Life begins at conception, science teaches

Children sitting inside school bus

It is the central question in the abortion debate: when does life begin?

Science teaches without reservation that life begins at conception. It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after conception that did not exist before conception. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is neither part of the mother nor part of father. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after conception), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From conception it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.

Artistic metal representation of DNA double helix structure.

It is indisputably human, as it has human DNA.

The offspring of two members of a species is always the same type of creature as the parents. No two dogs will ever conceive and give birth to a cat; no fish egg will ever produce a snake. According to all the laws of nature, the unborn baby is human.

Scientific textbooks proclaim this fact. Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003) states the following:

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … 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.

Hi, kids!

The term “zygote” is a scientific term for the new life that is created when the sperm and the egg combine. “Oocyte” is another term for the egg cell, the cell released by woman’s ovary which travels down the fallopian tube and is fertilized by the male sperm.

The author of this scientific textbook, Keith L. Moore, is a world-renowned embryologist. He has written a number of definitive books on embryology, and his scientific knowledge and experience are vast and beyond reproach. Few medical students can complete their careers without studying from his textbooks.

Moore puts it even more plainly in Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2):

[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.

Here is an example from another scientific work.

From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):

Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]

This third embryology textbook is as clear as the first two – fertilization is the beginning of new life and the start of a new, distinct human organism.

From T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (10th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 11):

Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.

And in another source (Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]):

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.

In yet another textbook (William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology [New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998, pp. 1, 14]), we read the following: .

Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization[.] … This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

As we can see, embryology textbooks are unanimous: life begins at fertilization. And the life that begins is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual which has never existed before in history and will never exist again. Nothing will be added to the new organism except nutrition, and it will continue to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.

Lennart Nilsson was a photographer who took the first pictures of unborn embryos and fetuses and made them available in his famous book A Child is Born. In the introduction to this book, which contains beautiful full-color pictures of unborn babies in different stages of development, he says:

… but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by[.]

This incredible book shows gorgeous photographs of the unborn baby from conception to birth. We see the shape of the six-week-old embryo begin to resemble the profile of the baby who will be born. We see the tiny, fully formed fingers of an eight-week-old unborn baby. It is a remarkable book that many expectant mothers have seen, and its photographs have been reproduced many times.

The word “embryo” is defined as such (Considine, Douglas [ed.], Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943):

Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. … At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun[.]

And yet another textbook (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3) states:

Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

This is a mere handful of excerpts from medical textbooks. In fact, try as you might, you will never find a book on genetics or embryology that does not state that life begins at conception.

National Geographic put together a television program (“In the Womb,” 2005) documenting the development of the baby throughout pregnancy. In the introduction of their program, they sum up the scientific knowledge of the beginning of life in the following way:

The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.

In 1981 (April 23-24), a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question of when human life begins. Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell – namely, that human life begins at conception – and they told their story with a complete absence of opposing testimony (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981).

*** Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard Medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.

*** “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:

To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

*** Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified:

The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.

*** Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded:

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being. … I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.

***Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:

To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.

***Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,” notes:

Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.

And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade,

To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.

*** Professor Eugene Diamond stated:

… either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.

***Gordon, Hymie, M.D., FRCP, chairman of medical genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:

By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception. … Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.

*** C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine:

When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists.

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

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.

human-fetus-lightsUnborn babies are among the most vulnerable and helpless members of our society. Science declares that they are human beings with inherent value. The value of human beings is not dependent on where they are, how tall they are, what race they are, what they look like, or how old they are. Each person has inherent worth because of who and what he or she is: a member of the human species.

Thanks to Abort73.com for providing some of these quotes.

