By Sahotra Sarkar
A Texas law that aims to eliminate almost all abortions in the state is part of a long-standing nationwide movement to restrict the right to abortion. The Texas law went into effect on Sept. 1, 2021, and severely limits the right to have an abortion in that state.
But the anti-abortion movement is aiming more broadly than just Texas and placing its bets very strongly on a case expected to be argued this fall at the U.S. Supreme Court, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In that case, the state of Mississippi is asking the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of any sort of prohibition on elective abortions before the fetus is viable outside the womb. If the court rules that those sorts of prohibitions are unconstitutional, that would overturn the long-standing decision in Roe v. Wade that women do have the right to have an abortion.
A recent friend-of-the-court filing in that case implicitly claims that biology – and therefore biologists – can tell when human life begins. The filing then goes on to claim explicitly that a vast majority of biologists agree on which particular point in fetal development actually marks the beginning of a human life.
Neither of those claims is true.
The role of science
As a biologist and philosopher, I have been watching players in the national abortion debate make claims about biology for many years.
Abortion rights opponents know that Americans have widely differing values and religious beliefs about abortion and the protection of human life. So they seek to use science as an absolute standard in any discussion of abortion’s constitutionality, setting a definition of human life that they hope will be immune to any counterargument.
While possibly well-intentioned, this appeal to scientific authority and evidence over discussions of people’s values is based on faulty reasoning. Philosophers such as the late Bernard Williams have long pointed out that understanding what it is to be human requires a lot more than biology. And scientists can’t establish when a fertilized cell or embryo or fetus becomes a human being.
Political claims about science
Public figures have, in recent years, prominently claimed that scientific knowledge on the topic of human life is definitive.
In 2012, for instance, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who was running for president, claimed on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: ”Biologically, life begins at conception. That’s irrefutable from a biological standpoint.“
Similarly, in his 2015 presidential bid, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declared, ”I believe that science is clear … when there is conception that that is a human life in the early stages of its development.“
The most recent high-profile example of this claim is in that amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Mississippi case.
The brief, coordinated by a University of Chicago graduate student in comparative human development, Steven Andrew Jacobs, is based on a problematic piece of research Jacobs conducted. He now seeks to enter it into the public record to influence U.S. law.
First, Jacobs carried out a survey, supposedly representative of all Americans, by seeking potential participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing marketplace and accepting all 2,979 respondents who agreed to participate. He found that most of these respondents trust biologists over others – including religious leaders, voters, philosophers and Supreme Court justices – to determine when human life begins.
Then, he sent 62,469 biologists who could be identified from institutional faculty and researcher lists a separate survey, offering several options for when, biologically, human life might begin. He got 5,502 responses; 95% of those self-selected respondents said that life began at fertilization, when a sperm and egg merge to form a single-celled zygote.
That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football.
In the end, just 70 of those 60,000-plus biologists supported Jacobs’ legal argument enough to sign the amicus brief, which makes a companion argument to the main case. That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science.
Several possible options
Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.
The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone’s body contains that person’s complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.
The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual.
The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus’s brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life.
The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks.
The final possibility is birth itself.
The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human.
Perhaps biologists of the future will learn more. Until then, when human life begins during fetal developments is a question for philosophers and theologians. And policies based on an answer to that question will remain up to politicians – and judges.
Sahotra Sarkar is Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
GrGrMommy says
Ask a women who wants children “when does life start”. Ask a women who doesn’t want children the same question and you will get the opposite answer. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy now, abortion should not be relevant except for rape.
I am not religious, but I do value life.
Merrill S Shapiro says
GrGrMommy, are you a vegetarian?
trailer bob says
I don’t thank any higher power would consider the killing of animals for fo0d the same as killing a living human…just my thoughts.
Dennis says
Some states allow abortion up to the day of birth. That should be considered murder. America has lost it morals! You made your choice when you had sex, or did not use the dat after pill. Abortion will soon most likely be limited by the Supreme Court. It’s about time.
Bernie 2020 says
Wrong. No state does abortions that late into term. It not legal.
Actually Roe vs. Wade defined viability for legal abortions at about 7 months. Anything after that, you must give birth. However, some abortions are done late in a term because the pregnancy has failed.
Also morals usually include not judging someone for their decisions but then again morals are subjective and mostly a personal standard.
