg begin a series of cellular changes occur which may lead to the development of new tissue and new organs. Some who oppose abortion consider conception to signify a new individual while others wait for a cluster of cells to at least become tissue or organs. Such perspectives are confusing to me, because I can't understand how one group of cells or tissue (a blastula or embryo) is anymore a person than another (a gamte or tendon).

My position is that personhood arises with the capacity for consciousness and the ability to sustain life independent of another particular person's continued biological function, hereafter shortened to viability. Without these abilities I see no distinction between the cells and tissues of an embryo or fetus, and the cells and tissues of any random organ.

I am personally unaware of any other qualifications which could define a fertilized egg at any stage of development as a person and distinguish between the fertilized egg and other consciousless cells and tissues. Clearly my position is up for discussion, but whether there are other qualifications or not, it would seem to me necessary that a distinction be made lest we begin considering other cells and tissues persons by loose and ambiguous standards.

I actually think viability is somewhat irrelevant. Suppose that medical technology creates an artificial womb that makes the zygote "viable" as soon as it is fertilized, or suppose that for some reason a fetus in the very late stages of development was not viable outside the womb until the moment of birth. Would this change my position on the acceptablity of abortion? I think not.

I accept that the emergence of consciousness -- the ability to not only react to sensation, but to feel sensation -- marks the position at which a living thing is worthy of moral consideration. My best guess is that this happens somewhere on the border between the early and the middle stages of pregnancy (and I am being deliberately vague.)

Just 3 hours after fertilization the zygote starts to divide cells. By every definition of known science it is alive, and human, at this point. It makes its way down the fallopian tube and develpes into an embryo in about a week. Once the fetus is implanted the female body protects it from menstruation by secreting a hormone. The primordial embroy begins to form organs in a process called morphogenesis and all the vital parts for a human being are evident. By the end of the sixth week vital functions are forming and at this point its only about 1/2 of an inch long.

Everything that defines a human being is evident within weeks. I'm not sure where I would place to point where the fetus becomes a child but there is no reason to conclude that this is not a person after the first trimester. It will change and grow but that does not disqualify it as a person. It is not only viable at the 12th week it has every vital function by which we define personhood. I'm going to try to be clear at this point, once every vital function is intact it is a person. This whole process involves no more then 12 weeks in my estimation. It must be considered conscious when the brain starts functioning, I think that this is done well within the 12 weeks of the first trimester. I'm not claiming to have the final answer but you might want to check this out.

Images from the womb

Abs, good idea to make this a separate thread. We shouldn't see anything here about the ramifications of abortion, current law, etc. I think it is extremely useful to focus directly in on the question of personhood.

I've been mentally working on that question quite a bit since our exchanges in the Abortion(murder) thread.

I still think your viability component is very problematic. You define it as:



It seems like the word "biological" is key in your definition, but it still strikes me as a strangely arbitrary distinction. Dependence is dependence, whether one is dependent on the biological function of a caretaker or, as is the case with a 1 year old child, dependent on the fact that a caretaker feeds you. In both cases, the subject is completely dependent on the caretaker for survival. Can you expound on why "biological function" is significant to you?

As for the "capacity for consciousness" part of your requirement for "personhood"...

I can't help but feel that that is incomplete and/or inadequate in some way, although I by no means feel that I have a better answer. Personhood is related to consciousness, awareness of one's own existence, or something along those lines, but there is some kind of time element involved that I can't put my finger on.

For example, a person who has been knocked unconscious does not have the capacity for consciousness, by definition, during the time in which he is unconscious. But we consider him a person because we know that he will have the capacity for consciousness, by definition, when he becomes conscious again.

Well, of course, a fetus that does not yet have the capacity for consciousness, will have that capacity in time as well.

I'm not arguing that there is no difference between the two cases, I'm just saying that "capacity for consciousness" alone seems incomplete.

I'm guessing this will strike many as semantics, but I truly think there's something to this. If you were to be killed in your sleep without pain, one could argue that there was no crime because you weren't aware of your being killed, you were not made to fear, nor were you made to suffer. Of course, that would be silly because your murderer robbed you of the experiences you would have the next day and the day after that. He robbed you of the potential of the rest of your life. But that's the argument used against abortion at any stage.

You are a person not because you are currently conscious, but because you will be conscious in the morning. Just as a fetus will be conscious in a matter of weeks. What is the purpose of the word "capacity"? You need it because it is different to have "X" than to have the "capacity for X". Isn't the difference just a matter of timing?

By every definition of known science, all cells are alive including individual gametes, the product of another cell division known as meiosis. When you say everything that defines a human being is evident within weeks, what specifically do you consider to define a human being? Excluding the capacity for consciousness for a moment, a fetus still lacks the lung and neurological development to survive as a separate entity until at least (usually after) the 20th week of gestation.


