In article <m6tb90t79nn7eqea0n9l59jpp32k2ja3lo@4ax.com>,
whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com says...

When Do Human Beings Begin?
"Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D
Copyright 1999
Dianne N. Irving

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific
question,

That's an assertion which is most probably false about a question that
may well be irrelevant. It may not even be proper question in the first
place to ask. There may be no "beginning", which we can reasonably and
non-arbitrarily identify. It's like saying, when does a rowboat begin.
Does it begin with the acorn that grows into a tree and is cut down?
Does it begin in the sawmill when it's cut into planks. Does it begin
when someone starts thinking about making the material into a boat?
Does it even matter when it begins if we are asking what circumstances
would justify its destruction? It's not clear that any of these are
satisfactorily addressed by the initial question, nor does science
provide sufficient insight. It's very much a definitional issue and
also depends upon a variety of philosophical and logical factors.

and should be answered by human embryologists

The word "should" often implies ethical obligation, though it could
imply logical necessity too. Neither ethical obligation nor logical
entailment are strictly scientific issues. It's certainly not clear
that only embryologists can contribute relevant information, scientific
or otherwise on this question. Science, after all, can only produce
probabilistic answers. Nothing is strictly certain from a scientific
perspective, though people often treat it as certain when they want to
justify particular points of view.

? not by
philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray
technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists

The conclusion doesn't follow. The body of scientific knowledge does
not require that only people with particular scientific credentials
contribute to it. Certainly on expect that gynecologists and
obstetricians, as well as even bioethicists and philosophers may be able
to contribute information and data which can inform a scientific
conclusion. Of course, as I already pointed out, the "when does
(human) life begin" question may be something of a red herring anyway.
It's not clear that all life, zygotic, human adult or otherwise is
entitled to the same protections or ethical regard.

The
question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.

Well that can't be divorced from the discussion either.

Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species
chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to
when the life of every human being begins.

They are not merely factual questions. They revolve around questions
like whether it is important to protect single-celled zygotes or not.
As to whether it's living, a variety of standards can also be applied,
such as whether it is capable of undergoing brain death or not.

If the "science" used to
ground these various discussions is incorrect,

It's not clear how much science is being used to ground these
discussions at all. Scientific data may play a role, but it may not be
a foundational one.

then any conclusions
will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article
is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on
the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions.

Again, one can't help but note the suggesting that certain things
"ought" to be grounded on particular scientific principles. This itself
is likely not a scientific judgment, but rather a value judgment which
is not itself entirely objective.

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between
the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization ?

That may well be, but there are still important factual issues to be
analyzed, like the fact that only a few ova and a small quantity of
sperm will interact in the fertilization process. It is a fact that
different ova and different sperm could have ended up interacting and
producing a different biological result. Therefore we have to treat all
sperm and ova as potential human life, just as we treat a zygote as
potential human life. The fact that it has less dna, however, does not
entitle it to claim the mantle of being a "human life". It is still
only a potential human life, despite any biological distinction above
and beyond gametogenesis. BTW, don't even mention the straw man that
she labels "Myth #1", because I'm not saying anything remotely like
that.

the change from a
simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of
another human being (i.e., an oocyte ? usually referred to as an
"ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life"

Ova and sperm might be said to be trivially alive and a product of the
human body. That doesn't mean that we treat them as "human life".

, to a new,
genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human
being

There is nothing whole about it. Factually speaking the zygote does not
have sufficient information to produce a human life on its own. It must
interact various hormones from the mother's body. It is factually false
that a zygote is a "whole living human being".

(an embryonic single-cell human zygote).

That's not whatsoever the same thing as a "whole living human being".
The zygote lacks substantial features which actual human beings have and
therefore cannot be considered a human being or necessarily even alive,
by human standards. Presence of a brain is required for human life and
zygotes do not possess this. Killing the zygote does not kill a human
brain, whereas killing an actual human does kill a human brain.

That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed
into something very different from what they were before;

It takes multiple days for the fertilization process to proceed and the
DNA to unwrap and begin assimilation, encoding, etc. It does not happen
upon the instant of "fertilization" nor even upon implantation.

they have
been changed into a single, whole human being.

That's unmitigated, unscientific propagandistic horseshit which
essentially is an attempt to revive the discredited, pseudo-scientific
theory of "pre-formism". It is not a "whole human being" in any sense
of the word. It does not have a brain, or the bodily characteristics of
a human. It has it's sex chromosomes, but errors at this point may
still cause it to become transgendered. By the law of identity,
something cannot be called a "whole human being" unless it has identical
properties to other "whole human beings". Lack a brain, bodily features
and a guaranteed sexual status it is unequivocal that the zygote falls,
on logical or objective scientific grounds to be a "whole human being".
Dianne Irving has therefore been shown to be a liar and a fraud who
attempts to cloak her uninformed, unscientific and illogical prejudices
underneath the banner of empirical science.

During the process of
fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such

Irrelevant and calling for speculation. Even if they cease to have the
arbitrarily identified properties of un-united gametes, we cannot
conclude that the only alternative is for them to become a "whole human
being".

, and a
new human being is produced.

That's not warranted by any evidence presented so far and therefore
thoroughly fallacious.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living
organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are
characteristic for each member of a species.

By this standard, people with chromosomal damage must necessarily be
regarded as non-human. It's true that they are often infertile and
incapable of interbreeding with other humans, which is usually a
necessary characteristic of different species. However, it is doubtful
that most scientists are prepared to say that infertile or chromosomally
damaged people are non-human.

I would proceed with this, but Dianne Irving is also a well known,
natural law fanatic who dismisses philosophy and bioethics when it is
convenient, but then writes extensive philosophical treatises on the
subject when she wants to convey her true agenda. Of course she doesn't
claim to have credentials in philosophy, which doesn't automatically
disqualify her, but also doesn't inspire confidence in her ability to
properly analyze the subject.