Abortion takes the life of a distinct, living, whole human being

As stated above, this is purely factual. There are no explicit moral considerations in play. The only concern for this debate is 'what is the unborn? ' I contend that they are 1) distinct, 2) living, 3) whole human beings. I will appeal to the science of embryology and to the science of the medical community to make my case. Contention: The facts of science and medicine are clear: From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Therefore, every "successful" abortion ends the life of a living human being. The scientific and medical community: In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being" was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception. Consider the following quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology. (a) "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. " (1) (b) "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition. " (2) (c) Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception. " (3) (d) A 1981 U. S. Senate report states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. " (4) (e) Prior to advocating abortion, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone would question these basic scientific facts. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making. (5) If this were not enough, (f) Keith L. Moore & T. V. N. Persaud write: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm. .. unites with a female gamete or oocyte. .. to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " (6) (g) T. W. Sadler"s Langman"s Embryology, states: "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote. " (7) (h) Embryologists Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola M"ller write, "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. .. .The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity. " (8) In short, a human life begins at the completion of the conception process; it is a distinct human life. However, perhaps my opponent would argue that embryonic human beings are biologically human only in the sense that every cell in the body carries the full genetic code, meaning that each of our somatic (bodily) cells has as much potential for development as any human embryo. Put simply, perhaps my opponent would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our cells (such as sperm or egg). If this is the case, then it would be an example of bad biology. This would make the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell"s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity in and of itself. Robert George and Patrick Lee say it well. It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo. "Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating organisms capable of directing their own maturation as members of the human species. " Dr. Maureen Condic points out that embryos are living human beings "precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells. " Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, explains the important distinction between individual parts and whole human embryos often overlooked: "The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner. " However, from conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms. "Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. " In conclusion then, it is the unanimous contention of both medical science and the science of embryology that the unborn are human. Not only that, but that they are 1) distinct from their parents, 2) unquestionably alive, and 3) whole human beings, not merely part of a larger whole like sperm or egg. Should my opponent deny my proposition, he will have to show that my scientific evidence is invalid and demonstrate that over 150 years of medical science have reached a false conclusion. I look forward to my opponents response. (1) Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. , New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43. (2) E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed. , Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. (3) Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981. (4) Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid. (5) A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3. (6) K. Moore & T. V. N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier, 2008), p. 15. (7) T. W. Sadler, Langman"s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1993), p. (8) O'Rahilly, Ronan and M"ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.