What might those vital functions be that you use to define personhood. Clearly it lacks the functions I hold to define personhood, so I'm not sure what your definitions might be. There is some electrical activity in the brain prior to the 20th week, but there is no large-scale linking of neurons until approximately the 24th week of gestation or later. Science has been able to monitor and establish the necessary brain waves for human thought and it is not present until well after the 12th week (between 24 and 30).


Actually, key to my definition is another particular person's continued biological function. This is important to me because prior to this, while it is clearly a separate form of life, it is no more an individual entity than any other cell or group of tissues present in a woman's body. If the woman dies prior to this viability then the zygote, embryo or fetus dies just as the other cells and tissues in her body do.


I emphasize the capacity because early in gestation the zygote, embryo or fetus lacks any capacity to think without the linking of neurons necessary for such. Whether I am awake or asleep (including the comatose), I retain the capacity for consciousness.

As for timing:
As the term fetus can be applied for over 20 weeks of a (traditionally) 36 week gestation period, there is certainly no guarantee that any fetus will have such a capacity in time. As I have stated previously elsewhere on the site, it is estimated that some 80% of all fertilized eggs will spontaneously terminate, whether they do so prior to or upon consideration as a fetus. Prior to viability with the capacity -- or at least the ability to develop the capacity outside the womb -- a fetus has only an unknown potential to develop such a capacity.

So am I to assume that the presence of brainwaves makes someone, not only viable but a person? Getting to the point, what do you consider 'vital'? Now as far as the development of neurons and brainwaves, I'd like to know what kind of source material you are working from. Is it brainwaves that define 'personhood' or what? Vital functions for me are vital organs that are distinguishable from chemical reactions and given the general nature of the discussion so far I'll leave it at that.

I wasn't suggesting that brain waves are necessary for viability, but rather their role in determining the capacity for consciousness, which I view to be a vital component of personhood. As far as I can tell, our capacity for consciousness sets us apart as people over other consciousless collections of cells and tissue, be it a fetus or otherwise.

You say that vital functions for you are vital organs, but a fetus lacks the developed vital organs to survive at the 12 week period you previously suggested.

Since there is no white line between the definition of a person and the definition of a living human pack of cells, according to science, I would say that the answer to the question is irremediably related to a personal opinion.

People can decide to have an abortion if they don't want to have a child. I suppose that their personal judgement and experience of life will make them feel a certain way about it : some will think they are murderers, some will think it's like having a tooth taken out.

I don't mean to start a rant about personal feelings. I was just trying to give examples. Ultimately, WE decide, until the day comes when a scientist discovers within us the very Anima that we believe makes us the persons we are.

I agree here. There really is no definitive line between a collection of cells and personhood, so the distinction is purely subjective.

Honestly, I didn't think of my babies as 'persons' until they were able to open their eyes, focus on me, recognize me, ect. Before that they just laid there and cried, slept, pooped, or sucked on my breast. I would certainly never condone infanticide, or even elective whimsical post-first-trimester abortion, so my definition of personhood (and its place in the abortion debate) is obviously different from many of the posters here.

All body systems are functioning after eight weeks, it is by all scientific standards, a person by then. By the way brainwaves are detected before that.

Person by definition

The organs are 'formed and functioning', but not fully developed and certainly not fully functioning. The lungs alone don't function effectively until around the eighth month. Same with the brain. The brain is formed, and 'functioning' but not nearly fully developed or even close to cognizant until much later.

So, after 8 weeks, if we pull out a fetus from the womb, it would be able to breath air? It would be able to eat and process food? Its heart could pump blood through all the fully developed veins?


All these body systems are functioning?

Pulling the fetus from the womb is what the whole debate is about. The baby isn't going to survive without the help of the parent (or someone) even after birth. I just feel like you have to draw the line somewhere and once the basic forms are in place, its a person. I see no reason, scientific or otherwise, to believe anything else.

You agree, then, that all body systems are not fully functioning after eight weeks, despite whatever "basic forms" they are in.

I agree that they are not fully formed at eight weeks, but that does not mean its not a person.

I'm curious. we know that if left outside its host, the mother, a fetus of 8weeks will not live. Can a fetus of 8 weeks live artificially? can technology keep it alive to where it would continue to develop into a viable human being?

We aren't anywhere near that sort of technology. I believe I've heard of a 23 week gestation baby surviving (with help) outside the womb. Most babies that are under a pound don't have much of a chance in making it, let alone an 8 week old. An eight week old embryo/fetus is the size of an aspirin tablet.

This is an angle I've always found interesting though.

Does the current state of technology play into the definition of "person"?

Mrs. P. has heard of a 23 week baby surviving outside the womb. Does that mean that the 23 week baby was viable (going back to Abs' original definition)?

