Political Crossfire Forums

[Addison]

I, myself, am a student of biology and anatomy, while being a practitioner of theology.

First of all, let me establish that evolution is a natural process, without which no life would exist, or would have ever been established. Please note, this is in no way a contradictory statement to my own beliefs in God- it is only a fact.

Of the five noted evidences of Evolution, the third is called Comparative Embryology. This, in essence, is the study and acknowledgement of the development of embryos as giving clues to their evolution.

Early scientists believed the follow: "Ontogeny recapitulates phyolgeny."

This, in layman's terms, is that the development of an embryo is a fast-action replay of the organisms whole evolution. Ontogeny, embryonic development, does, in fact, only give clues to phylogeny (evolutionary history).

The whole point of this is that Comparative Embryology also shows extreme similarities between certain species. For instance, pigs and humans both begin with tails and gills. In fact, approximately 20 mammals could be easily mistaken for human embryos, and vice-versa, while in their first stages of embryonic development.

The point is, that life as a human does not begin for several months into the embryos development (approximately 3 to 3.5). Genetic experiments with fetal development now show that human embryos can be "shot" with mutative genes and transforming RNA sequences that would literally change the species of the human to another animal (currently only a chimpanzee, since we share 98% of our genome with them). A big factor in this is that the genetic code is universal for all known organisms. Therefore, humans are not humans until the development cannot be successfully diverted along another tract of development.

Thusly, it is not taking human life if the embryo is aborted soon enough. Note, I take no permanent standpoint on the morality, but only examine and present the scientific facts. However, under the legal system, I am quite amazed how any abortions between the 4 and 9 months of development are not constituted as manslaughter or infanticide.

I will take this opportunity to end my presentation with a small reminder. There are other options than abortion. I am not talking about adoption. After you birth a child, there are "Safe Baby Stations" in every hospital, wherein you can drop a child without giving name, address, or any information. They won't ask questions, but it will be giving a child a chance at life. Just taking an opportunity to advertise an under-publicized system of baby-ridding.

Thanks.

Write back, I'd like to hear any opinions adjacent or opposing my own.

Also, if you would like any scientific links or resources that would support my points, simply ask.

[Ek0nomik]

I'm surprised your post didn't get more attention seeing as how the argument is also from a biological view which usually raises from eyebrows. :wink:

It's not that I am against adoption, in fact I think it can be a beautiful thing for a married couple, same sex union couples, or any individual who is physically incapable of producing offspring naturally. However, only 1.3 percent of ever-married women in the United States adopted a child in 2004 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004)). There are thousands of kids just waiting to be adopted, but it just isn't happening. The number of adoptions has been on a steady decline, because there are new technologies which are making it possible for couples to produce offspring with their actual genes, even if physically they are uncapable. The percent of ever-married women who had ever adopted declined from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percent in 1995 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) (NOTE: The amount of adoptions decreased since Roe vs Wade was determined). I just don't like the argument of adoption brought up with abortion, because when the facts and evidence we have on the topic are raised, the argument always flops. Currently there are more than 118,000 children in public foster care awaiting adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2005). Why do we just want to add to that number?

Also, while adoption may be a perfect choice for some women, it isn't the correct choice for all women. Raising a child is a very time consuming task, especially when the pregnancy is unplanned. It makes it difficult to continue school or work. Now, you may argue that perhaps the "couple" (or so we would hope) should have thought about that ahead of time, but that debate can be handled elsewhere, or later on in the thread, since that isn't currently being discussed and would move this off topic.

As far as the time frame for abortion goes, 50% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). 88% of all abortions occur within the first 12 weeks (National Abortion Federation 2000). I do agree that late term pregnancies should be banned. A lot of pro-life groups show pictures from late term abortions to try to persuade their "swing voters", but late term abortions only make up a small portion of all abortions done. I think we can all agree anyways, that late term abortions should be banned, because we can all agree that life has begun by that point.

From a global standpoint, I know that abortion is legal in England, Norway, and I believe Turkey (This is being taken from discussion with friends) and I am sure other neighboring countries as well as long as the abortion is done within 24 weeks of becoming pregnant. Now, 24 is quite a hefty period of time, and I wouldn't care seeing that number drop quite a bit. But how are we comparing with the rest of the world? Where are our values being placed? I say place them in womens rights, place them in the rights of privacy, because lets face it, this debate is hopeless, and endless. Where does life begin? Well, that is the question now isn't it. How about we base our laws upon facts, things we know. I think we have to give citizens the benefit of the doubt as silly as it may sound. The value of these "potential lives" just isn't as important as we may wish to believe. It's science.

