Human Beings Begin as Zygotes: Refutations to 8 Common Pro-Choice Arguments

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is meant for biological definition purposes. It is not meant to establish or argue any moral or philosophical points.
 

A zygote is a human being.  

1.  The zygote is an organism.

Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes. [Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)]

This is not a new concept. The zygote has been recognized as an organism for decades:

"The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”[Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500]

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

Some pro-choicers imply that the zygote is in some nebulous “in between phase” – not a gamete but not a human organism. But biologically, life cycles do not contain such a phase. In humans (animals), our life cycle goes from diploid organism, which produces haploid gametes, which combine to form a new diploid organism. The zygote isn’t in an unknown stage; it's the same organism as the grown adult, but at an earlier stage of life.

The Diplontic Life Cycle

2. Every organism is part of some species, and the human ZEF is part of the human species (Homo sapiens) by virtue of its human DNA.

A species is defined as

 (2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. 

Please note that "capable of mating" does not mean at any given instant. For example, newborns are not capable of mating, but are still organisms of the human species. "Capable of mating" refers to an organism who should be capable of mating in their lifetime, barring sterility. And on that note, also keep in mind that there's a difference between an individual organism being sterile vs. an organism having developed genetic changes which render reproduction with his origin species impossible (speciation).

Every organism is part of some species. There are no "non-species" organisms. The organism is part of its parents’ species. For example, two honey-badgers cannot reproduce and create a frog; their offspring would also be a honey-badger. Furthermore, an organism can never change its species mid-development (in the middle of its life). A honey-badger zygote develops into a honey-badger adult; a honey-badger zygote can’t develop into a frog adult.

One species can develop into another species over many generations. This is called speciation. Speciation most often occurs when one species is split into two or more geographical groups (allopatric speciation). Genetic changes accumulate over many generations, not within a single lifespan, such that if the groups ever met again, they would not be able to produce viable offspring. That's when you can say "these are now two different species."

But we would never say "this offspring is an organism but has no species membership."

Human zygotes are human, both because their parents are human and because they have human DNA. They are not part of some other species, nor do they lack species membership.

3. An organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens is a human being.

There are other definitions of human being, including “a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.” I am only referring to the biological definition of human being when I use the term:

1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.  

CONCLUSION: Since the zygote is an organism and a member of the species Homo sapiens, it is a human organism and therefore biologically a human being.

Below we present some topics that have been brought up as questions or objections.

Q1. Chimerism

Put simply, a chimera is a single organism composed of more than one unique DNA type (or antigenic marker on red blood cells). In animals, this can result from the merging of 2+ zygotes into one entity (tetragametic), or from twins sharing blood supply in gestation ("blood chimeras" have more than one blood type). You can be a microchimera if you received blood from mom early in gestation, if as a mother you received fetal cells during pregnancy (as most do), or just from a blood transfusion. You're even considered a chimera if you received an organ transplant. Chimerism is usually asymptomatic, but rarely it can result in things like intersexuality if it results from absorption of a twin.

The important thing to note is that a chimera is still one individual human organism. From the britannica article:

Chimera, in genetics, an organism or tissue that contains at least two different sets of DNA. In dispermic chimeras, two eggs that have been fertilized by two sperm fuse together, producing a so-called tetragametic individual—an individual originating from four gametes, or sex cells.When two zygotes do not undergo fusion but exchange cells and genetic material during development, two individuals, or twin chimeras, one or both of whom contain two genetically distinct cell populations, are produced. 

You may be a chimera and not even realize it. You may have multiple DNA types due to absorption of some cell types or an entire other organism -- and this doesn't change the fact that you are still an individual human organism.

The reason this is brought up as an objection is because people sometimes think of DNA as some sort of marker of individuality, and therefore they may see multiple markers of DNA as a sign of "multiple individuals." DNA can function as an individuality marker, but it doesn't always as is evident in the case of identical twins. DNA is simply a code of instructions for the body to function effectively as an organism. That's it. If it is unique to you, and you only have one set of DNA -- great! If you do not have unique DNA, or you have multiple unique DNA sets -- you're still a singular human organism. 

Q2. Twinning

This objection usually goes something like: A zygote can twin, therefore how can you say it's an individual human being before the potential twinning stage is over?

This objection is interesting because by extension, none of us are individual human beings. Why? Well twinning is essentially the same thing as cloning. The main difference is that one happens "naturally" and the other happens artificially. The point is, if your DNA can be taken from an epithelial cell on your arm and made into a clone, would spawning a clone mean you were not an individual human being to begin with? With advanced technology, we could all conceivably be in the "twinning" (cloning) phase indefinitely! Yet we're all still singular human organisms.

This is basically the backwards version of chimerism, by the way. Absorbing or spawning organisms does not change the fact that a single organism is still a single organism.   

