Bioethics, Biology, Law, recent

I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular

Shortly after being awarded my Ph.D. by the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development this year, I found myself in a minor media whirlwind. I was interviewed by The Daily Wire, The College Fix, and Breitbart. I appeared on national television and on a widely syndicated radio program. All of this interest had been prompted by a working paper associated with my dissertation, which was entitled Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate.

As discussed in more detail below, I reported that both a majority of pro-choice Americans (53%) and a majority of pro-life Americans (54%) would support a comprehensive policy compromise that provides entitlements to pregnant women, improves the adoption process for parents, permits abortion in extreme circumstances, and restricts elective abortion after the first trimester. However, members of the media were mostly interested in my finding that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.

It was the reporting of this view—that human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are biological humans—that created such a strong backlash. It was not unexpected, as the finding provides fodder for conservative opponents of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court had suggested there was no consensus on “the difficult question of when life begins” and that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, [was] not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

* * *

The U.S. abortion debate has raged for generations, and remains divisive to this day. As a lawyer, mediator and researcher, I sought to assess whether there is room for compromise. I believed that such an approach could help Americans on both sides develop a shared understanding of the main issues—particularly surrounding the question of when life begins. My approach was similar to that implemented by Yale Professor Dan Kahan in his 2003 gun-control debate manifesto, in which he declared his objective as “not to take any particular position on gun control but instead to take issue with the terms in which the gun control debate is cast.” I was being idealistic, yes, but this approach was not without precedent.

“This dissertation seeks to explain why the abortion debate persists and whether it can be resolved,” I wrote in my dissertation’s introduction. “While the U.S. Supreme Court was able to end the national segregation controversy with its holding in Brown v. Board [of Education], the Court has twice failed to end the national abortion controversy [in the landmark Supreme Court cases of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992]. The controversy has been resilient for decades, and it grows as some states pass laws to ban abortions throughout pregnancy, and other states legalize abortion throughout pregnancy. [T]his dissertation aims to understand whether the national controversy surrounding abortion is trivial or insurmountable.”

I employed a theoretical approach that was recently codified by graduates from my department: “[A] proposal to have a synthetic approach to social psychological research, in which qualitative methods are augmentative to quantitative ones, qualitative methods can be generative of new experimental hypotheses, and qualitative methods can capture experiences that evade experimental reductionism.” In practice, this meant going back and forth between qualitative and quantitative methods, leading in-person mediations with small groups, reviewing literature, and conducting surveys of Americans and the experts whose opinions they respected. My research timeline was roughly as follows, with each step being guided by what I already had learned from the previous steps:

  • I led discussions between pro-choice and pro-life law students. Little progress was made because both sides were caught up with the factual question of when life begins.
  • I surveyed thousands of Americans using Amazon’s MTurk service. I found that most Americans believe that the question of “when life begins” is an important aspect of the U.S. abortion debate (82%); that most believe Americans deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to give informed consent to abortion procedures (76%); and that most Americans believe a human’s life is worthy of legal protection once it begins (93%). Respondents also were asked: “Which group is most qualified to answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” They were presented with several options—biologists, philosophers, religious leaders, Supreme Court Justices and voters. Eighty percent selected biologists, and the majority explained that they chose biologists because they view them as objective experts in the study of life.
  • I consulted with biologists, including a female University of Chicago Ph.D. genetics student; a female University of Chicago Ph.D. graduate; and a male professor—the biology expert in my department, who later served on my dissertation committee.
  • I reviewed aggregated lists of biologists’ views in this area, studied the opinions of experts who testified before a 1981 Senate Committee on a Human Life Amendment, and the 2005 South Dakota Abortion Task Force. I also reviewed polls of Americans’ views on the question of when life begins.
  • Since these sources suggested the most common view was that a human’s life begins at fertilization, I designed a survey to understand biologists’ assessment of that view. I emailed surveys to professors in the biology departments of over 1,000 institutions around the world.
  • As the usable responses began to come in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%).

