|
The most
dangerous place in the world is in the womb. —Cardinal
Sin of the Philippines1
The fact
that abortion and infanticide result in the
destruction of innocent human beings cannot, in
itself, be a reason for viewing such actions as wrong.
—-Michael Tooley2
What does
modern science conclude about when human life begins?
Many people
mistakenly feel that abortion is a "religious" issue.
But it is not. It is a scientific issue and,
specifically, a biological issue. The scientific
authorities on when life begins are biologists. But
these are often the last people consulted in seeking an
answer to the question. What modern science has
concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at
conception. This is a matter of scientific fact,
not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or
theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at
conception is a fact so well documented that no
intellectually honest and informed scientist or
physician can deny it.
In 1973, the
Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade
decision that it did not have to decide the "difficult
question" of when life begins. Why? In essence, they
said, "It is impossible to say when human life begins."3
The Court misled the public then, and others continue to
mislead the public today.
Anyone
familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that
two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a
group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and
professors submitted an amicus curiae brief
(advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme
Court. They showed the Court how modern science had
already established that human life is a continuum and
that the unborn child from the moment of conception on
is a person and must be considered a person, like its
mother.4 The brief set as its task "to show
how clearly and conclusively modern science—embryology,
fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of
biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child."5
For example,
In its
seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar
external features and all the internal organs of the
adult.... The brain in configuration is already like
the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate
the function of other organs…. The heart beats
sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The
liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin
to function by extracting uric acid from the child’s
blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already
be set in motion. After the eighth week… everything
is already present that will be found in the full
term baby.6
This brief
proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life
begins at conception and that "the unborn is a person
within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments."7
In fact,
prior to Roe v. Wade, nearly every medical
and biological textbook assumed or taught that human
life begins at conception. That human life begins at
conception was an accepted medical fact, but not
necessarily a discussed medical fact. This is why many
textbooks did not devote a discussion to this issue. But
many others did. For example, Mr. Patrick A. Trueman
helped prepare a 1975 brief before the Illinois Supreme
Court on the unborn child. He noted,
We
introduced an affidavit from a professor of medicine
detailing 19 textbooks on the subject of embryology
used in medical schools today which universally agreed
that human life begins at conception… those textbooks
agree that is when human life begins. The court didn’t
strike that down—the court couldn’t strike that down
because there was a logical/biological basis for that
law.8
Thus, even
though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as
to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue
that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born
child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely
reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific
fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970,
the editors of the scientific journal California
Medicine noted the "curious avoidance of the
scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human
life begins at conception and is continuous whether
intra- or extra-uterine until death."9
Even 25 years
after the abortion revolution that politicized
scientific opinion, medical texts today still often
assume or affirm that human life begins at conception.
For example, Keith L. Moore is professor and chairman of
the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto
Faculty of Medicine. His text, The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology, is widely used in
core courses in medical embryology. This text asserts:
The
processes by which a child develops from a single cell
are miraculous….
Human
development is a continuous process that begins when
an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a
male. Growth and differentiation transform the
zygote, a single cell... into a multicellular
adult human being.10
The reference
to the "miraculous processes in a purely secular text is
not surprising. Even a single strand of DNA from a human
cell contains information equivalent to a library of
1,000 volumes. The complexity of the zygote itself
according to Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief geneticist at the
Mayo Clinic, "is so great that it is beyond our
comprehension."11 In a short nine months’
time, one fertilized ovum grows into 6,000 million cells
that become a living, breathing person.
Further,
medical dictionaries and encyclopedias all affirm that
the embryo is human. Among many we could cite are
Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Tuber’s
Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, and the
Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing
and Allied Health, which defines the embryo as "the
human young from the time of fertilization of the ovum
until the beginning of the third month."12
In 1981, the
United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the
question, "When does human life begin?" A group of
internationally known scientists appeared before a
Senate judiciary subcommittee.13 The U.S.
Congress was told by Harvard University Medical School’s
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, "In biology and in
medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any
individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction
begins at conception...."14
Dr. Watson A.
Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical
School, testified that "the beginning of a single human
life is from a biological point of view a simple and
straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This
straightforward biological fact should not be distorted
to serve sociological, political or economic goals."15
Dr. Alfred
Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical
School noted: "The standard medical texts have long
taught that human life begins at conception."16
He added: "I
am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to
say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of
puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at
every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence."17
Dr. McCarthy
De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law
professor at the University of Tennessee, testified:
"The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and
of the human body is at the moment of conception."18
World-famous
geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental
genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France,
declared, "each individual has a very unique beginning,
the moment of its conception."19
Dr. Lejeune
also emphasized: "The human nature of the human being
from conception to old age is not a metaphysical
contention, it is plain experimental evidence."20
The chairman
of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo
Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, "By all the
criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present
from the moment of conception."21
He further
emphasized: "now we can say, unequivocally, that the
question of when life begins… is an established
scientific fact…. It is an established fact that all
life, including human life, begins at the moment of
conception."22
At that time
the U.S. Senate proposed Senate Bill 158, called the
"Human Life Bill." These hearings, which lasted eight
days, involving 57 witnesses, were conducted by Senator
John East. This Senate report concluded:
Physicians,
biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a
being that is alive and is a member of the human
species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point
in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings.23
In 1981, only
a single scientist disagreed with the majority’s
conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than
scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates,
although invited to do so, failed to produce even one
expert witness who would specifically testify that life
begins at any other point than conception.24
Many other
biologists and scientists agree that life begins at
conception. All agree that there is no point of time or
interval of time between conception and birth when the
unborn is anything but human.