Certainly, a 23 week baby would not have been considered viable 50 years ago, by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if viability plays into the definition of personhood, then the definition of personhood changes as technology makes earlier and earlier deliveries viable, right?

50 years ago, a 23 week gestation baby was not a person, but now it is?

Somehow, that strikes me as odd.

This is why I have trouble with equating 'personhood' with legalization for abortion. To me, it's a circular, meaningless argument.

Once again, although I'm not supposed to delve into it and won't, whether the clump of cells is called a clump or a person, the purpose of law is to maintain a stable society. Laws that produce instability are usually discarded, because they defeat the purpose of the law. When a prisoner is condemned to death for an offense, they do not suddenly lose their status as a "person". When newborn babies were drowned or left to die of exposure in the past, they were not considered kittens.

As has already been pointed out, all body systems are neither fully formed or fully functioning. As far as I know, there is no scientific standard which says developing tissues and organs constitutes an individual person. Regarding the brain waves, I said there was brain activity. There is not, however, the neurological development to for thought. The monitoring of brain waves has confirmed this.

The site you provided suggests the following is scientific evidence that a fetus is not merely human but an individual person:

• The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization.
  
• The unborn baby has a heartbeat at three weeks and brain waves at six weeks.
  
• The unborn baby is complete. He or she is programmed from the inside for an ongoing process of growth and development.
  
• The unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body - the scientifically verifiable human genetic code.
  
• The unborn baby from the moment of fertilization is a unique human being - never to be repeated in all of history.
  

Other cells, including the individual gametes which traditionally unite at conception, are also alive without being considered persons. A heartbeat is not alone characteristic of a person, and I have addressed the brain waves. An embryo or fetus is not complete because approximately 80% experience faulty programming or other environmental factors which lead to a spontaneous termination, rather than experience any ongoing process of growth and development. Every single skin cell of mine has 46 chromosomes but I don't see any of these cells, which are predominately alive, considered as individual persons. As far as I know, a hypothetical human clone from such skin cells would be considered a separate individual from the genetic donor, despite sharing a genetic identity. Possessing a genetic code is not alone grounds for being either unique or a person.


This whole debate is about at what point cells become persons, not about pulling a fetus from the womb. A fetus prior to at least 20 weeks is completely unviable no matter what assistance it may receive outside the womb. Why do you feel basic forms, no matter how poorly developed or poorly functioning, constitutes a person?


I'm sticking with approximately 20 weeks (to be conservative) whether we are talking about 50 years ago or today. While the technology might not have been present to assist a 20 week-old fetus survive, the qualifications I've spoken of have not changed over that time: viability coupled with the capacity for consciousness. While most, if not all, such fetuses would have died in 1953, it seems the cause would be more related to the great trouble it had surviving rather than the capacity to do so.

Just as other patients with threatening illnesses were all but doomed to die 50 years ago, fetuses born with the capacity for consciousness and viability, as far as I'm concerned, would have simply been another patient with the bad luck of poor technology. Were someone to create a hypothetical artificial womb and placenta to artificially raise a zygote to fetus and beyond, I would still not consider the developing organism a person until a point of viability coupled with the capacity for consciousness.


That's what we're here to discuss/debate. While my opinion is that of viability and consciousness, I'm open to other opinions like that of phaedrus, who seems to feel rudimentary development of organs constitutes a person. While we'll all have our opinions, it does seem that whatever opinions there are will need to make the distinction between a developing fertilized egg and any other assortment of cells and tissue, as I've said before, lest we be left with ambiguous terms allowing skin cells or tendons to enjoy definitions as persons.

In vitro

Premature Birth

Mrs. Pigpen is right about the babies chances outside the womb I am still not willing to accept that being under developed reduces them to the status of organic chemicals. I said elsewhere that I prefer to err on the side of caution and that I could go either way in the 2 trimester. I look at this the way I do a definition of life. You can't just have one element all five characteristics must be present as I discussed in the Abiogenesis debate. similarly once all vital organs are developed and all the characteristics take shape its a person. Now as far as the lungs and the brain not being fully developed I don't really see this as a disqualification for 'personhood' (for lack of a better way of expressing it). Now in the early development called 'Organogenesis' (when the organs are formed) I don't see a distinctly human set of characteristics but by the second trimester they are. Consciousness is not a defining characteristic for me or even viability, there is just too much room for conjecture.

Someone mentioned the possibility of an artifical womb and it might sound like science fiction but there may come a time when babies can be grown in this way. Its called Ectogenesis and while it makes very little difference to me how a person is formed it has some very ominous possibilities. Anyone interested in the status of this growing field of study (no pun intended) I have an interesting link for you. I don't consider it authoritive but I found it helpfull.