Now, if you don't mind, I am going to go to sleep, so I will at least stay awake for half of my lectures tomorrow. :P

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: I, myself, am a student of biology and anatomy, while being a practitioner of theology.

First of all, let me establish that evolution is a natural process, without which no life would exist, or would have ever been established. Please note, this is in no way a contradictory statement to my own beliefs in God- it is only a fact.

Of the five noted evidences of Evolution, the third is called Comparative Embryology. This, in essence, is the study and acknowledgement of the development of embryos as giving clues to their evolution.

Early scientists believed the follow: "Ontogeny recapitulates phyolgeny."

This, in layman's terms, is that the development of an embryo is a fast-action replay of the organisms whole evolution. Ontogeny, embryonic development, does, in fact, only give clues to phylogeny (evolutionary history).

The whole point of this is that Comparative Embryology also shows extreme similarities between certain species. For instance, pigs and humans both begin with tails and gills. In fact, approximately 20 mammals could be easily mistaken for human embryos, and vice-versa, while in their first stages of embryonic development.

The point is, that life as a human does not begin for several months into the embryos development (approximately 3 to 3.5). Genetic experiments with fetal development now show that human embryos can be "shot" with mutative genes and transforming RNA sequences that would literally change the species of the human to another animal (currently only a chimpanzee, since we share 98% of our genome with them). A big factor in this is that the genetic code is universal for all known organisms. Therefore, humans are not humans until the development cannot be successfully diverted along another tract of development.

Thusly, it is not taking human life if the embryo is aborted soon enough. Note, I take no permanent standpoint on the morality, but only examine and present the scientific facts. However, under the legal system, I am quite amazed how any abortions between the 4 and 9 months of development are not constituted as manslaughter or infanticide.

I will take this opportunity to end my presentation with a small reminder. There are other options than abortion. I am not talking about adoption. After you birth a child, there are "Safe Baby Stations" in every hospital, wherein you can drop a child without giving name, address, or any information. They won't ask questions, but it will be giving a child a chance at life. Just taking an opportunity to advertise an under-publicized system of baby-ridding.

Thanks.

Write back, I'd like to hear any opinions adjacent or opposing my own.

Also, if you would like any scientific links or resources that would support my points, simply ask.

A question about comparisons

Visually humans pigs etc., may show similarities but we know that genetically they are different. Human DNA distinguishes each from any animal, so biologically if a human embryo is not a human life, at 2 months lets say, what is it , if it is not human or alive, according to your studies?

[Addison]

Quote: Visually humans pigs etc., may show similarities but we know that genetically they are different. Human DNA distinguishes each from any animal, so biologically if a human embryo is not a human life, at 2 months lets say, what is it , if it is not human or alive, according to your studies?


The process of DNA replication and transcription contains randomly created errors called "mutations." Since the first few months are the most rapid times of cell growth, the mutations are most evident here. The rate of errors, mutations, is 6 per billion.

At this point, the child is most likely to process some genetic mutation or disease, Tay Sach's or Down Syndrome, etc. Tay Sach's, for instance, creates a world of pain for the child, before its inevitable and subsequent death before the age of 2. Parents who go through abortions or self-caused abortions are more than three times as likely to be drug-users or substance-abusers that would highly increase the mutation count of their children. Thusly, if a child is to go through such a brutish, short, miserable life, then why let it?

Secondly, at this point in the process, the baby is still practically a zygote. It can be easily directed along different evolutionary courses, and, most importantly, it has not developed a brain, or at least not a human brain. At this point, the child is not yet a child, as it has no feelings of pain, rational thought, etc. It has "potential" to be human life, but it is not yet life. If you were to abort it then, it would feel no pain.

I am not necessarily for abortions at all, but one man cannot stop it. Thusly, I say that, if it will happen, let it happen when the baby is not yet a baby.[/quote]

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: Quote: Visually humans pigs etc., may show similarities but we know that genetically they are different. Human DNA distinguishes each from any animal, so biologically if a human embryo is not a human life, at 2 months lets say, what is it , if it is not human or alive, according to your studies?


The process of DNA replication and transcription contains randomly created errors called "mutations." Since the first few months are the most rapid times of cell growth, the mutations are most evident here. The rate of errors, mutations, is 6 per billion.

At this point, the child is most likely to process some genetic mutation or disease, Tay Sach's or Down Syndrome, etc. Tay Sach's, for instance, creates a world of pain for the child, before its inevitable and subsequent death before the age of 2. Parents who go through abortions or self-caused abortions are more than three times as likely to be drug-users or substance-abusers that would highly increase the mutation count of their children. Thusly, if a child is to go through such a brutish, short, miserable life, then why let it?

