Which was in and of itself a dishonest characterization. It goes on to explain how "recent" discoveries have shown that fertilization doesn't happen all at once. I provided a reference to a text book printed in 1968 that clearly said that fertilization doesn't happen all at once and that a new human being doesn't begin to live until fertilization is complete. Those "recent" discoveries that your topics for discussion mentions happened in the 1950's.
It means that it was nothing more than topics for discussion. It listed various views but presented nothing as fact. That is what the biology textbook is for.
You provided topics for discussion. We already have that.
Incorrect. Research was done on somatic cells, which are not to be confused with stem cells.
It was topics for discussion. All the whining in the world isn't going to make it a medical text.
As I said. I have read both the medical textbook and the companion book. No where in the medical text does it suggest that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.
Of course that would be your basis since the science doesn't support your view. If the science supported you, then you would not accept anything that contradicted established science.
Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Which part of that seems to be less than definitave to you?
Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
Or maybe you can tell me which part of that seems ambiguous.
Opinion is not scientific fact, and I have never brought souls into the discussion. The constitution doesn't mention souls when it establishes that the lives of human beings are protected.
Science has a difinitive answer now which explains exactly why you have turned to philosophy. Since the science doesn't support you, you seek the teachings of necromancers and gypsys.
Those other arguments are not supported by fact. If no fact is present, then it is fine to seek a philosophical answer. But when fact is present, there is no denying it. You and the necromancers and gypsys can debate whether or not it is OK to kill an innocent human being for the purpose of medical research, but you can not effectively argue that you are not, in fact, discussing human beings.
