Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Again, your lack of scientific knowledge makes a liar out of you. There are only three classes of cells that can be considered organisms. They are Monera, Protista, and Fungi. Human beings belong to none of these classes. This is the thing with you. You have childlike misconceptions of biology and human development. You don't grasp the science and what you don't know you simply make up. Case in point "all cells are organisms" This statement is a lie. Deliberate or a result of ignorance makes no difference, it is still a lie. Your whole argument is overflowing with this sort of misinformation.

Rider why is that you must call others liars when they do not agree with you? The problem with your argument is that it relies on a few quotes. It is not as if the literature is not filled with quotes that conflict with your quotes. And argument by authority it a fallacy. If you claim that a single cell of any kind is a human being then you must show that it at least behaves like a human being. Anyway,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Quote by: Wikipedia In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life.

A single human cell of any kind qualifies.

But you have been complaining that I am not arguing properly. I am not the one making the claim that a human cell of any kind is a human being. That is your claim. I do not have any responsibility in this argument to support and defend your claim. That is your job. And presenting fallacious arguments is not how you do it. And if anyone should be complaining here about how someone is not debating properly is should be me and everyone else. You have never been in this debate because from the get go your arguments have been dishonest, or fallacious if you will. You see, if you will not be convinced by other authorities that say that a single human cell of any kind is not a human being then why would you expect anyone to be convinced by your authorities that say the contrary? That is why in order for you to be in this debate quoting opinions in text books that are just statements and have no explanations for why those statements are the case are just bullshit arguments. I have tried to boil down to the bare essence what you must do if you are to honestly advance your argument. All you have to do is demonstrate how a single human cell of any kind behaves like a human being. Hell, just approximates a human being. So stop complaining about how I argue and present an honest argument.

Starboy

[carriew]

honest arguments have been made and materials referenced,,,

I have proven what I set out to prove.

You will continue to ignore medical facts as well as biology.

everythign I provided states clearly my position and backs it up.

gravity is so obvious I can go look it up. if what you say is true in any way you should ba able to find some kind of convincing medical evidence to support otherwise your words mean NOTHING! EXCEPT that you are in DENIAL of the facts at hand.

It is true you can lead thirsty horse to water but cannot force it to drink. I have used almost every argument you have thrown and torn it bit by bit and piece by piece

why ovums arent the same as a skin cell, why it is alive and living human being.

which part of your argument is intact still? that is not refuted by my medical evidence?

Just because you deny the truth doent make it not be true!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Rider why is that you must call others liars when they do not agree with you? The problem with your argument is that it relies on a few quotes. It is not as if the literature is not filled with quotes that conflict with your quotes. And argument by authority it a fallacy. If you claim that a single cell of any kind is a human being then you must show that it at least behaves like a human being. Anyway,

It is not a matter of disagreeing with me. Facts are facts. There are three classes of single celled creatures that are indeed organisms and the cells of human systems are not in any of those classes therefore they can not be classified as organisms.

If the literature is filled with quotes that contradict mine then it should be very easy for you to provide some. What you have provided was not medical or biological literature and even that simply reinforced my position.

And what does a human being behave like? An infant doesn't behave like a professional baseball player. An elder doesn't behave like a toddler. Humans behave as they should at whatever level of maturity they have reached. A zygote behaves exactly as a human should behave at the zygote stage. It is communicating chemically with its mother directing her body to prepare for gestation. As it matures, it behaves as a more mature human being behaves until it has grown old and died.

Behavior is no measure of humanity.

What is obvious here is that the offspring of two human beings is a human being at any stage of its life that you care to name. That you can't grasp such an obvious fact, or present some documentation that suggests that the offspring of two humans is something other than human is your failing, not mine. I am presenting science as it is written in medical textbooks and medical journals (at your request). You are presenting nothing but your opinion and "your version" of science which has been proven flawed time and time again.

I agree with Matt. It is time for you to corroborate your opinion with something or admit that it is nothing but your opinion based on science as you know it which, by the way, has been found wanting at every turn.

And you are even wrong in your assesment of argument by authority. Argument by authority is valid if two questions can be answered in the affirmative. Those questions are Argument by authority is valid only if you can answer, “yes” to two questions.

