The following is meant to take a cold, hard, scientific look at the issue of abortion. You may not like what you are about to read, but, that’s the nature of reality sometimes.
I think we can start with the agreement that terminating the life of a 1 year old is not okay.
If we proceed back in time, we hopefully can agree terminating a 1 day old is also not “okay.”
However, just before what we call birth, we enter into the gray area where agreement and opinions on “okayness” become extremely fuzzy.
But first, let’s take a look at that moment just after birth, when the newborn child’s umbilical cord is still attached and providing blood, oxygen and nutrients, while efficiently eliminating waste.
Here’s my first question – is it the child’s umbilical cord, or the mother’s umbilical cord?
Well, let’s look at what specifically the umbilical cord is attached to – the new born child at one end and the placenta on the other.
My related second and third questions are (a) what is the placenta, and (b) is it the newborn’s or the mother’s placenta?
Here’s the definition of the placenta – “The placenta is a temporary organ that connects the developing fetus via the umbilical cord to the uterine wall to allow nutrient uptake, thermo-regulation, waste elimination, and gas exchange via the mother’s blood supply; to fight against internal infection; and to produce hormones which support pregnancy.”
A “temporary organ”…so far, so good, BUT, that doesn’t answer the question – whose “temporary organ” is it?
Let’s look at how the placenta forms.
Take a few minutes and watch this animated video of the process.
“The placenta begins to develop upon implantation of the blastocyst into the maternal endometrium. The outer layer of the blastocyst becomes the trophoblast, which forms the outer layer of the placenta.”
So the placenta starts at the moment of “…implantation of the blastocyst”…. In other words, when the independent fertilized human egg implants/attaches itself to the mother…
Travelling a little further back in time….What is a blastocyst? The blastocyst is “A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development that contains a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass from which the embryo arises. The outer layer of cells gives rise to the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development within the uterus while the inner cell mass cells gives rise to the tissues of the body.
Take a moment to reread that. The placenta is formed, not from the mother’s body, but, from the cells of the blastocyst, and, from the genetic information contained in the blastocyst, NOT the mother’s DNA, nor from the mother’s body.
So, now we know that a placenta is not formed by the mother, nor is it part of the mother, but, is in fact, part of and formed by the blastocyst.
Now, how and where does a blastocyst “begin”?
To answer that question, let’s jump right back to the moment of conception, when the joining together of a human egg and human sperm results in a flash of light (see https://youtu.be/ovzGmRrtVys ) , and cell division begins.
This is a link to a great video explanation of the process from pre-fertilization to implantation. (The following provides a text description)
At the moment of conception, the human sperm, from the male donor, and the human egg from the female donor, got together and become the zygote.
But, “where” exactly was the human egg when the sperm entered it?
You may say, why obviously it was in the woman’s body. That is true, but it doesn’t answer the actual question. The human egg, prior to fertilization, was in the woman’s ovaries, from where it was “released” at ovulation.
Arguably, that “release” or “detachment” is akin to the release of the sperm from the male’s testicles.
At the point of conception, “Day 1,” while it occurs within the woman’s body, neither the egg, nor the sperm, are attached to the woman’s body. They are both floating around in the space within the woman’s body.
Once conception has occurred the independent, fertilized egg, the sum product of BOTH the sperm and the egg, the zygote, does what?
If it is lucky, after four days of floating, it has evolved into a morula, and after about a week of surviving floating around in “inner space,” like an astronaut floating around in outer space, now a blastocyst, it lands and attaches itself to the woman’s body seeking nourishment in the form of blood, oxygen, and nutrients to grow. As described above, the formation, from the blastocyst’s outer layer, begins, which becomes the outer layer of the placenta.
It is worth noting at this juncture that the blastocyst contains ALL the genetic information/knowledge needed to PRODUCE itself…all it essentially needs is food and oxygen to grow, and a safe place to grow in.
Note the fact that the blastocyst attaches itself. The mother does not attach herself to the blastocyst. It is the blastocyst which is reaching out to the mother for food, just like a baby naturally does when it is first born.
The points I am making here are:
- The successful sperm is independent until conception,
- The recipient egg is independent until conception,
- The fertilized egg (the zygote, morula and blastocyst) is independent after conception and is unarguably not part of the mother’s body for about the first 7 days,
- After the egg has attached itself, and throughout pregnancy, the placenta, formed by the blastocyst, is a temporary organ of the new human being, which is attached to the woman’s body as a life support delivery system.
