When Life Begins

Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, had this to say to my query to Rick regarding Indiana's proposed statute and the question of when life begins:

"I am writing in connection with your posting on the Mirror of Justice website about the basis or bases for the belief that the life of a human being begins at fertilization.  You say that you think that there is a basis in science sufficient to support the belief, but that you also accept it on religious grounds.  I don't know about other religious traditions, but the teaching of Catholicism that the life of a human being begins at fertilization is itself based on the science.  So far as I know, the Church proposes no independent religious basis for the belief.  Indeed, the Church did not teach that the life of a human being begins at fertilization (though it has always taught that direct abortion is gravely wrong even in the earliest stages of pregnancy) until modern embryology and human developmental biology established that with the successful union of gametes substantial change occurs, causing the gametes to cease to exist as their constituent DNA molecules enter into the production of a new and complete human organism that (unlike the gametes) is genetically and functionally distinct from the organisms (i.e., the parents) whose gametes united to produce this result.  In other words, the Church began to teach what it now teaches about the status of the newly conceived human being when science made clear that from the zygote and blastula stages forward the product of fertilization is a living individual member of the species Homo sapiens.

"None of this is to deny that any particular believer or any religious tradition other than Catholicism may believe or teach that the life of a human being begins at fertilization (or at any other point) as a matter of revealed truth.  (As I say, I don't know about the teachings of traditions other than Catholicism.)  Of course, anyone or any tradition that believes or teaches on religious grounds that the life of a human being begins either before fertilization or at some point in gestation (e.g., at implantation, or viability, or birth, or after birth when the child begins to breathe or becomes self-aware) will have a religious teaching that is contradicted by facts established by science."

My comment back to Prof. George was that although I am now a Catholic and was
raised one, I also spent a significant number of years as a Buddhist and that my own acceptance of life beginning at conception dates back to that time period.  Although it may in fact be grounded in science, the Buddhist belief was never expressed as being grounded in science.  If, in fact, religious beliefs regarding when life begins are grounded in science, then, as Rick originally posited - the statement about when life begins is scientific.  But people don't always speak in those terms, which is why I raised he question whether it is imcumbent upon the legislature to ground the statute in science rather than in terms of belief (even if science underlies the belief). 

Prof. George continues:

"My own view (I am a Catholic) is that religion has an important role to play in reinforcing (and for some people grounding) our commitment as individuals and as a polity to the proposition that every human being has a profound and inherent dignity and a right to life.  When it comes to determining who is a human being, however, I think that legislative determinations should be made strictly on the basis of the best scientific evidence.  In debates about abortion and research involving the destruction of human embryos, the key question is "When does the life of a new human being begin?"  Whatever different indivuals may think and different religions may teach about that, the facts as established by scientific inquiry, understanding, and judgment are clear.  As you said in your posting, the genetic and other scientific evidence is sufficient to support the claim."

After a further exchange, he added the following clarification:

"On re-reading it, I notice that what I say in the fifth sentence of the
first paragraph might be a little puzzling.  After noting that the
Church did not teach what it now teaches about the status of the newly
conceived human embryo until after science had established the fact of
substantial change occuring at fertilization, I go on in the remainder
of the sentence to give the up-to-date description of that change,
including a reference to DNA.  Perhaps it goes without saying that the
Church did not have to wait until after the discovery of DNA to know on
the basis of the embryological facts that began to emerge with the
discovery of the ovum that substantial change occurs at fertilization."