When does an embryo become a person?

Human Quest, Jan/Feb 2002 by Swomley, John M

A major effort at redefining the word "person" is taking place today. Along with a linguistic change, if "pro-life" efforts are successful, will come important sociological, psychological and theological change. Biological and other scientific factors are being bent to accommodate the religious argument that a human being exists at conception, or when sperm meets egg.

The conceptus - weighing a very small fraction of an ounce -- obviously is not an Independent or autonomous human being, and certainly not a person, because it has no way to exist except in the body of another human being that feeds and protects it.

It is also obvious that no two persons can exist in one body with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In effect the Vatican and its dependent right-to-life movement can only promote the rights of an embryo or fetus by treating the woman who carries it as an incubator who may not control her own body, take medication or other substances that may harm the fetus, or make other choices that would be injurious to it.

A human being and certainly a person is not determined solely by its biology at conception, when it has no sex, no brain, no eyes, ears or other senses. A "person" is determined only at birth, when it is welcomed into the human community as a living reality.

Actually, the Vatican position is self-contradictory. Consider in vitro fertilization, a process whereby male sperm fertilizes a female egg in a test tube or dish. Can it be argued that such a fertilized egg has all the rights of a living person? Does it have the right to be implanted in a woman's uterus, without which there could be no expectation of childbirth? In vitro fertilization is forbidden by the Vatican's "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation."

Fr. Donald McCarthy of the Pope John Paul XXII Medical, Moral and Educational Center in St Louis, has called for the endowment of civil rights to every fertilized egg, includIng the right not to be created at all except as a consequence of "personal, self-giving and conjugal love." Here two fictional legalisms conflict: A human being exists at conception, but that human being has a right not to be implanted. Who makes that decision? Certainly not the fertilized egg!

In 1988 when the Webster case1 was being argued before the Supreme Court, 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, told the Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief, "There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception ..." They referred to the argument made by others to the Court that "as surely as the Earth moves around the sun, it is an undisputed biological fact that a human life begins at conception." In reply, the scientists said, "Such arguments are attempts to distort the teachings of science to fit preconceived conclusions based upon values that science alone does not and cannot dictate."2

The National Academy of Sciences was equally emphatic. They declared that Senate Bill 158 cannot stand up to the scrutiny of science. One section of the bill reads, "The Congress finds the present day scientific evidence Indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." The scientists said, '"his statement purports to derive its conclusions from science, but It deals with a question to which science can provide no answer. The proposal in S.158 that the term "person" shall include "all human life" has no basis within our scientific understanding."

Also in the same brief before the Supreme Court, Joseph Boyle, MD, chair of the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, stated: '"he question of when a human life truly begins calls for a conclusion as to which characteristic defines the essence of life. While science can tell us wheR certain biological attributes can be detected, science cannot tell us which biological attributes establish the existence of a human being."3

Some distinguished scientists indicate that you cannot speak of a human being or person without the development of the brain. Michael Bennett, professor and chair of the Department of Neuroscience at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, wrote: There is none, not heart, kidney, lung or spleen that we cannot transplant, do without, or replace artificially. The brain is the essence of our existence. If in fiction, a brain is transplanted from one body to another (which is not a realistic possibility because of the multiplicity of connections required), personhood goes with the brain and does not reside in the recipient body (which is not to deny that the body influences and indeed is necessary for the brain to function)."4

Dr. Bennett also added another analysis that deals with certain rightto-life claims that there is a heartbeat in an embryo or fetus. He wrote: "The recently adopted criteria for death provides a further example of the centrality of the brain. The vital signs of heartbeat and respiration are no longer considered a valid indicator of human life, and electroencephalographic techniques permit us to determine whether there is brain activity or chance of its resumption; if a person is brain dead, he or she is dead."5