“Since I happen to have a life sciences Ph.D.,”
“fertilized ova”
Which is the zygote. Egg and sperm cease to exist at fertilization.
“Most zygotes fail to implant”
No zygotes implant. Not a single one. Embryos implant. Embryos are frozen from IVF and kept on storage for later.
If you’ve got a life science PHd then you should be using the correct terminology.
“I chose to use the word “formless” because it conveyed the idea I was trying to convey”
Hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? No. Which is the problem. The idea that you are trying to convey is wrong. There is a continuity of existence from the zygote all the way to the newborn. This is why we can sue men for child support. We are relying on this basic assumption that the child conceived in the womb, is the same child outside of the womb.
“But cells scraped from my cheek would also have a full individual complement of DNA.”
But that’s not what I said. I said the zygote has an individual distinct complement of DNA - DNA distinct from the father and mother. If they did not - then IVF would not work. Do the cells on your cheek have a distinct complement of DNA? No. But the zygote does. The same set of DNA as the embryo, as the fetus, and as the newborn. The exact same.
“This is why I place more importance on the physical structures”
And it’s also why you are wrong. There is continuity of existence. There has to be because otherwise it makes no sense to call anyone a father because they aren’t fathering anything. Unless of course you believe that fatherhood is simply whomever the mother chooses.
“It is not aware, nor can it feel.”
So why are these things important? Is someone who is comatose - are they aware? Does that change who they are as a person? Someone under anaesthetia? No. And the same applies here. Just because at this stage of development people are not aware, doesn’t change the fact that they will become aware, and that they possess the capacity to become aware. A bucket is a bucket even if it’s not full.
“It is undeniably a distinct human being at that point (at 4-6 weeks after implantation).”
In which exactly nothing has changed- all this capacity was there before. It’s the same person - then as now.
If you’ve got a life science PHd then you should be using the correct terminology.
If you're going to get hung up on terminology, then perhaps I should point out that those of us in the life sciences are fairly flexible about terminology. Specific words are not important, as long as we use them the way we define them. I think it's pretty clear what I mean when I use the term "fertilized ovum" (which is perfectly correct) as opposed to zygote or blastocyst. Also, the word "embryo" is fairly non-specific; it is applicable at any time until birth.
Hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? No. Which is the problem. The idea that you are trying to convey is wrong. There is a continuity of existence from the zygote all the way to the newborn. This is why we can sue men for child support. We are relying on this basic assumption that the child conceived in the womb, is the same child outside of the womb.
No offense, but your understanding of biology is quite basic. As I said, I have a very good understanding of reproduction--it was necessary information for my PhD research. It's almost a no-brainer that the child has both father's and mother's DNA; I am not sure what your point is in bringing it up. Nor why you feel it necessary to point out that the child in the womb is the same child outside of the womb after birth.
The idea that I am trying to convey may not be all that apparent to someone without my training. Embryonic/fetal development is a process, starting with the formless, undifferentiated fertilized ovum, which, over a period of time, gains in complexity and function, until it reaches its full development at about 25 years of age. At the very beginning of that process, right after fertilization, there is little chance that that particular product of conception has the ability to grow into a fully mature human being. Not counting abortion, fewer than 25%--possibly as few as 10%--of fertilized ova will ever make it to birth. I honestly can't get worked up about something that isn't even likely to develop into a baby.
Now I will try to convey my major point again. A blastocyst contains two kinds of cells--those that will form the placenta, and those that will form the embryo. Beyond that, those cells are completely undifferentiated. That is, they do not form any kind of limbs or organs. That blastocyst has no awareness. It really is just a clump of cells, similar to cells that might be removed during a biopsy or a blood draw. As far as I know, no one is particular concerned about the cells in biopsy samples, either--even though they, too, have a full set of human DNA and could even be manipulated to form an embryo. In order for that embryo to gain awareness, it must start to develop a nervous system. That happens at around 3 weeks after fertilization. At that point, it is no longer an unaware mass of cells. It has awareness, it can sense its surroundings. Probably in a very rudimentary manner at first, but awareness increases over time. When it is aware, it is completely immoral to take its life.
As for my own personal view, I consider implantation the point at where life should be protected. Where a fertilized ovum has little chance of survival, an implanted embryo has about a 2/3 chance of surviving.
About continuity: notice that I never mention the "beginning" of life. There is no such thing. Sperms are alive, ova are alive, and when they fuse, the fertilized ova are alive.
So why are these things important? Is someone who is comatose - are they aware? Does that change who they are as a person? Someone under anaesthetia? No. And the same applies here. Just because at this stage of development people are not aware, doesn’t change the fact that they will become aware, and that they possess the capacity to become aware. A bucket is a bucket even if it’s not full.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that someone who is comatose or anaesthetized still has a functioning nervous system. They sense their surroundings even if they don't remember it when they wake up. Since an early embryo has no nervous system, there is no place for awareness to be. It is as aware as the human cells that I grow in lab for experiments (which is to say, not at all aware). I guess, in your world, I'm a murderer several billion times over for all of the human cells I've killed. They also had unique DNA...