In NYTimes Op-Ed, Words that Work for Stem Cell Opponents

Levin wrote:

But that does not mean the stem cell debate is about when human life begins. It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact that a human life begins when an embryo is created. That embryo is human, and it is alive; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later surrounded by children and grandchildren.

This really offends me. "It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact"? Here's a different, and really true, fact: The egg is human and is alive; the sperm is human and is alive. They too are "human" life.

Whenever I hear the question, "When does life begin?", my reaction is always that this is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions. Because the real question is "When did life begin?", and answer is "About 5 billion years ago." And since that time, life has been constantly rearranging itself, sometimes monoploid, sometime diploid, often something else. It's all the same life that threads itself, continuously, back through time.

Yes, there is a significant milestone when an egg and sperm unite (at the appropriate place). But it is all human life, regardless of how much value we or others might want to place on it in its different forms.

And when did human life begin? Oh, certainly at least 60,000 years ago (maybe 4 million) depending on just what you mean by that. It's a little like trying to decide when red blends over into orange.

The problem with your argument about the egg and the sperm being "alive" is that they, by themselves, do not develop any further They are just like innumerable cells in our body that generate or die every day. Only when the egg and sperm unite do they become a new human individual, rather than merely a compenent part of the parent, like a sperm or egg.

Also, the question "when does life begin" is not analogous to "when did you stop beating your wife." It seems to me that any serious ethical theory has to have an answer to the question: "At what point does something become worthy of the legal protection society accords to individuals?" If you take the position that an early stage human embryo has no legal status, at what stage does it acquire some legal status? First trimester? Second? Third? Only after birth? One year post-birth? No one who wants to discuss issues relating to embryonic stem cells can ask to be taken seriously if he does not provide a cogent answer to this question.

Scott wrote:

The problem with your argument about the egg and the sperm being "alive" is that they, by themselves, do not develop any further.

So? Are you saying that bacteria are not "alive"? Are you saying that each time a "dead" egg and sperm unite that this is some new instance of abiogenesis? That's downright silly.

In reality, it is pieces of DNA continuously working to perpetuate themselves. Some do it diploidly, others do it monoploidly. A human being is just an egg's way of making another egg (or sperm). It is either downright dishonest, or ignorant, to conflate the ideas of "alive" and "is a cognizable human being."

And, he wrote:

They are just like innumerable cells in our body that generate or die every day.

So, you are also saying that my individual cells are not alive? That is so clearly wrong. Of course they are alive. "Alive" in a biological sense has nothing to do with independent existence. It has to do with whether the chemical processes that support the life are active.

He continues:

Also, the question "when does life begin" is not analogous to "when did you stop beating your wife."

It most certainly is, in that it deliberately tries to divert attention from the truth of the situation, which is that "life" continues unabated since 5 billion years ago. The chemical process can be traced back, in a continuously "living" fashion, back that far. It's not a case of "living human" becomes "non-living sperm" becomes "living human". There is no such discontinuity in anything meaningful about the biochemistry involved.

And, by bringing up the ethics question, you are trying to change the subject. Whether sperms and eggs are alive simply does not depend on the ethics of the situation, any more than whether an atomic bomb works depends on the ethics of using it. And if you somehow want to claim that fertilization is some magic moment for insertion of a soul, then you also have to deal with twins, in which God inserts the soul on fertilization, the egg twins, and God say, "Oh, crap. Now I have to find an insert another one here."

So? Are you saying that bacteria are not "alive"? Are you saying that each time a "dead" egg and sperm unite that this is some new instance of abiogenesis? That's downright silly.

---- The sperm and the egg are living cells, but they are not a human life until they unite.

It is either downright dishonest, or ignorant, to conflate the ideas of "alive" and "is a cognizable human being."

---- If I pop a pimple I have killed "alive" blood cells that have now "died." If I shoot and kill them, it is murder. Is there no ethical difference in your mind?

And, by bringing up the ethics question, you are trying to change the subject. Whether sperms and eggs are alive simply does not depend on the ethics of the situation, any more than whether an atomic bomb works depends on the ethics of using it.

---- I agree entirely. But the question with emryonic stem cell research is an ethical question. Before you decide whether the research might yield scientific advances, you have to answer the question of whether it is ethically permissible to do the research.

And if you somehow want to claim that fertilization is some magic moment for insertion of a soul, then you also have to deal with twins, in which God inserts the soul on fertilization, the egg twins, and God say, "Oh, crap. Now I have to find an insert another one here."

---- I wasn't going to bring God into it, but the obvious answer to that question is that God controls whether the egg is going to twin or not, so he can insert two souls into a single embryo so when it splits they each have a soul.

Scott wrote (using ----):

So? Are you saying that bacteria are not "alive"? Are you saying that each time a "dead" egg and sperm unite that this is some new instance of abiogenesis? That's downright silly.

---- The sperm and the egg are living cells, but they are not a human life until they unite.

It's all just human life. I am specifically critiquing Levin's (and now yours) incorrect point that human life somehow magically comes into being on conception. Yes, since we are the diploid form and are self-aware, we care much more about that form. But is all still just human life. It's all still just DNA doing its thing and perpetuating itself.

And more:

It is either downright dishonest, or ignorant, to conflate the ideas of "alive" and "is a cognizable human being."

---- If I pop a pimple I have killed "alive" blood cells that have now "died." If I shoot and kill them, it is murder. Is there no ethical difference in your mind?

I'm not discussing the ethics of it. For some reason you keep trying to introduce it as if it means something to the discussion on whether human life suddenly begins. It's irrelevant to that.

However, when it comes to ethics, what matters is at what point we want to recognize personhood, but that is a cultural issue, not biological. Some cultures waited until long after birth to recognize it.