On "Pro-life" "Science"

So,

I try not to get involved in issues that I am not especially trained in, or that I have not vigorously researched, or that I am not incredibly passionate about. I do this not because of apathy, but because I am a very busy person, and under most circumstances, I will let more apt people get involved. One of these issues is abortion. It's a very complex issue, and I don't think I would ever be able to understand the battlefield of a mind of a person who is contemplating abortion.

That being said, I am pro-choice. I am VERY pro-choice. And I would absolutely support someone who decides to have an abortion. My opinion on the matter is more pragmatic, in that even when abortion is illegal, people still have abortions, they are just more dangerous. In addition to that, I would rather for every child born be loved, and not treated as just some mistake. But to discuss the philosophy of my stance is not the reason I am writing this post. I am writing this post to defend science. I am acting as a defender of science, because people are misquoting someone-else's-hell out of it.

Science does rule, but cannot defend itself

A common tactic of "pro-life" activists is to claim that science is on their side. They will often claim that life begins at conception.

Hey, apparently a life begins at conception.... 

Another one says that....

Well if it's scientific fact...

Now, if someone claims that their religion says life begins at conception, I'm probably going to stay quiet, lest I open a giant can of atheist-rage on some unsuspecting stranger. And when they claim their philosophy says that, I'm really not in a position to argue it. But when they claim that "it's scientific fact", they are essentially forcing me to correct them.

LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION!

But, you may ask, "if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin???" The answer to that question is complex and nuanced, as most scientific answers are. The correct answer to when did life begin (according to science) is about 3.8 billion years ago. And you may claim, "But the earth is only 6000 years old." If this is you, please pick up a text book and either educate yourself with it, or hit yourself in the head with it, HARD! Now, life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, and we are an extension of that life.... Just as all living organisms on Earth share a common ancestor, we share that ancestor's life.

You really should thank your great, great, [∞], great-grand cell more often.... 

Now you may say, "Thats a crappy answer, that’s not what life is". And you will be right..... sort of. Life is a very complex and complicated idea, and as a result, we have lots of different definitions of life. And none of them are very clear cut. 

From a metabolic perspective, life is present whenever we have cellular activity such as respiration. This is the simplest answer, and the most commonly used definition of life. It’s also really easy to define what is alive (a dog), and what isn't (a pencil). That being said, according to this definition of life, we are simply an extension of the original life on earth, (about 3.8 billion years ago) through a lineage of a variety of cells. Now, I like this definition, as it is the most clear cut, and I find the thought that we are simply an extension of life accurate, appropriate, and even comforting.

If this is not answering your questions, you may be looking for a definition of human life. I would like to make this very clear, a definition for human life is very different from a definition of life. But once again, depending on the flavor of biology you are looking at, we will have a different answer.

• According to the ecologic perspective, a human is alive when it can sustain itself. 
• According to neurology, the start of a human life can be defined as the start of a recognisable EEG pattern from the fetus (twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception). 
• According to embryology, the start of human life is at gastrulation, which is when the single-layered blastula reorganizes into a ("three-layered") gastrula (about fourteen days after fertilization). 
• According to the genetic perspective, a fertilized egg is a new life, since it is new and unique DNA. 

So there are several different definitions, because none of them are completely correct. Human life is very difficult to define, so it should be thought of as a combination of all of these. That being said, all of these definitions have major flaws, which is why we must be conscious of all of them when thinking about human life.

Defining human life, just like the best comedy of 2009: it's complicated

You might say that the genetic perspective is the right one, and the rest are irrelevant. Besides the fact that you are obviously speaking from a biased perspective, you are also making some dangerous claims. For instance, under this definition, a tumor is a new human life. It has a unique genetic makeup, and by your claims, deserves the same rights as a newborn. Now, I would disagree with this idea, but there are even more implications of this line of thought. According to this perspective, monozygotic twins (also known as identical twins) are only half a life each. These twins form because of a split, or twinning (isn't that a convenient term), that occurs after conception. By the genetic perspective, each twin would only have half the rights....

And would only be half the wizard?

Beyond that, there would be a lot of people with twice the life as the rest of us. This is due to tetragametic chimerism. This genetic anomaly is when two different fertilized embryos fuse together in the blastocyst stage. Moreover, human chimerism isn't very unusual. Under the genetic perspective, we get lots of confusion. Not to mention the issue with clones. Cloning works by using the genetic information from a somatic cell, say a skin cell, and inserting it into a prepared egg, and then forcing it to implant and grow as any other embryo would. Under the genetic perspective, a clone is not a person, which is going to be an issue soon, as we are close to producing human clones.

Not to mention the fact that under this definition of human life, the human mother is a murdering machine. Between 60-80% of fertilized eggs won't make it to implantation, and then another 30% will miscarry.... That means that for every child born, 3 or 4 were "killed" by their mother.

It's like hunger games.... In the uterus! 

All of this is complicated with what I like to call reality. People think that a new genetic code happens at conception, but this is inaccurate. All genetic information in the diploid cells in your body are actually unmodified from your parent's genetic code. The new mix of genetic code doesn't actually start until meiosis begins. The individual chromosomes from your parents remain separate until your body starts forming haploid cells, your sperm or eggs. This process (called crossing-over) is what actually creates a unique genetic code, and even then, it's only for your gametes (reproductive cells).

All of this is worsened by the fact that most people think that conception is a simple concept. A starting line of sorts, for when human life begins. But it is not. The process of conception is actually broken down into several steps (penetration, fusion, transformation, mitosis). And if the claim is being made that human life begins at one of these steps, which one? There is no good, clear cut answer, because human life is not something that can easily be defined.

So, the next time someone pulls the "science says life begins at conception" card, call them on it. Ask in which step of conception. Ask if one twin gets all the life, or how they split it up. These types of claims are damaging to both the process of science and the scientific community. And we must protect science, as it cannot protect itself. As it is not alive. 

Silly chemicals, you aren't alive!

As always, if you have anything to add to the conversation, just comment below!