(1) Is the source an expert?

(2) Is the source unbiased?

In both cases the answer in the case of medical textbooks that areaccepted in universities around the world the answer to both questions would be yes. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible documentation from a university stating that the author of any of the books that I referenced are unacceptable because of their bias.

Again, you just make stuff up and expect that because you believe that it woud be good enough to fool you, that it is good enough to fool other people as well.

By the way, maybe you should refer to "argument by pigheadedness" and re evaluate your position.

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew honest arguments have been made and materials referenced,,, I have proven what I set out to prove.

What did you prove? Where is the proof? Care to recap?

You will continue to ignore medical facts as well as biology.

What medical and biological facts have I ignored? Contesting your sources is not ignoring anything. If you provide the source you must validate it and demonstrate that it is germane. Also simply quoting opinion is not an honest argument even if it is an authority. Look it up. It is called 'argumentum ad autoritatem'.

everythign I provided states clearly my position and backs it up.

Fine then. It should be easy for you to recap.

gravity is so obvious I can go look it up. if what you say is true in any way you should ba able to find some kind of convincing medical evidence to support otherwise your words mean NOTHING! EXCEPT that you are in DENIAL of the facts at hand.

You have not presented any medical evidence. All you have presented is the opinion of a single medical authority. It is not an honest argument.

It is true you can lead thirsty horse to water but cannot force it to drink. I have used almost every argument you have thrown and torn it bit by bit and piece by piece.

Fine. List them.

why ovums arent the same as a skin cell, why it is alive and living human being.

Find then, show that argument.

which part of your argument is intact still? that is not refuted by my medical evidence?

What you don't get is that it is you that claims that a single cell is a human being. It is you that must make the case not me. All I have to do is shoot your arguments down. You have to present an argument that can't be shot down. Quoting opinions is not how you do it.

Just because you deny the truth doent make it not be true!

And just because you say I have doesn't mean I have done it. Show that I have denied anything. All I have done is shown that your arguments do not apply to the claim.

Starboy

[Matt W]

By the way, maybe you should refer to "argument by pigheadedness" and re evaluate your position

Pale Rider - this is a completely inappropriate comment. Tone it down.

Do not respond to me within this thread. Please PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder It is not a matter of disagreeing with me. Facts are facts. There are three classes of single celled creatures that are indeed organisms and the cells of human systems are not in any of those classes therefore they can not be classified as organisms.

Yes, but an organism is not restricted to those three cells. I posted a definition that stated otherwise. But what you are arguing here are definitions. Definitions are not facts. And I provided a quote that says that a single human cell is an organism. This point is fallacious and has nothing to do with supporting your claim.

If the literature is filled with quotes that contradict mine then it should be very easy for you to provide some. What you have provided was not medical or biological literature and even that simply reinforced my position.

I did better than that. I posted the policy statement of the largest scientific organization it the world. The fact is that the vast majority of scientists are for stem cell research and do not think that a single human cell is a human being.

And what does a human being behave like? An infant doesn't behave like a professional baseball player. An elder doesn't behave like a toddler. Humans behave as they should at whatever level of maturity they have reached. A zygote behaves exactly as a human should behave at the zygote stage. It is communicating chemically with its mother directing her body to prepare for gestation. As it matures, it behaves as a more mature human being behaves until it has grown old and died.

Why not take the most generous measure. Take the behaviors of a baby and then only require 1/3 of them be demonstrated. Hell make it 1/10 or 1/100. A single human cell still does not qualify.

Behavior is no measure of humanity.

Do you read the stuff you write? If a person behaved exactly like a cat would we think they were a functioning human being? If a person behaved exactly like a dead person would we think they were a functioning human being? Please take the time to comprehend what you write before you present it as any kind of a reasonable statement.

What is obvious here is that the offspring of two human beings is a human being at any stage of its life that you care to name. That you can't grasp such an obvious fact, or present some documentation that suggests that the offspring of two humans is something other than human is your failing, not mine. I am presenting science as it is written in medical textbooks and medical journals (at your request). You are presenting nothing but your opinion and "your version" of science which has been proven flawed time and time again.

It is your claim. Now support your claim using honest (non-fallacious) argument. Simply stating it when a single cell doesn't act like a human being at all is just so rediculous that it does not merit any kind of citation but a huge belly laugh.

