Japanese translation is ready and will be presented Fr. Novotny's Pro-Life Site soon. This page will be linked to his.
WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?
" SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC
FACTS
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
(copyright February 1999)
Used with permission
Introduction by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD
When discussing ethics with a gynecologist
I asked him this question: " Do you believe
that the child in the womb is a human being
when you do an abortion?" His frank
response:
" Of course, everyone knows that it is
human. It is not a cat or a dog."
" Then how can you, in good conscience
abort it if you know it is human?"
" It is human, but we did not give it
a visa" was his reply.
What I said next I do not recall, but I should
have reminded him that God, not man, gives
visas to be born into this world. Today some
ethicists are even less honest than the above
doctor. They claim that what mothers conceive
is not human before it is two weeks old;
or four weeks, or when the brain forms; or
whatever they decide.
" No!" retorts scientist and philosopher
Dianne Nutwell Irving. In the paper which
follows she provides the scientific evidence
to show that humans are all there at the
very beginning, at the time of fertilization.
Dr. Dianne Irving is co-author of the book
The Human Development Hoax: Time to Tell
the Truth, with C. Ward Kischer, a Human
Embryologist. Her Doctoral Thesis is titled:
Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of
the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Georgetown
University, Washington, D.C., 1991). She
is a foremost Ethicist in the USA.
Dr. Irving is a research biochemist who was
employed by the USA Government as a career-appointed
bench research biochemist/biologist at the
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer
Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA where
she worked for seven years. She is a former
professor of the History of Philosophy and
Medical Ethics at Catholic Seminaries and
universities. She has published a large number
of scientific papers and is a frequent speaker
and consultant at ethics gatherings.
This article of hers was originally published
in the International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy (1999) , 19: 3/4: 22-47.
For the sake of brevity, some introductory
parts of the paper were omitted, but essential
paragraphs were then edited into her replies
as given below. The text is entirely hers.
We are grateful to Dr. Irving for allowing
us to present this significant and definitive
research paper in the Japanese language.
[End of Introduction by Fr. Zimmerman.]
I. Introduction
The question as to when the physical material
dimension of a human being begins via sexual
reproduction is strictly a scientific question,
and fundamentally should be answered by human
embryologists--not by philosophers, bioethicists,
theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians,
movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
The question as to when a human person begins
is a philosophical question. Current discussions
on abortion, human embryo research (including
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation
of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of
abortifacients involve specific claims as
to when the life of every human being begins.
If the " science" used to ground
these various discussions is incorrect, then
any conclusions will be rendered groundless
and invalid. The purpose of this article
is to focus primarily on a sampling of the
" scientific" myths, and on the
objective scientific facts that ought to
ground these discussions. At least it will
clarify what the actual international consensus
of human embryologists is with regard to
this relatively simple scientific question.
In the final section, I will also address
some " scientific" myths that have
caused much confusion within the philosophical
discussions on " personhood." [N.B.
Part A. " Basic human embryological facts
is omitted in this translation. Parts of
it, however, are presented in the text below.]
B. " Scientific" myths and scientific
fact
Given the basic facts of human embryology,
it is easier to recognize the many scientifically
inaccurate claims that have been advanced
in the discussions about abortion, human
embryo research, cloning, stem cell research,
the formation of chimeras, and the use of
abortifacients--and why these discussions
obfuscate the objective scientific facts.
The following is just a sampling of these
current " scientific" myths. (Emphases
are used throughout only to aid readers from
different disciplines.)
Myth 1 : " Prolifers claim that the abortion
of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong
because it destroys human life. But human
sperms and human ova are human life, too.
So prolifers would also have to agree that
the destruction of human sperms and human
ova are no different from abortions--and
that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1 : There is a radical difference, scientifically,
between parts of a human being that only
possess " human life" and a human
embryo or human fetus that is an actual " human
being." Abortion is the destruction
of a human being. Destroying a human sperm
or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion,
since neither are human beings. The issue
is not when does human life begin, but rather
when does the life of every human being begin.
A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell,
a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life,
but they are not human beings--they are only
parts of a human being. If a single sperm
or a single oocyte were implanted into a
woman's uterus, they would not grow; they
would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: " The product of fertilization
is simply a 'blob,' a 'bunch of cells', a
'piece of the mother's tissues'."
Fact 2: The human embryonic organism formed
at fertilization is a whole human being,
and therefore it is not just a " blob"
or a " bunch of cells." This new
human individual also has a mixture of both
the mother's and the father's chromosomes,
and therefore it is not just a " piece
of the mother's tissues" . Quoting embryologist
Carlson:
" ... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal
and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a
genetically unique product of chromosomal
reassortment, which is important for the
viability of any species." 15 (Emphasis
added.)
To begin with, scientifically something very
radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis
and fertilization--the change from a simple
part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and
a simple part of another human being (i.e.,
an oocyte--usually referred to as an " ovum"
or " egg" ), which simply possess
" human life" , to a new, genetically
unique, newly existing, individual, whole
living human being (a single-cell embryonic
human zygote). That is, upon fertilization,
parts of human beings have actually been
transformed into something very different
from what they were before; they have been
changed into a single, whole human being.
During the process of fertilization, the
sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such,
and a new human being is produced.
Myth 3: " The immediate product of fertilization
is just a 'potential' or a 'possible' human
being--not a real existing human being."
Fact 3 : As demonstrated above, scientifically
there is absolutely no question whatsoever
that the immediate product of fertilization
is a newly existing human being. A human
zygote is a human being. It is not a " potential"
or a " possible" human being. It's
an actual human being--with the potential
to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
The important process to consider is fertilization.
O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:
" ... the procession of events that begins
when a spermatozoon makes contact with a
secondary oocyte or its investments, and
ends with the intermingling of maternal and
paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the
first mitotic division of the zygote. The
zygote is characteristic of the last phase
of fertilization and is identified by the
first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular
embryo." 9 (Emphasis added.)