Secondly, at this point in the process, the baby is still practically a zygote. It can be easily directed along different evolutionary courses, and, most importantly, it has not developed a brain, or at least not a human brain. At this point, the child is not yet a child, as it has no feelings of pain, rational thought, etc. It has "potential" to be human life, but it is not yet life. If you were to abort it then, it would feel no pain.

I am not necessarily for abortions at all, but one man cannot stop it. Thusly, I say that, if it will happen, let it happen when the baby is not yet a baby. [/quote]

You will excuse me if I say that did not come close to anwering my question.

If a human embryo at any point below your stated boundry of 3 months is not human or alive then according to your biology studies what is it?

[Addison]

A jumble of cells with the potential ability to become life as soon as it finishes the first high-rate set of cell divisions and develops capabilities for breathing, food processing, rational thinking, energy consumption and creation, etc. As of this point, its barely anything more than a complex fertilized egg.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: A jumble of cells with the potential ability to become life as soon as it finishes the first high-rate set of cell divisions and develops capabilities for breathing, food processing, rational thinking, energy consumption and creation, etc. As of this point, its barely anything more than a complex fertilized egg.

So you are being taught in biology that a human embryo is not a living thing and not human? How does that square with these excerpts from human embryology text books and statements from embryologists?(these only addresses your claim that an embryo is not human or alive and in no way imply any opinion on abortion)

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote." Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses)

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed” O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life". J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23.

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.

"Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12.

[The Grandmaster]

Great Post Addison, truly, excellent. Welcome to PCF.

Gilbert, we've been through this before, no less than ten times.

Do I really have to post my sources demonstrating their is no consensus in the scientific community that says a life begins at conception?

[Gilbert1908]

The Grandmaster wrote: Great Post Addison, truly, excellent. Welcome to PCF.

Gilbert, we've been through this before, no less than ten times.

Do I really have to post my sources demonstrating their is no consensus in the scientific community that says a life begins at conception?

My challenge is not about the philosophy comments you post with regard to personhood, of course there is no concensus on when a human life turns into a person, there is no concensus on what a "person" actually is. The only true concensus about the term person is that it is neither biological nor medical.

Addison has claimed that in his biology studies he has learned that a human embryo is neither human nor alive. I am asking him to square that with the obvious stance of human embryology.

Your assertions are not relevant to my questions to Addison.

In addition you NEVER delivered on your committment with regard to the brain wave studies.

[Ek0nomik]

Addison: When you say Addison wrote: "at this point in the process, the baby is still practically a zygote. It can be easily directed along different evolutionary courses, and, most importantly, it has not developed a brain, or at least not a human brain." what point are you referring to? How long into the processes? 2 months, 3 months?

The Grandmaster: Please link me to your sources or point me to a thread which you mentioned them. I'd like to give them a read.

[The Grandmaster]

Ek0nomik wrote: Addison: When you say Addison wrote: "at this point in the process, the baby is still practically a zygote. It can be easily directed along different evolutionary courses, and, most importantly, it has not developed a brain, or at least not a human brain." what point are you referring to? How long into the processes? 2 months, 3 months?

The Grandmaster: Please link me to your sources or point me to a thread which you mentioned them. I'd like to give them a read.

Certainly, happy to. Check your PMs.

[fakeplasticpayden]

payden wrote: if we evolved from apes....why are there still apes?

[Ek0nomik]

fakeplasticpayden wrote: payden wrote: if we evolved from apes....why are there still apes?

Isolation?

[Addison]

Relate it to Kinetic and Potential Energy. Potential Energy is a form of energy, just as zygotes are a form of life, but Potential energy is not in motion, just as zygotes are not actively living. Potential energy has the potential to become living, breathing, self-sustaining life, but it is only potentially able to do these things, not actively participating in them. The development of the brain takes many months, and it is only firstly self-evident as being phylogenically reminiscent of a human brain at age 3.

Also, please note the three characteristics of life:
1 The ability and desire to reproduce
2. The appropriate response to stimulus.
3. The utilization and transformation of energy for self-sustaining needs

Note that the zygotic embryo is only alive at the cellular level, which meets these three requirements. Zygotic embryos do not have the desire to reproduce, because spermatogenesis in males and oogenesis (the creation of sperm and eggs) do not begin until midway through fetal growth or at birth, and are heightened at puberty. The placenta is also food energy pre-transformed, so that the ATP (adenine tri-phosphate [universal energy molecule]) is most readily available, and no digestion happens, since digestion is used to extract energy from food. That, in essence, disproves two of three of the requirements for "life." The problem is, you don't know the definition of life, human or otherwise.