R. S. says
The question really is and should be: When is a human viable? As long as a human has to rely for its biological functioning on another human’s bodily functioning to sustain its life, it’s not viable. I’d even go farther and say that human life is viable only if it has the contiguity of memory because at that point a self-concept or ego-awareness is emergent that would let that human begin to understand the dreadful harm of life’s cessation. Besides, I think it most objectionable to thump on the right to life without also the willingness to provide a web of social welfare to support that life once it’s born.
DaleL says
I would add another plausible stage, implantation. With implantation the woman’s body accepts the fertilized egg. This occurs about 8 or 9 days after fertilization. Something like 50% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. This stage is important for the purposes of birth control.
I’ve long thought that spontaneous brain human type brain activity is the best indicator of being human. It is used to legally determine death. I think it is also significant that it occurs at about the same gestational age as when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus
Another standard which could legally apply could be based on the 13th Constitutional Amendment. To force a woman, against her will, to carry a fetus to term would seem to be a type of involuntary servitude. Under this standard, a woman has to have given consent to be pregnant. Once she becomes aware that she is pregnant she has to make a choice without delay. Otherwise, she has by inaction chosen to have a child. Just to clarify, minor cannot give consent and a rape victim has not given consent, in both those cases the pregnancy should be terminated as early as possible.
For some things, there just are not clear cut right and wrong answers.
Bill C says
“When Human Life Begins Is a Question of Politics, Not Biology”. I disagree with this premise. This is a primarily a question of religious or moral belief, the politics and biology are merely tools used to prove whose “truth” is correct and therefore superior. Everyone already knows all the arguments. However, to those on the side of anti-choice, those, for instance who demonstrate in front of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church the first Friday of each month, that moral responsibility extends beyond sloganeering. If you truly believe in the dignity and sanctity of human life, you must accept the consequences of your actions. For all the energy that is put into demonstrating and putting crosses on Belle Terre that represent your viewpoint, in my opinion, your responsibility also includes putting as much energy into promoting ADOPTION. Furthermore, anyone who promotes a policy that forces a woman to give birth against her will should also make a moral pledge to adopt a child. Otherwise, you’re just a Pharisee. (Matthew 23). I hope you will have many vigorous demonstrations promoting adoption, as so far there have been zero.
#BansOffOurBodies says
Abortion is not only a women’s issue; it is a men’s issue too by interconnection. Texas legislator’s SB 8, with the AOK from the Supreme Court, now bans abortion after 6 weeks before most women and men are aware eggs were fertilized by sperm. Men have a right to discuss abortion with their intimate partner to decide an outcome; and if they both choose a legal abortion, women have the constitutional right to have one without barriers. Since the question of when life begins has yet to be biologically settled, let’s be safe and say it begins at birth and not conception; some politicians spew this unconfirmed conception hypothesis as if it were fact. When the developmental stages of a soulless zygote end with the birth of a soulful child, men have other rights (unless restricted by a court order.) If they decide to support their child for 18 years, they have the right to request paternity establishment, visitation, sole or joint custody, and if the parents are single, child support with arrearage, which is often court ordered to the custodian. If a non-custodial parent does not financially support their child, applications can be made to the Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. States use their TANF grants to fund monthly cash assistance payments to low-income families with children, as well as a wide range of other services. Like it or not, these are some vital concerns about raising a healthy child who feels secure and loved within a family unit and they must be discussed when intimate partners are faced with an unplanned fertilization. Callous Texas litigators, politicians, and judges moved into other people’s lives when they shackled their restrictive SB 8 abortion law on women and men; this made it harder for them to make deeply personal, complex choices based on individual circumstances as described above. It is time for men to get off the horns of a dilemma. Protect your partner’s right to have access to a safe legal abortion if that is your choice. And stand with her as she confronts anti-abortion laws that brutally attack her right to safely have one.
Maxi says
Vasectomies prevent abortions.
Bernie 2020 says
Why is this still a issue?
It is protected by the constitution of the United States. Can we just move on already? One side supports ending a pregnancy and the other side doesn’t. Just supporting people that have to make these decisions from both sides might just make this decision easier for them. Each scenario is different and both decisions do require support.
But you have to wonder, We can’t get a weapons ban on the books that still provides freedom to bare arms, we can’t get some Americans to get a vaccine or wear a mask for a few weeks to stop covid in public (but they will try dewormer and other drugs that haven’t been tested) , but we have plenty of time to place bans on a medical procedure and American voting rights.
Stephen J Smith says
This is an issue that cannot be decided by government based upon religious beliefs. If people really wanted to curb abortions they would support Sex education in schools, access to contraception, affordable child care. Instead they oppose these proven options. Hypocrites all.