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes)
and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization
results in a live human being, a single-cell
human zygote, with 46 chromosomes--the number
of chromosomes characteristic of an individual
member of the human species. Quoting Moore:
“Zygote: This cell results from the union
of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the
beginning of a new human being (i.e., an
embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers
to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
by a sperm; when fertilization is complete,
the oocyte becomes a zygote." 10 (Emphasis
added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately
produces specifically human proteins and
enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and
proteins), and genetically directs his/her
own growth and development. (In fact, this
genetic growth and development has been proven
not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally,
this new human being--the single-cell human
zygote--is biologically an individual, a
living organism--an individual member of
the human species. Quoting Larsen:
" ... [W]e begin our description of the
developing human with the formation and differentiation
of the male and female sex cells or gametes,
which will unite at fertilization to initiate
the embryonic development of a new individual." 13
(Emphasis added.)
In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature
human oocyte are products of gametogenesis?each
has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only
half of the required number of chromosomes
for a human being. They cannot singly develop
further into human beings. They produce only
" gamete" proteins and enzymes.
They do not direct their own growth and development.
And they are not individuals, i.e., members
of the human species. They are only parts--each
one a part of a human being. On the other
hand, a human being is the immediate product
of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell
embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes,
the number required of a member of the human
species. This human being immediately produces
specifically human proteins and enzymes,
directs his/her own further growth and development
as human, and is a new, genetically unique,
newly existing, live human individual.
After fertilization the single-cell human
embryo doesn't become another kind of thing.
It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger,
developing through several stages as an embryo
over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental
stages of the growing embryo are given special
names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst
(5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo
(during the second week), and a trilaminar
(3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14
Myth 4: " A single-cell human zygote,
or embryo, or fetus are not human beings,
because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know,
a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed
human embryo, or human fetus is a human being--and
that that's the way they are supposed to
look at those particular periods of development.
Myth 5: " The immediate product of fertilization
is just an 'it'--it is neither a girl nor
a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization
is genetically already a girl or a boy--determined
by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the
oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
" ...[T]he sex of the future embryo is
determined by the chromosomal complement
of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains
22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo
will be a genetic female, and if it contains
22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome,
the embryo will be a genetic male.)" 16
Myth 6: " The embryo and the embryonic
period begin at implantation." (Alternative
myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common
myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific
articles--especially within the bioethics
literature. As demonstrated above, the human
embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization--not
at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days,
or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also
begins at fertilization, and ends by the
end of the eighth week, when the fetal period
begins. Quoting O'Rahilly:
" Prenatal life is conveniently divided
into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal.
The embryonic period proper during which
the vast majority of the named structures
of the body appear, occupies the first 8
postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period
extends from 8 weeks to birth ..." 17
(Emphasis added.)
Myth 7: " The product of fertilization,
up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just
a 'pre-embryo'--and therefore it can be used
in experimental research, aborted, or donated."
Fact 7: This " scientific" myth
is perhaps the most common error, which pervades
the current literature. The term " pre-embryo"
has quite a long and interesting history.
(See Kischer and Irving, The Human Development
Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive
details and references.) But it roughly goes
back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings
of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in
his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to
the United States Department of Health, Education
and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental
biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979
article in Scientific American,19 and most
notably in his classic book, Science and
the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20
Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently
continued propagating this scientific myth
as members of the Ethics Committee of the
American Fertility Society, and in numerous
influential bioethics articles, leading to
its common use in bioethics, theological,
and public policy literature to this day.
The term " pre-embryo" was also
used as the rationale for permitting human
embryo research in the British Warnock Committee
Report (1984),21 and then picked up by literally
hundreds of writers internationally, including,
e.g., Australian writers Michael Lockwood,
Michael Tooley, Alan Trounson--and especially
by Peter Singer (a philosopher), Pascal Kasimba
(a lawyer), Helga Kuhse (an ethicist), Stephen
Buckle (a philosopher) and Karen Dawson (a
geneticist, not a human embryologist). Note
that none of these is even a scientist, with
the exception of Karen Dawson, who is just
a geneticist.
Oddly, the influential book by Singer, Kuhse,
Buckle, and Dawson, Embryo Experimentation,22
(which uses the term " pre-embryo,"
and which contains no scientific references
for its " human embryology" chart
or its list of " scientific" terms),
along with the work of theologian McCormick
and frog developmental biologist Grobstein,
was used in the United States as the scientific
basis for the 1994 National Institutes of
Heath (NIH) Human Embryo Research Report.23
That Report concluded that the " preimplantation
embryo" (they, too, originally used
the term " pre-embryo" ) had only
a " reduced moral status." (Both
the Warnock Report and the NIH Report admitted
that the 14-day limit for human embryo research
was arbitrary, and could and must be changed
if necessary.) It is particularly in the
writings of these and other bioethicists
that so much incorrect science is claimed
in order to " scientifically" ground
the " pre-embryo" myth and therefore
" scientifically" justify many of
the issues noted at the beginning of this
article. This would include abortion, as
well as the use of donated or " made-for-research"
early human embryos in destructive experimental
human embryo research (such as infertility
research, cloning, stem cell research, the
formation of chimeras, etc.).
To begin with, it has been demonstrated above
that the immediate product of fertilization
is a human being with " 46" chromosomes,
a human embryo, an individual member of the
human species, and that this is the beginning
of the embryonic period. However, McCormick
and Grobstein24 claim that even though the
product of fertilization is genetically human,
it is not a " developmental individual"
yet--and in turn, this " scientific fact"
grounds their moral claim about this " pre-embryo."
Quoting McCormick:
" I contend in this paper that the moral
status--and specifically the controversial
issue of personhood--is related to the attainment
of developmental individuality (being the
source of one individual) ... It should be
noted that at the zygote stage the genetic
individual is not yet developmentally single--a
source of only one individual. As we will
see, that does not occur until a single body
axis has begun to form near the end of the
second week post fertilization when implantation
is underway." 25 (Emphasis added.)
Sounds very scientific. However, McCormick's
embryology is already self-contradictory.
Implantation takes place at 5-7 days. The
" single body axis" to which he
refers is the formation of the primitive
streak, which begins to take place at 14
days. McCormick often confuses these different
periods in his writings. But McCormick continues:
" This multicellular entity, called a
blastocyst, has an outer cellular wall, a
central fluid-filled cavity and a small gathering
of cells at one end known as the inner cell
mass. Developmental studies show that the
cells of the outer wall become the trophoblast
(feeding layer) and are precursors to the
later placenta. Ultimately, all these cells
are discarded at birth." 26 (Emphasis
added.)