  • seniorann

    Case closed, you as one human being deciding to have an abortion for
    whatever reason other than self defense of threat of death to your own
    life, in which case it is morally acceptable to take a life in self defense, of the threat of death to ones self.
    Inconvenience, not physically perfect, later, are not acceptable to
    kill another human being and is murder of the worse kind because the
    person being murdered is defenseless. Murder must meet the
    ‘premeditation’ test. Abortion does that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.platten.7 John Platten

    Kill a zygote=Reject a soul

    • http://www.facebook.com/CassandraAnnChaos Cassi Ann

      I agree with this statement. I also believe that every soul chooses its life before it is conceived. In my opinion, if God sent those souls down here to be aborted, gestation is the full extent of the lives they were meant to lead. We all die eventually.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        What rational basis do you have for that belief? Why should the rest of us be confident enough in it to let abortion continue?

        • john Johnson

          Because abortion isn’t up to you. It is up to the woman. And abortion was quite common before it was legalized. Many women died of sepsis, or other infection, or bleeding. Still more died from overdosing on abortificant tea. Even the bible describes a potion which the priest is to administer to a man’s wife should the man suspect she has been faithful.
          An she be faithful, no harm shall
          befall. Otherwise the potion will
          cause her to have a miscarrying
          An induced miscarriage is an abortion.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            First, none of that answered the question, which was about the previous commenter’s un-scientific, unprovable claim of when life begins.

            Second, legalization didn’t make abortion safer, medical progress did. And pre-Roe abortion deaths are widely exaggerated: http://liveactionnews.org/naral-spokeswoman-lies-about-abortion-on-complicit-msnbc/

            Third, the Bible passage you’re referencing doesn’t say what you suggest. This is something that has been extensively dissected in previous LAN comment threads, such as these: http://liveactionnews.org/arguing-that-the-bible-is-pro-choice-is-a-dead-end-game/

          • john Johnson

            The requisite medical progress would not have occurred without legalization. And would make little difference if abortions were still back street affairs, by people with little idea of what they were doing.
            And I’ve read the passage. While I doubt the effectiveness of the potion described it’s supposed effects are enough.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            You did not read the article (or didn’t care): the decline in deaths preceded legalization.

          • john Johnson

            Actually, I consider the source unreliable. Perhaps a medical journal?
            And the second citation: http://liveactionnews.org/arguing-that-the-bible-is-pro-choice-is-a-dead-end-game/
            Does not mention the passage I referenced.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            So you do not consider FactCheck.org, the admissions of multiple past Planned Parenthood officials (one of whom was also with the CDC), and a Guttmacher Institute report — all of the sources in the first article — reliable? That’s strange.

            Also, the second citation does. It’s in the comment thread, not the main article — just as I originally said (same with the third article I linked, which you do not mention).

          • john Johnson

            Enough of trying to bait me. The source you provided above is not the source I said I consider unreliable.
            And who the person is saying life begins at conception is irrelevant. It is an emotional statement not a scientific one. At the instant of conception you have a single cell. Further it is completely non-viable until implantation occurs at which point it becomes parasitic to the host. What few advantages there are to the host are outweighed by inherent dangers.
            I am not the first to make this comparison.
            And even after all this there is a 50+% probability of organism failure.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Then which exactly is the unreliable source and how? Because right now, it just seems lie you’re grasping for excuses to ignore information that doesn’t conform to your biases. And how is questioning you on your false statements baiting?

            Indeed, your claim about science is the exact opposite of the truth. To deny that life beginning at conception is an objective scientific fact is a de facto admission that one doesn’t actually understand how modern biology defines life or defines an organism. Both are well settled concepts.

          • john Johnson

            The source you provided was liveactionnewa.com. (this site). And as I previously posted the cited material does not include the passage I referenced, much less rebutt it.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            So instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and confronting the fact that I gave you an article with more than enough specific facts and direct quotes to be independently verified, you’re making the cowardly decision to hide behind the shoot-the-messenger fallacy and ignore it simply because the information was collected by a website that doesn’t fit your ideological prejudices.

            Given that you don’t care whether your original claim about the danger of pre-Roe abortions is actually true, it’s sadly unsurprising that you’d choose to simply pretend the comment threads on the other articles do not discuss the Bible passage you also misrepresented.

