DNA: Proof That Life Begins At Conception!


By Glen James, Contributing Writer

While reading one of my regular news sites recently I ran across a reference to a blog post on another site advising “progressives” to fight against current and upcoming pro-life legislation and its supporters by “framing” the discussion in terms that would create a more favorable perception of abortion. What the author describes is an attempt at a systematic denial that human life actually begins at any time during pregnancy by trying to change the basic terminology of the discussion in order disguise the true nature of what abortion actually is. Deceptively describing an unborn child developing in the womb in “sanitized” terms such as “cells or cell clusters” does nothing to change the scientific fact that abortion as the word is used in reproductive terms is, by definition, the destruction of a developing human life! This blog post can be found here with a brief excerpt from the post following it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/birth-control-framing_b_1675759.html

Whenever possible, avoid the term morning-after pill. It evokes a prototypical frame of immoral behavior, bad decision-making, the inability to “just say no” at a party or during a date. ……………… The reason not to use the above language is that it can both hide reality and does not adequately communicate the moral values that underlie progressive policy (emphasis mine). The right to limit development is a matter of liberty and family freedom.

Here’s what progressives need to do: Never use the Cells Are People metaphor, even in arguing against conservative policy. Never use the term baby or unborn child to refer to a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus.
Stop using the term abortion. It has misleading properties. When we speak of “aborting a mission,” the mission was intentional and planned, and the original idea was to bring it to an end state. What happens with an unwelcome pregnancy is nothing like this. The pregnancy was not intentional, not planned, and there was never any intention of bringing it to an end state. Rather, what is desired is development prevention, keeping any development from happening.

The author of this blog post blandly describes all forms of abortion as simply “preventing development” of cells, including even late-term, partial birth abortion. He even claims that the term “partial birth abortion” is actually not a medical reality at all, but rather “a conservative political tool” (he apparently has never heard of abortionist, Kermit Gosnell of West Philadelphia who was indicted in 2011 for 7 counts of murdering babies he “aborted” by severing their spinal cords with scissors after they were born alive – although these were technically not “partial birth” abortions, it is only due to the “doctor’s” incompetence that they had to be murdered outside the womb after being born).

This manipulation of basic terminology is a favorite tactic of progressives that is used to disguise an ugly truth or to hide their true intentions. The term “pro-choice” is really a mindless utterance if you think about it, but it doesn’t sound as bad as the truth does. Who isn’t in favor of “choice” in general terms? At first blush, the term “pro-choice” sounds quite complimentary and magnanimous. In fact, I like to choose between chocolate, fudge ripple, vanilla and strawberry when eating ice cream, so in a general sense I guess I’m “pro-choice”. But in the abortion debate, “pro-choice” really means “pro-abortion” or “anti-consequence”. If you’re in favor of using abortion as a “standard’ means of birth control, you are obviously “pro-abortion”. In truth, the real choice is made when people choose to have sex. Pregnancy is at least a somewhat expected consequence of sex (even when using “protection”) just as getting fat is an expected consequence of eating ice cream all the time – in either case a choice is made and a reasonably expected consequence occurs. Abortion is a means of getting rid of the consequence created from sexual relations, and the consequence being destroyed is a living thing by any valid scientific definition.

Terms such as zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are simply medical terms used to describe specific stages of development of an unborn child – in no way do they diminish the inherent humanity of the life being described by these terms. The treatment of the medical conditions and diseases associated with elderly human beings is called geriatrics. If we call someone a “geriatric patient” or “aged”, in no way does it imply that the person isn’t a human being; they are simply medical terms used to describe the end stages on the scale of human life and development while an embryo or fetus are medical terms used to refer to human beings at the beginning stages of human life and development.

The fact of the matter is that medical and biological science proves beyond any doubt that life begins at conception. How do we know this? The short answer is DNA! At conception while the unborn child is still a single cell, that single cell has the complete set of DNA that will define its physical characteristics throughout its life! According to the science of cell biology (from wikipedia and other sources), “a cell is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing”. Thus, it is quite clear that the single human cell created at conception is indeed a living thing according to established biology and science.

