I am in a debate with someone who says that a human indiviual does not begin at the moment of conception because the zygote can still split and become two persons. He also says that several zygotes can recombine into one and result into a single human after implantation. He says that this all takes place 12 to 14 days after fertilization. How can one defend against these statements.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), April 30, 2004

Answers

bump

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), April 30, 2004.

Dear D

When a zygote splits (into "identical" twins) that is one individual becoming two individuals. If s/he is using this as a justification for killing a zygote, then logically, no one should be charged with murder for killing an adult "identical" twin if the other twin remains alive. A zygote has a unique genetic makeup different from any other offspring of its parents or any other person or thing. It is obviously a living, growing thing, taking in food and oxygen from its environment and using them to grow and develop without any manipulation from anyone else. If it is not a human being, which of the only other possibilities is it? Animal? Vegetable? If it is not living, what is it? Mineral? or Dead?

I do not know of any evidence that several zygotes can recombine into one, but even if true this would not support his/her argument for the reasons above.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 30, 2004.

Basically this guy says that a human individual is not definite at conception since the zygote can divide in two and produce twins that are not genetically identical. He goes on to say that if one zygote is a human person with a soul, what happens when they both fuse into one. Does one die? He ends with saying that a human individul is definite during gastrulation not fertilization.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), April 30, 2004.

Gastrulation is just one stage in development (like sprouting of fingernails, or puberty) which is programmed into the human being from the moment its genetic makeup is irreversibly determined at fertilisation (conception). Twins formed from one original zygote ARE genetically identical, although they develop slight differences (not genetic differences) due to slightly differing environmental and developmental factors. A human soul cannot die. This guy is either pulling your chain or else he is trying to rationalise abortion or experimentation on human embryos.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 30, 2004.

Your friend needs some education regarding human conception. The term "Zygote" refers to a fertilized ovum which cannot "recombine" with anything. In human reproduction, a single sperm penetrates a single female egg (ovum)..once the sperm has penetrated the egg, the egg will not allow any other sperm to enter.(not talking about twins here) immediately, cell division begins and as the fertilized egg travels to the uterus, a zygote forms. Within 24 to 48 hours of fertilization, HUMAN CHORIONIC GONADOTROPHIN is secreted by this wonderful "bunch of cells" as it progresses to develop into a fetus with a placenta to support it's growth inside the uterus. 24 days after fertilization, the rudimentary human heart begins to beat. Most women don't even realize that they are pregnant yet when this is happening. So according to your friend, the zygote is still waiting around for 2 weeks after it's creation , "recombining" "splitting", or whatever, when in reality, the zygote has, by day 3 already made it's way to the uterus, set up housekeeping by implanting itself into the uterine wall by developing a blastocyst...began forming a placenta, as well as constantly producing layer upon layer of new cells to form tissues and rudimentary organs. Add 10 more days to your friends calendar of events and its' heart begins to beat. As far as twins are concerned..the results are the same. Your friend's timetable is in error..the subject of identical twins is too complex a discussion..the point is that they do NOT materialize out of the same zygote a week later.(or any twins for that matter).

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 30, 2004.

Until we know without a doubt when the human body is infused with a soul, we canot morally take the risk that we are destroying a human being. Your friend is using reasoning that says since we don't know we should be able to do what we want.

The morally responsible choice is that since we don't know when the soul is infused in the body, we need to be on the safe side and not destroy that new life. What happens to a soul when a zygote splits or combines is all conjecture. Because it is only conjecture, it would be presumptuous for us to assume we have the right to determine if that human life should end or not based on inconvenience.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), April 30, 2004.

The issue is quite simple: either a parent has the right to kill his/her offspring for reasons of convenience or not. If one may destroy a zygote, another may kill their toddler. Our government must decide if they want parents to have the right to murder their children or not.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), April 30, 2004.

We certainly know when the soul is infused. The soul is an intrinsic part of what defines a human being. If the soul is not infused at the moment of conception, then we would have to conclude that the being which is clearly developing at that moment, even though produced through the union of two human parents, is not human. There are of course people who would like to argue exactly that way. But I would ask - what kind of being, other than a human being, can be produced by two human parents?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 30, 2004.