These data were not as surprising as some might imagine. Philosophers such as Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thomson have outlined abortion defenses that recognize a fetus’ humanity, while also rejecting the argument that fetuses have rights, or arguing that a pregnant person’s right to abort supersedes a fetus’ right to life. Unfortunately, that did not stop some academics from being angered by the very idea of being asked about the ontogenetic starting point of a human’s life. Some of the e-mails I received included notes such as:

  • “Is this a studied fund by Trump and ku klux klan?”
  • “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!”
  • “This is some stupid right to life thing…YUCK I believe in RIGHT TO CHOICE!!!!!!!”
  • “The actual purpose of this ‘survey’ became very clear. I will do my best to disseminate this info to make sure that none of my naïve colleagues fall into this trap.”
  • “Sorry this looks like its more a religious survey to be used to misinterpret by radicals to advertise about the beginning of life and not a survey about what faculty know about biology. Your advisor can contact me.”
  • “I did respond to and fill in the survey, but am concerned about the tenor of the questions. It seemed like a thinly-disguised effort to make biologists take a stand on issues that could be used to advocate for or against abortion.”
  • “The relevant biological issues are obvious and have nothing to do with when life begins. That is a nonsense position created by the antiabortion fanatics. You have accepted the premise of a fanatic group of lunatics. The relevant issues are the health cost carrying an embryo to term can impose on a woman’s body, the cost they impose on having future children, and the cost that raising a child imposes on a woman’s financial status.”

Given those responses, one might suspect that I had asked loaded questions such as: “Since the human life cycle begins at conception, isn’t abortion tantamount to murder?” But I didn’t. I asked an open-ended question to ensure that respondents were able to fully express their views on when life begins. Moreover, I asked respondents to assess the following elements of the view that “a human’s life begins at fertilization”:

  • “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.”
  • “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
  • “A mammal’s life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete unites with a female gamete to form a single cell called a zygote.”
  • “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human’s life, since that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop in the first stage of the human life cycle.”
  • “From a biological perspective, a zygote that has a human genome is a human because it is a human organism developing in the earliest stage of the human life cycle.”

After assessing the above statements and answering an essay question, the respondent biologists were then told that the survey “relates to the controversial public debate surrounding abortion.” It was at this point in the procedure that I received hostile responses, some of which are excerpted above.

In my dissertation, I proposed three possible motivations for these hostile reactions:

  • Motivated Reasoning: Respondents experience cognitive dissonance when they recognize that their view of a fetus as a human complicates their political convictions in regard to abortion policy.
  • Cultural Cognition: Respondents fear that public recognition of the scientific views they are expressing could lead to other people supporting abortion restrictions.
  • Identity-Protective Cognition: Respondents fear that expressing their views may serve to estrange them from pro-choice liberals, on whom they might rely for social, emotional, or financial support.

I understand the subject of my research might have political ramifications. But, as neuroscientist Maureen Condic has noted, “establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins.” Yet the reception to my research suggests that many are going to ignore my findings out of fear of political repercussions.

I have concluded that one of the biggest reasons the abortion debate can’t be bridged is mistrust. I think this is primarily due to the stakes being so high for both sides. One side sees abortion rights as critical to gender equality, while the other sees abortion as an epic human rights tragedy—as over a billion humans have died in abortions since the year 2000.

Despite the one-sided stance of the majority of 2020 presidential candidates, my research indicates that Americans on both sides agree that the nation’s abortion laws should both ensure some abortion access while also providing some protections for humans in the womb. Indeed, I found that a majority of both pro-choice and pro-life Americans supported a compromise that restricted access after the first trimester of pregnancy, as described at the outset of this essay. This combination of policies is quite similar to the law of the land in many of the most socially liberal countries of Europe, which tend to balance abortion rights with fetal rights.