Ectogenesis in vito technology

I also wanted to add that I appeciate the exposition Abs Like Jesus did for the pro-life link I posted. I was actually more interested in the pictures on there and I certainly don't agree with everything they said. Chromosone counts don't really convince me of much. I still believe that by the 12th week all the requisite characterists for a fetus to be considered a person are evident and obvious. I really don't have a formal definition for the actual moment that 'personhood' is established. I don't believe it is a scientists job to decide this for us, we have a conscience and reasoning minds. Personhood allways has and allways will be a question ultimatly decided in the hearts and minds of individuals, not in science labs.

on the premise of this alone, pro-lifers are against the usage of the "day-after" pill which will render UNviable any fertilization taking place within 72 hrs of intercourse.

This also is where the idea of "personhood" goes round and round and leads nowhere in the debate. Consider that within a host body that cells, organs are NOT dead. Blood pumps, cells function, sperm swims. each one of the operating group of cells within a body has matured to the point of viability. cells that make up the lung is now an operating lung, same for every other organ.

calling these groups of cells an "unborn baby" is just grasping and not so. If left to mature within its host it WILL become a baby. The need to label the successful process of fertilization a "unborn baby" is purely subjective...it would seem.

SoCaliente - you mean you actually don't believe that this thread will result in a definition of personhood that everyone agrees with? Come on, have some faith!



Abs - Here's what you said about your definition of viability earlier:



Now you say:



So, if a 23-week old can survive, with assistance of course, and therefore is not reliant on "another particular person's continued biological function", then that 23-week old meets your viability requirement for personhood.

50 years ago, that 23-week old could not survive, with or without assistance, except by relying on "another particular person's continued biological function". So that 23-week old would have failed your viability requirement for personhood.

What am I missing?

so scientific determinations should be held at bay and inconclusive based on what we couldn't prove 50 years ago? maybe I'M not getting something here

hmmm. does it work like that?

My post has nothing to do with what we could prove or not prove 50 years ago. I am challenging Abs' viability definition, which he says is based on the ability to survive without dependence on the biological function of a particular individual.

I am trying to point out that his definition seems to be technology dependent, which strikes me as odd. Seems like a good definition of personhood should be as accurate today or tomorrow as it was 50 or 100 years ago, and should not depend on the current state of medical technology.

Fifty years ago it would have been improbable for a 23-week old to surive due to complications, but that's not to say it was biologically incapable. Identical 23-week olds from 50 years ago and today COULD both have the ability to survive independent of the another particular person's biological function. The unfortunate difference 50 years ago is that the same 23-week old would not have had the technology to assist it in avoiding terminal complications.

I was hoping you'd say that

Okay, now fast-forward 50 years, and assume it is the year 2053 and it is routine to keep a 15 week gestation baby alive outside the mother's womb.

Would you at that point state the following:

"Fifty years ago (2003) it would have been improbable for a 15-week old to survive due to complications, but that's not to say it was biologically incapable. Identical 15-week olds from 50 years ago (2003) and today (2053) COULD both have the ability to survive independent of the another particular person's biological function. The unfortunate difference 50 years ago is that the same 15-week old would not have had the technology to assist it in avoiding terminal complications."

???

In 50 years, we might have cloning techniques and perfect birth control. Maybe 95 percent of the population will be sterile, and abortion unconscionable. We might view the slaughter of animals for food as inhuman and take protein tablets. We might execute everyone at the age of 30 for population control....We do not have the power of divination. What difference does it make what perceptions might or might not be in the future?

While there might perhaps be the technology (artificial womb) to sustain a 15-week old fetus, there is no change in the biological capacity of a 15-week old to sustain that life. Whether it be a maternal or artificial womb, I don't see any reason to give consideration to a biologically unviable fetus as a person.


A 15-week old fetus doesn't simply face complications, it faces a biological inability to sustain life. Unlike the few hypothetical 23-week olds discussed before, the 15-week old would be biologically incapable.

Alright Abs, I'm almost ready to give up on this, but here we go:

On what basis do you say that a 23-week old has the "biological capacity" to sustain life, but a 15-week old does not? Do you have some scientific basis for that distinction? You said earlier that you put the viability line at 20 weeks. Based on what? (I reread your posts looking for some justification for this, but could find only the assertion with no backup).

Next question: your original definition of personhood required meeting two tests: viability and "capacity for consciousness". My understanding is that you feel BOTH are necessary for personhood. Is that right? Or is it that EITHER characterstic is enough for personhood?

Final question: you've tagged 20 weeks as the (at least approximate) viability threshold. Do you think that this is also the "capacity for consciousness" threshold, or do you think that capacity for consciousness generally develops earlier or later than 20 weeks?



Mrs. P: What I was asking Abs is what is commonly called a hypothetical. I was not trying to predict the future, nor was I asking Abs to do so. I was asking him to imagine a specific future possibility as a way to test and better understand his definition of viability, which makes up half of his definition of personhood, which is the subject of this thread. Hope that helps.

