The following post, by Wesley J. Smith on the human exceptionalism section of the National Review website, exposes the degree to which liberals will go to advance their agenda of promoting the right to kill unborn children. This sort of thinking is nothing new. The direct denial of the established scientific facts on when human life begins is increasingly been promoted by scientists with a hidden agenda. Reads…
Utter drivel. The left is trying to prove the GOP to be “anti-science.” As part of that effort, Amanda Marcotte, writing in Salon, makes another in the ongoing attempts among liberal media types to disprove the truth of Mark Rubio’s assertion that human life begins at fertilization—-which is what Rubio meant when using the popular term, “conception.”
And just as the others, she actually undermines the very meaning of “science” that she purports to defend.
Stating that a new human life begins at fertilization is basic embryology. But Marcotte sniffs that this biological fact is “anti science.From her piece:
The claim that “human life” begins at conception is not one asserted by science, but by religion, as many religions believe that’s when God injects a soul into a human body. But science is pretty clear that, by the scientific and not religious definition of “life,” life does not begin with conception. In order for life to begin, it has to be non-life turning into life. Since both the sperm and egg are alive, by the measure of science, it’s not life beginning. It’s really just life continuing.
Good grief. Souls have nothing to do with the biological question. She’s the one bringing in religion, not Rubio.