I agree with Matt. It is time for you to corroborate your opinion with something or admit that it is nothing but your opinion based on science as you know it which, by the way, has been found wanting at every turn.

Hey, you must learn to make your argument based on its merits. Say anything you like about my knowledge. My knowledge or lack thereof does not give your arguments merit. You make this fallacious argument so frequently I am surprised the mods let you get away with it.

And you are even wrong in your assesment of argument by authority. Argument by authority is valid if two questions can be answered in the affirmative. Those questions are Argument by authority is valid only if you can answer, “yes” to two questions. (1) Is the source an expert? (2) Is the source unbiased? In both cases the answer in the case of medical textbooks that areaccepted in universities around the world the answer to both questions would be yes. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible documentation from a university stating that the author of any of the books that I referenced are unacceptable because of their bias.

It is a fallacious argument because authorities are not right just because they are authorities. They are correct when they can back up their statements. But if they can do that then they do not need to rely on their authority to make their case. That is why it is a fallacy. So if the authority you went to made the statement then they should have been able to back it up and if they did back it up then all you need to do is present their evidence and that will be sufficient. You will never need to make an argument based on authority.

Again, you just make stuff up and expect that because you believe that it woud be good enough to fool you, that it is good enough to fool other people as well.

What have I made up?

By the way, maybe you should refer to "argument by pigheadedness" and re evaluate your position.

I may be pigheaded but that doesn't mean that you have any idea of what you are talking about. Stick to your claims and your argument and do not concern yourself with my abilities. Such tactics make you out to be something far worse than pigheaded.

Starboy

[carriew]

every one that has been folowing this or the fertlized ovum thread has seen the claims
that you have made about a chicken,a grain of sand,and a skin cell. also there was one about the ability to reproduce. there was so much nonsense it would take me a week to find all the rediculous ways you tried to prove your misguided logic to me.(remember the one about the high school girl recongition factor lmfao)


I have provided several different resources to support my claim there is nothing more I can do for you. You can either read it and learn what doctors and scientists know or you can be herded into believeing the embronic researchers that want your blessing and cash to continue their endevors.

The information I presented is here for all to look at and learn from.(not for you starboy as
I knew it would be lost on you)
accept it or not but I refuse to waste any more time banging my head of off your concrete head. or restating what I have already provided.

if you want to learn go to my posts and actually look at the materials presented and the resouces they used. they are all real verifable by anyone facts.

I will say this. My only intention with this debate was to prove and explain my position. I have done that I believe very well... the only thing you have to prove or substantiate your opinion is your thought process that should be apparent to us all such as gravity is (which incedently can be studied at great legnth)

Please just because you dont accept what I have shown you dont ruin it for others to learn

there were many credible resources provided in more than one of my posts
to provide evidence to what I have said.

Please evreyone make up your own minds based on the facts of medicine and science and not starboys ramblings of what is right and real and true(possible or obvious to him also)

MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF!

as I have done what I set out to do I am done here. those who want to know the truth have the path laid out for them they just have to chose what road to travel now...

If you have some real evidence to prove my resources are not correct other that your say so please provide it if not GO AWAY ALREADY>



untill you provide evidence to validate your beliefs you are no longer worth my effort or time.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Yes, but an organism is not restricted to those three cells. I posted a definition that stated otherwise. But what you are arguing here are definitions. Definitions are not facts. And I provided a quote that says that a single human cell is an organism. This point is fallacious and has nothing to do with supporting your claim.

No, an organism is not restricted to being a member of one of those three classes but a single celled organism is. If you had gone past the first paragraph of your wikipedia reference, you would have found that your own reference corroborated my statement that a skin cell, or any other cell that is part of the human body is not an organism.

Here is a clip:

Organisms vary from single cells (called single-celled or unicellular organisms) that function and survive more or less independently, through colonial forms with cells living together, to multicellular forms in which cells are specialized. 220 types of cells and tissues make up the multicellular human body.

You can follow the links within the text and you will be directed to explanations of the three classes of organisms that are single celled. You will be directed to the three classes of organisms that are single celled. They are Monera, Protista, and Fungi.