Professor
Roth of Harvard University Medical School has
emphasized, "It is incorrect to say that the biological
data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct
to say that an individual human life begins at
conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the
zygote, and that this developing human always is a
member of our species in all stages of its life."25
In
conclusion, we agree with pioneer medical researcher,
Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., that, "There is one
fact that no one can deny; human beings begin at
conception."26
Again, let us
stress that this is not a matter of religion,
it is solely a matter of science.
Scientists of every religious view and no religious
view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian,
Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at conception.
This explains why, for example, the International Code
of Medical Ethics asserts: "A doctor must always bear in
mind the importance of preserving human life from the
time of conception until death."27
This is also
why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the
following: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human
life from the time of conception; even under threat, I
will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws
of humanity."28 These statements can be found
in the World Medical Association Bulletin for
April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p.
5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again
reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.29
What
difference does it make that human life begins at
conception? The difference is this: If human life begins
at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human
life.
To deny this
fact is scientifically impossible.30
Notes
1
John Warwick Montgomery, "The Rights of the Unborn
Children," The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol.
5 (1985-86), p. 25.
2
Michael Tooley, Abortion and Infanticide
(Oxford: Calendon Press, 1983), p. 419.
3
Lawyer Cooperative, U.S. Supreme Court Reports,
vol. 35 (1974), Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, p.
181; 410 US 113 at 159; cf. Harold O. J. Brown,
Death Before Birth (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1977), p. 81, cf. pp. 73-96; John Warwick Montgomery,
"The Rights of the Unborn Children," The Simon
Greenleaf Law Review, vol. 5 (1985-86), p. 64.
4
Motion filed in the Supreme Court of the United
States, Oct. 15, 1971 (Re: No. 70-18 and No. 70-40),
titled Motion and Brief Amicus Curiae of Certain
Physicians, Professionals and Fellows of the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Support of
Appellees, Dennis J. Horan et al., United States
District Court 1971, pp. 19, 29-30.
5
Ibid., p. 7.
6
Ibid., pp. 13-14.
7
Ibid., p. 64, cf. pp. 19-20, 58-64.
8
Television program transcript, "Abortion,"
Chattanooga, TN, The John Ankerberg Evangelistic
Association, 1982, p. 2.
9
California Medicine, vol. 113, no. 3
(Sept. 1970), p. 67.
10
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Sanders, 1982), p. 1, emphasis added.
11
Thomas W. Hilgers, Dennis J. Horan, Abortion and
Social Justice (Thaxton, VA: Sun Life, 1980), p.
5.
12
Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing
and Allied Health (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders Co.,
1978), 2nd ed., p. 335.
13
The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to
Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th
Congress, First Session, 1981.
14
Ibid., cf. Richard Exley, Abortion: Pro-life by
Conviction, Pro-choice by Default (Tulsa, OK:
Honor Books, 1989), p.18; Norman L. Geisler,
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1989), p. 149.
15
Landrum B. Shettles, Rites of Life: The Scientific
Evidence for Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1983), p. 114.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to
Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th
Congress, First Session, 1981; cf. Richard Exley,
Abortion: Pro-life by Conviction, Pro-choice by
Default (Tulsa, OK: Honor Books, 1989), p. 18.
20
Ibid.; cf. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics:
Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker),
1989, p. 149.
21
Ibid., Report to Senate.
22
Ibid., and Richard Exley, Abortion: Pro-life by
Conviction, Pro-choice by Default, p. 18.
23
Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, Handbook on Abortion and
Abortion Questions and Answers (Hayes Publishing
Co., 1985), p. 40.
24
Shettles, Rites of Life: The Scientific
Evidence for Life Before Birth, p. 113. Note: A
few held that life may begin at implantation. However,
implantation, while important, in no way defines life.
25
The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to
Senate; cf. Exley, Abortion: Pro-life by
Conviction, Pro-choice by Default, p.18; Geisler,
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, p.
149.
26
Landrum B. Shettles in Abortion: Opposing
Viewpoints (New York: Greenhaven Press, 1986), p.
16, emphasis added.
27
Hilgers and Horan, p. 317.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
But to accept this fact and maintain that taking human
life is not morally wrong is incredible. It is even
reminiscent of Nazi Germany and yet today such
arguments are increasingly accepted (e.g.
Biomedical Ethics and the Law by James M. Humber
and Robert F. Almeder, page 16; cf. note 3).
|