The clear implication is that there is absolutely
no relationship or interaction between these
two cell layers, and so the " entity"
is not a " developmental individual"
yet. However, quoting Larsen: " These
centrally placed blastomeres are now called
the inner cell mass, while the blastomeres
at the periphery constitute the outer cell
mass. Some exchange occurs between these
groups. ... The cells of this germ disc (the
inner cell layer) develop into the embryo
proper and also contribute to some of the
extraembryonic membranes." 27 (Emphasis
added.)
Similarly, it is not factually correct to
state that all of the cells from the outer
trophoblast layer are discarded after birth.
Quoting Moore:
" The chorion, the amnion, the yolk sac,
and the allantois constitute the fetal membranes.
They develop from the zygote but do not participate
in the formation of the embryo or fetus--except
for parts of the yolk sac and allantois.
Part of the yolk sac is incorporated into
the embryo as the primordium of the gut.
The allantois forms a fibrous cord that is
known as the urachus in the fetus and the
median umbilical ligament in the adult. It
extends from the apex of the urinary bladder
to the umbilicus." 28 (Emphasis added.)
Since scientists, in trying to " reach"
young students in a more familiar language,
sometimes use popularized (but scientifically
inaccurate and misleading) terms themselves,
the ever-vigilant O'Rahilly expresses concern
in his classic text about the use of the
term " fetal membranes" :
" The developmental adnexa, commonly
but inaccurately referred to as the 'fetal
membranes,' include the trophoblast, amnion,
chorion, umbilical vesicle (yolk sac), allantoic
diverticulum, placenta and umbilical cord.
They are genetically a part of the individual
and are composed of the same germ layers." 29
(Emphasis added.)
Consequently, it is also scientifically incorrect
to claim that only the inner cell layer constitutes
the " embryo proper." The entire
blastocyst--including both the inner and
the outer cell layers--is the human embryo,
the human being, the human individual. That
is what human embryologists observe. For
example:
Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental
Biology, St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994: " About
4 days after fertilization, a fluid-filled
space begins to form inside the embryo. The
space is known as the blastocoele and the
embryo as a whole is called a blastocyst"
(p. 34). William J. Larsen, Human Embryology,
1997: " These centrally placed blastomeres
are now called the inner cell mass, while
the blastomeres at the periphery constitute
the outer cell mass. Some exchange occurs
between these groups. However, in general,
the inner cell mass gives rise to most of
the embryo proper and is therefore called
the embryoblast. The outer cell mass is the
primary source for the membranes of the placenta
and is therefore called the trophoblast."
(p. 19).
Finally, McCormick claims that this " pre-embryo"
has not yet decided how many individuals
it will become, since the cells are totipotent
and twinning can still take place. Therefore,
they argue, there is no " individual"
present until 14-days and the formation of
the primitive streak, after which twinning
cannot take place.30
However, twinning is possible after 14 days,
e.g., with fetus-in-fetu and Siamese twins.
Quoting from O'Rahilly again:
" Partial duplication at an early stage
and attempted duplication from 2 weeks onward
(when bilateral symmetry has become manifest)
would result in conjoined twins (e.g., 'Siamese
twins')." 31 (Emphasis added.)
And even Karen Dawson acknowledges this as
scientific fact in her article in Embryo
Experimentation:
" After the time of primitive streak
formation, other events are possible which
indicate that the notion of 'irreversible
individuality' may need some review if it
is to be considered as an important criterion
in human life coming to be the individual
human being it is ever thereafter to be.
There are two conditions which raise questions
about the adequacy of this notion: conjoined
twins, sometimes known as Siamese twins,
and fetus-in-fetu. ... Conjoined twins arise
from the twinning process occurring after
the primitive streak has begun to form, that
is, beyond 14 days after fertilization, or,
in terms of the argument from segmentation,
beyond the time at which irreversible individuality
is said to exist. ... This situation weakens
the possibility of seeing individuality as
something irreversibly resolved by about
14 days after fertilization. This in turn
raises questions about the adequacy of using
the landmark of segmentation in development
as the determinant of moral status." 32
(Emphasis added.)
It is unfortunate that the NIH Human Embryo
Research Panel33 did not read this particular
portion of the Singer et al book before making
their recommendations about the moral status
of the early human embryo.
The scientific fact is that there is no such
thing as a " pre-embryo" in the
real world. The term is a complete myth.
It was fabricated out of thin air in order
to justify a number of things that ordinarily
would not be justifiable. Quoting O'Rahilly,
who sits on the international board of Nomina
Embryologica, again:
" The ill-defined and inaccurate term
'pre-embryo,' which includes the embryonic
disk, is said either to end with the appearance
of the primitive streak or to include neurulation.
The term is not used in this book.34 (Emphasis
added.)
Unfortunately, the convenient but mythological
term " pre-embryo" will be used
to " scientifically" justify several
of the other " scientific" myths
to follow, which in turn will be used to
justify public policy on abortion and human
embryo research world-wide.
Myth 8: " Pregnancy begins with the implantation
of the blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."
Fact 8: This definition of " pregnancy"
was initiated to accommodate the introduction
of the process of in vitro fertilization,
where fertilization takes place artificially
outside the mother in a petri dish, and then
the embryo is artificially introduced into
the woman's uterus so that implantation of
the embryo can take place. Obviously, if
the embryo is not within the woman's body,
she is not " pregnant" in the literal,
traditional sense of the term. However, this
artificial situation cannot validly be substituted
back to redefine " normal pregnancy,"
in which fertilization does take place within
the woman's body in her fallopian tube, and
subsequently the embryo itself moves along
the tube to implant itself into her uterus.
In normal situations, pregnancy begins at
fertilization, not at implantation. Quoting
Carlson:
" Human pregnancy begins with the fusion
of an egg and a sperm, but a great deal of
preparation precedes this event. First both
male and female sex cells must pass through
a long series of changes (gametogenesis)
that converts them genetically and phenotypically
into mature gametes, which are capable of
participating in the process of fertilization.
Next, the gametes must be released from the
gonads and make their way to the upper part
of the uterine tube, where fertilization
normally takes place. Finally, the fertilized
egg, now properly called an embryo, must
make its way into the uterus, where it sinks
into the uterine lining (implantation) to
be nourished by the mother." 35 (Emphasis
added.)