Quote by: starboy I did better than that. I posted the policy statement of the largest scientific organization it the world. The fact is that the vast majority of scientists are for stem cell research and do not think that a single human cell is a human being.

No you didn't. You posted a statement by a man who was at a hearing on behalf of the American Society for Cell Biology. They are not the largest scientific body in the world. Can't you ever tell the truth? The American Association for the Advancement of Science claims to be the largest scientific body in the world. Aside from that, the man did not issue a policy statement, he voiced his opinion. He stated that he didn't agree with the premise that a single celled zygote should be given the same considerations as living persons and that he did not view the embryo as a living human being. If asked for some scientific evidence to support that position I imagine that he would be at the same loss as you.

I looked and could find no policy statement from that organization that stated whether unborns were human or not.

{quote=starboy]Why not take the most generous measure. Take the behaviors of a baby and then only require 1/3 of them be demonstrated. Hell make it 1/10 or 1/100. A single human cell still does not qualify.[/quote]

I can't believe that you are even attempting to base an individual's membership in any species on behavior. I suppose I can become a cat if I learn to meow and stalk mice. The fact is that at 1 minute post conception the human being is acting exactly as it is supposed to act at that stage of its life.

{quote=starboy]It is your claim. Now support your claim using honest (non-fallacious) argument. Simply stating it when a single cell doesn't act like a human being at all is just so rediculous that it does not merit any kind of citation but a huge belly laugh. [/quote]

It is your claim that membership in any species is dependent upon behavior. Before I begin to argue with you on that position, I will need for you to produce some scientific evidence to prove that a creature's membership in its species is dependent upon its behavior. Personally, I don't think that you are going to find it because the suggestion is ludicrous. But then you know that don't you. Just throwing mud against the wall hoping that something sticks.

Quote by: starboy It is a fallacious argument because authorities are not right just because they are authorities. They are correct when they can back up their statements. But if they can do that then they do not need to rely on their authority to make their case. That is why it is a fallacy. So if the authority you went to made the statement then they should have been able to back it up and if they did back it up then all you need to do is present their evidence and that will be sufficient. You will never need to make an argument based on authority.

In this case it is not a fallicious argument because it is not one man voicing an opinion. It is a medical textbook in use at most medical universities in this country and translated into at least 6 languages for use in others. It is accepted by the scientific community. And you are limiting your argument to one book. I referenced at least half a dozen. You have referenced one man's statement before a senate committee. If that constitutes evidence to you, then here, let me reference a couple of statements made in front of a senate comitte as well.

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"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."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."


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.

So does that settle the issue now?

Quote by: starboy What have I made up?

What have you not made up would be the more appropriate question. Your statement that skin cells are organisms are made up. You read 1 paragraph and make the statement not realising that if you read further your statement would be proven wrong and mine would be substantiated. It has been the same every time you have tried to use science to prove your point.

You have made several arguments revolving around that particular misconception.

Hell, the idea that one must "behave like a human" in order to be a human is simply made up drivel as evidenced by your complete inability to reference anything that even begins to suggest such an idea.

You argued for a while that a "conceptus" was a human cell as if to say that only the unborn was the conceptus and not the unborn and all its associated tissues and membranes. I noted that you are using the same misinformation on another thread even when you had the nature of "conceptus" explained to you in great detail.

You make stuff up.

{quote=starboy]I may be pigheaded but that doesn't mean that you have any idea of what you are talking about. Stick to your claims and your argument and do not concern yourself with my abilities. Such tactics make you out to be something far worse than pigheaded.

Starboy[/quote]

You are right, your pigheadness doesn't mean that I have any idea of what I am talking about. BUT the fact that I reference textbook after textbook after textbook that substantiates my postion does.

[Matt W]

You are right, your pigheadness doesn't mean that I have any idea of what I am talking about.

Pale Rider, I told you to tone it down. Enough.

Do not respond to me within this post. PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[carriew]

Quote by: Pale RIder No, an organism is not restricted to being a member of one of those three classes but a single celled organism is. If you had gone past the first paragraph of your wikipedia reference, you would have found that your own reference corroborated my statement that a skin cell, or any other cell that is part of the human body is not an organism.

err palerider that was my link not starboys...

and I am the one at least in the last few pages that looked for hours to find non-prolife originated evidence he could not refute. pale rider if you presented something before I am sorry but I did not see it or I would not have spent several hours redoing what someone else had done.....