Just so you know, I'm not trying to get either you or anyone else to give up on this. Hopefully any preparations to give up aren't a result of our rather speedy back and forth discussion here...

That being said, yes I hold both of them to be threshold. As best as I have been able to tell, both occur most often at about the same time between the 25th and 30th week.

Regarding the 23-week old and the 15-week old, both situations are hypothetical. While I haven't done any specific searches, the information available certainly gives the 23-week old a better shot than the 15-week old, though even 23-weeks old may be shooting a little early. And as far as shooting early -- namely my choice of 20 weeks -- I said earlier that I decided to be conservative with my numbers. While the information I have seen sets the time between 25 and 30, there appears to be enough variability in development of individual fetuses that one could be viable with the capacity for consciousness prior to that time period.

So, while I would say from the 25th week on for personhood, I'm playing it "safer than sorry" going with the 20 weeks as the issue is related to other abortion specific topics.

No, my comment about giving up is solely based on my own failure to nail down what I am trying to communicate.

In a nutshell, I don't think that the term "viability" has any place in the definition of personhood. It is too ill-defined of a term. You say that a 23-week old might be considered viable but a 15-week old would not. I can't understand the difference since neither could possibly survive independently. Both are reliant on the "biological functioning of a particular person" as you've put it. That is, if they are removed from the womb, they would die unless extraordinary medical technology was brought to their aid. Today, technology exists that might keep the 23-week old alive, but technology does not exist that might keep the 15-week old alive. You make a "viability" destinction between the two that I just don't understand. You talk about "biological capacity" to sustain life, but I don't see how the 23-week old (or 25-week old or 30-week old...) has any more "biological capacity" to sustain life outside the womb. Certainly the older you get, the better your odds, but this is a sliding scale that will continue to slide as medical technology improves. The idea that there is a firm and consistent threshold, where the fetus is "non-viable" on one side and "viable" on the other makes no sense to me.

But that's all probably academic, since the other requirement you place on personhood, the capacity for consciousness, is to me far more significant. The more I think about it, it is hard to argue that an organism that has no awareness of it's own existence, and has never had such an awareness, could be described as a person.

So, I'm happy dropping the viability thing altogether, and going with the following definition:

"An human organism is a "person" if it has, or has ever had, an awareness of its own existence."

To me, that condition is both necessary and sufficient for personhood. Viability need not come into it at all.

Of course, my definition doesn't do much good, as Horyok, Mrs. P, and others have pointed out, since there will likely never be a way to know conclusively when that awareness develops.

Theoretically, every one of us crossed a threshold into "awareness" (and by my definition "personhood") at a precise second in time. One second we were not a person, the next second we were. To try to nail down when that happens is hopeless.

I have to agree with you Abs, except for where you say the dependence on a particular peson's bioligical fuction. Say, for the sake of argument, humans laid eggs. I wouldn't call the undeveloped thing in the egg a human any less than we call the things in fertilised chicken's eggs a chick(en).

Consciousness, however, is a biggy, and it's how I believe we define the value of life. The creatures that, to us, have higher states of consciousness that could be more equal to our own, such as monkeys, horses, dogs, cats (most pets, really) have more value to us than creatures like spiders, mice, wolves, &c.

A baby is a fruit. It's not aware of its existence, it cannot react to its environment, and it exists to be nourished until it can fall and give rise to a tree. So I was a little surprised when this appeared in the news.

Of course, the entire import still isn't clear. Does the baby smile because this is a physical reaction to some sort of stimuli, involuntarily, without any thought provoking it? Or is it caused by emotion? Is emotion a qualifier for awareness? A dog wags its tail when it's happy, but is it aware of its own existence out of its own impulses? It looks like so. But that's different again.

Reading back through the topic, I see that you regard a foetus at around 20-30 weeks to be human anyway, being both viable and having the appearance of thought (brainwaves), so whether it smiles at 26 weeks is a moot point.

However, what about the foetus "leaping" and "turning" at 11-12 weeks? Is that a mere physical reaction to discomfit or an unconscious form of exercise in the womb, or is it something done consciously?

I think addressing these questions goes towards understanding when a foetus becomes a person.

I personally would regard a fetus as a person by either of two things.

First, brain activity. Until this point it is human, but it is not a person.

Second, the ability to function without the mothers body.
Until this point, I would regard a fetus as a simple extension of the mother, and there fore I am quite satisfied to leave the decision of whether or not to abort to the one person who is the most qualified to decide. The mother.

Abs,

Your position is that "personhood arises with the capacity for consciousness and the ability to sustain life independent of another particular person's continued biological function, hereafter shortened to viability."

