[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Conception, Fertilization and other Creations: Biology 101 and "Fake Science"

[PFLI PharmAid Center]

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 20 Jun 2008 AD

*
[Please pass on]
 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_129bryneandwillke.html

Dianne N. Irving, MA, PhD 
© June 19, 2008
Reproduced with Permission

    [Note: This article is copyrighted and thus must be acknowledged
    when using its original ideas and resources or quoting from it.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I. Introduction

What a painful spectacle it is to witness over the internet two such 
stalwart pro-life physicians, who have done so much in their work to 
help protect the most vulnerable of human beings, battle it out over the 
terms "conception" and "fertilization" (as presumably when a human being 
begins to exist) - and both are dead wrong. Biology 101 wrong. (See Paul 
A. Byrne, M.D., "Despite Attempts to Explain it Away, Human Life Begins 
at Conception Not Birth", LifeNews.com, June 16, 2008, at: 
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3979.html; J. C. Willke, M.D., "Whether You 
Use Conception or Fertilization, Human Life Has a Clear Beginning", 
LifeNews.com, June 16, 2008, at: http://www.lifenews.com/nat3986.html). 
It would seem that politics is playing the decisive role here, rather 
than science or even medicine.

I'm not going to address the massive number of other basic scientific or 
philosophical errors in their arguments here (perhaps later), but given 
the enormous stakes, I just want to quickly provide readers with more 
accurate information on when human beings begin to exist in an effort to 
rectify the false "scientific" mis-information provided the public in 
Bryne's and Willke's recent pseudo-battle. The accurate information 
below is not my own subjective "opinion", but rather based directly on 
the most internationally respected scientific sources in human 
embryology and human molecular genetics - resources which not only Drs. 
Bryne and Willke have had access to for decades, but also all the other 
prolife and prochoice "scholars" and "leaders" as well. A trip to the 
local library or a few hours on the internet would do it.


    II. What's at stake

At a minimum, *the corruption of the objective scientific facts 
constituting the scientific fields of human embryology and human 
molecular genetics, as well as the application of such facts in several 
disciplines of medicine *are at stake. Much of such pseudo-science has 
already made its way into the textbooks. When the basic objectively 
determined facts of science are corrupted, then all those other fields 
to which they are applied are likewise corrupted. This is surely 
important considering that such medicalized "pseudo-facts" are then 
applied to innocent human patients in dozens of related medical fields, 
often causing considerable physical and psychological harm, even death.

Second, the impact of such false science *when incorporated into laws 
and regulations has the effect of creating massive legal loopholes in 
such legislation*. The legal principle is that, if a law/regulation does 
not specifically address something then that something is not covered by 
that law/regulation. By default, then, all those other "somethings" may 
be done and are essentially remain legal. The issues surrounding human 
embryo/fetal research are replete with hosts of such false "science" 
being used in even so-called "prolife" bills/regulations - with the 
result that all sorts of unethical research using human embryos and 
human fetuses are thereby allowed, while all the time most people rest 
assured that they aren't. Such would definitely be the case if either 
Dr. Bryne's or Dr. Willke's "science" were incorporated into the 
Colorado "personhood" amendment, or any other law/regulation on these 
issues (see Irving, "Problems with 'from conception to natural death'", 
August 8, 2007, at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_67coloradoinitiative.html; 
"Problems With Colorado's 'Personhood' Amendment: The Phrase, 'From the 
Moment of Fertilization'", May 31, 2008, at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_126colorado.html). To make it 
clear, to use either the term "conception" or the term "fertilization" 
in a bill would thereby create enormous legal loopholes that would 
instead legalize by default all manner of unethical research using 
innocent living human embryos/fetuses. [See Irving, "What Human Embryo? 
Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research" (Oct. 14, 2004), 
at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html].

Third, when such false science becomes the norm within the public 
square, it *precludes people from correctly forming their consciences on 
these issues*. It is difficult enough to confront and deal with the real 
scientific facts, but the use of such false science makes it even easier 
to "justify" or rationalize a whole host of unethical actions, e.g.: the 
use of abortifacients, prenatal genetic diagnosis, early abortions, in 
vitro fertilization (IVF) and other artificial reproductive technologies 
(ARTs), human embryo/fetal research, human cloning and other human 
genetic engineering research, human embryonic stem cell research, iPS 
research and other "alternative methods", even the use of human subjects 
in research. [Re the latter, note, e.g., that ever since the 1981 OPRR 
federal regulations for the use of human subjects in research, the 
federal government has in fact "scientifically" defined out of existence 
many categories of human subjects by their false definitions of both 
"pregnancy" and "fetus" as supposedly beginning at "implantation" (5-7 
days of embryonic development), inserted therein by prolife itself! For 
a long list of similar false scientific definitions used in federal 
laws/regulations, see Irving, "Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory 
Chaos in the U.S.: Asexual Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering" 
(Oct. 20, 2004), at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_81chaosasexgen1.html].


    III. Why the term "conception" is dead wrong

While it might be true that many eons ago the term "conception" referred 
to when /sexually reproduced /human embryos begin to exist, it was never 
used to refer to when /asexually /reproduced human embryos begin to 
exist (such as /naturally occurring human identical twins/triplets/, all 
cloned and genetically engineered human embryos, etc.). Further, today 
the term has been totally corrupted. Now it generally means 
"implantation" (or even post-implantation). Therefore, if the term 
"conception" were to be used in any legal document, it would operate, in 
effect, as a "pre-embryo" or "pre-embryo substitute" - a giant-size 
legal loophole. That is, legally, there is no human being present, or if 
there is, there is still no human person present. Therefore, all manner 
of unethical research and medical practices would be legalized by means 
of the legal loophole provided by the exclusionary use of the term 
"conception". The use of the term would also mis-inform people's 
consciences as to whether such research and other related activities are 
ethical or not, e.g., the use of abortifacients, prenatal genetic 
diagnosis, early abortions, /in vitro /fertilization (IVF) and other 
artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs), human embryo/fetal 
research, human cloning and other human genetic engineering research, 
human embryonic stem cell research, iPS research and other "alternative 
methods", even the use of human subjects in research.

Many state laws already define "conception" as "implantation" (or 
beyond), based on the erroneous term "pre-embryo" or its various 
"substitutes. See, e.g., Philip G. Peters, Jr. "The Ambiguous Meaning of 
Human Conception," University of California Davis Law Review, 40, no. 1 
(2006): 199-228 [available from 
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue1/DavisVol40No1_Peters.pdf. 
See also the abstract, at Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 
available from http://papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=694102; 
also available from Westlaw and Lexisnexis]; Elizabeth Spahn and Barbara 
Andrade, "Mis-Conceptions: The Moment of Conception in Religion, 
Science, and Law," University of San Francisco Law Review 32, (1998): 
pp. 261-295; erroneously defining "conception" as "implantation".

*The term "conception" is also often mis-defined even in major 
professional reports and literature, government regulations, and 
international laws and regulations as meaning "implantation" (or even 
beyond)*, based likewise on the erroneous term "pre-embryo" or its 
various "substitutes.

See, e.g.: Miller-Keane Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & 
Allied Health, 7th ed. (Philadelphia, Penn. 2003), p. 406 - erroneously 
defines "conception" as "the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation 
of the blastocyst"; John Walton, Paul B. Beeson, Ronald Bodley, eds. 
Oxford Companion to Medicine (Oxford 1986), p. 254 - erroneously defines 
"conception" as "the fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon and the 
implanting of the resulting zygote"; Richard Sloane, Sloane-Dorland 
Annotated Medical-Legal Dictionary, 1992 Supplement (St. Paul 1992), p. 
131 - erroneously defines "conception" as "the onset of pregnancy, 
marked by implantation of the blastocyst"; American Fertility Society 
Ethics Committee, "Ethical Considerations of the New Reproductive 
Technologies", Fertility and Sterility 46, Supplement 1 (September 
1986): 27S; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ethics 
in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2nd ed., No. 97 (2004, pp. 957, 958 - 
erroneously defines "preembryo" as the "product of fertilization before 
14 days and the arrival of the primitive streak"; American Medical 
Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, CEJA Report 1-I-94, 
"Pre-Embryo Splitting" (1994); American Society of Reproductive Medicine 
Ethics Committee Report, "Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer," 
Fertility and Sterility 74, no. 5 (November 2000): 873-876; American 
Society of Reproductive Medicine, "Chapter 16: Experimentation on the 
Preembryo," Fertility and Sterility 87, no. 4, Supplement 1 (April 
2007): S52-S58; British House of Lords, The Human Fertilisation and 
Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001, no. 188; California 
Advisory Committee: Cloning Californians: Report of the California 
Advisory Committee on Human Cloning (Sacramento, Calif. January 11, 
2002) - chaired by Irving Weissman, terms "preembryo" and "ball of 
cells" to refer to the early embryo used throughout report; Institute of 
Medicine and National Research Council, Committee on the Basic Science 
Foundations of Medically Assisted Conception, Report of a Study and 
Workshop Papers, "Medically Assisted Conception: An Agenda for 
Research," (1989);

