> I don't think we have the same reading of the paper.
Strong agreement here.
> Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them.
Sometimes, as your paper is saying is the case, they're orthogonal to them.
> but the fact that it is in fact a human child is scientifically settled.
From your article, emphasis mine:
"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization"
The problem you have is that this paper doesn't discuss children at all, merely that a fetus is of the human species. It's basically tautological so of course it's essentially unanimous. A human fetus is a human fetus and not, say, a chicken fetus.
Strong agreement here.
> Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them.
Sometimes, as your paper is saying is the case, they're orthogonal to them.
> but the fact that it is in fact a human child is scientifically settled.
From your article, emphasis mine:
"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization"
The problem you have is that this paper doesn't discuss children at all, merely that a fetus is of the human species. It's basically tautological so of course it's essentially unanimous. A human fetus is a human fetus and not, say, a chicken fetus.