>
> I assert that to kill before A is not murder (contraception)
I agree. An individual gamete (egg or sperm) lacks the full complement of
chromosomes and could never give rise to a fully formed human being because
haploid development does not occur in humans.
>
> I assert that the entity between A and B is not human and that killing is
> not murder.
I agree. Egg and sperm cells that exist independently within the same female
reproductive tract are still haploid. Their mere coexistence in the female
reproductive tract does not guarantee they are viable or capable of even
participating in a fertilization reaction. Besides their haploid state,
neither gamete has been "activated" to undergo embryonic development.
>
> I assert that the entity between B and C is not human and that killing is
> not murder.
I agree. Until the process of fertilization is completed, the cell is not
diploid and/or the process of embryonic development has not been activated.
>
> l assert that the entity between C and D is not human and that killing is
> not murder.
I disagree with you here. The existence of a zygote, following the completion
of fertilization, is the first point at which you have the genetic (and
epigenetic) potentiality to develop into a mature human being. There are,
of course, no guarantees that that zygote or cleavage-stage embryo will avoid
spontaneous termination of development, but the mere possibility of spontaneous
termination is irrelevant to our definition of human life. Spontaneous
termination can occur at any time during the course of embryonic or fetal
development.
I think there is an important distinction between spontaneous termination and
termination due to some type of human intervention. The first type of
termination is out of our control; the second type of termination--a
deliberate, purposive intervention that prevents the normal sequence of
development once it has been initiated--is IMHO murder. According to this
presupposition, any mechanical or chemical intervention which prevents the
process of cleavage or implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus could be
regarded as murder. Any interventions following implantation would also have
to be regarded as murder. What is your basis for presupposing that a
blastocyst is not human life? If not human, what is it? Just a mass of cells?
A blastocyst is different than just any old mass of cells because it has the
genetic potential and necessary totipotency to at least initiate the process
that culminates in the formation of a fully developed human being, as long as
no outside interference occurs.
The question, I believe, is not whether embryos (such as zygotes or
blastocysts), which are derived from the fusion of human gametes, are truly
human. Of course, they're human! The real question is where are they along
the continuum of human development? At what point along this
continuum does the developing human have a soul? At what point during human
development does God "know us" and "form us"? (Sorry, I don't have my Bible
with me, so I can't give the appropriate reference from Scripture). I would
maintain that until we get to glory, we will never know the precise answers to
these questions. That being the case, I think it is better to assume that
human life begins at the moment when a cell (i.e. the zygote) has the genetic
(and epigenetic) potentiality to initiate the earliest processes which occur
along the continuum of human development. Only God really knows when that
precise moment is.
--Brian
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian T. Greuel, Ph.D.
Dept. of Biology
John Brown University
Box 3119
2000 W. University Street
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
EMAIL: bgreuel@acc.jbu.edu
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Brian T. Greuel
Dept. of Biology
John Brown University
Box 3119
2000 W. University Street
Siloam Springs, AR 72761