In other words, during the entirety of pregnancy, the independent human being which is growing, and being fed by the mother, is as dependent upon the mother’s body, as it is dependent upon nourishment from the mother after birth.
The “pro-choice” argument is that a woman can do whatever she wants with “her own body,” but, according to science, the egg, the sperm, the zygote, the morula, the blastocyst, the placenta, the embryo, the fetus, the baby, the human being, are NOT “part” of a mother’s body. In fact we all are, and have been, a separate body…one which started its life inside a woman.
Therefore, technically, a woman does not have the capacity to “reproduce,” because that is not actually what happens during human reproduction. Scientifically she acts only as a temporary host and nourisher for her child which is the product of the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm. The mother is perhaps best described as a nourishing provider.
In my opinion, the above is the scientific argument which should be made, not only in a court of law and the court of human opinion, but, as part of the educational system. Every child old enough to understand should understand exactly how their life began.
Our current understanding of science, whether one likes it or not, is definitive.
Every single reader of this article began in a flash of light, as a fertilized egg, as a blastocyst, floating around in their mother’s body, looking for nourishment. Looking for a place to rest and feed for 9 months, using the life support system it created (placenta), to receive the nourishment we required, before being launched into this world as an independent body.
Pro-choice advocates have it wrong on this particular point – Abortion is not about a woman’s body, it is, scientifically, about their child’s body.
That’s the harsh, scientific reality.
Now, the primary debate is then – “when” does human life begin?
I have always asked those who support abortion this question, ” Can you tell me, with any certainty, when, and at what exact millisecond, from the moment of conception, to the first breath, does human life begin?
No one, including the highest courts, has been able to provide anything other than generalized, unscientific points in time – e.g. up until the 1st trimester, up until 24 weeks, etc..
Those are not scientifically supported responses.
From one cell, to two, to four, to eight, etc. there is nowhere in that time continuum of life’s cell divisions, which can be said you or I were not human. Nor, do the various terms which science has provided (e.g. zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc.) do anything other than describe, for descriptive convenience sake only, arbitrarty and various points of time in the continuum of life.
The reality is this – it is impossible within life’s time continuum to point to any specific milli-second after conception to say that this is the moment your life “began.”
Thus, science tells us we each began our lives as an independent fertilized egg, and, we each were lucky enough to land, first on our mother’s uterine wall, and then eventually on our own two feet.
In between, like every other form of life, we hope to survive.
The questions which remain unanswered are the moral questions – if a developing human being is NOT part of a woman’s body, does the woman have a moral responsibility to protect the individual growing insider her, and likewise therefore, does the state have the right to protect the individual?
That’s the outstanding question which society has been struggling with.
However, the existing Supreme Court ruling on the issue, in my opinion, doesn’t go far enough. However, it is interesting that in the Roe v Wade ruling, the Court left the door ajar.
The Court’s opinion in 1973 stated, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” “At the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.”
The recent legislation passed in a variety of American states will eventually result in a reexamination of the “question.”
This appears to be an inevitable path forward.
The photo below is of an 18 week (4 1/2 month old) human being.
And, we have now the most amazing MRI of human life at 20 weeks:
https://youtu.be/IH2zy39VihI
About 30% of abortions happen at 20 weeks.
Our understanding of human life has advanced significantly over the past 46 years. It will be interesting to see how the debate of the issue evolves.
However, in my opinion, the “woman’s body” argument can now be severely challenged. Rather it will come down to the moral predicament that occurs when, after two adults engage in intercourse, their union results in the union of an egg and sperm, and the beginning of a human life…their baby’s life.
To violently remove a developing human being from its life support system begs many questions, not the least of which is whether the state/society has the right to create laws to protect humans at the most vulnerable period of their lives.
I would suggest perhaps the best direction to take would be to take a “scared straight” approach to the issue, and expose those of childbearing age to the miracle of life, and the potential consequences of sexual intercourse.
The 60’s sexual revolution, the failure of the Pill and Roe v Wade gave us this chart:
The good news is abortion rates are declining and have been since about 1980. The hope would be, that those rates continue to decline through greater education.
Finally in my personal opinion, both sides of the issue should be concentrating on how to reduce unwanted pregnancies before they start (through education, contraception, etc.), to support those pregnant women who need support, and to enforce father/parental support.
However, on the question of protecting fellow human beings, there should be universal agreement…one would hope.
islandstrust 