Read more: Monozygotic twinning, Weasley brothers, flatworms, and cow clones.

Q3. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

"In vitro" means "outside the body." IVF is when we use sperm to fertilize an egg in a laboratory dish instead of a uterine tube (in vivo). The resulting embryo is then placed into the woman's uterus to allow implantation and thus a pregnancy, which is why IVF is considered a type of assisted reproductive technology (ART).

The pro-life objection to IVF is that -- due to time, cost, and failure rates -- companies performing the procedure will always fertilize more than one embryo at a time. Many will then select the highest quality embryos to increase chances of a successful pregnancy. This means either cryopreservation (freezing) of the remaining embryos if the couple wants to pay for it, or destroying them.

In some countries, including the US, multiple embryos can be transferred to the woman's uterus to increase chances of a successful pregnancy. This can sometimes result in multiple implantations (twins or more), but this isn't usually the case, which means the other embryo will have been miscarried.

It's worth noting that although survival rates for IVF are poor, nothing about IVF alters the basic biological process outlined above: gametes join to form a new human organism. It is merely accomplished in a laboratory rather than in the womb. People conceived through IVF are as human as anyone else.

From my perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with IVF if it were done on one embryo at a time, which gives every embryo the best possible chance of life. But this is not standard practice. Rather, IVF is used to make multiple embryos with the foreknowledge that not all will be allowed to grow and live their life, and in most cases with the foreknowledge that some will die.

One objection to this is: But a large percentage of conceptions die before ever implanting, or soon after. Why is that foreknowledge ok in natural conception, but suddenly wrong if done in a petri dish? 

In natural conception, couples are trying their best to give every zygote a chance to live. If a zygote dies naturally, that is not the preemptive work of the couple creating him/her as it is in most cases of IVF.  

And while I greatly sympathize with men and women who have fertility problems but have a great desire to create their own offspring, the solution is not to treat human organisms as disposable.

Q4. Random Mutations

Through your life, your body replenishes cells via mitosis. Every time a cell is copied, the replication machinery -- while mostly very accurate -- will make mistakes in copying the template DNA. Not to worry, there is proofreading machinery too. However, even this can make mistakes. So in the end, there is some non-zero number of mutations that are incorporated into the new cell which are propagated in that cell line (although you still have your original batch of stem cells).

What this means is that as you get older, some portion of your cells will have a specific DNA sequence that is different than the one you had when you were younger. Some people see DNA as a unique identifier, like a name, and therefore a change in this identifier might mean you are not the same individual.

We all change as we grow. I am not the same person I was when I was 5; I have different memories, experiences, mindsets, functionality, and slightly different DNA. But guess what? I'm still the same organism. While some people may ascribe to the belief that we are not the same "person" we were yesterday, in a scientific sense we are still the same organism. An organism goes through changes in its life, but it doesn't end its life and begin a new one in the same body.

Q5. Life as a Continuum vs Individual Life

We have written about this topic before. The objection goes something like: "Human life doesn’t begin at fertilization; it began millions of years ago."

The objection confuses the life of an individual human organism with life arising from life (also known as the Law of Biogenesis.) The Law of Biogenesis points out that living matter has to come from other living matter. However you, as an organism, were not the precursor molecules that eventually formed you, as an organism. For example you were not sperm and egg. Or an early primate. The precursors that create an organism are not equivalent to the organism itself.

The fact that all life comes from preexisting life does not change the fact that an individual organism's life has a start and end point. And for human organisms, that starting point is always as a zygote.

Q6. Hydatidiform Mole

[November 2018 update: in the original version of this section we incorrectly stated that partial moles are never viable. We have sense learned there are rare cases where such humans have survived to infancy.]

A hydatidiform mole (1/1000 pregnancies in the US) is an abnormal fertilized egg which implants in the uterus.

(Q6a) Complete Mole: This abnormality can occur when one (90%) or even two (10%) sperm combine with an ovum that has no maternal DNA; the sperm then replicates its DNA to create an artificially "diploid" cell. This results in a mass of abnormal tissue which can develop into cancer (15-20%) and/or invade the uterine wall (10-15% of all molar pregnancies will invade if not removed). Complete moles have no embryonic growth; there is only abnormal placental tissue. Maureen Condic said it much better than I ever could (the bolded part is most important):

Despite an initial (superficial) similarity to embryos, hydatidiform moles do not start out as embryos and later transform into tumors, they are intrinsically tumors from their initiation. Moreover, they are not frustrated embryos that are “trying” (yet unable) to develop normally. Just as a CD recording of “Twinkle, twinkle little star” is not somehow thwarted in its attempt to play the “Alphabet song” by a deficiency of notes in the fourth measure ..., hydatidiform moles are not “blocked” from proceeding along an embryonic path of development by a lack of maternally-imprinted DNA. Rather, hydatidiform moles are manifesting their own inherent properties—the properties of a tumor. Even in the optimal environment for embryonic development (the uterus), hydatidiform moles produce disordered growths, indicating they are not limited by environment, but rather by their own intrinsic nature; a nature that does not rise to the level of an organism...If the necessary structures (molecules, genes etc.) required for development (i.e., an organismal level of organization) do not exist in an entity from the beginning, the entity is intrinsically incapable of being an organism and is therefore not a human being. Such entities are undergoing a cellular process that is fundamentally different from human development and are not human embryos.