Myth 9: " The 'morning-after pill,' RU486,
and the IUD are not abortifacient; they are
only methods of contraception."
Fact 9: The " morning-after pill,"
RU486, and the IUD can be abortifacient,
if fertilization has taken place. Then they
would act to prevent the implantation of
an already existing human embryo--the blastocyst--which
is an existing human being. If the developing
human blastocyst is prevented from implanting
into the uterus, then obviously the embryo
dies. In effect, these chemical and mechanical
methods of contraception have become methods
of abortion as well. Quoting Moore:
" The administration of relatively large
doses of estrogens ('morning-after pill')
for several days, beginning shortly after
unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does
not prevent fertilization but often prevents
implantation of the blastocyst. Diethylstilbestrol,
given daily in high dosage for 5-6 days,
may also accelerate passage of the dividing
zygote along the uterine tube ... Normally,
the endometrium progresses to the secretory
phase of the menstrual cycle as the zygote
forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters the
uterus. The large amount of estrogen disturbs
the normal balance between estrogen and progesterone
that is necessary for preparation of the
endometrium for implantation of the blastocyst.
Postconception administration of hormones
to prevent implantation of the blastocyst
is sometimes used in cases of sexual assault
or leakage of a condom, but this treatment
is contraindicated for routine contraceptive
use. The 'abortion pill' RU486 also destroys
the conceptus by interrupting implantation
because of interference with the hormonal
environment of the implanting embryo. ...
An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into
the uterus through the vagina and cervix
usually interferes with implantation by causing
a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs
contain progesterone that is slowly released
and interferes with the development of the
endometrium so that implantation does not
usually occur." 36 (Emphasis added.)
Moore adds the following about the so-called
morning after pill: Moore:
-- [Question Chapter 2, #5 for students: ]
" #5. A young woman who feared that she
might be pregnant asked you about the so-called
" morning after pills" (postcoital
birth control pills). What would you tell
her? Would termination of such an early pregnancy
be considered an abortion?" (p. 45)
[Answer #5 for students: ]
" Chapter 2
#5. Postcoital birth control pills (" morning
after pills" ) may be prescribed in an
emergency (e.g., following sexual abuse).
Ovarian hormones (estrogen) taken in large
doses within 72 hours after sexual intercourse
usually prevent implantation of the blastocyst,
probably by altering tubal motility, interfering
with corpus luteum function, or causing abnormal
changes in the endometrium. These hormones
prevent implantation, not fertilization.
Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive
pills. Conception occurs but the blastocyst
does not implant. It would be more appropriate
to call them " contraimplantation pills" .
Because the term " abortion" refers
to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the
term " abortion" could be applied
to such an early termination of pregnancy."
(p. 532)
-- [Question chapter 3, #2 for students]:
" Case 3-2
A woman who was sexually assaulted during
her fertile period was given large doses
of estrogen twice daily for five days to
interrupt a possible pregnancy.
-- If fertilization had occurred, what do
you think would be the mechanism of action
of this hormone?
-- What do lay people call this type of medical
treatment? Is this what the media refer to
as the " abortion pill" ? If not,
explain the method of action of the hormonal
treatment.
-- How early can a pregnancy be detected?"
(p. 59)
[Answer Chapter 3, #2 for students: ]:
" Chapter 3-2 (p. 532)
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) appears to affect
the endometrium by rendering it unprepared
for implantation, a process that is regulated
by a delicate balance between estrogen and
progesterone. The large doses of estrogen
upset this balance. Progesterone makes the
endometrium grow thick and succulent so that
the blastocyst may become embedded and nourished
adequately. DES pills are referred to as
" morning after pills" by lay people.
When the media refer to the " abortion
pill" , they are usually referring to
RU-486. This drug, developed in France, interferes
with implantation of the blastocyst by blocking
the production of progesterone by the corpus
luteum. A pregnancy can be detected at the
end of the second week after fertilization
using highly sensitive pregnancy tests. Most
tests depend of the presence of an early
pregnancy factor (EPF) in the maternal serum.
Early pregnancy can also be detected by ultrasonography."
And since the whole human blastocyst is the
embryonic human being--not just the inner
cell layer--the use of chemical abortifacients
that act " only" on the outer trophoblast
layer of the blastocyst, e.g., methotrexate,37
would be abortifacient as well.
Myth 10: " Human embryo research, human
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation
of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research
because until implantation or 14 days there
is only a 'pre-embryo', a 'potential' human
embryo or [a 'potential'] human being present.
A real human embryo and a human being (child)
do not actually begin unless and until the
'pre-embryo' is implanted into the mother's
uterus."
Fact 10: These claims are currently being
made by bioethicists, research scientists,
pharmaceutical companies, and other biotech
research companies--even by some members
of Congress. However, they too are " scientific"
myths.
Scientifically it is perfectly clear that
there is no such thing as a " pre-embryo,"
as demonstrated in Fact 7. As demonstrated
in the background material, the immediate
product of fertilization is a human being,
a human embryo, a human child--the zygote.
This zygote is a newly existing, genetically
unique, genetically male or female, individual
human being--it is not a " potential"
or a " possible" human being. And
this developing human being is a human being,
a human embryo, a human child whether or
not it is implanted artificially into the
womb of the mother.
Fertilization and cloning are different processes,
but the immediate products of these processes
are the same. The immediate product of human
cloning would also be a human being--just
as in human fertilization. It is not a " pre-embryo"
or a " potential" human embryo or
a " potential" human being. Stem
cell research obtains its " stem cells"
by essentially exploding or otherwise destroying
and killing a newly existing human blastocyst
who is, scientifically, an existing human
being. The formation of chimeras, i.e., the
fertilization of a gamete of one species
(e.g., a human oocyte) with the gamete of
another species (e.g., a monkey sperm) also
results in an embryo that is " half-human."
All of these types of research have been
banned by most countries in the world. And
all of these types of research are essentially
human embryo research--for which the use
of federal funds has been banned.
Myth 11: " Certain early stages of the
developing human embryo and fetus, e.g.,
during the formation of ancestral fish gills
or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet
a human being, but is only in the process
of becoming one. It is simply 'recapitulating'
the historical evolution of all of the species."
