Horse crap. This is such hypocrisy, when the same people will undoubtedly consider an adult "alive" even when entirely dependent upon life support equipment. Is total dependence on a heart-lung machine during open heart surgery de facto evidence that the patient is no longer alive? Similarly, the fact that a developing fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb is not evidence against the existence of life.
As uncomfortable as the implications are for many scientists, the facts are pointing more resolutely in the direction of the "life begins at conception" angle, or at least the "life begins months before birth" angle, with every study. To those of us who are not so uncomfortable with moral decisions, the implications of this information are quite clear.
As always, people will believe precisely what they choose to believe -- for the secular, this typically equates to those beliefs with which they are most comfortable -- regardless of evidence to the contrary.
As uncomfortable as the implications are for many scientists, the facts are pointing more resolutely in the direction of the "life begins at conception" angle,
Definitely false. The most readily available facts (the space-time continuum) decidedly contradict the "life begins at conception" theory. That is, it is a fact that life does not begin at conception.
or at least the "life begins months before birth" angle, with every study.
Only if you really mean "life develops months before birth", would this be an even viable theory.
I have the same negative reaction to the authors words. "Life" is far to ambiguous a term in this debate. In one sense of the term, a fetus, embryo, zygote, and even gamete, are life. The real issue is when should rights be recognized.
The abortion debate can only be properly discussed in terms of human rights, not biology, as essentially the same biololgy applies to things which we agree do not have rights, such as lower animals. This requires an understanding of what rights are.