In my research, I was not advocating for such a compromise. However, advancing my own preferred outcome was not the point of my academic project. My goal was to use my training to establish common ground, learn whether a compromise was possible, and report on the most likely form such a compromise might take. An important takeaway is that both sides do agree on the arbiters of the question of when life begins.

While the justices in Roe could not answer the difficult question of when life begins, the U.S. Supreme Court might well revisit this question in the future. The Court can trust the uncensored viewpoints of biologists and acknowledge that scientific experts affirm the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization—even if some would prefer that this fact be hidden from view.


Steve Jacobs Tweets at @drstevejacobs.

Featured image: Stop Abortion Bans Rally, St. Paul, Minnesota, May 21, 2019.


  1. Apparently the biologists didn’t have much to say on the subject.

  2. Excellent work Steve. As a moderate pro choicer which is a majority in most modern nations I deeply appreciate efforts ending this stalemate. Compromise is the only democratic & humane answer. Theocratic pockets exploiting enlightenment values & ignorance don’t count as democracies.
    Focusing on when life begins is not the be all. Life may begin at fertilization but person hood has always been the the point. It’s a bigger picture issue with many important considerations & using a biological technicality on it’s own doesn’t justify the value of that life.
    Value is relative, subjective & requires consistency to be taken seriously.
    The billions of pro life lobbying funds that could be otherwise invested in malnutrition & immunisation saves a hellava lot more ‘life’ but nary a whisper once they’re out of the womb. It seems all ‘life’ is not equal when convenient…

  3. The entire debate is that abortion is murdering babies. That’s it.

    Feminists rage at being characterized this way and scream that they’re not murdering babies, that a pregnancy is no more a part of a woman than her fingernail clippings. Personhood is always redefined to exclude the intended victim class. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court found that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the [Constitution], does not include the unborn.” Today, unborn babies are spoken of in dehumanizing terms: “embryo,” “fetus,” “products of conception,” etc. Of course it’s a human, but what they’re saying is that a woman being able to terminate her pregnancy is more important than being guilty of baby murder. It’s two priorities, and they choose their own side.

    Nothing remarkable there, it’s basic human tribalism. One sees the other face of this when the Afro-American community discovers that Planned Parenthood has disproportionately placed its abortion clinics in its neighborhoods. The USA is missing 2 million Afro-Americans, voters who could have flipped the last election to Hillary. The most hazardous place for Afro-Americans isn’t at the point of a police gun, it’s in the womb. For more on this viewpoint that I’m sure is unfamiliar to most Quillette readers please see and then browse around the rest of the site.

  4. My take on this is exactly the same as several other comments, when can a fetus be rationally called a human being. The best measurement for this, and the criteria for removing a comatose patient from life support, is brain activity, or the lack thereof. When I first seriously looked into this question on an objective intellectual basis, I found a pro-life debunking site that stated the first measurable sign of brain activity (contrary to some claims of 40 days), were around 110 days. In the interests of full disclosure I have since been unable to locate the site (it was 10 years ago, after all) and have seen other arguments that say that the fetus cannot feel pain until 24 weeks. However, I believe the original criteria of around 16 weeks is the more cautious standard.

    This also ties in with the American concept of Liberty, that of freedom, balanced by responsibility. Because if we concede that the woman necessarily has a right to control over her own body, then those rights should be bounded and balanced by those of the unborn fetus, at the point that it becomes measurably a human being. It we specifically state that the woman has the right to exercise control over her reproductive processes, then does she not also have a responsibility to exercise them in a timely fashion? 16 weeks should be the objective standard, for all instances in which the life of the woman is not at risk (excluding mental health grounds).

    If anyone can provide evidence of the earliest moment of measurable brain activity, then by all means contradict me.

  5. “then does she not also have a responsibility”

    One does not use that word in reference to wimin or spoiled, selfish, entitled little girls either. They have rights and that is all they have. There never will be some nice crisp demarcation line that the law can settle on as the boundary between human and not human nevertheless one must be found because that’s all there is. There are several possibilities and which ever is chosen, wiminz activists will not like it. Me, I like heartbeat because it’s as close to an objective and simple test as is available. They say that the test of any society is how well it protects the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are the unborn.

