Acyutananda:
I'll reproduce here a comment I made under the recent "Science/Philosophy Distinction" post:
The funny thing is that the scientists who say life doesn't begin at conception don't disagree about science with those who say it does. If they were all to sit around a table and discuss one point in time of human development after another, they would closely agree about the processes going on at each point.
They are disagreeing about nomenclature, about words. It's a semantic debate. If they were to agree to freshly coin all the words they will need for the embryology field, they could probably easily coin some words and assign them the definitions that will be most useful for their scientific purposes, and come to an agreement. But since they persist in using existing words, and existing words, such as "life" and "human," have associations with implications (implications which those scientists understand) for perception and private behavior and public policy, the scientists' nomenclature preferences will be underlain by their different philosophies, and a faction of scientists with one philosophy will want to use different words than a faction of scientists with a different philosophy. The pro-choice side will want us to view the scientific reality (upon which there is no disagreement) through a word filter that will make the pro-choice side look good and feel good, rather than a filter that will make the pro-life side look good and feel good.
Moreover, many existing words, including "life," have multiple meanings that simply invite the unscrupulous to obfuscate. For example:
"The final quote from Robert Wyman (a neurobiologist) makes the most bizarre claim I've ever seen a pro-choice person make. Life doesn't begin at fertilization, they claim, it began billions of years ago. And that is somehow supposed to show that we can't know when an individual human life begins."
I agree that that is what Wyman was trying to show. But to some extent he evades being caught and pinned to the wall, by applying what seems to be intentional obtuseness.
It would matter not at all whether viruses were alive if we didn't reify and virtually fetishize our own categories. A failure to answer that question (are viruses alive?) wouldn't prevent us from acquiring a finely-detailed, even god-like scientific understanding of viruses, if we're otherwise capable of acquiring it.
Just as knowing whether or not an embryo is a person, or a human being, matters not at all, as long as we understand what kind of life it would have if it lives, and understand that if we kill it, we deprive it of that life. Science.

Bessie:
Google offers the people $98 per/hr to complete easy jobs off a home computer .. Labor only for few peroid of time daily and spend greater time with your loved ones . Any one can also apply this best post!!
last Wednesday I got a gorgeous Ford Mustang just after making $14252 this-past/six weeks .without any doubt it is the coolest job however you could now not forgive yourself if you don’t view it.
!me022p:
http://jobs.net-careers.online/?bo0618
??a?v?v???d?i??d?y?a?x?r???q?d??n??b???k???t???l?m?f??a???q?m?g?u?l::::!xe8

Acyutananda:
Bessie, I don't mind your lack of interest in the issue I raised. Thanks for at least not exhibiting misunderstanding of the issue.