Recently, on a Facebook post, a young woman made the comment that she did not believe that life (meaning human life) began at conception.  She made this remark in opposition to conservatives who hold the opposing view.  She was not being rude or confrontational; she just held her opinion matter-of-factly.  In response, I posed the following question:  “Do you believe a single-cell bacterium is life?”

Darwin suggested that all life sprouted from an unknown, unobserved single-cell animal.  This has resulted in various depictions of the strange “tree of life,” one of which shows a single-cell entity at the base from which all other life springs.  I seriously doubt that any biologist would deny that such a single-cell entity is living.  Dictionary.com defines life as “the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally” (and I would add, “as designed by God”).  Apparently, a bacterium qualifies as life according to this definition.  It grows, reproduces, and it adapts to its environment.  The same can be said for all single-cell animals.

Now consider this.  When a human sperm cell unites with a human ovum, the resultant thing is a human, single-cell zygote.  The single-cell zygote immediately begins the cell division process.  It reproduces, it grows, and it adapts to a very hostile environment inside the mother’s womb.  Does that not fit the definition for life?  Just what additional things must it do to fully qualify for the definition of life?  How is that different from the single-cell bacterium?

How would you respond to this young woman who rejects the notion that human life begins at conception?