  6. From the article:

    Some of the e-mails [from academics] I received included notes such as:

    • “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!”

    I’m reminded of the fact that I seldom hear a white, middle class college professor say:

    “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing Jew!”

    “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing Muslim!”

    And I can’t remember ever seeing people holding signs at a protest that say: “Hindus Against Abortion!” I don’t really know how devout Hindus feel about abortion generally, but if they object, they’re being very low key about it.

    It still seems odd, though, that Christianity is really the only major faith system that is openly associated with anti-abortion activism at the legislative levels of government in the western world.

  7. Words have at least 2 modes of meaning: Denotation and Connotations. I put “Denotation” in the singular form because if you use the same sound or string of letters with two different denotations you have deployed two different words, commonly called homonyms. However, the connotations of a single word are diverse, dependent on context, and the linguistic experience of the person exercising comprehension over the communication. The abortion debate is utterly debased in its logic by the abuse of denotation in pursuit of connotation for the purpose of emotional persuasion.

    When does human life begin? Well, if you are a materialist who accepts the findings of the geologists and palaeontologists and the hypothesis of evolutionary descent of all living things from a common ancestor, then human life is just an evolved modification of the life of that original ancestor which existed at least 3.75 billion years ago. Think about it. Life does not begin with fertilization because the egg is already alive, as is the sperm, both being living cells derived from the living tissues of the parents. The life of the parents is continuous with the life of the grand parents and etc, back to the first living cell beginning its first mitosis. What is Life? If you are a materialist, Life is simply the organized liveliness of the atoms of which any living body is composed. There is no ghost within the machine.

    But perhaps you don’t mean, “When does human Life begin?” but rather, “When does an identifiably-distinct-from-all-other-human-lives human Life begin?”. Here, you call into question the denotation of the word “human”. And here, the war of connotation begins. Human beings shed living “human” cells all the time. No-one regards the death of an epithelial cell ejected in sputum as a moral catastrophe. The moral question posed by the practice of abortion turns on the use of “human” to denote a category of moral worth or value, not material process.

    So the question is not properly: When does human Life begin? It began long ago. The abortion issue is about whether, when, how, why and in what circumstances and at what sacrifice or expense a particular human life is worth preserving. That is a matter of moral judgement beginning with whatever is your basis for ascribing any value to human life at all.

    Since, thanks to Hume’s gap, there is no “scientific” or “empirical” observation or measurement which can assess the moral worth of anything; and therefor no objective procedure to which people can have resort to settle any particular question whether the worth of the life of the child exceeds the diminution in the worth of the life of the mother, either to herself, or to others about her, abortion libertarians take the moral position that so long as the human life in question is hosted within the body of another person, that other person should have idiosyncratic sole discretion as to whether that situation will be allowed to continue, and if not, how that situation will be brought to an end. Abortion libertarians also would grant to the host person the idiosyncratic sole discretion as to whether the hosted human life will be allowed to survive the process of excision. That is the situation which prevails in Canada at the present time.

    If you don’t like that conclusion, you need to explain why some other discretion should prevail. And do it with words of denotation which are capable of supporting an argument possessed of logical validity. Don’t just wave the adjective “human” around for its tacit connotation of “murder” when denoting the arbitrary termination of a “human” life.

  8. “It still seems odd, though, that Christianity”

    That’s because, of all religions except perhaps Buddhism, Christianity is the one that concerns itself with the plight of the weakest.

  9. I love how so many people claim pro-lifers, especially conservative pro-lifers, don’t care about the infant after birth. Many Christian Churches spend time, money and effort providing charity to children and women. They may not support government mandated “charity” but give freely on their own. You mention a variety of activities that you feel they could spend their money on. Well, they already are spending their money on those projects, in addition to their advocacy.