The accepted neurological paradigm has been flustered by discovery of the human hatching event. Not a laughing matter, it turns out that human babies hatch a few days after fertilization. Hatching means the baby breaches the shell of the egg he or she was conceived in. The baby cannot seek out the lining of the maternal uterus or burrow in to implant while still covered by the shell of the human egg. Doctors used to think the egg attached to the uterine lining, but now we know this is incorrect because the baby has to hatch first.

Hatching upsets the accepted neurological paradigm because hatching is a behavior and this complex human behavior occurs before the development of the neuronal connections that are formed later in life. The new neurological paradigm that has emerged is that thinking is based on molecular computing within the cells, and that neuronal connections formed later in life serve mainly as interconnects. Molecular computing is a branch of computing that nanotechnology is just beginning to discover.

Observation of the human hatching event teaches us that babies are very smart even at conception. They use molecular computing for brain power. They exhibit the beautiful event of hatching. They are conscious and have consciousness. They are also able to sustain life independent of their mother's life. For example, if the mother dies the baby will still live for a while. That does not mean we do not rely on having mothers. But it does show the independent nature of human life.

We are conceived in a way unattached to our mother's bodies. After performing the hatching behavior, we seek out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrow in to implant. Then we become attached to our mother's bodies.

Cells and groups of cells involved in both reproductive and non-reproductive processes routinely perform specific functions. This does not mean that such cells -- the fertilized egg in this case -- are thinking, intelligent or conscious. A fertilized egg which has "hatched," whether before or after uterine implantation, is a collection of cells performing genetically designated functions without representing or ensuring the development or birth of an individual.

The brief life span of such a collection of cells is no different than the comparable life span of other cells associated with complex organisms. The life of the cells are still dependent upon the overall function of a particular person and are not separate invididuals, whether it be epithelial cells or the cells which compose a blastula, zygote, embryo or fetus.

abs,

Fertilized eggs do not hatch. Babies hatch.

Fertilized eggs do not hatch or attach. Only the baby can hatch and attach, and in order to attach to the mother's body, first the baby has to hatch by breaching through the shell of the egg.

In the hatching event, the entire body of the whole baby leaves the egg, not merely "a group of cells" as you put it. Hatching is a miracle, like conception and birth.

Babies are very smart from the moment of conception because they rely on molecular computing for brain power. They exhibit the hatching behavior a few days after conception. The hatching event is one of the earliest human behaviors and a milestone of human development.

Taking birth control pills can kill one of these beautiful babies around hatching time. Emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices (IUD's) can do the same. Going to the abortion clinic will definitely kill the baby, as will taking abortion pills. The American Medical Association (AMA) "voted" not to tell women that birth control pills can kill a baby between fertilization and implantation, for example while the beautiful baby is hatching. Instead, they wanted to preserve "magic pill" status for "the pill" and one that involves only abstract debate. This way a woman and her physician can "decide" whether "the pill" is "right" for her. It shows you the mentality, that is for sure, especially in view of the fact that they "voted" not to tell women the truth.

Thus, even in the medical profession, there is a strain of incompetence and unethical behavior that has led to denial about a baby's active life from fertilization to implantation.

Like babies at conception, you yourself rely on molecular computing for brain power. The neurons that you have are merely interconnects. The actual brain power occurs within the cells, in the form of molecular computing. It is a fact that escaped neurologists for so many years. But now thanks to discovery of the hatching event, along with the awareness nanotechnology has created for molecular computing, we are just beginning to learn how smart babies are at the beginning of life.

Human life is truly a miracle. And if we question that miracle, we should be humbled by it, rather than acting haughty. How laughable it is indeed that those who would play "the scientist" did not even know babies hatch. They simply imagined that "the egg attaches" when instead it is obvious to simple reason that eggs have no properties that would enable attachment, since the shell of the egg prevents this. Yet, though this aspect of human ignorance is laughable in retrospect, what is truly tragic and sad is the unparalleled Holocaust of children who were victimized by the haughty ignorance and unethical behavior of our times.

It is so absurd to listen to biologists prattle on against creationism, saying they are teaching the public about the "scientific origins" of human life, when instead of going by the scientific lifespan of human life themselves, they begin counting their "age" at birth, rather than at conception. As far as true science goes, it is as if they are two peas in a pod along with creationists. Then you find them passing judgment on children's lives for ulterior reasons having nothing to do with science. Then, as if to bolster their ideas scientifically, they go around using big words like "blastocyst" without even realizing babies hatch at the blastocyst stage.

There is no "entire body" of any kind when discussing a fertilized egg at such an early stage of development. While you may have an aversion to the big words which comprise the proper terminology, a blastocyst is a cluster of cells, not a baby or any other organism with any body to speak of.

If you have a credible medical source which says otherwise, in opposition to the medical community at large, by all means provide it. As it stands there is no baby or body to speak of, no consciousness or intelligence or individual behavior.