National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Life Sciences, "Comparison 
of Stem Cell Production With Reproductive Cloning," in Stem Cells and 
the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2002); National Academy of 
Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 
Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning: How Is 
Reproductive Cloning Done? (2002); National Bioethics Advisory 
Commission, Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, (Rockville, Md. June 1997); 
National Institutes of Health, Human Embryo Research Panel Meetings 
(Washington, D.C. 1994) - using term "pre-embryo" in: February 2 
meeting, pp. 27, 31, 50-80, 85-87, 104-106; February meeting. 3, 1994 
meeting, pp. 6-55; April 11 meeting, pp. 23-41, 9-22; National 
Institutes of Health, Office of Science Policy Analysis, Cloning: 
Present Uses and Promises (Washington, D.C. January 29, 1998); National 
Science Foundation and U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Converging Technologies 
for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, 
Information Technology and Cognitive Science, edited by Mihail C. Roco 
and William Sims Bainbridge (Washington, D.C., June 2002); New Zealand 
Parliament, Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill (1996); 
Supplementary Order Paper 2003, no. 80, May 14, 2003, Bills Digest No. 
972; The Twins Foundation, "New Ways to Produce Identical TwinsÑA 
Continuing Controversy", Research Update 9, no. 1 (1994).

And that is just a miniscule sampling of what is out there. Clearly, the 
term "conception" should definitely not be used in the pending Colorado 
"personhood" amendment, in any other laws or regulations, or even in 
addresses to the general public.


    IV. Why the term "fertilization" is dead wrong

While Dr. Willke is correct that /sexually reproduced /human embryos 
begin to exist at fertilization (both /in vivo and in vitro/), his 
"pre-embryo substitute" consists in absolutely no recognition whatsoever 
of when /asexually reproduced /human embryos begin to exist (such as 
/naturally occurring human identical twins/triplets/, all cloned and 
genetically engineered human embryos, etc.). He has defined them out of 
existence altogether. That is, there is no human being or human /person 
/present at all when human embryos are asexually reproduced. Therefore, 
again, all manner of unethical research and medical practices would be 
legalized by means of the legal loophole provided by the exclusionary 
use of the term "fertilization". The use of the term would also 
mis-inform people's consciences as to whether such research and other 
related activities are ethical or not, e.g., the use of abortifacients, 
prenatal genetic diagnosis, early abortions, /in vitro /fertilization 
(IVF) and other artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs), human 
embryo/fetal research, human cloning and other human genetic engineering 
research, human embryonic stem cell research, iPS research and other 
"alternative methods", even the use of human subjects in research.


    V. Scientific documentation: when sexually and asexually human
    beings begin to exist

There is quite simply no "mystery" or "doubt" as to when both sexually 
and asexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. According to 
/properly credentialed /world experts for decades now, sexually 
reproduced human beings begin to exist at the beginning of fertilization 
(when the sperm penetrates the oocyte). [See Irving, "The Carnegie 
Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, and 
Detailed Descriptions of Carnegie Stages 1 - 6" (April 22, 2006), at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages2.html]:

[*Note: *For full detailed references, go to your local library, find 
them on the internet, see Irving, or contact me at DNIrving at aol.com.] It 
has been known empirically for over a hundred years that the beginning 
of fertilization is the beginning of sexually reproduced human beings 
(Wilhelm His 1880-1885). This is also the beginning of: the human 
embryo, the human organism, the human individual, the genetic sex of the 
embryo, the embryonic period, and normal pregnancy, which begins at 
fertilization in the fallopian tube, or ovaduct, of the mother, not at 
implantation in her womb (Carlson 1999, pp. 2, 23, 27, 32, 444; Larsen 
1998, pp. 1, 17; Moore and Persaud 1998, pp. 2, 12, 18, 34, 37; 
O'Rahilly 2001, pp. 31-33). This single-cell embryo is totipotent (see 
Denken, Irving), that is, capable of forming all the cells, tissues, and 
organs of the later embryo, fetus, and adult. The cells (blastomeres) of 
the early developing human embryo will also exhibit a range of 
totipotency, that is, if separated from the developing embryo, they are 
capable of forming new human organisms (as in natural and artificial 
monozygotic "twinning", the latter used as "infertility treatments" for 
years now in IVF and other ART facilities). This totipotent capacity 
also applies to the cells of the developing embryo from 2 cells (about 
1-3 days) until the first formation of the free floating blastocystic 
cavity (about 4 days), to the cells of the inner cell mass of the 
implanting blastocyst (about 5-7 days), and to the diploid primitive 
germ-line cells (future haploid sex gametes) (as early as 2 weeks) of 
the later blastocyst (American Medical Association 1994, pp. 1-9; 
American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2004, pp. S256-257; Carlson 
1999, pp. 43-45, 73; German National Ethics Council 2004, p. 14; 
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1989, pp. 25, 102ff; 
Lewin 2000, p. 605; A. Liu 2005, pp. 369-378; O'Rahilly and Mller 2001, 
pp. 23, 24, 37, 39, 136-137, 139; Strachan and Read 1999, pp. 508-509; 
Schieve et al 2004, pp. 1154-1163). This new single-cell human being 
immediately directs his/her own further continuous human growth and 
development by producing /specifically /human proteins and enzymes 
(Emery 1983, p. 93; Hao et al. 2006, p. S513; Holtzer et al. 1985, pp. 
3-11; Illmensee et al. 2006a, pp. 1112-1120; Kollias et al. 1987, pp. 
5739-5747; H. Liu et al. 2005a, p. S368; H. Liu et al. 2005b, p. S370; 
Moore and Persaud 1998, p. 12) that will cascade (will be produced on 
demand) throughout development (Emery 1983, p. 91; Lewin 2000, pp. 63, 
914, 950). This embryonic development is most accurately documented in 
the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development (CSEHED).

