When Is a Person a Person? | Scientifically

| Conception’s Significance |

  1. Is an Embryo a Baby? | Scientifically
  2. Is an Embryo a Baby? | Biblically

A Good Question

Once again, this is a good question. In our discussion on When Does Life Begin, we acknowledged that virtually all biologists agree that life begins at conception (fertilization). However, there is significantly less agreement on when that life is a person. This question is so fundamental to developing an informed opinion on current issues. The answer to this question forms the foundation to so many decisions each of us will make in the process of starting and planning our families. So, we all need an answer to this question, and we must have certainty about why this is the answer.

As I’ve done throughout this Resource, I intend to approach this question objectively here. That being said, I know how emotional this question can be, especially for those who have had a miscarriage, done IVF, or have found themselves ending a pregnancy. I’ve shared some of our heart through our own story in other posts, such as our post for Mother’s Day. But, if you’ll allow me, I’d like to the focus of this page solely on finding the answer to this question objectively.

A Scientific Approach

On this page, as we answer the question of When Is a Person a Person, we will strictly look through the lens of science. We’ve reserved the biblical discussion of this question for our page dedicated to When Does a Person’s Life Begin | Biblically. Hopefully this approach might even help to answer this question for those who don’t share our faith or just aren’t sure about all that yet. For those who do share our faith, perhaps this approach might help you to bolster your faith and build your confidence that the science here will confirm what we find in the Bible.

In When Does Life Begin | Scientifically, we saw that, scientifically speaking, life begins at fertilization (conception). In other words, conception forms the first cell of a living organism. Our question here is to determine whether and when this living organism is a person. Depending on your current opinion, the terminology I use to describe this living organism (i.e. “it” or “baby”) could be offensive. I’d prefer to remove this stumbling block. So, if you’ll allow me, I’ll just use the term “living organism” for now since we’ve already established this on our other page. So our question for this page is: When is this living organism a person?

Defining “Person”

Perhaps the most foundational question for our discussion here is what we mean when we say “person”. Let’s look at the definition in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a person as a “human individual”.

Our question is: When is this living organism a person? Using something called the law of identity, we can substitute the word “person” with its definition, “a human individual”. So, the more specific form of our question is this: When is this living organism a human individual?

Is This Living Organism Human?

If we are going to approach this question scientifically, it’s important to identify which science is the authority on determining if a living organism is human. This is the process of naming, describing, and classifying organisms which is the science of taxonomy (a part of biology).  In the past, taxonomy relied on physical descriptions to determine if a particular organism belonged to a certain species; however, we now have a much more objective means of determining the species of a particular organism: DNA.

The DNA of a species has certain unique characteristics (e.g. the number of chromosomes) that differentiate it from other species.  In other words, by analyzing the DNA of a specific organism, a taxonomist can determine if that organism is or is not human (i.e. belonging to the species Homo sapiens). As we discussed in When Does Life Begin, the first cell formed at fertilization (a zygote) has DNA. So, what happens when we take a closer look at that DNA? Is that DNA human?

In the process of fertilization the sperm cell joins its half of the DNA (23 chromosomes) with the egg cell’s half of the DNA (another 23 chromosomes) to make up the full DNA of the new living organism (a total of 46 chromosomes). This DNA does not change as this cell grows and develops. This is the same DNA this living organism will have at birth; the same DNA this living organism will have at death. If you gave a taxonomist the first cell formed at fertilization, in evaluating the DNA of this living organism, they would unequivocally determine that the DNA is indeed human. In other words, this living organism is human at conception (fertilization).

Because this is so clear, virtually all biologists would agree that the living organism is human at conception. However, our question was not just when this living organism was human, but when was this living organism a human individual.  So, we still need to address the individuality of this human organism.

Is This Human Organism an Individual?

In order to establish individuality scientifically, let’s examine this human organism’s DNA closer.  In doing so, we’d find that this DNA is uniquely distinct from the mother’s DNA and the father’s DNA. More specifically, it’s the process of fertilization that brings together a sample of the father’s DNA and a sample of the mother’s DNA to form an entirely unique DNA. In other words, this human organism’s DNA that is established at fertilization is entirely unique and specific to this human organism. This means that this human organism is a distinct individual organism.

As a simple way to understand this: We all know that DNA can be used to solve crimes. That’s because the differences in our DNA identify us as individuals. So, the differences in this human organism’s DNA that are established at conception, identify this human organism as an individual.

Scientists will use the fact that each organism has unique DNA to determine whether an organism is an individual.  As an example, why don’t we go big: the largest organism that we know of is a Quaking Aspen in Utah (affectionately named Pando).  Located in the Fishlake National Forest, Pando is a 106-acre colony of trees.  In studying the colony, scientists sampled genetic material from each tree and found that every tree had identical DNA.  Based on this evidence, it was determined that the entire colony was a single organism, likely with a common root system.  From this example, we can see the power of analyzing genetic markers to determine if a living organism is a distinct individual organism or part of a larger organism.  By use of this same analysis, the distinct DNA the human organism has at conception implies that the baby is a distinct individual organism.