            Unfortunately for you, more honest and objective readers can look for themselves and clearly see who is telling the truth.

          • john Johnson

            The intellectually honest thing to do would have been to call the source rubbish, but I dissembled. I checked the first two of the author’s supposed sources. They were misapplied.
            Further I had previously requested journal articles.
            Nor did I misrepresent the passage

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            So do you believe FactCheck.org (active link to the first source in the LAN post: http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article336.html ) — which quotes journal articles — misrepresented them and the numbers?

            Do you believe the quotes from Planned Parenthood director Mary Calderon and Center for Disease Control statistician Christopher Tietze were fabricated? (If you followed the link to their source you’d see that the quotes are fully sourced.)

            Do you believe the quoted passage from the Guttmacher Institute (which is pro-choice and associated with Planned Parenthood) is wrong?

            Do you have any basis for this obstinance other than a simple inability to admit when you’re wrong?

          • john Johnson

            I believe that the very second paragraph links the decline in deaths to antibiotics. So, do you expect the average back room abortionist to prescribe antibiotics? How will the prescription be filled?
            These will be criminal enterprises.
            And only a little further on the piece arbitrary dismissed the 5,000,10,000 figure and asserts deaths will only be in the hundreds. How man hundreds? How many abortions are performed yearly?
            In 2008 the figure was 2% of women 18-44. Approximately 1.2 Million. Some statistically significant percentage of that 2% will seek illegal abortions if they cannot get them legally. Even if only 5% of that figure do so there will be 60,000 backroom abortion per year. What percentage will die, there is no way to be certain.

            Did you look up abortificants as I suggestef? Did you look at the bible passage? Or do I need to quote the whole to show it describes an abortificant?

          • sarah5775

            John,…..Wow. The infected woman would go to or be taken to the hospital after she developed the infection.. The HOSPITAL would give her antibiotics. And personally, I am an atheist so I couldn’t care less what the bible says.

          • john Johnson

            Under the scenario you describe, SOMEONE at the hospital would inform the authorities. It might even be legally required that the hospital do so.
            And the woman would likely attempt to conceal that she was sick as long as possible giving the infection time to spread.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Calderon admitted that the vast majority of illegal pre-Roe abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. That should make the antibiotics question a bit less mystifying. And the fact remains that antibiotics are an explanation for the documented fact that the decline in abortion deaths predated legalization.

            And dismissing the larger figures isn’t arbitrary at all. Calderon, Tietze, and Guttmacher all provide specific numbers:

            144 in 1921
            15 in 1951
            260 in 1957
            235 in 1965 (probably larger, but definitely below 1,000)
            39 in 1972

            Regarding the Bible, did you read the conversations that prove you wrong?

          • john Johnson

            And I provided current stats on abortion rates with if anything understated extrapolations of anticipatable death rates.
            Further we can say without a doubt that pre-legalization death rates were understated, as many if not most families would have sought to conceal their daughter’s shame. And many coroners and doctors would have seen no justification for letting the real cause of death become public.
            It is how much the rates were understated which is open to question. Not that it occurred.
            And prescription meds are prescription so they can be tracked. What makes you think all doctor’s performing an illegal procedure would risk the added likelihood of exposure?

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            So you’re going to reject actual facts because a thin veneer of speculation lets you keep on pretending the myth is reality. Got it.

          • john Johnson

            A thin veneer of speculation.
            It is an absolute fact that more will die from illegal abortions than currently die from abortions. It is unavoidable. And a cluster of cells is not human. At best it is a potentiality – a speculation.
            Will this cell cluster be one of the less than 50 out of 100 that do not spontaneously abort early on? Will it be viable if it does?
            No one but the woman has a right to decide if such odds are worth the risk to her wellbeing.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Returning back to your original denial of biological fact.

            What does it say about your position that you cannot sustain it without resorting to dishonesty?

          • john Johnson

            Perhaps you’d like to refute what you consider dishonest?
            Perhaps you can offer current figures rather than those from before you were born? Maybe from one of the countries where abortion IS illegal?
            Perhaps you have other figures on the rate of early term spontaneous abortion? Maybe figures on later term miscarriage?
            And it is assuredly NOT dishonest to say that an abortion carried out in some minimally supplied facility will put the woman in more danger than one done in a fully supplied clinic where an ambulance may be called in the even of hemorrhage.
            Perhaps it is you who are intellectually dishonest in saying (or at least seeking to imply) that an illegal backroom abortion would be just as safe as one performed in the local clinic?

          • john Johnson

            It seems my response didn’t go through so here it is.
            The intellectually honest thing to do would be to call the piece rubbish, but I dissembled.
            I looked at the first two sources it provides and they were misapplied and did not address the passage. The comment threads are not the article, and I did not misrepresent
            Numbers (5:11-31).
            It’s a bit long and complicated, so I’ll restrict myself to the opening as I’m sure you can look up the rest:

            And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying … If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            The comment threads are where I specifically said the discussion was all along. More biblically-literate readers have extensively refuted the claim that the Bible was prescribing abortion.

          • Tyler Grudi

            I’m sorry but that’s just not correct. The embryo cannot be a parasite because in non-mutual symbiotic relationships, the connection is between two different species, From what we know of genetics, the embryo belongs to the same species as its mother therefore it cannot be a parasite and the mother cannot be a host. If you want to use parasite in the symbolic metaphorical sense you’re free to do so, but as far as biology is concerned, parasitism involves two different species.

          • john Johnson

            I’ve had this argument before. I do not post what I cannot support. Here is a non-technical article:

            You might also Google
            Parasitic twins

          • john Johnson

            Also a parasitic relationship is by definition not symbiotic.

          • Tyler Grudi

            A parasitic relationship by definition is necessarily symbiotic. “Symbiosis” (From the greek, “together” and “Living”) is simply the interaction between two organisms. Parasitism is a “non-mutual” relationship between two species (symbiosis) in which one species does not benefit from such a relationship and is harmed in some way.

            There are numerous reasons, past the obvious reasons derived from scientific definitions of parasitism, that explain further why an embryo is not truly a parasite in the biological sense. For instance, once a parasite has entered a host, it will almost always stay dependent on the host until the host dies. An unborn child is meant for further development outside the womb and will spend the large majority of its life living outside the womb. Parasites are also detrimental to the reproductive capacity of its host since, generally speaking, a parasite will weaken, disease, or kill it’s host and thus making reproduction of the species impossible. The unborn child, however, is necessary and vital to the reproductive process of mammalian species. Parasitism will also usually trigger an immunological response from the host in attempts to repel the parasite. In the case of the unborn, the mother’s body will release antibodies but the fetus is not rejected from the mother. This is unique in fetal-maternal relationships.

            Like I said, the relationship between unborn child and mother cannot, in the context of science, biology, and embryology, be classified as a parasitic relationship. If you would like to use the word parasitic in a societal/metaphorical sense you are free to do so. For further reading I would suggest taking a look at this article as much of what I previously said can be seen here.


          • john Johnson

            A symbiotic relationship is one where both organism benefit. In a parasitic relationship only the parasite benifits. Often at the expense of the host. There are inherent risks in pregnancy, including deficiencies in many nutrients (admittedly more common in undeveloped countries), hemorrhage, high blood pressure …
            I’m sure you can look up the rest.
            Did you look at the reference?

          • Tyler Grudi

            Again I’m going to have to disagree with you. Symbiosis is
            a broad spectrum of multi-organism relationships. The relationship you are describing, where both organisms benefit, is a mutual symbiotic relationship or mutualism. Symbiosis can also be non-mutual or parasitic where one organism benefits while another is harmed. But this is also not to be confused with commensalism, a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits while another is not benefited nor harmed. If you still do not believe me here are a few sources that can back me up.




            I would agree that pregnancy is not a risk free process, but just because something has risk does not make it inherently harmful or parasitic. To define the embryo as a parasite in a scientific lense is to define all human organisms as such since human development starts at fertilization and once an organism is classified as a parasite it cannot suddenly become unparasitic in nature. Parasites are also mostly invading organisms which attack a host from the outside. Since an embryo is formed by a woman’s natural processes inside her womb, it is wrong to classify such an organism as an invading intruder. Further, the woman’s ovum accepts the sperm and joins its DNA with it to form the embryo. Again, parasitic relationships are characterized more by the obvious struggle, physiologically and immunologically, between host and parasite. The relationship between an unborn child and a mother is far more cooperative and beneficial to both organisms, than parasitic relationships, regardless of such risks. Where the parasite is fully dependent on its host for survival, an unborn child will spend the majority of its life not dependent on its mother.

          • john Johnson

            Fine. But you’ve just gutted your own argument. The host/fetus relationship can in fact be considered parasitic.

          • Tyler Grudi

            No I really don’t think I did considering it honestly cannot by any means be considered parasitism even if you think it slightly resembles it. Like I said, just because something has risk does not mean it is parasitic. And if we were truly to accept your parasitic theory, we would have to consider all human beings parasites and hold that it’s mortally permissible to kill each other. Again if you want to use the term in some symbolic derogatory way go ahead but I have clearly outlined the impossibility of making such an assertion based off science.

          • john Johnson

            Did you read the piece?
            It is mostly common language but here is one piece pointing out a specific similarity to parasitism:

            Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition.

          • Tyler Grudi

            The trophoblast does has the ability to block certain antibodies produced by the mother in order not to be rejected from the womb. I don’t see how this logically means that the embryo must be a parasite. If a fetus were to always be rejected from the woman’s body then how could we survive as a species at all? I would argue that such a characteristic is for the benefit of reproduction rather than for the reduction of health that parasites normally cultivate.

            Once again I am simply going to state that just because something resembles parasitism does not mean that it is parasitism, especially when it clearly cannot be classified as such in our definitions. Parasites don’t improve their hosts fitness or health, or add positively to the hosts reproductive capacity, and yet we know that the unborn child is the essential piece to improving and cultivating fecundity.

      • Julia

        You could use this argument to justify any murder then. You could just as easily say that a 17 year old girl that was murdered – God sent her soul down her to be murdered, and age 17 is full extent of her life that God meant her to live, so why prosecute the murdere?
        Although there is some truth to it (everything that happens fits into God’s plan), that does not mean that it is not wrong to kill an innocent person.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002669226795 Luke Lemire

    that just about does it; abortion is 100% murder and evil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.kelley.16121 Amanda Keen Kelley

    Like I have said,a child is alive from the moment of conception. If you don’t want children 1. Don’t have sex. 2. Use birth control. 3. If you get pregnant and don’t want your baby there are alot of people who want kids but can’t have them, so let them be adopted.

    • Will

      Little hint for you… You can’t stop people from having sex, and your argument is meaningless.. But just to educate you on the realities of the world, you really don’t want people having kids they don’t care for or want if you at all want a functional society… And you definitely need to educate yourself on the real world concerning over population and what that has to do with poverty, crime, and ecological collapse… If you need an education in that, go spend a few weeks in places like Sudan… The sheer level of ignorance of the real world that some of you have and profess is rather astounding to say the least. Hence, you don’t care to bother to educate yourself on the real world, you only care about enforcing your skewed disconnected view of it on others because you feel it’s your moral or religious obligation to do so.

      So just to let some people get an idea here.., The bible belt of America to which most of this crap is pushed is also the crime and poverty belt of America. And it doesn’t help that the science education level of the bible belt consists of 1/3rd believing the Flinstones were real..

      • Counterculturalist

        right because most people are incredible selfish and care nothing about the people they create and their lives they destroy, but the two minutes of pleasure they will receive.

      • Bob

        None of the reasons you give are sufficient to justify murdering an innocent person. Then, you go on to insult people and claim to be of superior intellect, when it is you who is denying scientific fact. You present quite a sad little argument.

      • fredx2

        You obviously have no knowledge of facts.

  • Mum4Life

    The only question that pro abortion can debate is not “when does life begin?” as is stated here, that is clearly at conception, but “when do unborn human beings get their own rights?”

    • Zach Anderson

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
      According to the Declaration of Independence, they get their own rights at the moment of their creation, which in science proves to be conception.

  • Mary Donnellan

    This is the TRUTH beautifully stated.

  • http://twitter.com/Donum_Vitae Thérèse

    Well done on a very clear picture of when life begins…..not that we didn’t know it, but it’s good to back it up with science.

  • Will

    Then someone comes along and tells them that their pseudoscience article is nonsense.. Firstly, no peer review journal or academic literature says life begins at conception.. You might also want to educate yourself in biology further to realize that sperm and egg cells are living cells long before conception ever happens, and that trillions beyond trillions of those die each day..

    You might also want to learn that the human body consists primarily that of non-human cells.. That’s right, a human being is most comprised of bacteria and other living cells to which many are required for you to even live.. Then cells outnumber human tissue by ten fold.. Hence, a few living cells of a fetus do not make a baby, or even remotely close to what you can actually consider a human being. They have as much relevancy as skin cells to which can be cloned into human embryos, and we don’t see you freaking out about loss of skin cells on a daily basis as viable human babies.. So remember than next time you have an itch to scratch..

    • Will

      *Those cells outnumber..

      • Ca_Momma

        Will you seem like you’re a ruthless person! Have you ever had a kid with someone and left her pregnant to raise your child whom has your blood running through his veins because why,” poor willy wasn’t ready to be a man” but a year later you were Because you had another kid. Oh and now you’re raising two little Girls whom aren’t even your blood children and also you’re having another kid. Hmmm, sounds like a coward ass punk Who isn’t going to get away with it! See you in court you psycho sick Human being!!! (p.s. MAN UP AND. RAISE YOUR FIRSTBORN SON BECAUSE HE NEEDS YOU TOO)

        • http://www.facebook.com/brian.johnson.71404976 Brian Johnson

          Will ain’t the daddy, Will got himself snipped long before he plowed your nasty snatch. There’s no telling who the daddy is because you’ve had more dicks than Cartman’s mom.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tulio.diogovieira Tulio Diogo Vieira

      Actually every single piece of academic literature says life of every type of mammal begins at fertilization

    • Bob

      Why do we still have science deniers in 2014?

  • john Johnson

    Fails to acknowledge that over 50% of early term pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman would even know she was pregnant if not for the extreme sensitivity of modern in home testing. In most cases because of they zygote was unviable.
    And, no, science doesn’t agree with the premise. The egg and the sperm are alive, and possessed of human DNA, but they are not human. A skin cell contains a complete replica of your DNA, yet it too is not considered human.

    • Travis

      Lol. Giant straw man, bro. But anything to justify your position, right?

      • john Johnson

        Look up the definition of a “straw man argument.”
        And your analysis of my position, and my statement, is wrong. Over 50% of aborted fetuses would likely have aborted spontaneously early on. More would have proven non-viable later on. Some would have been born, but still proved non-viable. Some would have lived badly malformed.
        And yes, some portion of that less than 50% would have proven normal and healthy.
        And even amongst the latter there is no right to endanger the health of the host.

  • Jon

    Nazi: A Jew is sub-human because it is not a pure German Aryan.

    Slaveowner: The Black man is not fully human because he’s not white.

    Liberal: A fetus is not human, because it doesn’t look human.