George Streeter (Streeter 1942, p. 211; Streeter 1945, p. 27; Streeter 
1948, p. 143) laid down the basis for the currently used Carnegie 
staging system, which was completed by Ronan O'Rahilly in 1973 and 
revised by O'Rahilly and Mller in 1987. The Carnegie Stages are often 
referred to as "the Bureau of Standards" of human embryology 
(O'Rahilly and Mller 2001, p. 3). Today they continue to be verified 
and documented by the international Terminologia Embryologica (formerly, 
Nomina Embryologica) committee, which consists of more than twenty 
experts academically credentialed specifically in human embryology from 
around the world. After reviewing the latest research studies in human 
embryology, their deliberations are published in the Terminologia 
Embryologica, part of the larger Terminologia Anatomica.

As for asexually reproduced human beings, they begin to exist when the 
DNA in the cells are /appropriately differentiated /to that of a human 
organism (rather than that of just a human cell). This would include all 
/naturally occurring /human identical twins/triplets formed in the 
woman's body, as well as all artificially reproduced human embryos /in 
vitro /(e.g., those reproduced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), 
germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT), "twinning" (blastomere 
separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.), 
parthenogenesis, pronuclei transfer, mitochondrial transfer, 
hemi-cloning, the use of artificially constructed genes, chromosomes, 
nuclei, cells, sperm, oocytes, embryos, etc., and other human genetic 
engineering and alternative method techniques.

As human molecular geneticists Strachan and Read so succinctly explain 
one kind of cloning (nuclear transfer):

    *The term 'clones' indicates genetic identity and so can describe
    genetically identical molecules (DNA clones), genetically identical
    cells or genetically identical organisms._Animal clones occur
    naturally as a result of sexual reproduction. For example,
    genetically identical twins are clones _who happened to have
    received exactly the same set of genetic instructions from two donor
    individuals, a mother and a father. A form of animal cloning *can
    also occur as a result of artificial manipulation to bring about a
    type of *_asexual reproduction_*. The genetic manipulation in this
    case uses *nuclear transfer technology*: a nucleus is removed from a
    donor cell then transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has
    previously been removed. *The resulting 'renucleated' oocyte can
    give rise to an individual who will carry the nuclear genome of only
    one donor individual, unlike genetically identical twins. The
    individual providing the donor nucleus and the individual that
    develops from the 'renucleated' oocyte are usually described as
    "clones", but it should be noted that they share only the same
    nuclear DNA; _they do not share the same mitochondrial DNA_, unlike
    genetically identical twins. *... Nuclear transfer technology was
    first employed in embryo cloning, in which the donor cell is derived
    from an early embryo, and has been long established in the case of
    amphibia. ... Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an
    adult sheep. For the first time, *_an adult nucleus had been
    reprogrammed to become totipotent once more, just like the genetic
    material in the fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had
    ultimately developed_*. ... Successful cloning of adult animals has
    forced us to accept that genome modifications once considered
    irreversible can be reversed and that *_the genomes of adult cells
    can be reprogrammed by factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent
    once again_*. [Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular
    Genetics 2 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1999), pp. 508-509;
    emphases added.]

That is, the DNA in human /cells /can be reprogrammed, or 
dedifferentiated, back to that of a new human embryo, a new human 
organism. [For more detailed explanation of this process, see Irving, 
"Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" 
(October 4, 2003), at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html].


    VI. Conclusion

As painful as it is to watch this pseudo-battle between the good Drs. 
Bryne and Willke, the greater pain is surely their unwitting 
participation in the further corruption of the relevant fields of 
science and medicine, the advocacy of legal loopholes that would allow 
extensive unethical human research and medical practices, and the 
preclusion of people in general to correctly form their consciences on 
these critical issues. Enough pseudo-science is enough, no matter who is 
dispensing it.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org


PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area;  to cease your subscription (although 
we can't
imagine anyone would!) just send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the 
subject area, or
manage your account at: http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership right on our
website at http://www.pfli.org. Click on the "PFLI Store" link on the 
toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 


*





*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080620/56e3b960/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14952 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080620/56e3b960/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080620/56e3b960/attachment-0001.gif