When does life begin?
This seemingly innocuous question has many implications and ramifications, most prominently how this question is at the center of one of the greatest moral, religious and scientific debates of the past century. Biologists and other scientists have created a foundation of facts from which they seem to draw debatable conclusions while religious leaders use esoteric and somewhat unprovable arguments to make impassioned, and persuasive emotional arguments. Is there a right and wrong answer to this question that can better inform our judgement when debating this highly sensitive topic?
Perhaps it would be useful to review the scientific arguments. As we are all reasonably aware, and both sides debating this issue will usually reasonably agree, is that no life begins before the single cell from which all cell division begins. This single cell can trace its existence to the cells contributed by the male and female components – the sperm and the egg, which fuse to form this self-dividing and rapidly multiplying cell. Science goes further to explain that this rapid division, self-replication and ‘assembly’ of the cells that will eventually develop into a grown being, is directed largely by the DNA (which serves as an instruction manual). The human embryo, if not damaged, will grow all of the typical body parts and turn into a small, and usually complete, human child. Although this human child isn’t able to live on its own, or put differently, it isn’t ‘viable’ without its mother’s surrounding placenta and the nutrients she provides it, the level of complexity it can achieve does closely mirror what we would expect in an ultimately ‘viable’ human. So, is it the creation of this original single cell the point at which life begins?
Christian arguments agree that life begins at conception. This brings several things into question such as the legalization of abortion and for how many trimesters they should allow the termination of pregnancies. The important question is for Christians, at which point is a baby’s life thought to have started? Is it when the baby is first conceived or is it when the baby comes out into the real world? Is it the formation of the nervous system, the moment the heart starts to beat, when the backbone takes shape, the formation of the brain or when the embryo starts to re-organize themselves into a primitive body? This answer is different for everyone but the most common Christian answer is that the miracle of life begins from the sperm and egg fusion. Psalm 139:13,16 states “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb ”, which reinforces this point about life beginning at conception. The fascinating aspect of this is that the size of the embryonic cells shortly after the fusion are approximately the size of a bacteria cell, but the only difference is that these cells are thought of as the cells that contribute to the miracle of life whereas bacteria is thought to do quite the opposite. So is it that a single celled organism, the size of a bacteria cell, marks the beginning of life?
Other scientists go even further to argue that the life that a child is destined to become, is created even before the parents meet to contribute to the creation of this first single cell. Specifically, there are some scientists, and notably a professor at the Fred Hutchinson cancer research center1 who would argue that the DNA contributed by each of the parents is the foundation and, therefore, the true beginning of a particular life. The argument being set forth is that the beginning of life is much more ambiguous than most commonly debated assertions, and that since we are all made up of cells which passed down from previous generations, that it is wrong to ignore the value of these predecessor cells and lives. According to this biologist’s research, there is clear evidence of the exchange between fetal blood and maternal blood and that this bidirectional exchange of information cells and DNA between the mother and the fetus during pregnancy creates a far greater influence of the DNA of other family members and predecessors. It was previously thought that once the placenta had fully developed, there would be no further chance additional influence of outside cells and that it would only be the instructions embedded in the single cell that would replicate to create a child. But, we now know that this is not true, and the placenta actually acts more like a sieve than a barrier and that many cells from the mother can and do add to the fusion of cells and influence the traits and ultimate development of the fetus. What is most surprising is that many of these foreign cells traveling from the mother can survive in her for decades, so she is a transporter of previous decades and perhaps even centuries of prior DNA. So, if this cell exchange and passing down of DNA is a multi-generational event, recurring in the creation of each life, can it not be argued that each of our lives is just a physical extension of past lives?
A religious text to show that DNA is multi-generational is found in Psalm 127:3-5 states that “Children are a heritage form the lord offspring a reward from him.” This has a dual meaning: firstly that children are thought of as a reward from God, therefore contraceptives and methods of terminating the pregnancy such as abortion are thought of as inhumane and are condemned. Secondly, it shows that children are genetically connected to their ancestors. Moreover, in Jeremiah 1:5 it states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” This reinforces the argument that some Christians believe life did not, in fact, begin at conception but rather that it was the exchange of DNA from generations, which means that it cannot be given a time stamp. The study carried out at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is directly reflected in this Bible passage as it emphasizes that the beginning of life does not have a definitive time stamp on it. But, now the question that arises is, what qualities does a human being require to be considered alive? Although esoteric at one level, isn’t this argument enough to convince most people that all life should be treated as the sacred embodiment of humanity and civilization?
