lifenews.com
2024-07-30
With all that we know, it's hard to believe that pro-abortionists still cling to the notion that either (a) life does not begin at conception, or (b) at least it's an open question. In fact, it is open: open and shut.
Which is why Richard Paulson's commentary, "Why life doesn't begin at conception" [https://www.everand.com/article/363088761/Why-Life-Doesn-t-Begin-At-Conception] is embarrassing on so many different level.
Paulson, among other things, is a past president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. So, he's obviously no dummy, yet he argues a position that is almost comically indefensible.
Before I go any further, it's important to understand that the go-to argument for pro-abortionists always is a variation of the idea that pro-life positions are (by definition) "religious" as opposed to "scientific." The all-purpose slur-"junk science" -is trotted out to persuade the reader that the case against pro-lifers has been made, as if name-calling is the highest form of Socratic dialogue.
But, as we will see, the case that life begins at conception is not "our" case but the conclusions of embryology.