NRL News

Pro-abortionists remain befuddled by the basics of human biology, attribute their own ignorance to others

by | Aug 11, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

MarcoRubio92reMark Twain is credited with saying “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” This tongue-in-cheek insight is timeless.

See, for example, the latest example of how pro-abortion Amanda Marcotte is baffled by the basics of human biology which makes her smirk with confidence that pro-life Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has missed what “actual biologists” say about when human life begins.

It would take a post the length of a small novel to untangle all of Marcotte’s confusions. Short of that we’re reposting a tremendous article written by Paul Stark which explains, “What Science tells us about the unborn.”

For our purposes here, there are just three points. Contra Marcotte, to say that a single unfertilized ova and your grandpa are two ends of the continuum of life (because both are “alive”) is misleading. It is to confuse “life” in the sense of all life everywhere on the planet going back to the beginning with the life of an individual human being.

Each of us began at conception after sperm fertilized an ovum. (This one-celled organism is called a zygote). But sperm or ovum by themselves do not over time “evolve” into a human being. Mr. Stark’s 4th point addresses that directly.

Not only is the unborn child living, human, and genetically and functionally distinct from his or her mother,

The unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism—an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity.

Second, as pro-abortionists who want to evade that human life begins at conception always do, Marcotte quickly slides into a separate issue: legal personhood. We will not run down that rabbit trail but it’s worth noting that pro-abortionists always want to meld the biological beginning of human life with the issue of personhood.

She is primarily using an exchange Sen. Rubio had with CNN’s Chris Cuomo the day after the first Republican presidential debate to illustrate her overarching point–that what pro-life dummies like Sen. Rubio think is “simple” as contrasted with deep thinkers (such as Chris Cuomo and Armanda Marcotte) who understand the complexity of it all.

So when Sen. Rubio says that science demonstrates that human life begins at conception, Marcotte, her can of snark readily at hand, reduces science to “this vague entity called ‘science. ’”

She goes on “Actual biologists, for what it’s worth, argue that life is continuous and that a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than a sperm or an unfertilized egg.”

Sigh. See point One.

Third, here’s how Marcotte ends:

Human sperm cells, much like fertilized eggs, have human DNA. If a sperm cell is allowed to complete its development process… it will also, coupled with an egg, develop into a human being.

“Coupled with an egg.” Precisely. Unless a human ovum is fertilized by sperm, NEITHER will complete “its development process.”

In response to Cuomo (who obviously learned well from his late father how to erect strawmen), Sen. Rubio made the absolutely unassailable point that the unborn child “cannot turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey. The only thing that that can become is a human being.”

That drives Cuomo–and Marcotte–crazy, not because Mr. Rubio is making a “faith” argument but because he insists on following the facts of human biology where they lead him (and us), not where he wants them to go.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: Politics Pro-Lifers