(Maurine Condic, "A Biological Definition of the Human Embryo," Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments, as quoted by Jay Watts in his article Condic on the Difference Between Embryonic Humans and Hydatidiform Moles, emphasis Condic's.) 

(Q6b) A partial mole on the other hand is when a normal ovum is fertilized by two sperm or by one sperm that replicates itself, creating a triploidy or tetraploidy cell. In this case, an embryo/fetus can develop. Rarely is this embryo viable; partial moles usually miscarry and even when they do not the embryo is often overtaken and destroyed by the abnormal placental tissue. However there have been extraordinarily rare cases of triploid human organisms surviving until infancy. These are human organisms with severe and fatal genetic abnormalities.

We have written on molar pregnancies before. Some people use hydatidiform moles as an example to argue that fertilization is not necessarily the beginning of a human being, or that because fertilization can result in these moles, then it's wrong to say a fertilized egg is a human being.

In one sense, they're right. They're correct to say that not all fertilizations result in human beings. Clearly, some result in complete moles. Fertilization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of a human organism.

However in the vast majority of cases, a fertilized egg is a human organism (human being). The exception really does prove the rule. As the previous blog post pointed out, pro-lifers tend to take shortcuts here and say that fertilization is the beginning of a new human life. Most of the time, that's true. Perhaps it would be better to just say "a zygote is a human being," or something similar.  

Read more: Hydatidiform moles and molar pregnancies

Q7. Miscarriages

According to the NIH, half of all fertilized eggs die spontaneously, and 15-20% of pregnancies (post-implantation) will miscarry.

Q7a) People may cite the high number of miscarriages to imply that abortion is not morally problematic or the zygote is not a human being.

However, there's a clear distinction between natural death and intentional killing. Every human being will die. Some die of cancer (natural death) and some die of gunshot wound (intentional killing). If lots of people die of cancer, would that make shooting them morally acceptable? No. Just because people die naturally, whether in old age or pre-implantation, doesn't mean it's acceptable to kill them, whether by gun or by chemical.

If lots of people die naturally of cancer, does that mean they were not human beings to begin with? Clearly not. Likewise a high rate of natural death in the preborn does not mean they were not human beings. As stated above, a zygote is a human being, whether it dies naturally in a day or in 100 years.

(Q7b) People may also cite the high number of miscarriages to question why pro-lifers don't appear as concerned with the high number of deaths there. 

Why do people speak out more passionately and perhaps more frequently about shootings than they do about cancer? Does it mean that people who die naturally, from cancer, don't matter? Does it imply that they don't really care about people dying in general? Of course not. It makes sense to be more upset by a human being intentionally killing another human being than it does to be upset by a natural cause of death. Furthermore, stopping this type of killing is more likely within our grasp than finding a cure to cancer.

Likewise with abortion: we are far more equipped to stop the intentional killing of young human beings than we are equipped to stop natural miscarriages. And it's understandable that an egregious harm being perpetrated by an intelligent human being (capable of moral contemplation) is more upsetting than harm perpetrated by non-moral agents.

Read more: Nearly half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. 

Q8. Skin cells are human!

The skin cells on my arm are human, too. Is it murder if I scratch my arm? Sperm are also human, is masturbation murder? 

This objection conflates "human" the adjective and "human" the noun. Epithelial cells and sperm are human cells, but they are not human organisms. There is a difference between components that make up an organism (epithelial, endothelial, renal, pulmonary, hepatic cells, etc) and the organism itself. Human organisms (human beings) are what pro-lifers are concerned with, which includes the zygote.  

What do you call the embryos conceived through IVF, then destroyed?

Above: Then-President Bush cradles a snowflake baby

You've probably seen the story that went ridiculously viral last week. You know—the one about embryos conceived in vitro, then killed, and their tiny bodies preserved and incorporated into jewelry for their parents to wear.

That was a mouthful. But what else can we call these young victims?

The original article called them "extra IVF embryos." LifeNews described them as "human embryos left over from IVF." On the other end of the political spectrum, Slate also went with "extra," but added that women in online forums sometimes call them "snowbabies" or "frosties." I also saw the phrase "unused embryos" in some media outlets.

