Latest from The Conservative Mom

Does Life Begin At Conception? What Biologists Have To Say

When does life really begin?

Supporters and opponents of abortion rights have been debating this question for decades. Now, some 6,000 biologists appear to have provided a stark answer:  Conception.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

The author of the new study, Steve Jacobs, a newly-minted Ph.D. 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.

True or not it sure 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 its 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 I 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 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.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

About Stewart L

Stewart Lawrence is a trained sociologist and political scientist and a regular columnist for the Washington Times and the Federalist. He is also a former feature contributor to Inside Philanthropy, Counterpunch and the Huffington Post. In 2012 and 2016, he covered the US presidential election campaign for the conservative news magazine Daily Caller. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor and Washington Post. He is currently working on a book about the politics of US immigration policy.

2 comments

  1. Norman Hinderliter

    I have the easiest solution, for this entire “mess”.

    The day I was born, my parents received a screaming infant, and a record, which stated the place, doctor, exact minute, time, date, and so on.

    This information is true, accurate and NOT disputable.

    Anti-choice is determined to override this, by claiming that “Life Begins at Conception”.

    Now, can anyone imagine a birth certificate which states “This child was conceived SOME-time between March 15, and April 10, and conception MAY have occurred either in the back seat, of a car, or a parents bedroom, sometime between midnight, and sun-rise.”

    Personally, I like to deal with facts.

    For example, at my height, I am comfortable on a 26 inch bicycle. This is why, if someone tries to SELL me a bicycle, my first question is “Is it a 26 inch?” If they say “Its somewhere near there”, I walk away.

    I like hard core, PROVEN facts. Facts like my wrist watch showing me when I am early, for meetings, versus being late.

    This is why I believe that we should STAY with the standard Certificate of Live Birth. This document is in-disputable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
x

Check Also

When Did Touching Become So Touchy?

Even though touch is a basic human need – along with sight, hearing, smell, and ...

3 Reasons You Should Not Be A WAHM

These days, moms are practically expected to have a side hustle. Many of us want ...

Extended Paid Maternity Leave is Bad for Families

I am a mom of three young kids. I worked full-time from home when my ...

Nevada Banned Pre-Employment Drug Tests

Nevada, home to fast money and loose women, made U.S. history earlier this year by ...

Eat Sushi – Risk Tapeworms

“Sushi lover’s entire body left riddled with WORMS after eating contaminated sashimi,” the Daily Mail headline ...