A fetish for zygotes

The ultimate folly is that some conservatives use the pro-life argument to stop people from having children, and to keep others plugged to machines.

James Debono 30 October 2010, 12:00am

2 min read

I have always found the conservative fetish with zygotes and single cell 'human' life potty. Obviously everyone has a right to express potty opinions. The problem is that some people expect the State to impose their potty opinions, thus ruining the happiness and wellbeing of others.

I tend to subscribe to the philosophical tradition according to which the developing fetus does not attain full human status, until after a certain point in the process of development. I cannot but feel a greater respect for the life of an adult chimp, or for the sake of argument any living form which experiences some form of awareness, than towards a zygote or a frozen embryo's cell which feels nothing and knows nothing.

Don’t get me wrong. I am still an anthropocentric carnivore who has enjoyed the taste of foie gras without any qualms of conscience. I also believe in the sanctity of human life to the extent that I would never vote for any Maltese politician who connives in sending fully grown human beings back to Libya, a country which has not signed the Geneva convention.

I would even consider extending the right to life to the great apes (as the Spanish parliament did a couple of years ago) who show far greater signs of personality and humanity than any zygote or frozen cell.

My inner logic tells me that human life starts some time before birth, but surely not the entire nine months. I therefore cannot but approve the freezing of cells if this lowers the risk of multiple pregnancies caused by the implantation of multiple embryos in a woman’s uterus, and if this reduces the pain caused to the woman by hormone treatment. So I applaud the decision of parliament's select committee to give its go-ahead for the freezing of zygotes.

I would also approve the use of these frozen cells for stem cell research to contribute to the saving of adult human life, something which is too controversial to be even contemplated in Malta.

And I also believe that humans should have the right to sign a living will to enable their relatives to pull the plug in case they fall into vegetative state. Using pro-life arguments to impose life on the already dead is the ultimate absurdity.

In the name of a conservative fetish, in Italy conservatives and hypocrites did everything possible to keep Eluana Englaro forced-fed by machines from 1992 to 2009, despite her fathers' heroic battle to respect her dignity. People of the same ilk here in Malta seem to show no concern for the health of women who resort to fertility treatments.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

•

Joe, what about when the person is rapped? You mean you will force her to have the rape baby!!! How pro-life you are. You cannot tell women what to do like this. The death penalty is wrong for myself. I think it is killing and murder.

Alfred Galea •

James, I'm for the death penalty, I'm against abortion except if the mother's health is in jeopardy, I'm for the 14 UN resolutions to invade Iraq, preferably not twelve years later than it should have and I'm in favour of deporting those who enter the country illegally, those who throw away their papers and IDs and take advantage of politically correct bleeding hearts to mooch off the taxpayers. AND I'm in favour of the UN or any other useless organisation opening up immigration centres in every African nation to screen potential immigrants to Europe or anywhere else. As for IVF, I'm all for it.

•

what is the rubbish advert about sony doing in this area?

•

James, you said,,,Joe South...who is in favour of killing humans and babies here?' Well to be fair, you are not exactly defendng human life really are you so Mr South is kind of correct. I speak for muyself when I say I am in favour of abortion in some times because I do not think that the zygot is a baby yet. In an way I thought you mean that as well.

Peter Cassar •

Joe South...who is in favour of killing humans and babies here? what are your views on the death penalty? what do you think of the invasion of Iraq? do you agree with deporting asylum seekers?

Alfred Galea •

James, you went from zygotes to abortion to euthanasia to ending the life of those on "machines".....then of course to "conservatives" and "hypocrites".....do you honestly think that only conservatives are against killing humans?? Do you really think that only christian conservatives are against the killing of babies?? And do you really think that only conservatives are against euthanasia?? You really cooked a great kawlata in that article.

Peter Cassar •

In my previous post i meant: "The point of my blog was that a cell in the very beginning of a complex process should NOT be accorded the same legal protection of a human being...

•

@ Marsey Micallef: The simple fact that you think that a zygote or an early fetus is a tiny baby shows that you either have no idea on embryology, or are being intentionally deceptive. I'd like to think its the former. So, despite having no womb to develop (key word) a zygote incrementally into a fetus which will in time become an infant, perhaps I can teach you a thing or two. Feel free to ask.

