When does life begin? That question has divided abortion supporters and opponents for decades.
But now, some 6,000 biologists that participated in a year-long academic study appear to have provided their own stark answer: At conception.
The author of the new study, Steve Jacobs, a newly-minted PhD at the University of Chicago’s School of Comparative Human Development, has begun promoting the idea that the weight of scientific medical evidence supports the central claim of the nation’s anti-abortion movement.
It’s not quite true but it makes for great headlines.
Jacobs’ article summarizing the results of his survey was just published on the website of the online commentary magazine Quillete. It was also reproduced on the Real Clear Politics web site, which guarantees it wide circulation.
Jacob’s survey was a companion study to his dissertation, entitled Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate. For the companion study, Jacobs contacted biologists across the country by email and asked them to reply to a set of open-ended questions about reproduction and pregnancy.
Cleverly, Jacobs structured his survey questions in as scientific a manner as possible – and never suggested that results had any political or policy implications.
For example, one section of his survey prompted respondents to review and comment upon a series of scientific descriptions of the “fertilization” process.
One such description read: “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.”
In their open-ended responses, 96% of the biologists appeared to affirm the view that human life indeed begins with “fertilization” – in effect, at “conception.”
But when Jacobs told the same biologists that his survey also “relates to the controversial public debate surrounding abortion,” many of them sent him hostile messages, questioning his objectivity.
“I did respond to, and fill in the survey, but am concerned about the tenor of the questions,” one biologist wrote. “It seemed like a thinly-disguised effort to make biologists take a stand on issues that could be used to advocate for or against abortion.”
“Sorry this looks like it’s more a religious survey to be used to misinterpret by radicals to advertise about the beginning of life and not a survey about what faculty know about biology,” said another.
A third was even blunter: “Is this a study funded by Trump and the Ku Klux Klan?”
Critics of the study say it doesn’t really answer the question of whether a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy. In practice, that’s often a question of balancing the life of the mother against the life of her developing fetus.
Moreover, the biologists contacted weren’t actually commenting on the quality of life of a fertilized egg. Is it a baby, or a baby-to-be? Is the developing embryo even a fetus?
Still, in Jacobs’ view, the biologists’ answers seem to tilt the abortion debate toward those that argue that embryonic mammalian life is “human.” In theory, destroying that embryo means destroying “human” life. To abortion opponents, that’s horrifying – indeed, immoral.
Jacobs’ study comes at a time as many states are debating whether to revise the Roe v. Wade standard of the first trimester of pregnancy as the legal cut-off point for a woman’s right to an abortion.
Some states are trying to reduce that period from 24 to 20 or even 15 weeks based on more recent medical evidence that a fetus might survive outside the womb at an earlier date than once believed. Other states have tried to introduce a “heartbeat” law that would preserve the life of a fetus almost since its inception.
Jacobs’ study might be used as fodder to support these laws, suggesting that the nation’s biologists actually support them. Arguably, though, the study merely re-states the obvious: a fertilized egg is a “life form.”
That doesn’t mean it mean it has legal rights – or “personhood” — on par with those of the mother.
Roe v. Wade largely sidestepped the theological and moral issues raised by abortion. On the one hand, as long as a fetus could not survive on its own outside the womb, it was not yet a “baby,” but a part of the mother’s body, the Supreme Court reasoned in its historic 5-4 decision.
Furthermore, decisions regarding its status were to be made by the mother in consultation with her physician and would be protected under federal privacy law, the Court said.
At the same time, the Court pointedly rejected the argument that women had an “unconditional” right to an abortion. After the first trimester, other factors, including the rights of the developing fetus and its father and the “interests of society,” might well come into play, the Court argued.
Many involved in the abortion debate feel that revisiting Roe v. Wade may be long overdue. While abortion opponents want to roll back the law, some abortion supporters would like to see a more forceful defense of abortion as a basic legal right.
Jacobs’ study, while seemingly dispositive, or least consequential on its face, won’t actually resolve this debate. But then again, probably nothing will.
96% of biologists agree that human life begins at conception. Our Declaration of Independence declares “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
Parsing words like personhood does not make a human life and less than a human life. Stop murdering human lives for the convenience.
?
Back peddling only began with politics. The answer to the fertilisation question was not disputed as to fact.
Chambers defines the unborn child as human, human as of humanity and the Nuremberg trials supplied us with crimes against humanity, specifically with reference to selecting classes of humanity for extinction, just as with abortion.