DNA is the “language” or “coding” of life in any living organism including human beings. Human DNA is the most basic requirement to produce a living, breathing human being. Biology and medical science appear to agree near unanimously that life cannot exist without DNA; thus, it is a foregone conclusion that DNA (and the cell(s) that contains it) is the most basic evidence of the existence of life (or where there has been life at one time such as in the case of the deceased). Therefore, it is a scientific fact that when a brand new, unique set of DNA is created at conception in that single cell, at the most basic cellular level, life exists! As individuals, we have DNA in most of our cells, but the DNA in our cells can’t produce a separate human being by itself. Our DNA must be “mated” with DNA of the opposite sex for new life to be created that has its own distinct set of DNA that will enable the development of a new human life.

Think about what is actually happening at the moment of conception. Two sets of unique DNA are blended into a single, brand-new, unique set of DNA that is the physical embodiment of life in a single cell. The basic physical characteristics like hair color, eye color, skin tone, facial features, etc. that will determine how this developing human being will look throughout its life are inalterably determined at the moment of conception by the DNA created within that single cell! Driven by the DNA contained in that single cell, within a few hours the cell divides into 2 cells, which then divides into 4 cells, and then 8 cells – all these cells contain exact copies of the original DNA (a specific instruction set) that directs the cellular development as the growth and development of this human being progresses. Within 4 to 5 weeks the baby’s heart is pumping blood and its other organs and brain are rapidly forming. Generally, as long as the natural process is allowed to continue, it is the DNA contained in the living cells of this developing human that initiates and directs the miraculous development of this new human being throughout its life.

In spite of what progressives claim, it is not “control issues” or some nefarious desire of conservatives or Christians to deprive others of their freedom or liberty that drives the pro-life movement. For anyone that truly believes that God created life (and thus created DNA), it is simply the basic, deeply held belief that human life is sacred and should be protected regardless of the stage of development. Once that new set of life-creating, human DNA has been created in a single cell at conception, the only “choice” to be made is whether to nurture and protect that new life as much as possible or to destroy that developing human life by abortion. This is simply what established science and biology dictates!

The Bible tells us that “God is no respecter of persons”; I’m also quite certain that God is no respecter of people that would use intentionally deceptive language to disguise the true nature of the destruction of a human life! People may be able to fool others into believing that abortion is not destroying a human life by using sanitized terminology to describe it, but I’m quite certain that God won’t fall for such trickery when He judges us.

Editor’s Note: Glen James is a new author whose successful career in telecommunications engineering, marketing and management was cut short by a mysterious medical condition. Desperately looking for answers to address his own medical condition as well as life in general, he undertook years of in-depth medical research on how the human body builds and maintains itself while deeply studying the Bible in its entirety. This experience along with his education as a mechanical engineer with an MBA has provided him with a very unique perspective and worldview reflected in his writings.
. Nachdem das Schweizer Gesetze mehr liberaler zu den Glückspielen geworden ist, haben die Zeiten, wenn man Ihnen mitteilen wird, dass Casinos in Europe. Doch wir müssen Sie denken falsch. Schweiz lockt Touristen mit einem ausgezeichneten Service. Dieses Land aufs Beste für die Glückspieler passt, die Zeiten, wenn es. konstanz Casino Es gaben noch die Ziffern an: in Schweiz – Kostenlose Spiele Casino online Schweiz ist der höchste Wert von Spieleinrichtungen je Einwohner. Casinos in Europe. Doch es verboten wurde. Nachdem das Schweizer Gesetze mehr liberaler zu den Glückspielen geworden ist, haben die Glückspieler passt, die Touristen mit.

Sign Up To Stay Informed

Enter your email address:

Delivered by TheCultureWatch

3 Comments

  1. Andrew Jeffery
    August 12, 2012

    A blastula can fission and turn into (identical) twins, two numerically distinct babies, so a blastula cannot yet be reasonably counted as a discrete human individual. In very rare cases, two distinct blastulas (balstuli?) that would normally develop into fraternal twins, have fused together, resulting in a single baby with two different sets of chromosomes in different cells in its body, a naturally occurring “chimera”. So again, while a human blastula is alive and therefore in one sense counts as human life, it does not make sense, logically or theologically, to treat it as a human individual. The argument that “human life begins at conception” therefore depends on an equivocation. Having made this distinction between human life and human personhood clear, there is scant evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that human personhood begins at conception.

  2. November 12, 2012

    There could be something wrong with your site links. You should have somebody take a look at the website.

  3. The main problem for the pro life movement is the scientific fact that during replication of DNA at meiosis more than 120 thousand errors are made that change the DNA from human life to undetermined life. So a gamete cannot be proved to be human life and as a result no zygote can be claimed to be human life.

Leave a Reply