•

@ Marsey Micallef: Have I ever had a baby grow in me? No. What has this got to do with anything I wrote? Have you ever been to the moon? Does this mean that you cannot say the moon exists? Please stop using silly arguments and then expect not to be offended. And where have I written that "a person does not exists [sic]". Why do I think this (whatever you mean by "this") is important to discuss? Why not? Aren't you discussing "it" yourself? Finally, it is no business of mine whether a mother considers both a one-day zygote and a one year old baby as persons. I'm not asking anyone to abort, am I? Nor have I argued anywhere in favour of abortion, have I? Please stick to debating the things you understand, and leave the rest to others. You're doing the pro-lifers a disservice.

carmel duca •

These people are incapable of arguing without dragging people's personal lives into the equation.

Peter Cassar •

Mersey, 1) The point of my blog was that a cell in the very beginning of a complex process should be accorded the same legal protection of a human being. My point is that it is ironic that a pro life argument is being used to prevent loving parents from having children. 2) The abortion issue only crept in because someone asked me the tricky question; when does an embryo/fetus becomes a human being? For the sake of intellectual honesty i replied. But am not interested in starting a debate on abortion, which is not an issue in Malta probably because the problem is exported. The only people keeping this issue alive are those who use pro life arguments as a pretext for other motives (ex restraining IVF). 3) For me in the abortion issue (and here am talking about a fetus and not about a zygote), two fundamental values clash; the value of respecting life and the value of respecting the self determination of the woman. It is not an easy issue for me. Added to that is the fact that am not a woman. But although am uncomfortable with abortion and would like to live in a world were the only pregnancies which occur are wanted, i would rather have it performed safely in hospitals and accompanied by counseling as happens in most European democracies. I am sure that the European politicians who allow this to happen are not monsters. 4. The fact that some people are pro choice does not turn them in to monsters incapable of loving children as you seem to suggest by bringing my personal life in the argument. I am a happily married father myself and abortion (and for that matter divorce) are alien to my way of life.

•

sorry 18 years ago not 28 yeasr ago I mean

•

Has Kenneth ever had a baby grow in him? Of course not, because he can never be pregnant. So why does he say that a person does not exists. Why does he think this is important to discuss. It makes not difference if it is a person to a mother who has the baby in her womb growing. I had two miscarriages 28 years ago, I still remember the birthdates of the ones that never were born.I still think of when they would be born and this was 18 years away. Respect life and the family and we will be a better country. No to divorce and to abortion for me.

•

These cooments for abortion are by people who do not understand what it is to be pregnant. Why all this talk to kill a baby, even if it is tiny? Why does this news paper always promote abortion ideas and divorce if they are not connected to each one other? I am sorry but this article is disgusting. How can Mr Debono really think that a monkey has more importance then and unborn baby? And then you want us to belive you and your paper when you people write that divorce will not bring abortion in my country. Vera a shame! You would not be here if your mother killed you Mr Debono when you were a embryo. You should thankk god she loved you and did not think like you do.

•

@ Michael001: "Since you have given yourself the air of being able to give such a statement, surely you MUST therefore tell us at which part during those nine months does human life start. Otherwise, your statement does not hold water". Just to be clear, I think James Debono should have said "personhood" and not "human life". Technically, human life starts at conception, but personhood starts much later. But let me address Michael001's question by an analogy. Most of us rightly claim that both children and adults exist. However, the age at which a child becomes an adult in law is arbitrarily chosen. One does not sleep a child and wake up an adult the next morning. However, one can fairly and with certainty say that a 5-year-old is a child, while a 40-year-old is an adult. Now, unless Michael001 can give us any hard evidence on the exact time that a child becomes an adult, will he conclude that neither adults, nor children exist? Or perhaps that only adults, or only children, exist?

•

Up to a few years ago, the Church itself was not Pro-life, it buried blue babies from still births in an unblessed part of the cemetry. This was still the case in the 60's and in the 70's. Indeed, the Limbo- a space between hell and heaven-was marketed for these souls and other adults who were not baptised. So much for double standards!.