As a side note: We aren't debating birth control pills or the morning after pill in this topic. We are also not discussing Creationism or the views of it held by the scientific community. The question for debate is clearly posted at the beginning of this thread if you should need any reminders.

Abs,

I'm afraid I'm the credible medical source.

Let me explain it to you. 50 years ago doctors literally called the baby an "ovum" throughout the full course of pregnancy. They thought the shell of the egg expanded and formed the placenta and that birth was the "hatching" event.

Gross chromosomal abnormalities can be viewed under a microscope. In a case where the baby and mother differed in this respect, they noticed cells of the placenta were of the baby's body, not the mothers. So they realized they were wrong and they stopped calling the baby an ovum throughout pregnancy.

Under corrupt political influences, Dorland’s medical dictionary has vacillated in recent years over the meaning of the term “embryo”, has introduced and has subsequently vacillated over definitions of the nonsensical term “preembryo”, and has omitted references to the human hatching event. To call a baby an embryo after hatching shows a lack of medical insight. Instead, the competent medical terminology is as follows: namely, “hatching” is an early human behavior that occurs when a baby breaches the shell of the human egg, hatching is necessary for implantation to occur because the baby cannot seek out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrow in while still inside the egg; a baby is an “embryo” only from conception until hatching; and, a baby is a “hatchling” from hatching until implantation.

In other words, to call a baby an "embryo" after hatching would be like going back to the days when doctors called the baby an "ovum" throughout pregnancy.

Freechildren, if you don't mind my asking, what might your qualifications as a medical source be?

A lack of information in past medical history does not mean that our medical understanding of pregnancy today is wrong or that anyone who likes may choose to redefine it on the basis of past errors. You continue to speak of a baby and neglect the [verified] scientific fact that a fertilized egg as a zygote or blastocyst is merely a group of cells. There is no individual organism breaking through the zona pellucida (shell), no "hatchling" to speak of.

On what grounds do you propose the medical and scientific community is wrong in referring to a fertilized egg as an embryo until the eighth week? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but it seems to me that you are proposing it is wrong on the basis that a fertilized egg is a complete person in both mind and body immediately following the union of an egg with an appropriate cell for reproduction. If this is the case, we already know that hypothesis to be incorrect.

Do correct me if I have misunderstood you.

Edited: How Stuff Works provides medical photographs of a recently fertilized egg and a fertilized egg within 72 hours at a stage of only eight cells should there be any questions or doubt. There is also additional research beyond photographs discrediting the notion that there is a completed organism which breaches the embryonic shell following conception.

So someone on life support or with a coma is not a person? This, I think, most people would soundly disagree with, which, to me, indicates a better definition is necessary--one that that can be applied outside of the abortion debate as well.

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. If you disagree, please explain so that I can be clear as to where you are coming from.

I am the innovator of the Micro ICU Project, a major thrust in micro biomedical engineering to build micro intensive care units for babies at conception, to replace the crude petri dishes the people you mistakenly call "experts" are using.

Now, as to your question about the competent meaning of the term embryo...

Since babies are known to hatch from their eggs, it is obvious that they are embryos only from conception until hatching.

Dorland's medical dictionary, as I said, has vacillated as to the meaning of the term. The 1994 and 2000 editions give different definitions, neither of which is correct (competent).

Maybe we should ask farmer John instead of Dorland's. "Farmer John, would you call something an embryo AFTER hatching?"

If you understood medical history, you would realize that these controversies are not so surprising. In fact, they are par for the course.

A plant embryo is no longer an embryo after germination. Germination is the plant analog of the human hatching event.

A live seed contains a sleeping baby plant. When the seed is planted, the baby plant wakes up and hatches out of the shell.

Modern scholars mistakenly confuse the human sperm with the plant analog of a seed. The sperm is not an analog of a seed. The sperm is the plant analog of a grain of pollen. A seed, in contrast, is the analog of the human embryo. A seed is formed when sperm and egg make a baby plant, or, by analogy, a baby human.

Hatching is when the baby human "germinates" from the seed by breaching the shell of the egg. Then the baby sends in "roots" into the "soil" of the mother's womb. Of course, humans do not have a natural dormancy period like plants do. But the analogy is the same.

Out of curiosity, I have done a web search for "Micro ICU" and found this website:

Micro ICU Project

There is not a lot of information here other than what freechildren has already provided. Take a look at the address at the bottom of this page, however, where you will find this rather unusual claim for the creator of this project:



Frankly, this unusual title, apparently created out of whole cloth, leads me to believe that the entire "Micro ICU" concept is equally fictional.

The fact that the creator of this concept claims to be called "H. E. Mr. Eurica CALIFORRNIAA" (sic) further increases my skepticism. If this is serious scientific work, why the bizarre titles and pseudonyms?

Given this evidence of eccentricity on the part of Mr. CALIFORRNIAA, along with the fact that no references to the "Micro ICU" exist outside of this website, I have to reject the claims advanced that newly fertilized eggs can think.