96% of biologists agreed that fertilisation was the first stage of the human life cycle. Without it, no humanity: we all pass through that stage. It is fatuous thinking to digress from the science of embryology and pretend there is a convenience cut off age.
It has nothing to do with viability outside the womb. In my eyes my son was not viable until he graduated as an engineer.
Balancing the life of the foetus ( little one in Latin) against that of the mother is more fatuity. British doctors have been free to declare their abortions to save a woman’s life for decades. They have done so 4 times in ten years per national statistics, while 2 million other abortions took place. Woman’s health or life is a 500,000 to 1 lie.
A different blood circulation and heartbeat are now detectable before a woman knows she is pregnant. “My body, my choice” is an unscientific lie to justify killing someone else.
^The law of non personhood is another obsolete fatuous lie ignoring modern science.
The quality of life is a semantic argument for the benefit of the convenience killer. I would not like such judgements made of me while asleep or in a coma.
Sorry,(why?) this looks more like a religious survey to be used to misinterpret by radicals and not what faculty knows about biology. There are 2000 years of the Christian religion, the Bible is the best classical literature we have in terms of literary criticism, i.e nearness to events and external corroboration and miracles continue to this day. Sneer at God at your peril, but it’s not my judgement call.
No misinterpretation here: biological questions were asked and answered.If you don’t like their obvious implication don’t start on leftist smear tactics.
“Arguably the study merely restates the obvious: a fertilised egg is a life form”
Exactly so, it is a human being, not a blob of tissue or the products of pregnancy or any other lying cant.
If you didn’t want a baby then you should be on something. Life is not a Russian rulet game. We also have lots of people who want baby’s.
Of course life begins at conception. The fetus could not grow if it was not alive. How tall does a blade of grass have to be before we consider it alive? After we die and are no longer alive we no longer continue to grow. You don’t need to be a scientist to realize this. It is just common sense. Those who deny the life of a fetus are sadly admitting they have no common sense. Do we want leaders of our country who have no common sense?
More to the point: if either the egg or sperm is”dead” there is No Conception!!! Period. LIFE is there before conception and the DNA each carries is HUMAN DNA!!! Any additional proviso is irrelevant to the fact that ONLY LIFE BEGETS LIFE! and further Human life begets human life!
I’m not a bible reader or have any interest in reading it but I was told that in the bible it states that a new born baby does not have a sole until it takes its first breath of air and is living on its own. I wonder if that would have anything to do with a woman’s right to abortion.
Please note that if my wife got pregnant we would not abort unless and only if a health issue came about with my wife or fetus. My wife’s life comes first. That’s the problem I have with these “Right to life” people. It’s a woman’s body and she is the only one that has the right to decide. No judge, no cop, no crazy religion with there make believe stories.
Biologists, Scientists, & Democrats…..Evidently know nothing about what God says about human babies, & birthing…..Supreme Court, has handed down a multi-million death sentence for Human Babies……Doesn’t make that right! Democrats, fight to protect illegal alien babies. but kill American babies? How is that explained? How is that “RIGHT?”
Which proves something that seems to be prevalent in the scientific community. In their so-called scientific conclusions they are very likely qualifying their final analysis according to political or societal trends!? Is that scientific at all? Scientists and News persons are letting us down in a big way by taking political sides instead of getting at and reporting the truth!!
We now all know or should now know that an in-utero developing embryo, pre-baby, humenoid, or full fledged human has a beating heart at 8 weeks after conception and at 12 weeks has the fully developed appearance of a 3 inch long baby, and moves around, swallows, etc. That is definitely a live whatever you want to call it. Rather than overthrow R vs W, leave it alone, but by federal law, equip all (pre-) mothers with this knowledge, via ultrasound and an explanation by a medical professional what their developing baby looks like. Then explain what abortion actually is anytime after about 6 weeks: traumatic dismemberment, and crushing of head, abdomen, and thorax, thus killing the developing living being. Then the developing mother could make her decision and it would stand as it does today. Probably many would have second thoughts and to choose to continue her pregnancy, but that should be an informed decision. We cannot legislate Morality, nor should we, as it would make our country even more divided than it is today. Let’s face it folks, the “me too”, women’s rights, LGBTQ, and abortion rights movements are the basis of the Democratic vs Republican arguments, and we must all sit down and compromise, with a full understanding of what we are discussing, and it’s ramifications for all.