  10. At the end of the day, this conversation, like so many others, is hopelessly compromised by the left-wing refusal to distinguish active and passive behavior.

    The same logic that says that to NOT raise your taxes by $1,000 is equivalent to giving you a $1,000 gift rationalizes a host of other absurdities. Entitlements are cast as “rights”, terrible impositions on others are requirements of non-“bigotry”, up is down, black is white, and on and on it goes.

    And so it is that preventing the killing of a baby is described as a terrible imposition on its mother.

    It’s not an imposition. It’s the default. Just like not being taxes is the default. Just like not having your queer sexual fetish be praised by everyone in your community is the default. Just like not being murdered is the default.

    The default is not oppression. The default is not a gift. Only deviations from the default can be gifts or oppressions.

  11. A miscarriage is not even close to manslaughter. You have made this unsupported argument multiple times. Few if any people would ever charge a person for a natural occurrence.

  12. “Political terms such as “partial birth abortion” are manipulated into the norm where in fact they are only 0.1% in second & third trimesters”

    This point is a two edged sword. Actual adult on adult murders are also quite rare. Should we just let them pass therefore? Or is there an actual moral argument which demonstrates and justifies a distinction between, say, first trimester abortions and partial birth abortions, so as to mandate leaving the first trimester abortions in the discretion of the mother, while overriding her discretion at the end of the third trimester? If there is, it would be good to spell it out, rather than just to suppose there must be and to say, “anyway, it’s not really a big problem if there isn’t”.

  13. The relevant question, I think, is not when “ontogenetic” life begins; it’s when life begins in a sense that we should recognize has moral weight or interests that rise to a level where they can and should be weighed against those of a human being, and if so, how. It’s not a biological debate. It’s a moral debate. Asking when life begins is a red herring.

  14. I agree with you that “personhood” is actually the pertinent point. All the other arguments go out the window if you allow that a fetus/embryo is a person, legally speaking. I would agree that a fertilized egg, though genetically distinct, isn’t what we’d call a “person”. It doesn’t have a brain, an ego, feelings, or most of the other things we associate with human essence. However, a third trimester fetus is very much a baby. It can live outside the womb, it cries, feels pain, knows the sound of mom’s voice. Where, in between these two stages, it becomes a “person” is impossible to pin down, but given the stakes, it strikes me that a very conservative approach is warranted. My two cents: no abortion after the first trimester. And of course nobody buys it. Too restrictive, not restrictive enough. Take your pick.
    Re the pro-life movement, I see where you’re coming from, and I respect your viewpoint. There’s some truth to it. But then again, how can one criticize ignoring a baby’s welfare once it’s born, but say it would have been okay to kill it just moments before, prior to it passing through the birth canal? To cease with logical absurdities like this, people must stop evading the real point which, as you say, is the concept of personhood.

  15. Thank you for the great article and your PhD work. That the vast majority of biologists agree a new individual human life begins at conception should come as no surprise to anyone, and anyone with a high school level understanding of biology should already be aware of this fact. That makes the following finding astonishing:

    Given public opinion on abortion, and assuming no cognitive dissonance, more than half of those people are ignorant of when life begins, and think it supports their view it should be okay to kill embryos or fetuses. This is an astounding failure in the education system. We see this in some of these comments, where people equate sperm and egg cells with zygotes and embryos, apparently unaware of the difference between haploids and diploids. A zygote has two sets of chromosomes, the entirety of what it will have for the rest of its life, while a haploid cell (sperm and egg) has half, and thus does not become a new human until it has found its other half.

    Perhaps worse than this breathtaking ignorance is the motivated thinking that comes into play whenever you discuss abortion with a devotee. It is common for people to draw a distinction between “human” and “person,” because the former is biological and unambiguous, and you can project whatever nebulous criteria you want onto the latter. This of course makes the term “person” inappropriate for a legal context, where clear definitions are required, but leftists require opacity to further their political goals. It is exactly the same thing they have done with “sex” and “gender”: an artificial distinction is drawn between two terms previously understood to be synonymous, the less objective one is loaded with ideological baggage, and then the two terms are united again to transfer that ideological baggage to the more objective term.

