Family Planning Post #3: When Is "It" a Human Life?

As a result of the first few posts we've written, a couple of very good questions have been raised. One of these questions is, "How do you determine that the fertilized egg is a baby at the time of fertilization as opposed to after it implants in the uterus (or sometime later)?"

What a timely question! As most of you know, there is a raging debate going surrounding this very issue. We asserted that we believe that a cell group is a human life that is to be protected from the moment of fertilization. Many people believe that it is not until implantation or sometime later that this group of cells becomes a human being with a right to life, which is how they can justify the "morning after" pill even if they believe that surgical abortion is wrong. Still others assert that the right to life doesn't develop until a normal child is up to two years old and can engage in complex social interactions--a position held by Dr. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton... who also believes that infanticide and euthanasia are viable options and even obligations in many cases if the individual cannot contribute in a "meaningful way" to society. I don't think there are a whole lot of people who adopt the views of Dr. Singer, but just in case you didn't know, they're out there teaching in our Ivy League schools.

Obviously, there is a wide range of opinion regarding the moment of imparted personhood. How do we tear it apart? When exactly does the "mass" or "tissue" or "cell group" become a real human life? Some say it's when implantation occurs, some when the heart starts beating, some when the baby develops feelings, some at birth, and so on. Addressing these in reverse order, here are my thoughts...

Premature babies are still babies even if they come out at 18 weeks and are no more developed than their counterparts who are still stuck in the womb, so experiencing birth is not the indicator of when it becomes a real human.

As for the argument that feeling indicates personhood, I'd simply respond by saying that there are adults who become completely paralyzed, and simply because they couldn't feel us cutting off their limbs doesn't mean that it's acceptable.--they are people, so we treat their bodies with respect (not to mention that babies can probably feel a lot more a lot sooner than we think, as is evidenced in the movie Silent Scream).

In answer to the heartbeat argument, I would say that all of the genetic information necessary for a heart to beat is present from the beginning, and so simply because it's not beating yet doesn't mean that it's not going to beat or that somehow we're not talking about a baby until we hear or see the heartbeat. Sure, the heart is necessary for life, but so are the lungs, and we don't tend to say that lack of lung function means that it's not a real person. I guess I'm just saying that it's a pretty random and arbitrary thing to say that the heartbeat indicates personhood. Not to mention that if a person's heart stops beating, forcing that person to have a transplant, we still consider it to be a "person" lying on the operating table even during the point in time when there is no heart present in the body, and the blood is flowing through a machine. The functionality of a particular organ or lack thereof does not indicate personhood or lack thereof.

Regarding the issue of fertilization vs. implantation as the point of imparted personhood, I don't think we need a ton of medical statistics to think wisely and correctly about this issue. Thank goodness! However, in order to come to a right conclusion, I think we do need to have a basic understanding of the process of human reproduction. So here goes... You start with "the act" (quoting the grandmother of one of our good friends). The sperm travel from the man, through the vagina, through the cervix, through the uterus, and into the fallopian tubes. There is generally one egg sitting in one fallopian tube. Some of the sperm make it through the treacherous obstacle course, get all the way to the egg, and attempt to break through the wall of the egg. One gets in, and the two cells (egg and sperm) mesh all their information and become one cell. Their DNA links pair up to form the complete chromosomal make-up of the baby.

The new cell immediately starts multiplying as one unit. It's a life with all the information necessary to develop throughout pregnancy, childhood, adulthood, and right up through death. The group of cells continues to multiply as it moves out of the fallopian tube and into the uterus, where it finds a nice place to implant and acquire necessary nutrients for continued growth (FYI--the placenta grows as an organ of the baby--with the baby's genetic makeup and not the mother's--and begins to function on its own over the course of the next two weeks).

The implantation into the uterus prompts the mother's body to produce a hormone called hCG, which basically tells the mother's brain to continue producing progesterone and estrogen in proportions that will not prompt the sluffing off of the uterine lining (and the baby). So you have a blessed 9 months without periods (or if you're like me, more like 21 months if you include the post-birth period-free time)!

These are all amazing functions of implantation in the uterus, but neither the nourishment nor the signal to the mother's hormones do anything to change the make-up of the "group of cells" that already existed. That, to me, is the profound truth that we need to understand. Basically, the cells implant in order to be nourished to keep growing and developing. They are not changed in any way. They were already living, completely-human cells and a sole entity before they implanted. The uterus imparts no humanity on the group of cells since they are completely-human cells on their own before they get to the uterus.

One way to look at it is this... I can make it a while without food and water, but if I go more than a few days with no nourishment or hydration at all, I will die. Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm, the two mesh together to form the complete genetic make-up of a human being, the "cell group" begins to multiply, and then travels through the fallopian tube into the uterus, it's just fresh out of juice! It needs nourishment, or else it will die. This is a common problem for humans at all stages, and it begins at fertilization.