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder Perhaps some biology lessons would be prudent for you as well. From the moment of conception, the unborn is in charge. It begins immediately to release complex chemical receptors and hormones that send the mother into "pregnancy" mode. It directs her immune system to recognize it as a normal part of her body (even though it is not) so that it will not be attacked as an invading virus. If the mother were in charge, she would not have to contract a killer to get it out of her body. I asked starboy to deliver some evidence that the offspring of two humans is something other than a human from even the earliest moments, he failed miserably, repeating the unsubstantiated mantra that an egg is not a chicken...perhaps you could kindly produce some evidence that we are not human beings from the moment of our conception.

Look, it's not my specialty (I'm a sociologist teaching in a Gerontology program). And the way I first learned it, the genome of the fertilized egg did everything. But as I now understand it, it was long known that maternal chemicals, later identified as mRNA, controlled early development in insects. It was later found in mammal development (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...78570/ABSTRACT), and now in human development (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...4719/ABSTRACT; http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...t/full/7/2/147). I was actually tipped off to this while talking with biologists. For your side, it appears that in humans, the switch to the control by the fertilized egg comes earlier in development than in other mammals; but the early development is still under the control of the mother's body -- mRNA present in the unfertilized egg. In any case, I suppose that any of us could benefit from a class in human biological development, but it's well down on my list priorities.

When does a human single organism exist? Well, that depends. In the case of identical twins, that is not at fertilization but after the fertilized egg has started to divide. That's why I noted twins (and multuplets) -- the individual organism doesn't exist until some time after fertilization.

However, the point being made is with regard to what a human person is. I have already made the argument that a human person cannot be present until there is a working brain -- that there can be no conscious, self-aware person until after that. When does such self-awareness occur? I have no idea; nor, I suspect, does anyone else. This makes me willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the brain-born fetus, that it MIGHT have made the step to some degree of self-awareness.

Now plenty of people disagree about using brain birth as a dividing point. You seem to. The thing is that this is an issue of ethics, where no one is going to provide you "proof," one way or another. Here are a couple of religious arguments for the moment of conception as the only dividing line (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/perspec....2hurlbut.pdf; http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/...conception.pdf). I not only find these wrong, I find them horribly callous -- totally ignoring what makes us human in favor of some philosophical and/or religiously-based abstraction. But choose as you will. I will tell you that I will fight against efforts to push any religious ideology on those of us who disagree with it.

[rez]

Why is it hard for conservatives to think humans evolved from one single cell organism, but it is not hard for them to understand that human life starts when we are a single cell organism.

[carriew]

its not hard and if someone could prove it tome like I did with my post I would indeed believe it..

the reason I dont believe it is because I have no proof

There is only 2 things I believe in without proof GOD and the love for/from my children...

[Logjam]

Quote by: rez Why is it hard for conservatives to think humans evolved from one single cell organism, but it is not hard for them to understand that human life starts when we are a single cell organism.

I'm conservative, and I have no problem at all accepting that human's evolved from a single celled organism. I'm quite certain that we did.

You are generalizing that conservatives are also religious. Some of us are, and some of us aren't. The difference between us and you is that we conservatives who aren't particualily religious don't have an agruement with those who are.

I don't care what Christian conservatives believe. I agree with some of them and don't agree with others. The important thing is that none of us support Liberal/Left Wing Democrats, who we see as the source of many things that have gone wrong over the years.

I think it's silly that Democrats vilify Christians. I used to be a high school teacher. Some of my fellow teachers said terrible things about their Chritian students. I found that intolerable.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: rez Why is it hard for conservatives to think humans evolved from one single cell organism, but it is not hard for them to understand that human life starts when we are a single cell organism.

I don't have any problem at all with the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms, in fact, I believe we evolved from even less than that in the form of the "primordeal ooze".

