Posted on 10/18/2019 2:32:54 PM PDT by karpov
Shortly after being awarded my Ph.D. by the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development this year, I found myself in a minor media whirlwind. I was interviewed by The Daily Wire, The College Fix, and Breitbart. I appeared on national television and on a widely syndicated radio program. All of this interest had been prompted by a working paper associated with my dissertation, which was entitled Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate.
As discussed in more detail below, I reported that both a majority of pro-choice Americans (53%) and a majority of pro-life Americans (54%) would support a comprehensive policy compromise that provides entitlements to pregnant women, improves the adoption process for parents, permits abortion in extreme circumstances, and restricts elective abortion after the first trimester. However, members of the media were mostly interested in my finding that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.
It was the reporting of this view—that human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are biological humans—that created such a strong backlash. It was not unexpected, as the finding provides fodder for conservative opponents of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court had suggested there was no consensus on “the difficult question of when life begins” and that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, [was] not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
The U.S. abortion debate has raged for generations, and remains divisive to this day. As a lawyer, mediator and researcher, I sought to assess whether there is room for compromise.
(Excerpt) Read more at quillette.com ...
Funny how biologists are quick to cheer the discovery of life based on primitive organisms found on other planets but don’t dare do the same for a newly-fertilized human ovum.
A scientific determination to be immediately ignored by the butchers and their political pimps.
It is my personal opinion, after much reflection, that the human soul enters its vessel when sperm meets egg.
At any point in time after that, that life can end by any number of ways, natural and otherwise.
zygotts have 46 chromosomes. I have no doubt that once the union occurs and the 46 chromosomes are present, that is the beginning of the life of a human being.....entitled to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
bookmarked
When and how did “life” begin according to the supposed primordial soup theory? Seems to me that based on that notion, “life” existed waaaay before conception!
What is life? It’s when data scans and a lifeform is detected.
Exactly...y’know life began with some replicating RNA...and fatty bilipid membrane...but not in the womb...total braindead population..
Please read closer. 96% agreed that it began at conception.
That sounds like 'settled science' to me... at least that's what I've heard from the other side about climate change... and this PhD actually took a huge survey.
My mom, with no college degree, and a simple preacher’s wife for 60 years, said, “Well, where there’s growth, there’s life.” I thought that pretty much says it all.
Ask a biologist if a bird or reptile inside an egg apart from the mother is living? Yes, they will say.
Then ask does life only begin when the shell breaks open? Of course not, they will say. It has to be alive to leave the shell by breaking it open. It was alive the entire time it was in the shell, they will say, from the moment it was conceived.
Then ask why is an unborn bird or lizard alive, but an unborn baby is not alive?
Interesting idea. And scientists go out of their way to avoid harming these organisms.
Yes.
I think that nature shows us that the moment life begins, it is a struggle.
As part of nature, the same holds true for us.
No only that, when conception occurred in California Condors, do you think they were aborting them before eggs could be laid? Do you think a high percentage of those eggs were cast aside?
How about other near extinction animals?
Life becomes very important for Leftists, when their pet project is on the line.
It was never controversial in 1973.
I was a freshman in biology. Life began at conception. Everyone agreed.
The Supreme Court declared that taking that life was OK...up to a certain timepoint. They did that by saying that the life was not a “person”, which is a legal definition. So until you are a “person”, as defined by the court, you have no right to life. According to them.
There’s no debate about a “fetus” being alive. The only debate was about that un-person’s rights.
They decided they didn’t have any.
The Soviets had the same idea. Actually, it’s likely that’s where it came from: anyone opposed to The State became an un-person, a non-entity with no rights...since all rights flowed from the State. How could you have rights if you were not part of the State?
And that’s how we got 60 million dead children. In just 47 years.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.