Before we move on, I’d like to take a moment to make a few additional points regarding the individuality of this human organism.

Is This Human Organism a Tumor?

Because this human organism is an individual organism, this means that this human organism is not just a part of the mother’s body (i.e. because it does not share the mother’s DNA). This implies that this human organism is not equivalent to a tumor in the mother, a common question. You see, a tumor does not have distinct DNA and is, therefore, not considered a distinct individual organism.

As demonstration of this, let’s compare the mother’s immune system response to a tumor to her immune response to conception.  Because a tumor has her DNA, her immune system cannot determine which cells are cancerous and which cells are healthy; in fact, this is one of the major reasons that cancer is so difficult to treat. On the other hand, because of the unique DNA of this human organism, the mother’s immune system can respond as if she were infected. In other words, the woman’s own immune system is aware that the baby is a distinct individual from the mother; an observation that cannot be ignored.

What’s even more interesting is the lengths that the woman’s body goes through to protect the human individual by preventing her immune system from attacking.  In response to endocrine signals from the zygote (the first cell formed at conception), the woman’s body releases a hormone (EPF) that suppresses her immune system.[1] Reproductive immunologists have shown that EPF can be used prior to implantation (as early as 2 days after ovulation) as a reliable indicator of whether a woman is pregnant.[2]  So, fertilization (not just implantation) marks the point at which the woman’s body recognizes that she is carrying a distinct individual organism, which her immune system would otherwise attack. Furthermore, this distinct individual organism is to be protected even at the risk of her own health.

What About Identical Twins?

In exploring the distinct DNA that this human organism has, some questions can come up for the case of identical twins. Identical twins are twins who have the same DNA because they are formed from a single zygote that eventually separates.  If there are identical twins, they will separate during their development (most separate prior to implantation during the first nine days following fertilization). The latest point that they will separate is during the process of gastrulation (about 14 days after fertilization). Because of this, some people wonder if gastrulation marks the point that the human organism should be considered an individual. Let’s consider this.

There are two important fallacies.  First, let’s not ignore the fact that identical twins are very rare – approximately one-quarter of one percent of human births[3].  As such, even if this argument was perfect (which we will refute in the second point), it would only apply to those cases where identical twins exist and will eventually separate.  Since it is not known if there will be identical twins before they separate, 99.75% of the time this argument is used it would result in the loss of a distinct individual on the tiny – 0.25% – chance that there might be identical twins.

The second fallacy refutes undermines the argument in its entirety. This argument relies on the assumption that two individuals cannot co-habitat a single body. While that sounds reasonable, there is a clear counterexample that serves to disprove the assumption: conjoined twins. In fact, conjoined twins are identical twins who did not fully separate while developing in their mother’s womb and are born with a shared body (ranging from a shared heart to a shared shoulder). In the case of conjoined twins, two distinct individuals exist and are recognized (legally and generally) regardless of the extent of their shared physiology.

After considering this case of identical twins, here’s what we can conclude: 99.75% of the time there is one individual human organism present at conception, and the remaining 0.25% of the time there are two individual human organisms present at conception. In short, the unique human DNA the baby has at fertilization is observable scientific evidence that the human organism at conception is indeed a separate individual human.  Further, the case of identical twins does not eliminate the existence of an individual human but provides for the existence of two individual humans who are conjoined and will eventually separate (unless, of course, they are born conjoined).

What About the Soul?

We saw in our other discussion that life begins at conception, that fertilization forms the first cell of a living organism. Our question here was when is this living organism a person: When Is a Person a Person? In exploring this question here’s what we’ve found:

  • A person is defined as a human individual.
  • This living organism is human at conception, having fully human DNA.
  • This human organism is an individual organism at conception, having uniquely distinct DNA.

At this point we can conclusively say that science teaches us the first cell formed at fertilization is a human individual. Scientific observation definitively shows that “it” is a person at conception.

What’s left then? Why do some still object to this conclusion? The most common objection is that there is more to the definition of person. That is, what about the soul? Now, the soul is not a scientific concept. More to the point, because the soul is unobservable, scientific observation cannot provide any insight into whether and when the soul is present.

The reality is that the soul is a religious concept. While the Bible does indeed have an answer to this question, I promised not to use the Bible on this page. I’ve reserved that discussion for the biblical discussion of this question, When Does a Person’s Life Begin | Biblically. So, here we must take a different, non-religious approach to evaluating the question of when the soul is present. Specifically, if the soul is not a religious concept then it can only be understood as a social concept. So, while the natural sciences (i.e. biology) cannot help us, perhaps the social sciences can.

Is This Human Individual a Person? Do They Have a Soul?

The first question to ask is what distinguishes a human individual from a person.  Another version of this question is: Are there or have there ever been any examples of human individuals who were not people? The best way to approach answering this question is from the viewpoint of history. The benefit of history is that it will not only provide examples from the past for our question, but also provide how these examples were evaluated by society later. Like it’s often said, history will be the judge.