I am a firm believer in intelligent design. I build and fly remote control planes. I could buy them ready made, but I prefer to build from raw plans. (cut and shape the wood myself). As much joy is in the building as in the flying. Why should God be any different? Why forego the joy of creation in favor of ready made?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: carriew err palerider that was my link not starboys... and I am the one at least in the last few pages that looked for hours to find non-prolife originated evidence he could not refute. pale rider if you presented something before I am sorry but I did not see it or I would not have spent several hours redoing what someone else had done.....

Starboy referenced wikipedia in an effort to prove that all single cells were organisms.

Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

2nd post down.

He didn't read far enough to realize that his on reference stated that he was wrong.

I put together a bibloiography of at least 8 or 10 medical textbooks and a few medical journals that stated quite clearly that we are living human beings from the moment of our conception.

[carriew]

i see it now

I apoligize.

I wish I would have known you did it before me lol I would have cut and pasted it lol. I spent hours lol...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: carriew i see it now I apoligize. I wish I would have known you did it before me lol I would have cut and pasted it lol. I spent hours lol...

Here is a partial bibliography if you wan't it.

Hunter Baker, Storming the Gates of Massive Cultural Investment: Reconsidering Roe in Light of Its Flawed Foundation and Undesirable Consequences, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 35, 44–46 (2002) (noting that “[i]n reality, the question has long been answered” and “[a]ll metaphysical higgledy-piggledy simply creates a comforting sense of plausible deniability about when life begins”).

STEDMAN’S CONCISE MEDICAL DICTIONARY FOR THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS 143, 963
(John H. Dirckx, M.D., ed., 3rd ed. 1997) (defining “zygote” as “[t]he diploid cell resulting from union of a sperm and an ovum” and defining “cell” as “[t]he smallest unit of living structure capable of independent existence”) (emphasis added).

Interesting reading - Murphy S. Klasing, The Death of an Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases, 22 PEPP. L. REV. 933, 974 (1995) (quoting Clarke D. Forsythe, Homicide of the Unborn Child: The Born Alive Rule and Other Legal Anachronisms, 21 VAL. U. L. REV. 563, 608–09 (1987));

See also Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) (“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990);

LOUIS HELLMAN ET AL., WILLIAMS OBSTETRICS 199 (14th ed. 1971)); Baker, supra note 37, at 46 (noting that the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” (citing T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990));

Kelly J. Hollowell, Defining a Person Under the Fourteenth Amendment: A Constitutionally and Scientifically Based Analysis, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 67, 86–92 (2001–2002) (examining the biological nature of unborn children and concluding that “human life begins at conception”);

Aaron Wagner, Comment, Texas Two-Step: Serving Up Fetal Rights by Side-Stepping Roe v. Wade Has Set the Table for Another Showdown on Fetal Personhood in Texas and Beyond, 32 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1085, 1141 (2001) (“[T]he scientific community is in agreement that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception.”).

Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”Klasing, supra note 39, at 974 (quoting E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)).


French geneticist Dr. Jerome L. LeJeune testified before a United States Senate subcommittee in 1981: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

Id. at 10 (statement of Dr. Jerome L. LeJeune, University Rene Descartes). Dr. LeJeune
further testified:

“But when does a person begin? I will try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science. Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are united to their progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of the female cell—the ovum—by the male cell—the spermatozoa—that a new member emerges.”

“Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning—the moment of its conception.”

“Even more impressive, during the maturation of the reproductive cells, the genetic information is reshuffled in so many ways that each conceptus receives an entirely original combination which has never occurred before and will never again. Each conceptus is unique and thus irreplaceable.”

“In his life capsule, the amniotic bag, the early being is just as viable as an astronaut on the Moon in his space suit. Refueling with vital fluids is required from the mother ship. ”

“At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb’s length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there—hands, feet, head, organs, brain—all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already. Looking closely, you would see the palm creases, and a fortune teller would read the good adventure of that tiny person. With a good magnifier, the finger prints could be detected. Every document is available for a national identity card.”

That the “offspring of human parents cannot reasonably be considered to be [something] other than a human being” was also recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (Mass. 1984).

“This] is the first time I have found myself having to argue the unarguable. I have never encountered in my reading of the scientific literature—long before I became concerned with abortion, euthanasia, and so on—anyone who has argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception or that it was not a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, there has been no argument about these matters.” The Human Life Bill, supra note 42, at 21 (statement of Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic).