"Researcher attacked over study showing 96% of biologists believe life begins at conception." Report supports pro-life views

"It was the reporting of this view — that human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are biological humans — that created such a strong backlash.

Among the responses he received in emails included:
“Sure hope YOU aren’t a (obscenity deleted) christian!!”
“This is some stupid right to life thing…YUCK I believe in RIGHT TO CHOICE!!!”

7 Likes

Saved

Pray for the researcher that the findings spread far and wide. The evil of child murder will end, God willing.

13 Likes

But like, surely everyone that did science in middle school knows that? It’s biology.

The real debate surrounds when personhood begins, not biological life.

I’m 100% prolife by the way, just not sure what the big deal here is.

8 Likes

Yes, everyone who knows anything about biology knows that a new human being begins at conception. It’s never been a secret, and it’s been known for many decades. But since Roe v Wade, the abortion industry tries to sidetrack the issue by giving some human beings more rights than others.

9 Likes

When you’re freely openly supporting murdering a baby, think about how much easier it would be to support physically assaulting a reporter.

1 Like

Yes, and I’ve tried many times, many ways to take part in that debate… Ultimately, I think it’s ridiculous to try and separate personhood from the human body. No other lifeform we’ve encountered “becomes” a person.

5 Likes

I’m not to sure many doubted that fairly self-evident conclusion. The matters debated in the abortion context would seem to be:

  • is that life a “person“?
  • what rights if any does that life has?
  • does the parent have rights which exceed those of that life?
4 Likes

Don’t like what you hear? Insult and attack the speaker.

The big deal is that some people don’t like what the study says so they insult and attack the one who made the study.

when they say “life” they don’t just mean “biological life”, since that exists prior to fertilization (egg, sperm) they mean human life or person

I agree that both human life and personhood occur simultaneously but many pro choice people do not.

5 Likes

That’s what I would think the abortion controversy is about. 96% of biologists might believe that life begins at conception, but what percentage of them also think that the day after conception that that life is a person which has rights of any sort, let alone rights equal to those of the mother?

1 Like

As stated and implied eleswhere, the question is moot. What needs to be addressed is when people feel that the cells immediately after conception reach a point when they can be classed as a person.

Personally, my belief is that a day after conception they cannot be and a day before birth they can. Somewhere between those two points is where a lot of people draw the line.

2 Likes

I suspect the definition of “person” is such as to make that question somewhat circular! Certainly, the pro-abortion lobby holds as a given that the right not to be terminated starts at zero and increases with age, and is only fully established after birth.

In other words, the rights of a new human being are contingent on its stage of development? Every aspect of a human being, from DNA to sex to eye color, is present at the zygote stage and developed over the course of a lifetime. If that’s the case, any arbitrary point can be selected, before or after birth. We might decide to confer personhood at birth or two months after birth, or 12 years after birth.

1 Like

Why do you think that late term abortions are viewed as being more abhorrent than those performed at very early stages?

1 Like

I consider any deliberate destruction of an already formed human being to be abhorrent. But the more advanced the developement, the more egregious it seems to most. That’s why destruction of a new human being is seen as more egregious in the second or third trimester, and destruction of a newborn or a six month old infant is seen as worse. Still, some such as Prof. Peter Singer, have advocated for giving parents the option of terminating newborns some months after birth. It’s just a further stage of development.

2 Likes

TBH, I’m not convinced Catholics are helping matters any. The only Right-To-Life rally I’ve ever attended concluded with a walk through downtown Denver with hundreds of people praying the Rosary.

Now I’m a huge fan of large groups praying the Rosary together. But unless we’re advocating a theocracy in the US, we need to stick with science when it comes to abortion and the right of that teeny tiny human to live.

Just my two cents.

2 Likes

Sure we should stick with science. But the science has been clear for decades. There hasn’t been any scientific doubt about when a new human being begins since the 1960’s and 1970’s. I don’t doubt science, but I also have great faith in the rosary.

2 Likes

But does it seem more egregious to you? You’ve already agreed that most people do see a difference in how a pregnancy is treated depending on the length of the pregnancy (and in doing so answering your own question).

The science is in regarding human life. But as you have noted, different stages of pregnancy are treated differently.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.