None of these descriptors are adequate.

What does it mean to be an "extra" person? I think of China, where being "extra" carries a terrible weight. I also think of Bill Nye, who last month was rightly criticized for suggesting that parents should be penalized for having "extra" children. Calling someone "extra" defines the person negatively, in contrast to people who are just enough, whatever the hell that means. It's dehumanizing.

LifeNews' phrasing comes closer to giving these embryos some measure of dignity, but "left over" has some of the same connotations as "extra," and has the added problem of making me think of food in my fridge.

"Snowbabies" and "frosties" reminds me of "snowflake children"—the term pro-lifers and others have used to describe babies born alive after IVF, cryogenic storage, and embryo donation. I have no real problem with this language from a moral standpoint, but as a practical matter, most people will not know what you are talking about when you say that jewelry is being made from snowbabies. In this day and age, they might think you're talking about overly sensitive college students!

And then there is the word "unused," which certainly captures the commodification of the embryos in question. As with "extra," I worry that the language we employ might support the very dehumanization we are denouncing. I also object that the descriptor "unused" is not accurate; the embryos were, tragically, used in the end.

I mean no disrespect to LifeNews or any of the many other journalists who covered this disturbing story. My point is that we don't have humanizing, concise, familiar language to describe the victims of this practice. And that's a problem. How can we humanize someone, when we don't even have the words to call them to light?

Study: "Extra" Embryos Do Not Aid Infertility Treatment Compared To eSET

CORRECTION 10/17/16: The study we referenced below is specifically comparing elective single embryo transfer (eSET) to transfer of multiple embryos. eSET involves creating multiple embryos, using certain criteria to choose the embryo most likely to be viable, and transferring just that embryo to the mother. This process is in contrast with non-elective single embryo transfer, when only one embryo is created and so that specific embryo must be the one transferred to the mother. The study referenced below did not examine the live birth rates and multiple birth rates for non-elective single embryo transfer, but it is unlikely that creating and transferring a single embryo would be as effective as creating multiple embryos and transferring either the most promising embryo or more than one embryo.

A storage tank containing frozen embryos

Religious authorities widely oppose in vitro fertilization (IVF)—that is, fertilization outside a woman's body—as being unnatural or against the will of a god. From a secular point of view, IVF is not necessarily unethical... but often is in practice. There is nothing inherently good or bad about where conception takes place. The critical question is: how is the resulting embryonic human treated?

From the early days of IVF, fertility clinics have made a habit of creating far more embryos than the parents actually intend to raise. The idea is that by creating and implanting "extra" embryos, you can offset any embryos who might die naturally from miscarriage and therefore increase the odds of at least one baby being carried to term.

In practice, however, many of these "extra" embryos are not introduced to the womb with their siblings. Instead, they are kept frozen for subsequent IVF attempts. And if a baby is born on the first try and the subsequent attempt at pregnancy never comes? Some of the "extra" embryos are adopted by other infertility patients. Others are killed, sometimes for research. Over half a million remain in a frozen limbo.

Ethicists have written mountains of articles about the conundrum posed by frozen embryos. No one can seem to agree on a good solution. But it has to start with stemming the tide of all these "extra" embryos. As it turns out, creating and implanting "extra" embryos doesn't actually aid fertility treatment.

A new study destroys the underlying premise that implanting multiple embryos increases the odds of a healthy birth. Researchers found that an infertility patient is just as likely to give birth if only one embryo is implanted. "Extra" embryos aren't offsetting miscarriages, resulting in one healthy newborn. The real effect of implanting those "extra" embryos? Twins and triplets, of course:

The study, published in this month’s issue of Fertility and Sterility, analyzed data collected in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 467 of the country’s fertility clinics. Researchers took into account the age of each patient, the stage at which each embryo was transferred, and the number of embryos each patient had available. Still, they found no significant difference in birth rates as the number of embryos transferred increased, though rates of multiples increased.

Most parents pursuing fertility treatment welcome multiples, but sadly, not all; the abortion of one twin or two triplets in a "selective reduction" after IVF is not unheard of.

Why create "extra" embryos, and cause such an ethical dilemma, when it doesn't actually benefit infertility patients? Fertility clinics should scale back and create only the number of embryos that the parents are prepared to raise or place for adoption.

Apparently protecting embryos is more extreme than severing babies' spines.

Pro-choice activists mock the most socially unpalatable aspects of the pro-life position. Broadly speaking, pro-lifers believe human life is morally relevant when the human organism begins: as a zygote. This means we oppose killing not only fetuses, but also embryos and zygotes. And so, while we primarily object to surgical abortion, many of us also object to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, contraception that prevents implantation, and aspects of in vitro fertilization (IVF)—all processes the public tends to be a lot more okay with than abortion.

