The Facts of Science Prove That Each Human Life Begins at Fertilization

On Wednesday December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson. This case involves a Mississippi law that limits abortion to 15 “weeks’ gestation except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”

During the hearing, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart defended the law by asserting that the State of Mississippi has an interest in preventing “the purposeful termination of a human life,” but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged him and declared:

How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view.

Contrary to Sotomayor and regardless of what any philosopher or religious leader may think, the facts of science are clear that each human life begins at fertilization. As documented below, these facts are from credible science publications that don’t argue for or against abortion. In other words, they are not polemics from people with science degrees but facts from neutral scientific authorities.

The American Heritage Dictionary of Science—which was written by nine highly credentialed scientists under a “precise editorial review” to maintain “a standard of excellence”—defines “life” as:

the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.

Those four defining characteristics of life are all present during or soon after fertilization, which occurs when a sperm and egg unite to form a zygote, or the earliest stage of a human embryo:

1. Growth:
   

1. Reproduction:
   

1. Metabolism:
   

1. Response to stimuli:
   

Nor is a zygote just a form of human life like a skin cell. It is an actual human life. As explained in Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”

In keeping with the facts above, clinical literature is explicit that each new human life begins at fertilization:

• The Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Allied Health states that “human reproduction” is “the process by which the male’s sperm unites with the female’s oocyte, creating a new life.”
  

• The embryology textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects states that “the zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”
  

• The medical textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology states that “fertilization” creates “a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents,” and this “is the beginning of a new human being.”
  

• The clinical book An Atlas of the Human Embryo and Fetus: A Photographic Review of Human Prenatal Development states, “A human being originates from two living cells: the oocyte (female germ cell) and the spermatozoon (male germ cell), transmitting the torch of life to the next generation.”
  

Although controversial from a political perspective, the scientific facts of embryology, genetics, and molecular biology leave no doubt as to when each human life begins—fertilization.


https://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-facts-of-science-prove-that-each-human-life-begins-at-fertilization

That is sort of intuitive. Turtle and Piping Plover eggs are off limits. For some reason they are more than "just a cluster of cells". Boy did I find that out. I was gathering P.P. eggs to make omelets, takes about 18 per omelet......... I thought I was being arrested for selling firearms to convicts.

And "fertilization " tends to occur about 1 hour after happy hour

Democrats only use "science" when they can twist it to support murder, rights violations and lockdowns.

https://uncanceled.news/pfizer-knew-its-mrna-vaccine-for-covid-leaked-into-ovaries-but-covered-it-all-up/

like this. ^

covid vaxx leaks into ovaries...pfizer knew this. Population control.

To my mind, the question has always been at what point are they viable and able to exist on their own. But that said, other issues have grown much larger and very serious, overriding of the mother's consideration to have the baby or not if what she does has an impact on the course of society in the future. That's my opinion. I still think it's too complicated to assume they'll be making monsters to sell at Wal-Mart any time soon.

I suggest that the people directly involved start coming up with answers to the profound questions they are raising as they forge ahead at full steam.

But no, what they will do is dump on others, then blame them for not doing anything.

I can't take them seriously, though I know damn well that at some point they will be whining "but you said, but you said ..." while they get rich subverting the very miracles that belong to God alone. They are so far gone, that doesn't bother me either. Never has.

If the "Vaccine" turns out to be another Thalidomide, what are the financial, social and emotional consequences? Will the courts basically tell the millions who did what they were told to pound sand? Who pays? Where does the money come from?

If a child is born with defects caused by the "Vaccine", will that be covered-up? Will it be reported? Who pays for the millions in healthcare that the child will need over the course of their life? What about the financial burdens that are put on the family of a child with defects? Will it all be denied, swept under the rug and scuttled as "conspiracy theory"? "Misinformation"? "Inaccuracies"?

The liability waiver that medical personnel demand prior to the "Vaccine", will it hold up in court? What about willful negligence? Medical malpractice? Chain of custody issues?

Lummy wrote:To my mind, the question has always been at what point are they viable and able to exist on their own. But that said, other issues have grown much larger and very serious, overriding of the mother's consideration to have the baby or not if what she does has an impact on the course of society in the future. That's my opinion. I still think it's too complicated to assume they'll be making monsters to sell at Wal-Mart any time soon.

The problem is who determines who is "viable and able to exist on their own"? For example there are adults who are not able to "exist" without medical intervention. The left would use your definition to justify abortion, euthanasia and a whole host of other things that are preposterous, ridiculous and illogical. The end result would allow the left to use them to go after any and all political opponents.

Lummy wrote:To my mind, the question has always been at what point are they viable and able to exist on their own. But that said, other issues have grown much larger and very serious, overriding of the mother's consideration to have the baby or not if what she does has an impact on the course of society in the future. That's my opinion. I still think it's too complicated to assume they'll be making monsters to sell at Wal-Mart any time soon.

Should retarded and the mentally impaired people be able to reproduce,

A big NO!,

And poor people of low intellect are a burden as well in progressive countries ,as the are given incentives to have more children and the rest of us subsidise them . ?