The truth about life doesn't require consensus. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with

the point. A couple weeks ago, an article by National Public Radio Sarah McCammon made the rounds

on various public media outlets with this headline. When does life begin? Religions don't agree.

Well, clearly, in attempt to warn pro-lifers against stubborn certainty about abortion,

the central claim is that not every religion holds that human

life begins at conception. And of course they don't. And why would they? Not every religion agrees

on anything. If there's a God, who is God, whether Jesus was God, whether we are God, and that's

just disagreement about God. But a disagreement between vastly different worldviews is somehow

supposed to trivialize the conviction of pro-lifers,

wouldn't the same reasoning trivialize the convictions of religious abortion supporters too?

So what's the point?

Interestingly enough, even though religions disagree on whether life begins at conception,

science doesn't.

Or at least every embryology textbook is perfectly clear about when life begins.

And honest abortion supporters, like Peter Singer, acknowledge as much that abortion takes a human life.

So, should we follow the science or shouldn't we?

I'm John Stone Street.