•

We must abortion if people need it, like for raped woman and for those times a woman maybe is to young to have a baby. IVF on the other hand is a good thing as it lets women become pregnant of there choice. I think if freazing helps then we should let it be in the law

•

Mr Debono thank you for your opinion. I do not agree with you completly as the baby is a life all the same. but I can agree with abortion in some cases. IVF is OK for me. They should let freazing be allowed. It is not a human until 24 weeks but it must still be respect

carmel duca •

The issue is not so much 'when a foetus becomes a human being' - this is a biological process we're talkign about here, not a conjuring trick - but when it becomes entitled to protection at law. In the UK, a team appointed by the Health Department came to the conclusion that a human foetus is incapable of feeling pain or any form of complex emotion before 24 weeks. The study can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks. Ironically, tit had been commissioned as part of a pre-electoral promise to 'review' the upper limit for abortion. On the basis of this report, Cameron and co. had to accept the fact that there is no scientific reason to review it. Personally, I think 24 weeks is a reasonable time to draw the line.

Peter Cassar •

I smell a number of rats in the question. But I won't be evasive. 1. Definitely one cannot speak of a human being when we are dealing with a cluster of cells at the very beginning of an uncertain process. 2. I trust scientists to give clear guidelines on particular issues like when the fetus starts feeling pain and when certain human attributes start forming. These can only guide decision makers. 3. Ultimately the question of when one becomes a human being will remain a philosophical one. My point is that one cannot impose a philosophical view on others to ban IVF or render it dangerous to the woman. 4. I suspect that your question is an indirect way of asking me whether am pro choice or not. On a personal level, i agree with the morning after pill (at a time when one can is dealing with cellular life) but i feel uncomfortable with surgical abortion (at a time when some animal or even human attributes start emerging). On a political and social level, I accept mainstream legislation in most western democracies which allow abortion in the first 12 weeks coupled with education on birth control and counseling to ensure that women make an informed choice. Evidence suggests that criminalising abortion makes the situation far worse. 5. Abortion is not an issue in Malta. Nor do I intend making it an issue. The issue being addressed here is IVF. Malta can afford to retain its ban on abortion because it can export its problems to other countries. That is why we don't seem to have a back street abortion problem. What I cannot but note is that the same people who want to force women to keep unwanted babies (even if the result of rape or when their health is in danger) want to stop couples from having a much wanted child.

•

I don't see why you had to get so rufflled about Mike's question. If Mr Debono makes a statement like that, then it is fair to ask when he belives humanity begins. I have my thougts you see but Debono's is a big statement to make without qualifying

•

Raphael, I think that Mike has a point. I find Mr Debono's article interestiing but I too want to know when he thinks a human person comes into existance. What is wrong with Mr Debono answering this question?

carmel duca •

Michael001: with what authority, exactly, do you command people to jump to your orders?

Norman Buckle •

@Michael001 For an otherwise erudite person, you do make some stupid comments ... The question, about when life begins, has been around ever since pregnancy was discovered. If you were to ask either St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, the answer would be, at 12 weeks into the pregnancy. Would you accept their word? They were philosophers and theologians, and Catholic to boot! Others have different views, but it matters not one iota when life begins. It is the woman, and the woman alone, who is responsible to carry the pregnancy and it is she, and she alone, who can decide whether she wants that responsibility. Do think, for even one moment that, civilized countries, such as Canada, would allow abortion if it were the "murdering of an unborn child"? James is right on this issue.

Albert Zammit •

Quote: 'My inner logic tells me that human life starts some time before birth, but surely not the entire nine months.' Since you have given yourself the air of being able to give such a statement, surely you MUST therefore tell us at which part during those nine months does human life start. Otherwise, your statement does not hold water. Come on: show us your wisdom.

Albert Zammit •

Quote: 'My inner logic tells me that human life starts some time before birth, but surely not the entire nine months.' Wow: you must surely be logical to make such a warped, senseless statement as that!