Pro-choicers like to emphasize these objections, implying or outright saying we’re out-of-touch zealots with whacked priorities. They paint a dystopian picture where women can’t access the most common forms of contraception, people keep suffering from ailments ESC could have cured, and infertile couples have nowhere to turn. They usually go further and suggest we want people to suffer in various ways, or at least we are indifferent to suffering as we elevate the welfare of microscopic one-celled “seeds” over everyone else.

I have plenty of problems with these assertions. It’s obnoxious when people ignore your stated motivation in favor of the secret more sinister motivation they’re sure you have. It’s equivocating to try to claim motivation is more about effect than intent. And the dystopian predictions require a whole host of assumptions beyond “zygotes are morally relevant” to actually come true.

But what annoys me most is the hypocrisy.

If zygotes are morally relevant, pro-lifers have to argue for socially unpopular opinions, like that certain forms of contraception may be immoral. That’s true. But if fetal life is morally irrelevant, pro-choicers have to defend (or, more typically, wholly ignore) socially unpopular realities, like that healthy women abort healthy fetuses 4 months into pregnancy and beyond thousands of times a year. They abort fetuses developed enough that Planned Parenthood can harvest intact organs. They abort fetuses developed enough to sometimes survive the abortion by accident.

Most Americans consider contraception morally acceptable; they’d likely be averse to a worldview that takes a moral stand against certain forms of it. But at the same time, most Americans recoil at the idea of late-term abortion of healthy fetuses carried by healthy women. I think many simply don’t realize how extreme the American version of abortion rights is. (Other first world countries have abortion laws more restrictive than our own.)

Moreover, when darkly predicting what pro-lifers want to do about contraception, ESC, and IVF, pro-choicers are theorizing about what could happen someday if XYZ factors come to pass. But the dismemberment of late term fetuses is happening now. It’s already a reality, and it’s not even a secret.

Remember last year when Carly Fiorina said this regarding the CMP videos?

Fiorina got a lot of flack for allegedly making things up, but pay attention to the nature of the objections. People were quick to point out that the CMP videos never had a scene exactly as Fiorina described. So the objection was “There isn’t specific video footage of what she said!” The objection was not “Planned Parenthood never harvested the brains of fetuses who were developed enough to have a heartbeat or kick their legs.” You know why? Because Planned Parenthood has done that. They don’t even deny it.

The entire CMP controversy is a great example of pro-choicers ignoring the most perverse aspects of the American pro-choice stance. The rampant accusations of edited footage and public deception all focus on whether PP profited in their exchange of fetal organs for money, not on whether they harvest fetal organs from late-term fetuses. They do. But sure, let’s talk more about what might happen with the copper IUD and ignore that we’re ripping babies apart.

(Yes, I said “babies.” I get objecting to calling a zygote or blastocyst a “baby” because of the completely different imagery the word brings to people’s minds. But when I’m talking about fetuses at this level?

Objecting to calling ^that a baby is, to me, just another way of trying really hard to pretend this isn’t happening.)

The typical pro-choice defense here is that late-term abortions are due to fatal fetal abnormalities or threats to the mother’s life. It’s no doubt true that, proportionally, late-term abortions are more likely to be for those reasons than earlier term abortions are. But what research we can find indicates most late-term abortions aren’t done for those reasons. Pro-choice activists try to use heartbreaking stories of planned pregnancies gone horribly wrong to sidestep the more common scenario of healthy late term fetuses aborted in far less dire situations.

For the most part Americans seem to take the “abortion is a necessary evil” perspective. On average, Americans think early term abortion ought to be legal but remain divided on its morality and resistant to late-term abortion. And yet we already have the regular destruction of fetuses who were so developed all but the most insistent pro-choicers would recognize them as babies.

(Source)

How much darker would things get if more of America moved from a pro-choice perspective to a pro-abortion one? We’re not even getting into what could happen if our society switched from “abortion: the necessary evil” to “abortion: the responsible, empowering, moral choice.” We’ve already had glimpses of that world, with issues like renaming "infanticide" as "after-birth abortion," claiming that "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person," and resisting requirements to try to save the lives of babies who accidentally survive abortion.

And this is what I mean by hypocrisy – pro-choicers bash us for being concerned about aspects of IVF, but what does the average American have a bigger problem with? IVF clinics possibly shutting down someday, or people tearing babies’ legs off now? Which worldview really has the extreme repercussions here?

Note I’m not saying pro-choice people are all okay with late-term elective abortion. I think--and polls back me up--that most of them are pretty uncomfortable with it. But I am saying it’s a fact of the American pro-choice political platform. And late-term elective abortion isn’t the only extreme aspect of this platform.