Fact 11: This " scientific" myth
is yet another version of the " potential,"
" possible," " pre-embryo"
myths. It is an attempt to deny the early
human embryo its real identity as a human
being and its real existence. But quoting
once again from O'Rahilly:
" The theory that successive stages of
individual development (ontogeny) correspond
with ('recapitulate') successive adult ancestors
in the line of evolutionary descent (phylogeny)
became popular in the 19th century as the
so-called biogenetic law. This theory of
recapitulation, however, has had a 'regrettable
influence in the progress of embryology'
(citing de Beer). ... Furthermore, during
its development an animal departs more and
more from the form of other animals. Indeed,
the early stages in the development of an
animal are not like the adult stages of other
forms, but resemble only the early stages
of those animals." 38
Hence, the developing human embryo or fetus
is not a " fish" or a " frog,"
but is categorically a human being--as has
been already demonstrated.
III. When does a human person begin?
The question as to when a human person begins
is a philosophical question--not a scientific
question. I will not go into great detail
here,39 but " personhood" begins
when the human being begins--at fertilization.
But since many of the current popular " personhood"
claims in bioethics are also based on mythological
science, it would be useful to just look
very briefly at these philosophical (or sometimes,
theological) arguments simply for scientific
accuracy as well.
Philosophically, virtually any claim for
so-called " delayed personhood" --that
is, " personhood" does not start
until some point after fertilization--involves
the theoretical disaster of accepting that
the idea or concept of a mind/body split
has any correlate in or reflects the real
world. Historically this problem was simply
the consequence of wrong-headed thinking
about reality, and was/is totally indefensible.
It was abandoned with great embarrassment
after Plato's time (even by Plato himself
in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces
from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes
in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary
bioethics.40 And as in the question of when
a human being begins, if the science used
to ground these philosophical " personhood"
arguments is incorrect, the conclusions of
these arguments (which are based on that
incorrect science) are also incorrect and
invalid.
Myth 12: " Maybe a human being begins
at fertilization, but a human person does
not begin until after 14-days, when twinning
cannot take place."
Fact 12: The particular argument in Myth
12 is also made by McCormick and Grobstein
(and their numerous followers). It is based
on their biological claim that the " pre-embryo"
is not a developmental individual, and therefore
not a person, until after 14 days when twinning
can no longer take place. However, it has
already been scientifically demonstrated
here that there is no such thing as a " pre-embryo,"
and that in fact the embryo begins as a " developmental
individual" at fertilization. Furthermore,
twinning can take place after 14 days. Thus
simply on the level of science, the philosophical
claim of " personhood" advanced
by these bioethicists is invalid and indefensible.
Myth 13: " A human person begins with
'brain birth,' the formation of the primitive
nerve net, or the formation of the cortex--all
physiological structures necessary to support
thinking and feeling."
Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental
speculation, the product of imposing philosophical
(or theological) concepts on the scientific
data, and have no scientific evidence to
back them up. As the well-known neurological
researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly
put it, the parallelism between " brain
death" and " brain birth" is
scientifically invalid. " Brain death"
is the gradual or rapid cessation of the
functions of a brain. " Brain birth"
is the very gradual acquisition of the functions
of a developing neural system. This developing
neural system is not a brain. He questions,
in fact, the entire assumption and asks what
neurological reasons there might be for concluding
that an incapacity for consciousness becomes
a capacity for consciousness once this point
is passed. Jones continues that the alleged
symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes
assumed, and that it has yet to be provided
with a firm biological base.41
Myth 14: " A 'person' is defined in terms
of the active exercising of 'rational attributes'
(e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness,
relating to the world around one, etc.),
and/or the active exercising of 'sentience'
(e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."
Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms
or concepts, which have been illegitimately
imposed on the scientific data. The scientific
fact is that the brain, which is supposed
to be the physiological support for both
" rational attributes" and " sentience,"
is not actually completely developed until
young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
" Although it is customary to divide
human development into prenatal (before birth)
and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth
is merely a dramatic event during development
resulting in a change in environment. Development
does not stop at birth. Important changes,
in addition to growth, occur after birth
(e.g., development of teeth and female breasts).
The brain triples in weight between birth
and 16 years; most developmental changes
are completed by the age of 25." 42 (Emphasis
added.)
One should also consider simply the logical--and
very real--consequences if a " person"
is defined only in terms of the actual exercising
of " rational attributes" or of
" sentience." What would this mean
for the following list of adult human beings
with diminished " rational attributes" :
e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded,
the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
patients, drug addicts, alcoholics--and for
those with diminished " sentience,"
e.g., the comatose, patients in a " vegetative
state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed
and disabled patients, diabetics or other
patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.?
Would they then be considered as only human
beings but not also as human persons? Would
that mean that they would not have the same
ethical and legal rights and protections
as those adult human beings who are considered
as persons? Is there really such a " split"
between a human being and a human person?
In fact, this is the position of bioethics
writers such as the Australian animal rights
philosopher Peter Singer,43 the recently
appointed Director of the Center for Human
Values at Princeton University. Singer argues
that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs,
apes, monkeys, are persons--but that some
human beings, e.g., even normal human infants,
and disabled human adults, are not persons.
Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers
" cognitively impaired" adult human
beings as " brain dead." Philosopher/bioethicist
R.G. Frey has also published that many of
the adult human beings on the above list
are not " persons," and suggests
that they be substituted for the higher primates
who are " persons" in purely destructive
experimental research.44 The list goes on.
IV. Conclusions
Ideas do have concrete consequences--not
only in one's personal life, but also in
the formulation of public policies. And once
a definition is accepted in one public policy,
the logical extensions of it can then be
applied, invalidly, in many other policies,
even if they are not dealing with the same
exact issue--as happens frequently in bioethics.
Thus, the definitions of " human being"
and of " person" that have been
concretized in the abortion debates have
been transferred to several other areas,
e.g., human embryo research, cloning, stem
cell research, the formation of chimeras,
the use of abortifacients--even to the issues
of brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation,
the removal of food and hydration, and research
with the mentally ill or the disabled. But
both private choices and public policies
should incorporate sound and accurate science
whenever possible. What I have tried to indicate
is that in these current discussions, individual
choices and public policies have been based
on " scientific" myth, rather than
on objective scientific facts.
Notes
1. B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements
of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill
Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.
