Wholly Human

Last week I dealt briefly with the way many people use language to intentionally mislead the general public about the embryonic stem cell research issue. The way in which each phrase is used, stem cell research and “embryonic” stem cell research, makes it seem that they are interchangeable practices when in fact they are worlds apart.

This week, let’s do something in this column that practically nobody, at least as far as I know, is doing. Let’s talk about embryonic stem cell research and actually include the embryo as part of the equation. It is, after all, the main component in the debate isn’t it?

Of course, I wouldn’t be the credible writer I claim to be if I didn’t allow “science” to weigh in on the debate, would I?  Science does have a place in our study and according to Dr. Bruce Little, (Southeastern Seminary) “no doubt” exists in the scientific community “that human life begins at fertilization.” Quoting another writer, he also points out that “…the single-cell human zygote formed after fertilization..., contains ‘46’ chromosomes…, (the number of chromosomes which is specific for members of the human species), and those 46 chromosomes are mixed differently from the ‘46’ chromosomes as found in the mother or in the father – that is, they are unique for that human individual.”  In other words, at its earliest stage the fertilized egg isn’t only human but individually human; because “essential to human life is present at the point of fertilization.” (Class Notes)

Now, the next logical question has to do with personhood. In other words, at what point does the human embryo become an actual person? This is important because “if personhood is simultaneous with fertilization then that is the point at which the individual becomes a human being; i.e. a living person, and should be treated as such.” (Dr. Little) This translates into the possible stoppage of any and all embryonic stem cell research and, in turn, “scares the pants” off the popular “pro-choice” movement.

Think about it. If special protection were afforded the unborn at stage-1, upon fertilization, then the same protection for any other stage may soon follow. That would spell trouble for the abortionist movement.

The next question is basic. If personhood isn’t simultaneous with fertilization, then at what point does it become a living “person.” If you hold to a “delayed personhood” position, then at what point in the gestation period does the unborn become a living “person?”  Does he/she become a person when the heart begins to beat? Does he/she become a person worthy of protection when it begins to move, kick, suck its thumb or feed itself?

You can’t dismiss this question if you really want answers. In fact, it is the very thing that makes embryonic stem cell research a moral issue.

Tony Watts

Home - About Us - Articles - Contact Us - Links