Facts Are Facts, No Matter What the Dictators of Davos Say

[80zephyr]

The ignorance is astounding.

Explain.

Mark

[scott]

Here you go. Shoot this one down as well. Maybe a misspelled word?




Most Biologists Believe Life Begins at Conception


Jul 12, 2019

A recent five-year research study has revealed that an overwhelming majority of biologists from 1,058 academic institutions confirm that “a human’s life begins at fertilization.”

Steven Jacobs was a University of Chicago Ph.D. candidate who recently successfully defended his dissertation, “Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate.” For his research, Jacobs recruited 5,502 academic biologists to participate in his thesis study, “Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins.’” The biologists identified themselves as “very pro-choice, very pro-life, very liberal, very conservative, strong Democrats and strong Republicans.”

After five years, the research showed that 95 percent (5212 out of 5502) of the biologists affirmed the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization, revealing that biology professors in American academia overwhelmingly agree with this pro-life position.

During the survey, Jacobs asked the biologists to agree or disagree with two “implicit statements:”

1) “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.”

- Approximately 90 percent agreed the development of a mammal begins at the moment of fertilization.

2) “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

- More than 75 percent agreed that fertilization marks the beginning of a human’s life.



Then the participants were given an open-ended essay question and asked to answer, “from a biological perspective,” the question “When does a human’s life begin?”

- Ninety percent of biologists who described themselves as “very pro-life” said at the moment of fertilization; Almost 75 percent of those who called themselves “pro-choice,” and approximately 60 percent of those who identified themselves as “very pro-choice,” answered the same.

When Jacobs began his research about the American abortion debate for a qualitative research class, he surveyed 2,899 American adults and discovered that a large majority of respondents believe that the question “When does a human’s life begin?” is important to the discussion. The poll also revealed that 81 percent of respondents, including a larger share of pro-abortion individuals, “selected biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins.”

Jacobs’ research also suggests that 83 percent of “pro-choice” participants surveyed believe that support for legal abortion would decrease “if it became common knowledge that fetuses are biological humans at fertilization.”

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/0712...t-conception-1

Mark

The linked paper is a very well-articulated study and the study appears to be quite robust. It's compelling because the sample of the biologists polled is overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice.

It looks like the prevailing view among those I think are most qualified to determine the origin of life is fertilization.

[80zephyr]

The linked paper is a very well-articulated study and the study appears to be quite robust. It's compelling because the sample of the biologists polled is overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice.

It looks like the prevailing view among those I think are most qualified to determine the origin of life is fertilization.

The very last line of the article is telling:

Jacobs’ research also suggests that 83 percent of “pro-choice” participants surveyed believe that support for legal abortion would decrease “if it became common knowledge that fetuses are biological humans at fertilization.”

I believe this statement is correct, and it is the reason why any biologist would suggest that human life does not start at conception. In reality, its your links that contained the activists on this issue.

As a followup, after this study, the reactions were....sometimes not good.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/researcher-attacked-study-showing-96-percent-biologists-believe-life-begins-at-conception.html

Mark

[Lady Marva]

Most Biologists Believe Life Begins at Conception

One of the stupidest statements EVER.
That sperm cell better dang well have LIFE. That egg cell better dang well be ALIVE.
Or there be NO conception. NONE.

[scott]

One of the stupidest statements EVER.
That sperm cell better dang well have LIFE. That egg cell better dang well be ALIVE.
Or there be NO conception. NONE.

How is that a stupid statement? The biologists reported their views that the sperm cell (alive) and the egg (alive) combine and form a NEW LIFE.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

How is that a stupid statement? The biologists reported their views that the sperm cell (alive) and the egg (alive) combine and form a NEW LIFE.

I don't know that I would call it "stupid," but the way the question is asked makes a big difference. There is a difference (certainly from a legal perspective) between "when does human life begin" and " when is there a new human being?"

Think about it in the macro. When did all human life begin? It began when a single-celled organism started evolving toward what would become homo sapiens, right? But when was the first human being yields an entirely different answer.

Every zygote that is formed will not become a living human being. In fact, at least half of them will become menstrual discharge, and nothing more. This is actually a case in which science has caused religion to stray from the logical path. The Church was more logical when it counted a fetus as a human life only when it quickened.

[scott]

I don't know that I would call it "stupid," but the way the question is asked makes a big difference. There is a difference (certainly from a legal perspective) between "when does human life begin" and " when is there a new human being?"

Think about it in the macro. When did all human life begin? It began when a single-celled organism started evolving toward what would become homo sapiens, right? But when was the first human being yields an entirely different answer.

This was explained in the paper and covered well in the 4 questions given to biologists (thousands of them):

- Q1 - Implicit Statement A
“The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.”

- Q2 - Implicit Statement B
“The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

- Q3 - Explicit Statement
“In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop in the first stage of the human life cycle.”

Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question
“From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a human's life begin?’”

Every zygote that is formed will not become a living human being. In fact, at least half of them will become menstrual discharge, and nothing more.

THAT brings the moral question since half of them die anyway - at what point is "natural" connected to misconduct? It's a conundrum for sure.

This is actually a case in which science has caused religion to stray from the logical path. The Church was more logical when it counted a fetus as a human life only when it quickened.

Except there was no way to define when that actually happened either - and the Church is ill-equipped to define such things. Maybe it was when it was selling indulgences, but that's a separate matter.