2. William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New
York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4,
8, 11.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human
Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss,
1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human
Embryology and Developmental Biology (St.
Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore
and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human
(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).
6. O'Rahilly and Muller 1994, pp. 13-14.
7. Ibid., p. 16. See also, Larsen, op. cit.,
pp. 3-11; Moore and Persaud, op. cit., pp.
18-34; Carlson, op. cit., pp. 3-21.
8. Note: The number of chromosomes in the
definitive oocyte are not halved unless and
until it is penetrated by a sperm, which
really does not take place before fertilization
but is in fact concurrent with and the beginning
of the process of fertilization. However,
for simplicity's sake, many writers (myself
among them) will sometimes assume the reader
clearly understands this timing, and simply
say, " before fertilization the sperm
and the oocyte each contain 23 chromosomes."
9. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 19.
10. Moore and Persaud, p. 2.
11. E.g., as determined in extensive numbers
of transgenic mice experiments as in Kollias
et al., " The human beta-globulin gene
contains a downstream developmental specific
enhancer," Nucleic Acids Research 15(14)
(July, 1987), 5739-47; also similar work
by, e.g., R.K. Humphries, A. Schnieke.
12. Holtzer et al., " Induction-dependent
and lineage-dependent models for cell-diversification
are mutually exclusive," Progress in
Clinical Biological Research 175: 3-11 (1985);
also similar work by, e.g., F. Mavilio, C.
Hart.
13. Larsen, p. 1; also O'Rahilly and Muller,
p. 20.uuu14. Larsen, p. 19, 33, 49.
15. Carlson, p. 31.
16. Carlson, p. 31.
17. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 55; Carlson,
p. 407.
18. Ethics Advisory Board, 1979, Report and
Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving
Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer,
Washington, D.C.: United States Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, p. 101.
19. Clifford Grobstein, " External human
fertilization," Scientific American
240: 57-67.
20. Clifford Grobstein, Science and the Unborn:
Choosing Human Futures (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1988).
21. Dame Mary Warnock, Report of the Committee
of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology
(London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office,
1984), pp. 27, 63. See also the writings
of, e.g., H. Tristram Engelhardt, John Robertson
(in legal writings), R.M. Hare, Bedate and
Cefalo, William Wallace.
22. Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle,
Karen Dawson, and Pascal Kasimba, Embryo
Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990).
23. National Institutes of Health: Report
of the Human Embryo Research Panel, September
27, 1994 (National Institutes of Health,
Division of Science Policy Analysis and Development,
Bethesda, MD).
24. Clifford Grobstein, " The early development
of human embryos," Journal of Medicine
and Philosophy 1985: 10: 213-236; and Richard
McCormick, " Who or what is the preembryo?"
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991: 1: 1-15.
25. Richard McCormick, ibid., p. 3.
26. McCormick, ibid., p. 3.
27. Larsen, p. 19, 33.
28. Moore and Persaud, p. 131.
29. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 51.
30. McCormick, op. cit., p. 4.
31. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 32.
32. Karen Dawson, " Segmentation and
moral status," in Peter Singer et al.,
Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990), p. 58. See also
Moore and Persaud, p. 133.
33. For extensive comments on the make-up
of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel and
on its Report, see several of my articles
in my book, co-authored with human embryologist
C. Ward Kischer, The Human Development Hoax:
Time to Tell The Truth! (Clinton Township,
MI: Gold Leaf Press, 1995) (1st ed.); (2nd.
ed. published by authors 1997; distributed
by the American Life League, Stafford, VA).
34. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 55.
35. Carlson, p. 3.
36. Moore and Persaud, p. 58.
37. But see Albert Moraczewski, " Managing
tubal pregnancies: Part I" (June 1996)
and " Part II" (August 1996), in
Ethics and Medics (Braintree, MA: Pope John
Center). See also Peter A. Clark, " Methotrexate
and Tubal PregnanciesDirect or Indirect Abortion?" ,
Linacre Quarterly (Feb. 2000), Vol. 67, No.
1.
38. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 8-9.
38. O'Rahilly and Muller, p. 8-9.
39. The use of massive historically incorrect
and theoretically indefensible philosophy
in the " delayed personhood" arguments
has been addressed in my doctoral dissertation,
A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of
the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University, Department of
Philosophy, 1991); see also several of my
previously published articles in my book,
co-authored by C. Ward Kischer, supra, note
33, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell
The Truth!, which gives extensive references
pro and con these bioethics arguments.
40. For an excellent and easy to read analysis
of the problem of a mind/body split as one
of the fundamental theoretical problems in
contemporary bioethics theory, see Gilbert
C. Meilaender, Body, Soul, and Bioethics
(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1995); see also many of the excellent
articles about this problem in bioethics
theory in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles
of Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 1994); also Edwin R. DuBose,
Ronald P. Hamel and Laurence J. O'Connell
(eds.), A Matter of Principles? Ferment in
U.S. Bioethics (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1994)--especially the
" Preface" by Albert Jonsen. Even
Daniel Callahan has admitted that the bioethics
principles don't work, in " Bioethics:
Private choice and common good," in
The Hastings Center Report (May/June 1994),
pp. 28-31.
41. D. Gareth Jones, " Brain birth and
personal identity," Journal of Medical
Ethics 15: 4, 1989, p. 178.
42. Moore and Persaud, p. 2; see also Jones,
p. 177.
43. Peter Singer, " Taking life: Abortion,"
in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1981), p. 118; Helga Kuhse and Peter
Singer, " For sometimes letting--and
helping--die," Law, Medicine and Health
Care, 1986, 3: 4: 149-153; Kuhse and Singer,
Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped
Infants (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985), p. 138; Singer and Kuhse, " The
ethics of embryo research," Law, Medicine
and Health Care, 1987, 14: 13-14; Michael
Tooley, " Abortion and infanticide,"
in Marshall Cohen (ed.) et al., The Rights
and Wrongs of Abortions, (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974), pp. 59, 64; H. Tristram
Engelhardt, The Foundations of Bioethics
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986),
p. 111.
44. R.G. Frey, " The ethics of the search
for benefits: Animal experimentation in medicine,"
in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of Health
Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1994' pp. 1067-1075.