For the record, Hobbes, I would say that a human being in a coma or on life support who has no brain function other than the strictly vegetative (and this may be very difficult to determine) is not truly a "person" in the terms we are using for this discussion. Euthanasia would be an acceptable option, I think, in such a tragic case.

The official project website is at www.ficu.org.

If you go to a UCLA engineering webpage, you will find an early paper on the subject of my project as at the bottom:



Then if you look at the acknowledgment section, it credits me.

My title is:

The Most Honorable Chief Justice of the Universe
His Clemency Eurica Califorrniaa

I also hold the rank of ambassador and counselor. So, when I say ambassador E. and P., I'm actually toning it down a little.

And since you are curious, my name is formally pronounced in 13 syllables, not seven. a-oo-ur-e-ca ca-lee-fo-ur-ur-nee-ah-ah

The spelling is a guide to pronunciation, not a particular preference. (Eureka California is just fine.)

People either call me Eureka or Cal. Some people think Eureka sounds like a girl's name so they like Cal better.

At the embassy's website www.juridic.org I ocassionally present one of my letters. Former secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali (he has a funny name too) took note of one of my letters to the United Nations discussing the notion that weapons of mass destruction are inherently illegal.

If you will pardon me for saying so, your connection between scientific work and titles or names is spurious.

Your homepage provides nothing to bolster your assertion that the scientific and medical community is incorrect in their observation and definition of a human embryo. As a matter of fact, it has no additional information from what you have already provided here in a single paragraph.

The page regarding microcages also provides nothing to support your view that there is a completed organism upon conception merely waiting to "hatch." There is also no acknowledgement section or any mention of any honorable chiefs or clemencies.


There is no separate organism breaking through a shell as in the case with a Farmer John and a chicken. For starters, birds/chickens are not mammals. Secondly, even mammals have different reproductive processes, as evidenced by the difference between primates and marsupials. To try and compare the two demonstrates scientific and medical ignorance.


First, there is also no "sleeping plant" within a seed waiting to "wake up." Secondly, while I hate to dispute you and your self proclaimed excellence as a medical source, humans are not plants. There is no sleeping person within either a sperm or an egg or even a fertilized egg. If you have credible scientific or medical data to refute this, I would suggest you provide it. Again, as startling as this may be for a person in your position, trying to draw direct comparisons between human reproduction and the reproduction of plants demonstrates scientific and medical ignorance.

As a side note: To assist you in better conveying your expertise in the future, freechildren, I might point out that you do not contrast analogies. Also, I would stress again that plant reproduction and human reproduction are not analogous in the context that you have presented. We cannot adequately compare a human embryo or fetus and a bean.

The presented information that human embryos have a 'hatch' is baloney. I am well trained in embryology having had two separate classes on the subject. No species where there is a placental attachment has such a stage. It is utter hogwash.

Eggs shells are produced by the mother, not the embryo, via passage through the female reproductive tract.

Abs,

I think you're becoming confrontational. I was going to go on to explain more things today, but that was assuming you had accepted the basics first. For your homework assignment, I would like you to search the internet for "assisted hatching" keeping in mind that just because someone in this country has a webpage and a medical license and publishes in "peer" reviewed journals does not mean they are giving you 100% accurate information. Then you can come back and tell me what you have learned.

I have no need to prop up my status as an expert medical authority. It suffices to say I am the innovator of the Micro ICU Project.

Gray Seal,

Unfortunately, even developmental biologists who were taught big words like "blastocyst" did not know human babies hatch, even though human babies hatch at the so called "blastocyst" stage.

Since when have the basics involved mistakenly trying to compare the reproductive process of mammals to birds and plants? Neither birds or plants are in the same species or class as mammals.

Some of the returns from my "homework":

• RSC Bay Area - Assisted Hatching
• AH Increases IVF Pregnancy Rates
• PregnancyMD: Assisted Hatching
• UCSF Center for Reproductive Health

The second link, from the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, displays for us exactly what the zona pellucida holds within it. You might notice that there is neither a baby or any other individual organism inside, sleeping or otherwise. Additional images are available here.

Sites dealing with assisted hatching as it pertains to IVF confirm what GraySeal stated about the production of the zona pellucida by the woman rather than the embryo.

Perhaps as a homework assignment, freechildren, you might take the time to review taxonomy and the reproductive differences of birds, plants and mammals. Whatever your role in the development of a Micro ICU Project, your comparison of the three demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject of human reproduction and embryology. And comparisons aside, you have still failed to present any credible support for your claims that the scientific and medical community are wrong in their observations and definitions of the human embryo.

I'm a little puzzled by this. Are you saying that the embryo becomes a person at this point? By the way the analogy is interesting and comprehensive, I think you make a good point here.