How often have we heard numerous pro-abortion advocates declare that something as small as an embryo couldn’t possibly be a human being? “It doesn’t look even remotely human,” we are told, so it’s silly to consider such an entity to be anything more but “pre-life” at best, and “it must simply be a part of the mother’s body, right?” Wrong! And demonstrably wrong as human biology clearly demonstrates to anyone who has the intellectual integrity to accept the scientific conclusion that from the first moment of conception a new human being is present, and it is also a separate being from his or her mother.
Unfortunately, those who are committed to the irrational and immoral pro-abortion position (which includes those who ignorantly but proudly declare themselves to be “pro-choice” as if murdering on occasion or in certain circumstances and not all of the time somehow makes one opposed to murdering the innocent unborn child), do not possess the intellectual integrity or moral courage to accept the verdict of biology, and so they continue to insist on wrongly claiming that such a tiny entity cannot be considered a human being with its own right to life.
But then again, these same people who insist that an entity the size of an embryo cannot possibly be a human being have absolutely no quibbles with accepting what modern science tells us about the size of the earliest known state of the material universe. Indeed, this earliest known state is described as a singularity when all of space-time was compacted into an infinitely dense point of virtually zero size. Cosmologists also tell us that our vast universe today grew from that infinitely dense point, and that everything we see today came from that singularity which was the embryonic universe. But how can this be? How can something even smaller than microscopically tiny be the universe we observe today prior to its growing (known more technically as expanding)? Wouldn’t it really be a “pre-universe” in much the same way as abortion advocates describe a human embryo as “pre-human life” according to their claim that the tiny embryo cannot be a human being prior to its growing or “expanding”? Of course this is nonsense, and so scientists and others do not deny reality like pro-abortion advocates do. They do not stupidly refer to the embryonic universe as a “pre-universe.”
Take this comparison a bit further.
All of material life as we know it is comprised of material (“cosmic stuff”) that came from that earliest singularity, and cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and other scientists insist upon and can demonstrate that this is the reality. The entity we know as the material universe had an embryonic stage of existence when it is was not a pre-universe or only part of some other being that only became the universe much later in its existence. It was and is the universe.
And so if every material thing we observe in the material universe is derived from its embryonic singularity, and that singularity was and is the universe accepted as a fact by science, then the notion that embryonic human life is too tiny to be a human being should also be discarded by everyone as sheer nonsense. Just as everything that makes up the material universe we observe today was present in its embryonic state, so, too, was/is everything that makes up a fellow human being present in its embryonic state.
Accordingly, to directly destroy an embryo based on the false, non-scientific claim that it is too small to be a human being is unquestionably the murder of an expanding human being.
But that’s just some science which adds unequivocal support to a moral position that too many people don’t like, and so they become science deniers in their moral blindness.