This is the platform that forgives Planned Parenthood for failing to report or, worse, covering up rape and sex trafficking. It’s the platform that has inspired Sanders to vote multiple times against criminal penalties for harming a fetus during the commission of a crime. It’s the platform that had Obama voting against legislation to protect preterm infants who accidentally survive abortion—because such protections would “undermine Roe v. Wade.”

Do you follow that? What does it say about American abortion rights if they’re threatened by specifying legal protection to born babies whose parents had wanted to abort? Obama isn’t the only one who sees the problem. When Gosnell was found guilty of severing the spinal cords of born babies, some abortion rights supporters objected to him being charged with murder—because what he’d done was so similar to late-term abortion. You’d think this similarity would suggest a problem with late-term abortion, but apparently instead it’s a problem with how society reacts to killing born babies. We are through the looking glass here, guys, and it's not the pro-life side that pushed us there.

And while most pro-choicers wouldn’t go so far as to outright defend Gosnell’s infanticide, plenty did follow the same strategy they typically follow when we get to the edges of the pro-choice position: “If we just don’t talk about this, maybe it will go away. Let’s keep pretending our defense of abortion has no relation to literal murder. Maybe we should write a snarky blog about how pro-lifers are suspicious of the Pill.”

I think the most relevant abortion debates take an unblinking look at early term abortion and discuss its many moral, legal, and social factors. But I don’t think every single abortion debate has to focus on only the most common forms of it. I think it’s fair to look at the trickier, less socially acceptable implications of a perspective (be it defense of zygotes or lack of defense of newborns). But if pro-choicers are going to scrutinize the edges of our side, they should have the courage to look as critically at their own. 

Three-Parent Babies: A Pro-Life Ethical Analysis

[Today's guest post by Victoria Godwin is part of our paid blogging program.]

The UK Parliament voted early last month to allow for the creation of children using the biological DNA from three people, effectively becoming the first country to officially approve this technique. The aim of this technology is to allow parents with a high likelihood of passing down genetic diseases, particularly mothers who carry genes coding for mitochondrial disease, to have healthy biological children. Mitochondria, which are essentially the energy “power houses” of our cells, are passed down to children by only the mother. A child with an inherited mitochondrial disorder will likely not survive long after birth, or will be severely disabled if he or she does. Proponents of the three-parent measure point to Sharon Bernardi, a UK mother who lost seven of her children to mitochondrial disease, as the type of person who would benefit from the technique, along with an estimated 150 eligible parents in the UK each year. The three-parent method of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) would not only allow parents to have children free of certain incurable genetic diseases, but would essentially eradicate mitochondrial disease from a genetic line. Sounds pretty great, right? But like with all technology involving the creation of new human beings, it's not that simple.

For pro-lifers, the primary issue is that the three-parent IVF process can involve the destruction of human life. There are actually two methods: “egg repair” and “embryo repair.” Both are modifications of IVF (which is controversial in its own right). Briefly, in “egg repair,” two eggs are involved: one from the mother, and a donor egg that has healthy mitochondria. The nucleus of the donor egg is removed and discarded, and the nucleus of the mother’s egg is inserted into the donor egg. The new egg, which contains the mother’s nucleus but the donor’s healthy mitochondria, is now ready to be fertilized by the father’s sperm before being inserted into the uterus.

The "egg repair" three-parent IVF method

The second approach, “embryo repair,” is more complicated as it involves two embryos: one created from the egg and sperm of the intended parents, and a donor embryo created using the father’s sperm but a healthy donor egg. The nuclei of both embryos are removed, but the intended parent’s nucleus is inserted into the donor embryo while the donor nucleus is destroyed. This results in an embryo with the parents’ nucleus and the donor’s mitochondria that is then ready to be inserted into the uterus.

The “embryo repair” reproach is undeniably immoral from a pro-life perspective because it involves the destruction of an embryo, a new human life. Furthermore, the destroyed embryo was created solely for the purpose of creating a healthy embryo; do the ends justify the means? While the “egg repair” method is certainly controversial too, it does not require the destruction of embryos and could be considered an acceptable moral option if appropriate protocol is implemented. Caution must be taken, however; if typical IVF protocol is followed in order to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy, then several embryos could be created while only some are implanted, leaving the rest to be discarded, frozen indefinitely (with few being adopted), or donated to science.

Moreover, while the destruction of human embryos is the main area of concern from a pro-life standpoint, other ethical concerns are worth mentioning, including the potential slippery slope towards “designer babies” and eugenics. To be clear, only about 0.1% of the child’s DNA would be from the donor woman’s mitochondria, and it would not affect traits such as personality or physical appearance, which originate from nuclear DNA. But despite this small percentage, it is still a permanent change in DNA which would then be passed down to subsequent generations through the female line, a fact that has some bioethicists concerned due to the lack of research on the outcomes. 