So, do we have any example from history where a human individual was not regarded as having a soul? Has society ever provided an example where a human individual was not considered a person? The answer is yes, but the examples are tragic.

From the 15th to the 19th century, the Transatlantic Slave Trade is one of the most well-known examples where society determined that a large group of human individuals were not people but property.  The enslavement of the African peoples was somehow justified by society. The society of the day appallingly suggested that slaves were soulless animals like cattle. This makes my gut churn. We know that there is absolutely no basis for this; nevertheless, 19th century scientists appallingly tried to justify enslavement by twisting the clear observations of science.[4] It’s hard to believe, but this is clearly an example that we look back on with regret and sorrow, knowing that our society justified murder on the fallacy that these human individuals were not people.

From 1933 to 1945, another example emerged: the holocaust. During the holocaust, a nation justified the imprisonment, scientific study, and murder of millions of Jews, Russians, Slavic and other human individuals on the grounds that they were not people but were less than human.  Again, by every scientific observation, these people were undeniably human individuals but the Nazi philosophy did not recognize their humanity but refused to see them as people.  “The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It’s wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat.”[5]  In this book, “Less Than Human”, Smith explains that underlying these atrocities in history lies a philosophy of dehumanization that justifies the mistreatment of another human individual by making that individual out to be less than a person. This justification is known as dehumanization – removing the personhood or humanity from someone who is objectively a human individual.  With the holocaust and every other example of widescale dehumanization in our history, we look back and ask how we could ever let that happen.

So, how does the current issue of abortion and what we have seen here fit into this history of dehumanization? I hope that I don’t offend anyone by providing a fairly pointed example to answer this. In 2016, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) objected to the Dorito’s Super Bowl commercial that depicted a fetus, the human individual developing in the womb, trying to reach for a Dorito on the sonogram. What was the basis of their objection? In their tweet on February 6, 2016 they explained their objection by saying that Dorito’s was “humanizing fetuses”.[6] They objected to humanizing fetuses. The unambiguous implication is that the justification for abortion relies on the dehumanization of these who are, in every objective sense of the term, human individuals.

The famous paraphrase of George Santayana’s quote is aptly applied here that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.”  What do these examples from history teach us?  They teach us that there is no difference between the human individual and the person.  To be a human individual is to be a person. Every human individual has a soul. The fabrication of this distinction has only every been met with sorrow through the lens of history.

As we have seen, in the most objective sense of the term, even the first cell formed during conception is a human individual, is a person.  We must refuse to dehumanize this person. Eventually, historians will look back on the justifications our society has used and connect the dots to every other example of dehumanization in history.

The Weight of This Answer

As I said at the start of this, my focus here was to address this question objectively. I realize the way that I’ve answered this question is possibly offensive to many who are reading this. There are other posts that do a better job of expressing my heart on the matter and my heart for those for whom this answer feels heavy or offensive. For example, I’d love for you to look at our post for Mother’s Day where I tell the story behind our search for an answer to this question. Because I worry that you may not take me up on that invitation, I’d like to briefly take a step back from the intellectual discourse and tell you how I feel.

Please don’t misunderstand me, my desire is in no way to condemn anyone here. My heart couldn’t possibly be further from this. I can only hope that I haven’t offended you, because I don’t mean to. If you have ever found yourself ending a pregnancy, I understand how even considering this answer can feel insurmountable.  If you have been through IVF and have found yourself reluctant to implant an embryo at the end of the process, please understand that I know this is a difficult topic to even think about.

The weight of this answer though is not yours to bear. God’s unreserved love and acceptance of us and His strength to help us can overcome this weight. If it’s in your past, know that weight has already been borne for you by Jesus on the cross and God has only love for you. Like we discussed in our post on Mother’s Day, I hope that you can perhaps take comfort in knowing that God is caring for them now and that one day you will see them again.

If it’s in your future, Christ offers His help to bear the weight that choosing life represents. The fear of being rejected by our loved ones for an unplanned pregnancy is real, but He overshadows it with His promise of unreserved love and acceptance for us. The responsibility of having more children or having children sooner than we expected is scary, but He is ready to strengthen us through the challenges. He sees us as capable, having entrusted them to us.

I long to save you from the pain that ignoring conception’s significance represents. I long to set you free from the cycle of convincing yourself it didn’t mean anything over and over. I hope that knowing it was real allows you to grieve as it allowed us to grieve. We are here for you however we can be, please reach out. Please know that you are loved.

[1] Glen W. Almond, Current Therapy in Large Animal Theriogenology (Second Edition), 2007

[2] Fan, X., & Zheng, Z. (1997, May). A study of early prenancy factor activity in preimplantation. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 359-64.

[3] Gilbert, S. (2000). Developmental Biology (6th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assicuates.

[4] Dr. James Hunt presented a paper to the London Anthropological Society in 1864 with the horribly offensive title “The Negro’s Place in Nature”

[5] Smith, David Livingstone. Less Than Human:  Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others. 2011. St. Martin’s Press

[6] From the National Abortion Rights Action League (@NARAL) tweet on February 7, 2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/naral/status/696485576040714240