Also, note, that since the most remarkable difference in animals and humans is sentience, and rational thinking, all of which the dependant embryo does not contain until first brain-wave activity at around 3.5 months.

Please, also note that this is purely biological, and in no way partisan. My own views on abortion are that it is murder, at certain times, and a better choice at others. If a child is likely to be born with a crippling or lethal disease that leaves him in pain his entire short-lived existence, why make it happen? Why not discontinue the process while the embryo can still not rationalize or even notice its death. Another, non-scientific, but usually regarded trait of life is the instinct of survival, of which early embryos do not possess.

If that doesn't answer your question, post again.

Also, abortion will always be around, even when illegal parents will take it into their own hands with much worse methods. Take, for instance, the mother who recently discharged a handgun into her stomach to kill her baby when she was denied an abortion. The compromise I make is that abortion be illegal after a certain date in the pregnancy, and legal before it.

[Obilisk18]

Addison wrote: It has "potential" to be human life, but it is not yet life.

Nonsense. It is clearly alive. In the biological sense of the word, even bacteria are alive. So by "potential" I'm just going to assume you're referring to "human", which is a rather peculiar assertion. The word potential implies that there are multiple choices. What praytell does a fetus have the potential to become other then a human? A rutabaga perhaps? A rock? An anthromorphosized rat? It'd be fair to say the fetus is, for instance, a potential pop-star or politician, but certainly not a potential human. Furthermore, the law of biogenesis states that all life comes from existing life (i.e., human procreation produces other humans) so it seems somewhat silly to assert that fetus's aren't human life. I believe the debate centers around whether or not sentience is necessary to endow a human life with rights.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: Relate it to Kinetic and Potential Energy. Potential Energy is a form of energy, just as zygotes are a form of life, but Potential energy is not in motion, just as zygotes are not actively living. Potential energy has the potential to become living, breathing, self-sustaining life, but it is only potentially able to do these things, not actively participating in them. The development of the brain takes many months, and it is only firstly self-evident as being phylogenically reminiscent of a human brain at age 3.

Also, please note the three characteristics of life:
1 The ability and desire to reproduce
2. The appropriate response to stimulus.
3. The utilization and transformation of energy for self-sustaining needs

Note that the zygotic embryo is only alive at the cellular level, which meets these three requirements. Zygotic embryos do not have the desire to reproduce, because spermatogenesis in males and oogenesis (the creation of sperm and eggs) do not begin until midway through fetal growth or at birth, and are heightened at puberty. The placenta is also food energy pre-transformed, so that the ATP (adenine tri-phosphate [universal energy molecule]) is most readily available, and no digestion happens, since digestion is used to extract energy from food. That, in essence, disproves two of three of the requirements for "life." The problem is, you don't know the definition of life, human or otherwise.

Also, note, that since the most remarkable difference in animals and humans is sentience, and rational thinking, all of which the dependant embryo does not contain until first brain-wave activity at around 3.5 months.

Please, also note that this is purely biological, and in no way partisan. My own views on abortion are that it is murder, at certain times, and a better choice at others. If a child is likely to be born with a crippling or lethal disease that leaves him in pain his entire short-lived existence, why make it happen? Why not discontinue the process while the embryo can still not rationalize or even notice its death. Another, non-scientific, but usually regarded trait of life is the instinct of survival, of which early embryos do not possess.

If that doesn't answer your question, post again.

Also, abortion will always be around, even when illegal parents will take it into their own hands with much worse methods. Take, for instance, the mother who recently discharged a handgun into her stomach to kill her baby when she was denied an abortion. The compromise I make is that abortion be illegal after a certain date in the pregnancy, and legal before it.

I thought there were 5 characteristics of living things?

1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
http://www.npc.edu/Bio105/Content/module01/m1_l05.htm

Or perhaps these five

1. Cellular Organization: All living organisms are composed of one or more cells - the basic unit of life ... "Life is Totally Cellular"

2. Growth and Development: All living organisms assemble matter (chemical elements) into simple or complex compounds, and use the energy derived from these compounds to grow and change over time. The process of using chemical energy to do cellular work is called metabolism.

3. Reproduction: All living organisms are programmed to produce new generations of cells or new multicellular organisms.

4. Response to Environment: All living organisms sense changes in their surroundings (using receptors) and make controlled responses (behavior).

5. Heredity: All living organisms possess a genetic system that is based on the replication of DNA, a complex double-stranded molecule that specifies the information to make cellular proteins.

