@paulrimmer:disqus: "...and then I go and talk to respected biologists, and they tell me something different."

If those biologists can not tell the difference between a member of the human species and a member of any other species, I am sorry, but I cannot call them "respected biologists."

@paulrimmer:disqus: "...they tell me something different."

Well, ask them to tell you exactly what biological species the human embryo belongs to if it does not belong to the human species. If it is not actually one thing, it must actually be something else. What species would that be?

I hear what you say, whoever you are, and then I go and talk to respected biologists, and they tell me something different. Who am I going to believe?

And are you ever going to answer my question? If an answer isn't contained in your next response, I'm done. I'm not responding anymore. So you have a choice now. Answer the question, or say a final word; I'll be happy to give it to you, for the three or four other people who are following this over-long discussion thread.

Paul Brandon Rimmer: "Science is the most reliable source of knowledge about the physical world to which we presently have access, but that source of knowledge is always provisional, it's always open to correction and reinterpretation."

The problem, Paul, is that you are refusing to accept the "the most reliable source of knowledge about the physical world to which we presently have access" regarding the nature of the tiny human being growing within the body of his mother.

It seems as though you either don't understand how science is done, or you don't understand my question.

Science is the most reliable source of knowledge about the physical world to which we presently have access, but that source of knowledge is always provisional, it's always open to correction and reinterpretation.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It could be wrong. Maybe we will later discover that the genetic relations between different species is due to alien interference, and that all present species did not evolve from a single species over billions of years. If scientists were to discover this, then I would change my mind about evolution.

If it is a scientific fact that embryos are human organisms, then it must be possible that, in the future, scientists will discover that this fact is a mistake. They may find out that actually embryos are not organisms, but simply part of another organism. Or they might discover that embryos are not human.

If scientists made this discovery, would this change your position on abortion? If not, why not?

@davidnickol:disqus: "The Declaration of Independence being a document, it does not hold any view."

Fair enough. The Declaration espouses a certain view of human rights.....a view that men acknowledged and signed their names and honor to and died defending.

I'm editing this to remove my previous, unhelpful response.

That the Declaration holds a similar view is simply a support for said argument.

The Declaration of Independence being a document, it does not hold any view. And the viewpoint you are trying to attribute to Thomas Jefferson, which he was allegedly expressing in the Declaration, is your own viewpoint, not Jefferson's. It is preposterous to attribute to Jefferson the idea that all males and females, be they adults, children, fetuses, embryos, or zygotes, are "equal" and have a right to life. No serious "right to life" argument can be based on what Jefferson intended to say when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Paul, you yourself stated: "Science doesn't provide certainty in anything."

Therefore, according to you, this is simply an impossibility: "If in the future scientists discover that the embryo is not a biological member of the human species....."

My argument is this: (b) rights are inherent and inalienable and ALL biological human beings hold them equally simply by virtue of being biological human beings.

That the Declaration holds a similar view is simply a support for said argument.