ADDENDUM
MYTH XV “Well, maybe the large-dose “emergency
contraception” or “morning-after” pills
can be abortifacient, but the daily low-dose
contraceptive Pills are definitely not. There
can’t be any abortion if no conception (fertilization)
has taken place, and besides, these Pills
are very safe.”
FACT XV The daily low-dose “contraceptive”
Pills are definitely both contraceptive and
abortifacient, and can cause serious harm
to women as well as to their children who
are conceived while taking them.
The low-dose Pills usually work by means
of a combination of three different mechanisms: *1
(1) prevention of ovulation; (2) thickening
of the cervical mucus to slow down the sperm,
or any embryo, that is present; and (3) disruption
of the endometrial lining of the uterus so
that implantation of any embryo would be
prevented. The whole idea is to create a
series of chemical reactions that would work
differently for different purposes -- ultimately
to prevent a live birth. The first mechanism
should be contraceptive, but if it “fails”,
then the second mechanism could be both contraceptive
and abortifacient and the third mechanism
could be abortifacient, if fertilization
has taken place. To see this one needs to
consider just how effective these three mechanisms
of action of the Pill are.
(1) The first mechanism supposedly works
by preventing ovulation, and therefore conception
(fertilization). Because there were so many
serious and deadly side effects with the
use of the early higher-dose daily contraceptive
Pills,*2 in the mid-1970’s the drug companies
switched to using lower doses, especially
of estrogen, to lower the incidents of these
severe side effects. However, this unfortunately
also allows for more “break-through” ovulation
to occur. It is an empirical fact that “break-through”
ovulation does occur, and that at least 7%
( a conservative average of a range of reported
percentages) of the women taking the Pill
actually become pregnant.*1 Clearly, all
three mechanisms have failed in these cases.
Both ovulation and fertilization have taken
place, and neither the thickening of the
cervical mucus nor the disruption of the
endometrium of the uterus have prevented
these pregnancies.
Now, 7% may not sound like such a big number,
but on a national scale the real consequences
of these “failed” combined mechanisms translate
into millions of real live children being
conceived. If there are about 14 million
women in the U.S. alone taking the Pill,*2
that means that 980,000 women become pregnant
while on the Pill, and that neither the second
nor the third mechanisms have worked as “back-ups”.
If 60 million women worldwide are taking
these Pills (a conservative estimate),*3
that translates into 4.2 million pregnancies,
and children conceived, while these women
are on the Pill. These numbers would be much
higher, e.g., for women in underdeveloped
countries, or if the users were not as careful
about taking the Pill regularly, or were
already taking other medications. Even at
the lower estimates of pregnancy rates, these
are significant numbers of not only pregnancy
“failures”, but also of real live human
beings who have already come into existence
while women are on the Pill.
It is more difficult to know, however, exactly
how many breakthrough ovulations occur where
fertilization has taken place and where the
second and/or third mechanisms do work (i.e.,
where a woman has in fact experienced a chemical
abortion), because very few studies have
been performed, and such an early pregnancy
would be difficult to detect with current
tests. But clearly, if at least 4.2 million
children do make it through these three different
mechanisms, the number of children who don’t,
and who are thus chemically aborted, must
be much higher (or else these chemicals are
totally useless). Considering the number
of women who abort these children after their
pregnancies are confirmed, and the number
of children aborted by back-up mechanisms
1 and 2 (below), the Pill is definitely abortifacient.
(2) The second mechanism supposedly works
by thickening the cervical mucus to “prevent”
the sperm from reaching oocytes in the fallopian
tubes. But does it really “prevent” all
of the sperm from reaching the fallopian
tubes all of the time? Such research cannot
be done on human beings, but other animal
studies*1 at least suggest that thousands
of sperm reached the tubes while the animals
were on progestin -- obviously a very real
opportunity for fertilization to take place.
As pointed out above, the reality of literally
millions of unplanned pregnancies occurring
while women were taking the Pill demonstrates
that this mechanism sometimes also fails.
It has also been shown that progestins lower
the efficiency with which the fallopian tubes
propel oocytes from the ovaries toward the
uterus*2 (if fertilization has taken place
this would slow down the embryo’s travel
time so that it reaches the uterus too “old”
to implant), interfere with implantation
by speeding up the embryo’s travel time
(so that it reaches the uterus before it
is mature enough to implant),*3 and prevent
the proper nourishment or maintenance of
an embryo (resulting in a premature end of
the pregnancy).*4 Once again, the second
mechanism could fail, fertilization could
take place, and the embryo would either die
before or after reaching the uterus. Thus
the Pill is definitely abortifacient.
(3) The most obvious and well-documented
studies concern the thinning and disruption
of the endometrial lining of the uterus.
This would make it difficult for the developing
embryo to implant, usually causing an early
abortion.*1 This mechanism, the prevention
of the live developing human embryo to implant
in the uterus, is so widely known and accepted
that almost all Pill manufacturers overtly
state this in their materials.*2 Even Ruth
Colker, a pro-abortion lawyer, arguing in
opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion,
stated that “Because nearly all birth control
devices, except the diaphragm and condom,
operate between the time of conception ...
and implantation ... the statute would appear
to ban most contraceptives.”*3 Pro-abortion
lawyer Frank Sussman, representing Missouri
Abortion Clinics, argued before the Supreme
Court that ”The most common forms of ...
contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth
control pills ... act as abortifacients.”*4
There is no question whatsoever that scientifically
the human being begins at fertilization.
Therefore, if the early human embryo is prevented
from implanting in the uterus, as this third
mechanism attempts to effect, then the embryo
dies, and this is definitely, by definition,
an abortion (as Moore has clearly articulated
in the previous myth). Thus the Pill is definitely
abortifacient.