The egg and sperm combo is a developing life right from the very beginning. It is a complete unit that simply needs nourishment to keep going. If we do things to alter the lining of the uterus so as to prevent implantation, all we are doing is preventing the nourishment of the already-existing life... so it dies. This is why we see any process, procedure, device, or chemical that contributes to the death of this life as abortifacient. It's either directly causing the already-living, completely and fully human life to die or removing its provision for survival. When we consider born humans, we see that there are ways to directly extinguish them (pushing them out of moving cars, shooting, etc.), and there are ways to prevent the provision of sustaining nutrition for them, so they end up dying on their own (i.e. locking them in a room without food and water). Either way, the end result is that the person is not alive anymore.

Wow! That's a lot to think about. What exactly does it mean in practical terms? Basically, it all boils down to this. Since there is no point beyond fertilization that adds anything to the complete human genetic make-up of the child, and the cells have all they need except nourishment and protection, I see this as the point at which the baby is a baby with a life to protect. It's "on its own", so to speak, at the moment of fertilization. Just like I go to the refrigerator to get food, it goes to the uterus for nourishment... to promote growth of the complete (though not fully-developed) being that already exists.

Things like the "morning after" pill introduce a high dose of chemicals into the body to attack and kill the living cells even before they have a chance to implant and receive needed nutrition... they end the life of the child and are a form of abortion.

There are many other chemicals and technologies which may work to render the uterine lining so hostile that implantation is impossible or very difficult. In these cases, there is nothing directly attacking the new life. Instead, the provision for sustenance is removed, thereby "starving" the life to death. If the uterine lining is altered in this way by something that we have introduced to our bodies, then we have, in effect, caused the same end result as the person who introduced attacking chemicals into her body.

This type of clarity is an incredible help to us as we determine which types of birth control are abortifacient and become unacceptable to the Christian (and hopefully to the common) conscience. There are some forms of birth control that are clearly designed to make the uterine lining hostile to implantation. And there are others that list this alteration of the uterine lining and prevention of implantation as a "back-up" function in case the other functions fail. In general, the other two functions of these treatments include one or more of the following: 1) altering the hormones of the woman in such a way that her body does not ovulate and release an egg, and 2) altering the vaginal fluid of the female in such a way that it is more hostile to the sperm, rendering the sperm incapacitated and unable to complete their march to the egg. Then, the "back-up" function in case the others fail, is to alter the lining of the uterus to make implantation more difficult. Many medical professionals and others say that it's just a theory that the change in the uterine lining causes difficulty in implantation (though they don't refute the actual change in the uterine lining). In my mind, I can't see why this third function would need to exist or be listed as part of the functionality if it never came down to it actually working that way. I'm at least convinced that there's a chance that it works this way, and that's enough for me to make a decision about a lot of available options.

So, in the end, I think I've answered the question of why I believe that fertilization is the point at which the baby is a human life to be protected... and then gone on to describe some of the implications of this clarification as we consider acceptable forms of birth control. This is, by no means, a complete thought regarding specific forms of birth control, but it does provide a foundation for why these discussions are so important.

Amber is preparing a post to introduce some "What-if" questions (for example, "What if my husband is not on board with my convictions?"), so that will be coming very soon. I have really been researching and thinking more about my current situation with the c-section business as it relates to sterilization and other methods of birth control, etc., so I'll post on that soon. I think I'm also coming to the conclusion that it would be helpful to include a post on each form of birth control, including research, external links, and opportunities for discussion about them individually. Would this be helpful, or are you finding all the information you need yourselves?

I feel like I need to conclude this post by saying that the Lord is so gracious to me! I am so thankful for a sister-in-law who has great ideas and wants to co-labor with me to think through the hard stuff (we had a GREAT conversation just this afternoon about our individual situations and how we might think about them). And now that we've opened the discussion to the rest of the reading world, I have been so blessed to hear some of your experiences and thoughts! Please keep sharing either by posting comments or by e-mailing directly. And feel free to ask anything you want, even if it's more personal.

For instance, one of my friends e-mailed and asked me exactly what barrier methods I was referring to in the post outlining my story. I was able to fill in the blanks and let her know that we used condoms of the male variety during the 2-3 months that we were preventing after my return to fertility each time. I have a friend who has a diaphragm and loves it, but I don't have one myself. I've never tried the female condom, so I can't speak to that at all. One thing I will say is that it seems like there's sufficient evidence to say that it's important that we pay attention to whether or not we're using spermicides (in sponges, condoms, gel/liquid form, etc.), as these chemicals can lead to an increased possibility of birth defects in babies conceived within up to two months of spermicide use, but more on that later...

Oh, and one more thing... Almost all of the supporting information for this post is included in the links Amber provided. And more detailed support for specific methods and issues will be included in the posts when we address those methods more thoroughly.

(NOTE: I changed the title of this post from “When Is 'It' a Baby?” to “When Is 'It' a Human Life?” It seems to me that people get hung up on the definition of a baby instead of placing appropriate focus on the nature of the human life, which is to be protected at all stages. I hope that this will bring an important point of clarity to my argument.)