you can follow whatever philosophical view you wish to follow. I have pondered your political stance many times myself. But, when dealing with Piezoe... before you can get anywhere you have to get him to agree to terms. I am trying to pin him down on the science... he does not want to admit that the science shows he was wrong as can be to blame this issue on the Pope. By the way I blame pope's for a lot of things... but not the scientific definition of human being.
Up to a point in development the fetus is not mature enough to survive outside the womb, regardless of man and medicine's interventional help. At some point, development is far enough along that the fetus deserves consideration as a "life".
the only question in my mind is when does life in the USA become protected under the constitution? In my mind it's when that baby gets a birth certificate. Until then, it is protected by the mother. Now a really good right wing exteremist who loved the Bible more than life itself would simply get pregnant, go to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion and then turn around and charge all those involved with the murder of her unborn child. otherwise, I blame society for taking something so natural and such a blessing like a child and turning it into a burden. If you get pregnant, you won't be able to have a career like all the ugly feminists who couldn't get a man or keep a man, let alone raise a child.
You didn't show us any science yourself, only what some guys, claiming to be scientists, wrote once. Show us the science.
There can never be precise definition of when a fetus becomes a human. We would be kidding ourselves to say otherwise. The interesting thing is that it is a human embryo and then a human fetus and then an older more developed human. At some point it is self aware. It is at this point that the killing of it is most immoral. At the other end, in old age self awareness may disappear. At this point the killing of it becomes less immoral. Shades of gray, black and white, shades of gray.
the science on this one is the definition of human being. the question is no longer whether or when the 2 sets of chromosomes become a new living organism... the question is whether that new life is a human being. Hence... I provided authorities. please note... this issue is far different than whether man made co2 causes warming outside of natural variation. That is not something that would be subject to observation or other types of scientific proof.
Life begins at conception - no one is saying otherwise. The life of a human begins at conception as well, again, no one is saying otherwise. But what the being is at conception is not a human being. A human being is more than just cells. All of your quotes talk about life beginning, and that's not a debate. Not one person is saying that there's no life.
Self awareness is an interesting concept. Very few species are self aware. A pig for instance is very close to recognizing itself in a mirror. Dolphins, humans and our ape cousins can do this. Another interesting observation is how similar the fetus's are between many different species. One may argue, "from a scientific viewpoint" that both human and pig are equal, at different points in their lives. ** Is this the reason for the Jewish prohibition against pork.