What if fertilization has taken place, and
the embryo does succeed in making it to the
uterus and implanting? Are there any dangers
to these young developing human beings being
exposed to oral contraceptives? It is known
and documented that some of these hormones
in oral contraceptives can indeed cause multiple
teragenic effects on the unborn child that
is exposed to them in utero.*1
It has also been extensively documented that
many women who take the Pill suffer a whole
range of serious side effects, including
death, blood clots, strokes, pulmonary embolism,
renal artery thrombosis, kidney damage, temporary
or permanent blindness, heart attacks, brain
hemorrhages, high blood pressure, cancer
(e.g., breast, cervical, endometrial, ovarian,
liver, skin), cycle irregularities, headaches,
migraines, mental depression, decrease or
loss of sexual drive, abdominal cramps, bloating,
weight gain or loss, water retention, nausea
and vomiting, symptoms of PMS, vaginitis
and vaginal infections, intolerance to contact
lenses, gall bladder disease, temporary or
permanent infertility.*2
Thus it is known and factual that the Pill
not only has been but is and could be abortifacient
if fertilization has taken place. It is also
known and factual that all three mechanisms
of the Pill have, do and can fail. If knowledge
is empowerment, it would seem to me that
women have been precluded from such empowerment
by the reluctance of the drug companies to
clearly acknowledge these facts and by most
physicians and nurses failing to impart these
facts to their patients. How can a woman
possibly be “informed” about the potential
dangers and problems of taking these Pills
to themselves and to their children if they
are prevented from knowing these empirical
facts? Or, perhaps ignorance is bliss?
FOOTNOTES
脚注
1 E.g., insert included in Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical,
Inc. prescription packaging for their contraceptive
pill; see also, Physician Desk Reference:
1998. See also note 11 infra.2
2 David A. Grimes (ed.) et al, “Evolution
and resolution: The past, present and future
of contraception: Part 1: History of contraception.”,
in The Contraceptive Report (Feb. 2000),
10: 6: 15-25, p. 20; Nina Van der Vange, “Ovarian
activity during low dose oral contraceptives”,
in G. Chamberlain (ed.), Contemporary Obstetrics
and Gynecology (London: Butterworths, 1988),
pp. 315-16; Association of Rep. Health Professionals
and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., Hippocrates
(May/June 1988), p. 5.
3 See Rev. Anthony Zimmerman’s interview
with Dr. Lloyd J. Duplantis, Linacre Quarterly;
May 1999; for the wide range of estimates,
see Randy Alcorn, Does the Birth Control
Pill Cause Abortions? (Gresham, OR: EPM,
1998), p. 46-47; also, L.A. Potter, " How
effective are contraceptives? The determination
and measurement of pregnancy rates" ,
Obstetrics and Gynecology (1996), 88: 13S-23S.
4 R.A. Hatcher, F. Stewart, J. Trussell et
al, “The pill: Combined oral contraceptives”,
in Contraceptive Technology (New York: Irvington
Publishers, 1990), p. 228.
5 S. Harlap, K. Kost, and J.D. Forrest, Preventing
Pregnancy, Protecting Health (New York: The
Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1991), pp. 98-99.
6 Chang and Hunt, “Effects of various progestins
and estrogen on the gamete transport and
fertilization in the rabbit,” Fertility
and Sterility (1970), 21: 683-686.
7 R.A. Bronson, “Oral contraception: Mechanism
of action,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
(Sept. 1981), 24: 3: 873-874.
8 Leon Speroff and Philip Darney, A Clinical
Guide for Contraception (Williams & Wilkins,
1992), p. 40; Stewart, Guess, Stewart and
Hatcher, My Body, My Health (Clinician’s
Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979),
pp. 169-170.
9 Stephen G. Somkuti et al, “The effect
of oral contraceptive pills on markers of
endometrial receptivity,” Fertility and
Sterility (March 1996), 65: 484-488.
10 Ibid., quoting S.G. Somkuti et al: " These
alterations in epithelial and stromal integrin
expression suggest that impaired uterine
receptivity is one mechanism whereby BCPs
exert their contraceptive action”. See
also, extensive scientific references and
counter arguments in Chris Kahlenborn (physician),
How the Pill and Other Contraceptive Work
(Dayton, OH: One More Soul, 1999); in John
Wilks (pharmacist), A Consumer’s Guide to
the Pill (Victoria, Australia: TGB Books,
1996; American Life League, 1997, p. 3ff); in
Bogomir Kuhar (pharmacist), Infant Homocides
through Contraceptives (Pharmacists For Life
International); in The Pill: How Does It
Work? Is It Safe? (Cincinnati, OH: Couple
to Couple League International, Inc., 1993);
in Randy Alcorn, Does the Birth Control Pill
Cause Abortions? (Gresham, OR: EPM, 1998).
11 Ortho-Cept: “Although the primary mechanism
of this action is inhibition of ovulation,
other alterations include changes in the
cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty
of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes
in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood
of implantation” (p. 1775); Ortho-Cyclen
and Ortho Tri-Cyclen: these birth control
pills cause “changes in ... the endometrium
(which reduce the likelihood of implantation)”
(p. 1782); Suntex: “Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of
ovulation, other alterations include changes
in the cervical mucus (which increase the
difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which may reduce the
likelihood of implantation)” (p. 2461); Wyeth: “other
alterations include ... changes in the endometrium
which reduce the likelihood of implantation” (pp.
2685, 2693, 2743); Organon: “one effect
of the pill is to create “changes in the
endometrium which reduce the likelihood of
implantation” (p. 1744) (Physician’s Desk
Reference 1995).
12 Ruth Colker, in The Dallas Morning News,
February 6, 1992, 23A.
13 Frank Sussman, in the New York Times,
National Edition, April 27, 1989, pp. 15,
B13.
14 Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The
Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology
(6th ed.) (Philadelphia: 1998; pp.186-187): " Many
women use contraceptive hormones -- " birth
control pills" . Oral contraceptives
containing progestogens and estrogens, taken
during the early stages of an unrecognized
pregnancy, are suspected of being teratogenic
agents ... As a precaution, use of oral contraceptives
should be stopped as soon as pregnancy is
detected because of these possible teratogenic
effects." See also, A.H. Nora and J.J.
Nora, " A syndrome of multiple congenital
anomalies associated with teratogenic exposure" ,
Archives of Environmental Health (1975),
30: 17; D.D. Forrest and R.R. Fordyce: Family
Planning Perspectives (1988), 20: 112, in
C. Djerassi, " The bitter pill" ,
Science (1989), 245: 356; H. Ulfelder, " Transplacental
teratogen -- and possible carcinogen" ,
in J.L. Sever, R.L. Brent (eds.), Teratogen
Update: Environmentally Induced Birth Defect
Risks (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1986);
R. Mittendorf, " Teratogen update: carcinogenesis
and teratogenesis associated with exposure
to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero" ,
Teratology (1995), 51: 435.
15 See most references supra.