Other scientists approach the question from an entirely different direction. One scientist in Stockholm2 takes the view that we cannot be alive until we know that we are alive. Or, to put it differently, that we are not alive until there is a basic level of consciousness. But, how does one know what is the first level of consciousness?
There is a pop-culture saying among some vegetarians, which is quoted by a famous rock band of the early 1990’s, “But it’s ok to eat fish. Cause they don’t have any feelings.”3 There is actually some truth in this, because fish don’t have a key set of connections in their nervous system that would enable them to sense outside stimuli. Fish don’t have what humans develop in their brains – the Thalamocortical connections –, which enable the first level of physical consciousness. These crucial connections4 operate like a switchboard in our brain and transmit stimuli from any of our senses, as electrical signals from our sensory organ to the cortex in our brains, where most complex functions are processed by human brains. Without these connections, we would not be able to experience the outside world…we would not have any sense of smell, sight, or experience pain. Without this basic ability to experience the world through our senses, we would have no stimuli and would never be able to achieve any meaningful level of consciousness. This scientist makes this argument measurable by determining when a child can sense basic smells, both pleasant and unpleasant. He does this by first non-invasively connecting a sensor to a child which measures the flow of blood to its brain. He can then tell when there is a blood flow reaction to any stimuli that is introduced to the very young (typically 4 day old) child. As a baseline, he would first expose the child to the smell of his mother’s milk to which the child is already family and so there is no visible reaction (there is no meaningful change in blood flow). But when a new smell, such as Vanilla, is introduced, the blood flow to the brain increases to experience this pleasing scent. But, even more pronounced, when acetone, a toxic substance, is placed on a swab in front of the baby’s nose, there is a significant negative reaction in which the body dramatically restricts blood flow to the brain in an attempt to limit the transmission of this unpleasant and potentially dangerous scent. This level of awareness is solid evidence of consciousness. So, is it fine to argue that life has not truly begun until a being is conscious? Or, at least, could one argue that life isn’t as viable or valuable until such consciousness has been achieved?
A child psychologist at Emory University5 takes this argument even further. Beyond basic consciousness, he argues that self-awareness should be the true measure of the beginning of a life. Human beings are the only species on the planet that is concerned with how one is perceived by others. As evidence of this, we are the only species that wears jewelry and makeup. These things are worn, to a very large extent, to influence how we are perceived by others and therefore, how we perceive ourselves in our broader societies. We are also the only species that “blushes”; other species do not experience a sense of embarrassment, which is not a taught, but rather a fundamental biological reaction. So, is this level of self-awareness and self-consciousness a measure of being truly alive?
If so, this level of being alive doesn’t occur until the age of 4 years old in most humans. This is the age at which a child first feels the need t along with a social norm – of ‘following the crowd.’ Before this age, a child will depart from social norms as they don’t have a sense that they are being judged and they simply have not yet gained an ability to become embarrassed. Using post-it notes on foreheads and other visibly oriented techniques to see if children will conform to norms dictated by parents and other adults, it becomes clear that children cross over from his level of unconscious to conscious at around the age of 4 years. Obviously, it would be absurd to argue that a child isn’t alive until 4 years of age, but this basic level of self-awareness should be a meaningful factor in discussing the nature of consciousness.
This all brings us to the fundamental question which typically pits religious scholars against scientists. At what point is a baby born and at what point is it a life that deserves the protections of law that are afforded to human beings? Is it when the baby is first conceived, is the formation of the brain, or is it when the baby comes out into the real world?
Perhaps it comes down to the Thalamocortical connections. Without the ability to sense the world and to survive in the world, or in other words to be viable…is a reasonable scientific and moral conclusion. So, perhaps this conclusion reveals my leanings towards science in this debate, but I also continue to acknowledge the nobility of the religious and moral arguments that life may begin earlier. Regardless of where one comes out on this crucial question, it is a debate that deserves the dignity of civility and the careful examination of the many arguments and viewpoints that will continue to persist.
By Anisa Bhandari
1 https://depts.washington.edu/obgyn/faculty/index.php?id=974
2 Jakob Frie, Marco Bartocci, Hugo Lagercrantz, Pierre Kuhn; Cortical Responses to Alien Odors in Newborns: An fNIRS Study, Cerebral Cortex, Volume 28, Issue 9, 1 September 2018, Pages 3229–3240, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx194
3 Nirvana, “Something in the Way”, https://genius.com/Nirvana-something-in-the-way-lyrics
4 Development of thalamocortical connections between the mediodorsal thalamus and the prefrontal cortex and its implication in cognition, by Brieel R. Fergueson and Wen-Jun Gao https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01027/full
5 Rochat, P. (2009). Others in Mind-Social Origins of Self-Consciousness. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.