Basically this guy says that a human individual is not definite at conception since the zygote can divide in two and produce twins that are not genetically identical.

not physically possible. zygotes splitting occurs within the first couple cellular divisions, not 12 days later. twins produced via the splitting of the zygote are ALWAYS genetically identical. (thus, there are actually no identical twins who are different genders). The only twins who are not genetically equal are paternal twins, who are actually two conceptions by two ovum and two sperm.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2004.

to be technically correct: monozygotic twins, those twins formed from a single fertilized ovum, although in the beginning have identical DNA, do NOT "always" end up having "identical" DNA when they are born, since DNA can alter every so slightly as it is being laid down..this is especially true in cases where monozygotic twins do not share a common placenta. Changes in blood flow, nutrients, oxygen, etc. can and do influence the formation of DNA..obviously, since the parents are the same, the genetics would be the same and the DNA would be NEARLY identical, but not "always" identical. Also, there is a THIRD method of twinning which has only been documented in some animals and postulated in humans..it involves a zygote splitting into twin zygotes and THEN further producing a single "daughter" cell which is then fertilized by another sperm, thus producing a third zygote, making a fraternal twin to the identical ones. As I said in my original reply above, the subject of twins is complex, but IMHO irrelevant since it is FACT that ANY zygote splitting occurs fairly immediately after basic cellular division begins, and THAT begins rapidly after fertilization. It has always been my position that up until the sperm meets the ovum, you have a bunch of very interesting cells. The second the sperm enters the ovum, a human being has been created..for there simply isn't anything else there anymore but a human being. It's beautiful.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 30, 2004.

I guess I worded it poorly but he meant that if zygotes can recombine wouldn't that mean that one of the lives would cease to exist. Die of natural causes. How does two humans merge back into one? I have also read elswhere that this can happen however I know that misinformation is easy to find.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), April 30, 2004.

I'm not exactly certain what it is that your friend is talking about yet..but there are plenty of examples to choose from in Medicine..there are zygotes which do not attach to the uterus at all and are simply flushed away..there are zygotes which fail to develop and die before the woman even discovers she was pregnant..these too are flushed away as the uterine wall sloughs off during the next menstrual cycle. And yes, there ARE plenty of examples of monozygotic twins in which one developed in utero and one did not..we see evidence of the undeveloped twin at birth sometimes as fetal tissue or simply a mass of fetal cells, etc. so what? What does that signify to your friend? That there was no life there because the zygote did not progress to a fetus and then to a living infant? If so, then the same would apply to all miscarriages..if no living birth took place, then there was no "life"? That argument is rubbish IMHO. Just the term "natural death" applies nicely..one cannot die if one was never alive.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 30, 2004.

you know, D Joseph,

SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) occasionally kills children after birth. I guess that means that we should allow toddlers to be murdered as well? NO!!! the logic does apply.

The instance of miscarraige, or even more rarely zygote splits and even more rarely zygote recombination (which, despite having study biology, i have never heard of, which means it is most likely genetic conjecture) does NOT argue for the right to abort a child. These are natural instances. Pulling a live baby from the womb and mercilessly killing it is nothing short of murder, no matter how you try to connect natural death to murder.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2004.

Thanks all for the responses. I totally agree with you when you say a human being is created from conception. My friend seem to think that it is at gastrulation. He does defend life after that stage. It is kind of ironic to me that he is the same as the people that he is against. His abortion stance is just at an earlier stage than the others.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), April 30, 2004.

If he believes that the developing embryo is human after gastrulation then there is really no problem, practically speaking, since no woman knows she is pregnant until well after gastrulation. Therefore, even by his limited and inadequate definition, no deliberate abortion could possibly be defended.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 30, 2004.

Paul M.,

But wouldn't that justify use of contraceptive pills that can cause abortions, since his belief is that life begins 12-14 days later? This is obviously wrong too.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 30, 2004.