    “Personhood” then being whatever you want it to be (just as you have 78 “genders,” including people who describe their “gender” as “alien” and have their nipples and ears surgically removed), you get all kinds of subjective criteria, depending on how late you want to be able to kill your offspring. Brain wave detection, which says more about degree of technological advancement than about the fetus, since the nervous system is one of the first to be laid out and no growth could happen without brain activity. Viability, which varies regionally, between rich and poor, and even from doctor to doctor. And then most people pick a random week, usually 12, purely on the basis that pregnancy was arbitrarily divided into 3 trimesters. All this to escape the biological fact that a new human life begins at conception, and growth occurs continuously from then until full maturation around the age of 25 years. Anywhere you draw a line between those two is arbitrary, and thus biologically indefensible.

    Then you get the arguments by analogy: a fetus is like a trespasser, you are allowed to kill it! Given virtually all abortions are performed on humans consensually conceived, a more appropriate analogy would be that a woman invites a child into her home with the understanding that without her support, the child will die, and then she changes her mind and kills the child.

    Women should certainly be able to choose whether or not they reproduce, but that choice happens in the bedroom, not the abortion clinic once reproduction has already occurred. Implying that woman are not aware that engaging in the reproductive act may result in reproduction is deeply sexist. Claiming bodily autonomy once reproduction has already occurred, and not when the decision was made to engage in the reproductive act, makes as much sense as claiming consensual sex was actually rape after the fact, because you didn’t like how it turned out. Withdrawing consent and claiming rape has horrible consequences for the man, but nothing compared to the consequences for the offspring, who only exists because you chose to create it. Claiming you now have the right to kill that offspring because you didn’t like the consequences of your own choices is a grotesque abdication of responsibility incompatible with the conception of women as responsible adults.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

253 more replies


Comments have moved to our forum


  1. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – World Best News

  2. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – Latest news

  3. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – Outside The Know

  4. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – Golden News

  5. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – Hckr News

  6. Pingback: I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular – INDIA NEWS

  7. Pingback: I Asked Biologists When Life Begins–Answer Wasn’t Popular – Veterans In Defense Of Liberty

  8. Pingback: Suggested Reading: “Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights” | poliwogg

  9. Pingback: The abortion question. | Lunacy is contagious

  10. Pingback: I Asked Biologists When Life Begins–Answer Wasn’t Popular | From Parts Unknown 2

  11. Pingback: The Morning Briefing: No Trumpian Dark Horse Will Save the 2020 Dems

  12. Pingback: Human Life of WA | I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular.

  13. Pingback: 96% of Biologists Agree Life Begins at Fertilization – PolitiFeed – News Point

  14. Pingback: Academic leftists tried to kill survey finding 96% of biologists admit life begins at fertilization – seamasodalaigh

  15. Pingback: Oh No! Biologist say life begins at conception! - The Real Side With Joe Messina

  16. Pingback: Il concepimento è l'inizio della vita. Lo dicono i biologi - CAV Voghera

  17. Pingback: Chicago Researcher Alarmed by Backlash He Received After Publishing Study Showing 96 Percent of Biologists Believe Life Starts at Conception – BCNN1 WP

  18. Pingback: Chicago Researcher Alarmed by Backlash He Received After Publishing Study Showing 96 Percent of Biologists Believe Life Starts at Conception | BCNN1 - Black Christian News Network

  19. Pingback: Chicago Researcher Alarmed by Backlash He Received After Publishing Study Showing 96 Percent of Biologists Believe Life Starts at Conception – Whyte House Report

  20. Pingback: Більшість біологів вважають, що життя починається з моменту зачаття

  21. Pingback: Pesquisador é “atacado” por estudo que mostra que 96% dos biólogos acreditam que a vida começa na concepção – Exibir Gospel

Comments are closed.