In my initial post I deliberately left out moral argument, mainly because I wanted to see what others might have to say about stem cell research. Cait is spot on, we have to consider it from a moral perspective.

 

I’m probably way under-qualified to make any kind of pronouncement as to whether life begins at conception or upon implantation, but I do have an opinion. (Like certain anatomic features, everyone has an opinion I suppose.)

 

I believe life begins at conception.

 

Argument: The heavens and the earth (and all the rest) were created before living things. There had to be something from which living things could draw their sustenance. One way to define life process is to depict it as an exchange between an organism and the environment. Included in this exchange are energy, gasses, water, building blocks for cell matter, and waste products. From studying the earth, which is all we have to go on so far, it seems that life exists in every imaginable niche where these exchanges are possible.

 

An embryo that has yet to become implanted is not buried, nor is it lacking a favorable environment for its life processes to be under way. Under the microscope we can see cellular activity going on at a furious pace. Were our instruments powerful enough we’d see RNA, messenger RNA, DNA chains forming, protein molecules being stitched together and a thousand other processes taking place. Before implantation the primary source of energy, minerals and protein chains is chemical, from the egg itself. Oxygen is available in the uterine fluid. This same fluid carries away the embryo’s wastes. In other words, even without a direct “physical” connection to the mother, exchanges are taking place. The embryo is completely dependent upon the mother, even if there is no actual attachment. In vitro “works” because the environment can be controlled to provide a minimum of the means of exchange for the cells to carry out their life processes for a limited time.  

 

Freezing an embryo will work, for a while. Now when the rain does not come, or when it is dark, or if some living thing is buried in the earth, life forms often have the capacity to temporarily suspend or to slow their processes for periods of time. This does not mean that the organism is not alive. Once conditions are favorable, the exchanges may resume.  For a seed, this is a simple matter of warmth, moisture, and a bit of oxygen. For an embryo it is obviously more complex.

 

Implantation becomes necessary when the size and complexity of the embryo require a more effective and efficient means of exchange than simple osmosis through tissue walls. Implantation does not “bring” the embryo to life, it allows life processes to continue and to accelerate.

 

If the embryo fails to implant it will die. It may die after implantation for any of a thousand reasons. Humans, and all creatures, may die at any time between conception and old age. It does not seem to me that the potential for death is a criteria by which to define human life.

 

If we look to nature for other examples, consider kangaroos and other marsupials. Their babies are quite embryonic when they emerge from the birth canal. They crawl up their mother’s body, enter the pouch, and attach themselves to a nipple. This becomes the environment where they are able to continue the life process.

 

The unimplanted embryo is dependent upon the uterine (or “test-tube”) environment. An implanted embryo is dependent upon the mother. An infant born into the world is dependent upon successful transfer of materials by which it sustains its life process. This may sound like an open door to an argument that “human” life doesn’t begin until birth. But there is not an absolute demarcation between dependence upon the mother’s body and dependence upon an external environment. Human babies, generally speaking, continue to draw sustenance from their mother’s body (or from a wet-nurse). Human babies require careful management of their external environment, which may include their mother’s physical warmth or provision of blankets and all of the things that go into newborn care. Even when the baby is ready for food other than mother’s milk there is a great deal of preparation involved. Everyone who is a parent or who has observed child-rearing understands that the process toward “independent” living is a continuum. There is no absolute demarcation.

 

Fundamentally, I do not see an absolute “moment” where the embryo is or is not a human life.

 

Argument: (I confess I got frustrated here. I spent half an hour looking for a passage I KNOW is somewhere in the O.T. Darn it.) One aspect of human life that fascinates me in scripture is that God NAMED Adam. None of the animals were named until Adam named them. I’m not clear on the two trees – “Knowledge of Good and Evil” and the “Tree of Life.” I am not aware of any of the other plants having a name. God, then His commissioning of Adam (and humankind, through him) names humans.

 

There are several times in Scripture where God announced that a particular human would be born BEFORE conception had even taken place. Isaac is the first who comes to mind. Samuel is another. Sometimes He named the person, again before conception had taken place. John the Baptist is one. Jesus is another, whether we choose to treat Him as an exception or not.

 

It seems that I have a choice here. Are the numerous persons whose birth is foretold prior to conception, whose names were given before conception, exceptional cases of God intervening in history and in nature? Or are they examples of God letting us know that He knows us and calls us by our name before we are formed in our mother’s womb. (This is where that citation would have come in handy, just couldn’t find it.)

 

In healing prayer I have witnessed graces inundating everyone present when invoking the Father’s naming someone even before they were formed.

 

Humans are named. If the Eternal knows our name, even before conception, then I do not see any way not to recognize a fertilized ovum as anything but a human life.  

 

I have considered what I know of science, which informs my faith, and what my faith tells me, which informs my sense of science. I believe human life begins in eternity with the Father and is present in this world at conception. Understanding it this way, I cannot countenance using human embryos for research, for “harvesting” organs, or f\or the generation of stem cells.

So, that’s my second contribution to the discussion. Like I said at the beginning, it may be that I am one of the last people in the group qualified to have anything but an ill-informed personal opinion here. I will be open to any other views and am eager to learn.