Wesley J. Smith clarifies for those confused:
The anti-science liberals are denying again that human life begins with the completion of fertilization (without getting into an arcane debate of the exact moment that process is completed).
Thomas Edsall uses his NYT column to mock that embryology truth. From, “The Republican Conception of Conception:”
Fifteen percent of the Republican presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Carla Fiorina contend life begins at conception.
So do embryology text books. As I have written here and elsewhere before, the science notes that once conception is complete, a new human individual organism has come into existence, with its own distinct genetic makeup, a determined sex, etc. Here’s just one quote from such a text:
Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male. (p. 2); … but the embryo begins to develop as soon as the oocyte is fertilized. (p. 2); …
Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
That’s the science. And if we are to be “pro-science,” accuracy in biology must inform our policy positions. When “life” begins is a different question from when “pregnancy” begins. Edsall notes that the government and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (as ideological as scientific) claim pregnancy begins on implantation. [more . . .]
Ramesh Ponnuru offers additional commentary:
Wesley, that Edsall item was actually much better than the last article of his on the right to life that came up in the Corner. You are of course correct that he is playing a silly word game. He also seems to be trying to trap pro-life politicians by getting them either to come out for prohibiting IUDs and the morning-after pill or to retreat from the conviction that human lives should be protected from conception onward. But there’s no reason to choose either alternative. There’s a moral difference between acts that may cause death, on the one hand, and acts that definitely cause death and are intended to do so, on the other.
Edsall says he sent Republican presidential candidates these questions: “Does X believe that life begin at the moment the egg is fertilized? Or does he/she believe life begins when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall (implantation)? Does he/she believe use of the intrauterine device (IUD) results some or all of the time in abortion? Does he/she believe the morning after pill results in abortion?” My own answers would be: “Yes; no; sometimes; sometimes; and in answer to your implied question, no, I don’t think it follows that IUDs or the morning-after pill should be prohibited, but I do think it would be helpful for further research to be done so as to shed more light on the possible effects of various forms of contraception.”