Except this isn’t about whether a fetus is a human being – that is indisputable – your citation is about whether a human fetus cum human being has a right to life.
If you read the article I cited, the point was made that the question of whether a fetus is a human being is a biological one, while the question of whether the fetus is a human person with right to life is a philosophical and moral one. Your article is about whether the fetus has a right to life, which is NOT answering the question of whether the fetus is a human being.
I take part in these forums because it gives me an excuse to research things I wouldn’t necessarily do on my own. This is an example.
I couldn’t find a poll of biologists, etc. on the question of life, human life, etc. because–as several sources said–scientists don’t want to get involved in what has become a very controversial question.
However, in 1981 the National Academy of Sciences passed a resolution stating that “the question of when human life [notice–LIFE] begins was a question to which science can provide no answer…defining the time at which the developing embryo becomes a person must remain a matter of moral or religious value.” Notice that they distinguish between “human life” and “person.”
Exactly what I said.
The more you examine the question, the more difficult it becomes.
Does life (however you want to define it–simply a new being of some sort, a human being, a human being with rights…) begin when the sperm enters the ovum? There is no new, unique DNA at this point.
Does life begin after the fertilized ovum divides several times?–unique, combined DNA only appears after several divisions of the original ovum.
Does life begin only after the cells attach themselves to the surface of the womb? Which bring up an interesting question: if you believe that human life is present BEFORE the cells attach themselves to the womb, then the “morning after” pill is abortion, because it takes several days for the cells to attach themselves. But if you believe that, then I see an inconsistency: the general consensus is that most cells that develop from a fertilized ovum die naturally before they attach themselves. If you truly believed these were “persons,” why wouldn’t you campaign for medical advances to stop the death of these cells? After all, the “deaths” in these cases are many times greater than all the deaths by abortion. You would think there would be some effort by pro-life groups to address this question. They are as much “deaths” as “deaths” from abortion.
Another issue is twins. Twins develop much later. So if–before the development of the twin–a soul were inserted in the embryo, what happens when a twin develops? A second soul is added? And if gets more complicated, since some twins are re-absorbed back into the original embryo–so the 2nd soul then “dies”? But in fact nothing at all “died”–it just went back to being part of the original being.
