Proof that human life kicks off at conception

Simon Oosterman (February 12) tried in vain to disprove the contents of my letter (February 7) that human life starts at conception. In it I referred to the renowned scientist Prof. Dr Maureen L. Condic. Among other things she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine’s course in human embryology. Those who want to get more informed can download her scientific report entitled When Does Human Life Begin?

I tried to discover some scientific argument in Mr Oosterman’s letter or perhaps a reference to a contemporary scientist on the matter. But no such scientific information was included. He based his flawed arguments on “common sense” to prove how uncommon this sense is.

He said a fertilised egg is not yet a chicken. Of course, it is not yet a chicken but when he said “not yet”, he is declaring that it will be a chicken one day if it is placed in its natural environment to become one. The fertilised egg has all the potential in it to become a chicken. The unfertilised egg has no such potential.

In the mother’s womb, the fertilisation of an egg kicks off human life, so much so that during the first 24 hours after fertilisation, scientists start speaking of an embryo and not of a cell any more. The characteristics of the embryo are different from those of the female egg and the male seed. Besides, the way the embryo behaves is different from the behaviour of the female egg and the male seed. Eggs and seeds alone do not grow. The embryo grows.

Mr Oosterman made the mistake of confusing stages in human life with human life itself. The embryo that comes into existence immediately after fertilisation, the foetus, the baby, toddler, boy/girl, youth, adult and old are all different stages of human life, ending in death. So it is as much illogical to say the embryo is no human life as to say a baby is no human life. Human life starts at conception, develops and continues to grow until death. Count your age!

Stopping short of telling us when human life does indeed start according to his common sense, he said that he cannot imagine how “a clump of cells” have a soul. As if the existence of the soul in each human person is something to “imagine”. Its existence is part of our faith. He said the Church does not recognise an embryo as a human being because she does not baptise nor give it a name. Of course, baptism and names are given after birth not at conception.

The Church rightly considers an embryo as a human person to such an extent that the killing of an embryo or a foetus as an end or as a means is abortion because both are human persons endowed with body and soul, and the Church condemns abortion as a grave sin and imposes excommunication on those responsible for abortion. Moreover, not all priests can forgive the sin of abortion. Such is the high esteem the Catholic Church has for embryos.

The human soul is created directly by God himself. This soul is spiritual not material. Its existence and its qualities are the same at all stages from conception onwards. The soul can grow only in grace. So also on the death of an embryo, the soul is separated from the body in the same way as the soul is separated from the body of any other human person of whatever age they will be.

All our political parties are against abortion and in favour of life from conception to natural death. So an entrenched clause in our Constitution to this effect will cement their stand and protect more and more the right to life of all unborn human persons. The entrenched clauses in the Constitution deal with what our society considers basic.

Protection of human life “from conception to natural death” is considered by our society as a basic concept. So the only one conclusion is to include this detailed protection along with the other entrenched provisions.