Yeah, he is for the morning after pill. That's how our discussion got started.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), May 01, 2004.

Right you are Emily!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 01, 2004.

Now we see where he is coming from. If you ask any organisation of embryologists (the doctors and scientists who actually study the early stages of human life) they will confirm what is obvious to any layman who knows the facts - that a new human life begins when a sperm cell unites with an ovum. This view was once also supported by all branches of medicine and science.

But in the 1970s it was discovered that the contraceptive pill, which had been thought to work only by suppressing the release of the ovum or preventing migration of sperm, actually works at least part of the time by changing the womb lining so preventing the already fertilized embryo (of hundreds of cells) from attaching itself. This gave the pharmaceutical companies a big problem. They had millions invested in the contraceptive pill, from a marketing point of view the perfect pharmaceutical product which can be marketed, not just to the sick for a few days, but to every woman of childbearing age every day. They didn't want people to know that it works at least partly by killing a human. So they tried to convince gynaecologists that an embryo before it implants is somehow "not human". The gynaecologists (now joined by those who want to gain from Nazi-style experiments on embryos) seeing their own financial interests threatened, agreed to this irrational nonsense. So now they market the morning-after pill as well, using the opinion of gynaecologists to get around government bans on abortifacients.

The fence-sitters who oppose later-term abortion but endorse the "contraceptive" Pill and the MAP try to have it both ways. At least the repulsive Prof Peter Singer is honest - he says it's equally right to kill an embryo, a fetus or a newborn if it's an inconvenience to you.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 02, 2004.

D Joseph,

Tell your friend to research on the divorce rate for couples using Natural Family Planning. Here is a quick google search, with the highest number shown from the articles I read being 5%. Think about that - a 5% divorce rate as compared to the mainstream 50% in the USA.

Don't you think evils such as contraception and abortion logically lead to other evils, such as divorce, promiscuity, and the degrading of women into objects? If your friend is Protestant, you may wish to show him this article by a Protestant couple who opposes contraception. They wrote a book about it too.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 03, 2004.

He is not religious at all. He gets his stance on abortion from a scientific point of view. He says only during gastrulation can a zygote of one or more be a definite human individual because it can no longer duplicate itself or recomine back into a single version. I mean doesn't the original zygote have to double its chromosomes to 92 in order to divide? So at one point wouldn't there be 2 individual beings sharing the same body until the split occurs or would the second individual be created only when the second zygote takes form? Also, I myself don't understand how it is possible to recombine 92 chromosomes back into 46 for that matter.If it is possible then I would have to say that all zygotes(human beings)except the one remaining would have died of natural causes.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), May 03, 2004.

If he's not religious and is basing his argument solely on science, what gives him the right to talk about souls? It sounds like he is trying to confuse you with pseudo-science. No human cell ever has 92 chromosomes at any stage. Human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes. During the process of division, the cell nucleus splits in two with one of each pair (23 chromosomes) in each half. As the chromosomes in each daughter-nucleus duplicate themselves, the cell splits. (This is a simplified but essentially correct outline of the process.)

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com), May 03, 2004.

If he is so hung up on science, he ought to be better informed about the scientific facts: once again...the fertilized ovum,having received it's full compliment of 46 chromosomes from the sperm (23) and the ovum (23), takes a mere 3 or 4 days to travel to the uterus and implant itself FIRMLY onto the uterine wall. It immediately begins to establish a nutrient source (the placenta) and spends the next 9 or 10 days undergoing rapid CONSTANT cell growth to become an embryo. Gastrulation is the process of beginning to form actual tissue and rudimentary organ structures, such as the spinal cord and the heart, etc. In other words, moving from a cellular embryonic form to a distinctly visually recognizable human form. There is NO SUCH THING as a zygote changing back into anything else BUT what it IS..period. At any stage of development. A zygote can divide immediately after it forms and then you would have monozygotic twins..you CANNOT have the monozygotic twins "reform" and be something else..that simply doesn't happen. For your friend to spout "science" and be so ignorant of the subject's basics is beyond my comprehension.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 03, 2004.

