The point is that biologists, or doctors, or other scientists working in related fields of inquiry do not normally say anything about when 'human' life begins unless they have an ideological axe to grind.
Misapplied. Unwarranted assumption.
What their organizations tell them to say or not say is irrelevant with respect to the truth.
You can hunt all over the internet for an "A"thority to which to appeal, but that won't negate the scientific truth of the opening post.
What usually occurs is that the ideological axe to grind that forces them to keep silence on murderous abortion is pro-abortionist leftism.
Indeed, many of these people dislike the facts of the opening post of this thread, because it means they would have to make the tough choice not to commit murderous abortion, and so they choose instead to stuff their feelings of guilt and pretend their very own science doesn't really present the truth that it does about the personhood of the newly conceived.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
I looked to see if I could find any such 'scientific' or 'medical' definition of a human being on the Internet, but found zilch.
Irrelevant.
Your supposed inabilities to find what is right there in front of you in the opening post of this thread is more likely for lack of effort than lack of being present.
That you actually keep questioning the obvious reality of the high school textbook level science of the opening post is truly laughable.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Does AAAS make any such definitiopn? I think not.
Irrelevant.
Just because a political organization of scientists keep silent on the matter proves nothing ... except that they are silent.
It indicates, however, their political perspective.
Science and the scientific method is what it is, regardless of which groups support or reject its findings.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
I recall when I used to post on the "Bad Science" web site, and encountered a bunch of creationists PHDs in Physics trying vigorously to argue that the earth was the center of the universe, being challenged by other mainline physicists. Needless to say, they were far outside the mainstream of their profession, and were being badly battered.
Anecdotal and meaningless. Topically irrelevant.
Your allusion is not to be trusted on face value anyway, as you have a pro-abortionist's ideological axe to grind, and so you are likely, as you've exhibited in this thread already, to misrepresent the truth.
Would you like me to list all the pro-life groups and link their web sites that support the true science of the opening post? I thought not. I chose not to play "my 'A'uthority vs. your 'A'authority", as that simply leads to ignorant stalemate. I chose instead to simply post the common-knowledge science of the matter and explain it in simple and accurate terms, which I've done.
There is no mistaking the accuracy of the science that declares the newly conceived to be a human being, a person.
The fact of the matter is that your desperate search on the internet for refutation lead you nowhere, and now you're hoping to use
silent groups to "state" opposition to the truth of the opening post, as if that will win you any debate points.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
... 