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/notesch1.html

A human has all of these characteristics. But you still have not addressed my specific question which is how do you square your claim against the science of embryology?

[Addison]

Quote: Nonsense. It is clearly alive. In the biological sense of the word, even bacteria are alive. So by "potential" I'm just going to assume you're referring to "human", which is a rather peculiar assertion. The word potential implies that there are multiple choices. What praytell does a fetus have the potential to become other then a human? A rutabaga perhaps? A rock? An anthromorphosized rat? It'd be fair to say the fetus is, for instance, a potential pop-star or politician, but certainly not a potential human. Furthermore, the law of biogenesis states that all life comes from existing life (i.e., human procreation produces other humans) so it seems somewhat silly to assert that fetus's aren't human life. I believe the debate centers around whether or not sentience is necessary to endow a human life with rights.

Wow. Nice.
Praytell is two words. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/praytell Anthromorphosized is not a word. Potential is simply a state of waiting before action, as in energies, and does not imply multiple choices. There is no "Law of Biogenesis," the quote "All life comes form pre-existing life," is simply a famous quote from Louis Pastuer.
Everything I have been promoting has been proven by science or is a logical conclusion drawn from science. Sentience does not begin until three months of age, therefore there is no technical "human." There is just potential. If you had read my previous posts, you would realize that their have been experimentations that have changed embryos from different species to different species since the two species were at one point intertwined in a single pre-species, and only came to existence by cladogenesis.
Understand?

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: Quote: Nonsense. It is clearly alive. In the biological sense of the word, even bacteria are alive. So by "potential" I'm just going to assume you're referring to "human", which is a rather peculiar assertion. The word potential implies that there are multiple choices. What praytell does a fetus have the potential to become other then a human? A rutabaga perhaps? A rock? An anthromorphosized rat? It'd be fair to say the fetus is, for instance, a potential pop-star or politician, but certainly not a potential human. Furthermore, the law of biogenesis states that all life comes from existing life (i.e., human procreation produces other humans) so it seems somewhat silly to assert that fetus's aren't human life. I believe the debate centers around whether or not sentience is necessary to endow a human life with rights.

Wow. Nice.
Praytell is two words. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/praytell Anthromorphosized is not a word. Potential is simply a state of waiting before action, as in energies, and does not imply multiple choices. There is no "Law of Biogenesis," the quote "All life comes form pre-existing life," is simply a famous quote from Louis Pastuer.
Everything I have been promoting has been proven by science or is a logical conclusion drawn from science. Sentience does not begin until three months of age, therefore there is no technical "human." There is just potential. If you had read my previous posts, you would realize that their have been experimentations that have changed embryos from different species to different species since the two species were at one point intertwined in a single pre-species, and only came to existence by cladogenesis.
Understand?

I repeat the other simple question you have so far failed to answer.

If a human embryo is neither human nor alive then what is it?

[Addison]

I have repeatedly answered that it is simply potentially alive.

And, yes, I removed two of the laws of classifying organisms as organic or inorganic (living or nonliving) as they had no point in this conversation, and I don't enjoy wasting space or bringing petty arguments up about the number of things.

A zygote is not human, because human is characterized as sentient, and the zygote is not sentient. It will be human, most likely, but at this point it is not.

Now, the whole point of this is that this would be the most opportune time for an abortion, as they embryo would not have developed far enough to constitute it as "murder." It will neither feel nor acknowledge the death of itself as one of us would. Abortion will happen whether we want it too or not, the point is of compromise and not illegality.

It is potential, in the same way Potential energy is energy but not kinetic. Potential life is not actively taking place in life, but will eventually.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: I have repeatedly answered that it is simply potentially alive.

And, yes, I removed two of the laws of classifying organisms as organic or inorganic (living or nonliving) as they had no point in this conversation, and I don't enjoy wasting space or bringing petty arguments up about the number of things.

A zygote is not human, because human is characterized as sentient, and the zygote is not sentient. It will be human, most likely, but at this point it is not.

Now, the whole point of this is that this would be the most opportune time for an abortion, as they embryo would not have developed far enough to constitute it as "murder." It will neither feel nor acknowledge the death of itself as one of us would. Abortion will happen whether we want it too or not, the point is of compromise and not illegality.

It is potential, in the same way Potential energy is energy but not kinetic. Potential life is not actively taking place in life, but will eventually.

Sentience is not a bilogical term neither is "potential" life, and I am not addressing abortion.

Your claim was bilogical not philosophical. How do you answer the very direct and credible excerpts from embryology textbooks which oppose your assertion that an embryo is not a human life?