A precedent has undoubtedly been set with the UK’s approval of this technology. Mitochondrial donation methods were banned in the US at the turn of the millennium during controversy over trials that used a similar cytoplasmic transfer technique (read the scientific publication here), but this issue will surely resurface as the process in the UK continues. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration as well as the Institute of Medicine have recently been holding meetings to discuss the ethical issues brought up by mitochondrial donation techniques.

While I understand and appreciate that this IVF procedure has many potential benefits, extreme caution must be taken to avoid the destruction of human life in the quest to create human life free of debilitating diseases. I would encourage my fellow pro-lifers to also question the ethics of current mitochondrial donation methods (particularly the “embryo repair” method), and to make our voices heard: methods involving the destruction of human embryos are immoral, even if they do result in a healthy embryo. We must ask ourselves just how far we will go to achieve our ends.

IVF and Motivations

I have been active in the pro-life movement for about six years now.  My boyfriend is not quite as active as I am, but he does come with me to marches, and he is a good listener as I bounce ideas off of him for SPL blog posts or I talk about some recent piece of abortion-related news.  From everything I can tell we’ve been in agreement on the abortion issue, acknowledging that human beings begin as zygotes and that abortion destroys human beings.

The other night he learned that friends of his family had successfully completed IVF.  As he was telling me about this he asked, “What’s the big deal with IVF? Don’t some people have a problem with it?”  I told him that it can be controversial because the process typically involves creating multiple embryos, but not all of them are necessarily used in attempts at implantation.  There is a question about what becomes of the extra embryos.

He responded that this isn’t the same issue as abortion because this isn’t about people irresponsibly having sex and ridding themselves of the results—it’s about people who genuinely want a child using science to help them achieve that. 

A brief, tense conversation ensued. 

To my view, if you believe the biological beginning of a human being (the zygote) has enough moral relevance to make abortion unethical, then non-abortion-related procedures that involve destroying human embryos are also unethical.  I think the motivations of the people who choose to risk that destruction are of minimal relevance.  Embryos could die because someone doesn’t want a child (abortion) or, actually, because someone does (IVF).  If it’s unethical to destroy human embryos, it’s unethical either way.

(That’s not to say IVF is inherently unethical.  Genetic parents can donate their extra embryos to third parties trying to have children, so IVF doesn’t necessarily mean the destruction of human embryos anyway.)

Thoughts?

It's National Fertility Awareness Month!

This is a wonderful guest post by Louisa Millington . . .


While at the gym last week, it came to my attention that I had let June almost completely run its course without paying tribute to National Fertility Awareness Month.  I was shaken out of my blissful ignorance when I came across an episode of The View.  In observance of National Fertility Awareness Month, the ladies of The View were dedicating an hour to Surrogacy.  As I watched, and peddled, a question began to develop:  If the surrogate decides to abort, is it still her body, her choice?   As the question continued to brew in my head over the next few days, I happened upon a second occasion to consider the issue of surrogacy while sitting at a book store killing time, waiting for my daughter’s flight to arrive.  While I sat quietly reading, a pregnant Asian woman sat next to me, and within the course of thirty minutes she was joined by five other pregnant women.   I must admit my curiosity got the better of me, and I began to make conversation.   The woman next to me told me she, and the group of women with her, were all from China.  Now having just seen the surrogacy episode of The View, and then finding myself in the company of six pregnant women from China, it got me thinking.  My mind very quickly jumped to the thought that these women could be part of the Chinese “wombs for rent” industry.  While these two surrogacy experiences open up a whole range of questions, I did get the sense that I was being called to explore some of those questions.


I’ll start with my first question:  If a surrogate decides to abort, is it still her body, her choice?   The quick answer is, yes. If you are unfamiliar with surrogacy, it is fairly simple.   There are two basic types of surrogacy, traditional and gestational.   Traditional uses the host surrogate’s egg and either donor sperm or sperm from the intended father to impregnate the host; there is a genetic relationship to the surrogate in traditional surrogacy.  Gestational surrogacy uses either donor sperm and eggs or the sperm and eggs of the intended father and mother to impregnate the host surrogate; there is no genetic relationship to the surrogate in gestational surrogacy.   Most people that choose surrogacy, as opposed to IVF or adoption, do so out of a desire to have a genetic relationship with the child.  There are only six states in the United States that permit surrogacy contracts:  Arkansas, California, Illinois (gestational surrogacy only), Massachusetts, New Jersey (uncompensated surrogacy agreements only), and Washington (uncompensated surrogacy agreements only).   The remaining states have no surrogacy laws, mixed/ambiguous laws, or surrogacy is not legal.  Surrogacy contracts are typically legal contracts where portions of the contracts can be unenforceable, particularly any portion of a contract that would require a surrogate host to continue a pregnancy against her will.   A surrogate mother has the option at any time to continue or end the pregnancy and there is nothing the intended parents can do to change the fact that this is her exclusive right (even with a legal contract).

