@Douglas Hendrickson has been presented the settled science of embryology quite a few times by me and others. Here is the evidence presented of human life beginning at conception:
The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003
From an introductory definition section:
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)
“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)
“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)
From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”
First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)
“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)
“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)
“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]
More: Quotes from Textbooks on Human Development
When Do Human Beings Begin?
A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)
http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA
The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:
“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)
Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:
“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)
So yes, the science has been presented.
I guess the science has been presented then, but this "science" does NOT
demonstrate that what is in the womb is a human being; the most it correctly characterizes is that new genetics arise and are sustained and the growth develops. The growth grows (
"human development"). Big hairy deal. The genetic difference does not and can not itself prove what has it is a human being - only that it may well be some
parts of a human being, that it is human constituents, elements, but
NOT that these are sufficient for us to say it is a human
being. There is
NO EVIDENCE advanced to answer this question.
The first paragraph by Moore and Persaud speaks about "human development" - everything after conception is human development, but actually the sperm and egg coming together is human development, and even their production is human development. All these are HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT because there is
change over time that could be characterized as development or growth, and of course the biological cells coming into being are
HUMAN, they are not of some other animal species.
Then at the end of that paragraph it says: "
birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” If you have been following my discussion with "SPF", hopefully you will realize
this claim that birth is merely a change of environment is REALLY QUITE
FALSE. There are a number of things that birth
is, including acquiring the ability to breathe, see, eat, etc. So to make the point again, this
statement is false, and the claims that precede it about "human development"
tell us nothing about the question of whether the development itself
is a human being or merely human like the cancer is human and develops, that is, is truly human development.
After that, they say of the ZYGOTE, "
A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” I hope you can notice this is a bald claim
without a bit of evidence for it.
Then on the EMBRYO it speaks of: "the developing human ..." implying "human being," but
in no way providing any evidence that is the true way to characterize such development. It is
human development like was pointed out above, but there is NO BASIS PRESENTED to indicate it is true to begin referring to this as "the ...human," as though there were a human being already then existing.
Then from what is called the first sentence of their Chapter 2, we have what is actually the second sentence, "
This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” This too has
nothing to support it, no kind of evidence whatsoever given.
Just a bit of obvious pro-life unsubstantiated propaganda. With unique genetics the idea of uniqueness is of course correct, but there is no warrant for calling it an "individual" and thereby
suggesting the individuals we indeed are were already there as individuals in "the beginning."
Then there is a discussion of how the fetus has unique genetics - this is evidence that the fetus is not actually a part of the person whose womb it is within. But whatever this different genetic material actually is (It is what it is!), it can only be a human being if it conforms to the requirements of being a human being. Since there is no such discussion, it leaves that question unanswered. IF one considers what
real animals are, autonomous organisms, I think such serious consideration must find something like an embryo seriously wanting indeed. Certainly there is not such consideration here.
Then under "
When Do Human Beings Begin? we find: "
A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being."
This is not at all argued for. And
whoever may have much such a claim is
irrelevant to the truth or falsity of it.
“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
This does not make sense, because it does not tell us what the evidence actually is, and talks as though it is self evident, this "human nature of the human being." There is a bit of truth involved, in that the human being would have a human nature, IF there were a human being. There is "human" nature as I have already pointed out, whatever is there
consists of human cells, but
that truth in no wise proves it is a human being. For the claim to begin to make sense there must first be the subject of the the claim, there must be the human being, and that is precisely what is in contention, and not proven by merely including it in the subject of a sentence. And certainly no evidence is presented here,
especially no experimental evidence. WHAT EXPERIMENT WAS PERFORMED? I bet there was none! Of course we are not told such critical details - we are told NOTHING, but it is made to appear we are being told something, that there IS evidence. And supposedly
plain evidence, when none at all is
even referred to.
So the only actual medial evidence you seem to have presented is how new genetics are part of what we are talking about, and I accept that, and will therefore not try to challenge such with medical evidence.
Beyond that what you present are
unsubstantiated claims which require no evidence of any kind to refute.