Perhaps Martras should do some in depth research instead.

ALthough extremely rare, dizygous or fraternal twins can in fact fuse into one zygote, thereby creating an individual who actually carries two sets of DNA profiles.

-- Jennifer McCurdy (jennifermccurdy@comcast.net), May 20, 2004.

A question for Catholics:

At what point (1st, 2nd, 3rd month of pregnancy) does the Catholic Church recommend a funeral mass for a miscarried baby?

At what point is a miscarried child listed in the church records as a birth?

Is the child listed as un-baptized if it was a still-birth? Does progress in the pregnancy make a difference in the classification?

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 21, 2004.

Jennifer: Thank you for taking the time to offer your kind comments in my direction. They were most welcomed. After over 30 years in the Medical field it is only a complete fool or a pompous idiot who would proclaim that they have all knowledge of all things. As I was speaking only of monozygotic twins it would not have occured to me to point out that of course, you are 100% correct that there are, indeed extremely rare exceptions for nearly every stated scientific fact. Professor Dianne Nutwell Irving of the Philosphy Department of Catholic University in Washington, DC has written a marvelous article addressing this very issue of embryonic stages, zygotes and twinning, etc. which is extremely informative since she was a former research scientist at NIH. Your point of the possibility of fraternal twins merging into a single viable zygote is mentioned in detail. Unfortunately, another of my shortcomings is the failure to understand the mechanisms of providing a simple clickable link. If anyone would be charitable enough to e-mail me with instructions, I'd be pleased to provide the article for all to review.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.

Lesley,

To do a link: substitute < for [ and > for ]

[A HREF="www.greenspun.com"]Greenspun[/A]

It should look like this:

Greenspun

If you look at the top of your internet window, there will be a menu titled "View." Click on that, and select "Source." There you can see the source code (the stuff I just showed you), where you can observe how others did special tricks like that.

The other option (if you can't do that) is to copy the link from your Address bar and paste it in with your message. To copy, highlight the text with your mouse, then go to the edit menu and select "copy." After that, go to the message you are posting and click the mouse where you want the link to appear. Then go to the edit menu and select "paste."

Hope that helps. Ask me if you have any other questions. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 21, 2004.

Thank you Emily. As usual, you are filled with true kindness. Here's trying option #2..the copy and paste:

http://www.cfjd.org/www/articles/the_early_human_embryo.htm

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.

Robert, I hope you are not being facetious. If your questions are serious, the answers are:

The Church has no involvement in registering or recording any live births, stillbirths, miscarriages or abortions, or in deciding when a funeral, burial or cremation are legally required. Those are matters for the civil authorities.

The Church confers baptism (and the other sacraments) only on those who ask for them (or whose parents ask on their behalf). A record of each baptism made at a parish church is kept at that church. There is no central collated record made in this world. Anybody may ask a priest to offer a Requiem mass for a particular person, and priests are free to do so, no matter what age the person died at.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 23, 2004.

I should add that the normal practise where a child of Catholic parents is miscarried or stillborn, is to baptize him/her immediately after delivery. (A baptism can be performed by anyone in an emergency.)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 24, 2004.

Dear Steve;

Thank you for the information.

It appears that the determination for the mass or sacraments have a more pastoral (which is a good thing) comfort for the parents than a means of grace for the soul of the child.

I am not clear as to the specific reason regarding a post-mortem baptism if it is considered regenerative. Actually, a post-mortem baptism seems that it would be less a problem for Reformed churches since we see the baptism as a sign and seal of God’s elect.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 25, 2004.

Post-mortem baptism is not valid. The rationale for immediate baptism of stillborn infants is that we cannot know with certainty the exact moment at which the soul separates from the body. Many people have been pronounced clinically dead, and yet have subsequently been resuscitated. Therefore the baptism is performed on the remote chance that "a spark of life" may yet remain. If however the infant is actually dead, such a baptism is not valid. If a dead infant is discovered under other circumstances - after having been buried for a few days for example - in which there is absolutely no chance that life could be present, then a baptism would never be performed.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 25, 2004.