As I have perused the surrogacy message boards, I have learned that abortion is a hot topic in the surrogacy community.  It can become an issue when selective reduction comes in to play, when the potential for a “defective” child becomes an issue, when a surrogate or intended parents change their mind, or when intended parents become unable to pay their bill.  I’ve read stories of intended parents that have paid tens of thousands of dollars only to have their genetic property arbitrarily destroyed by a surrogate that changed her mind.   These parents weep over their lost child, their lost parenthood, while the surrogate mom exercises her right to privacy.  Imagine the dichotomy of positions.  While many, if not most, of these families are ardent supporters of women’s reproductive rights, these same families lament the loss of their “child”.  So whose property is that growing human?  Many try to sue for performance of contract; however the sad reality is, the child in the womb is chattel owned by the mother carrying him or her.  Many have tried to apply commerce laws, laws applying to the selling of goods and services, to the surrogacy contract; once again a woman’s right to privacy supersedes commerce law in this instance.   I am struck at this point by the offensive objectification of these children, pawns used by surrogates to improve their financial situation and by intended parents attempting to satisfy their desire to have a genetic relationship with a child. This thing, this child, that sees its net worth rising and falling based on human desire and the ability to perform.


Now, what about those six women from China? Once again I was faced with dueling challenges; China’s forced subjugation of women with respect to their ability to have more than one child and the burgeoning womb for rent industry in China.  As I researched, I came across many articles about the Chinese government cracking down on the womb for rent industry, and stories of the Chinese government strapping teenage women to tables as they insert needles into their bellies to begin the abortion process, a situation not unfamiliar to many Chinese women that have been subjected to forced abortions (even when the little ones were intended to remain within their genetic families).  I doubt many of you are asking why Chinese women would be used for surrogates, in case you are, the answer is cheap labor.  The cost of surrogacy with a Chinese or Indian woman ranges from $12,000 to $30,000 compared to the cost of a US surrogate which costs upward of $70,000.  While continuing my research I also learned that many military wives are becoming surrogates in order to supplement pay, particularly those whose husbands are being deployed for long periods of time.  Women, how far have we come to sink so low?  Women of all skin color are selling their fertility to improve their financial situations, allowing themselves to be used as a tool to satisfy their desires and the desires of others.

Dare I risk broaching another surrogacy question? What about the risks of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?  In order to achieve pregnancy IVF is perfomed.  Drugs are given to an egg donor to hyper stimulate ovary production.   A woman’s pelvic area swells to about twice its normal size and if you think PMS is bad during normal ovulation can you imagine being in the presence of woman whose ovaries have been hyper stimulated, or can you imagine being that woman?  Most women produce only one egg per cycle. Egg donors will produce anywhere from 5-35 eggs.  Did I mention the possible association between IVF and breast and ovarian cancer. Do your own research, check with the National Institute of Health.


In the final analysis, I would say BUYER AND SELLER BEWARE.  There is an overwhelming amount of using and abusing of the human person involved in designing a baby that is genetically related to the intended parents.  In addition to the utilization of the child, it deprives the child of his or her filial relationship with his or her parents and their extended family, it creates a disruption in both the societal role and the obligation of parenting, it creates a disruption to the institution of marriage (the historical purpose of marriage is unity and the pro-creation and raising of children), and creates disorder in the fabric of society.


It’s National Fertility Awareness month.  Be aware of those that are seeking, without success to achieve pregnancy, and be of support in word and in deed. Be knowledgeable of ethical resources for achieving pregnancy such as Natural Family Planning www.NFP.com and NaPro Technology www.NaProTechnology.com. Both have been hugely successful in helping couples struggling with infertility to achieve pregnancy. Not all infertile couples will be open to discussing such an intimate topic, so perhaps providing the couple with written information will be the least intrusive route to take. Most of all, be an informed voice of support and sanity.


Louisa Millington

Louisa Millington is a proud mom of four children and has been married to her husband Tim for 21 years.  She has spent her adult life in service to Life & Dignity issues.  In 1994, with her husband and a small group of people from the Lake Arrowhead area, Louisa opened Veronica's Maternity Home.  Hundreds of children have been born out of Veronica's Home and hundreds of women have changed their lives through the housing, education, life training, and love provided by Veronica's Home.  In 1996 Louisa began to work with the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of San Bernardino and since then has been fortunate to work on legislative issues and projects on a local, state and national level.  She considers herself blessed to have had so many opportunities to serve and equally blessed by the friends and acquaintances she has made along the way.