Science, in fact, has answered this problem long ago, yet the judicial system has chosen to ignore the solution for social engineering purposes. Science already assumes an individual human being comes to exist at fecundation. Science even uses this truth as a fundamental axiom upon which many scientific tests are based for validity, testing the individual for things like Downs Syndrome and rH factor and anemia, long before a full complement of organs compliments the individual human being begun at conception.
We are about to be deluged with political debate where one side will be arguing for exploitative utilization of embryonic individual human beings (that the exploitation is planned and deemed valid affirms the underlying axiom of individual human being at earliest age) on the grounds that embryos are not yet human beings, while the other side will be arguing that exploitation of early human life (whether a being yet or not, they choose to avoid) is degrading of all human life. The solution/end for these debates is easily found if the debaters would just acknowledge what science has already accepted as the fundamental truth upon which their scientific exploitations are based. Truth is, the scientists want the illogical ambiguity to continue because they have secretly decided that cannibalism as they wish to practice it is okay, but they don't want the people to see that the exploitations are in fact cannibalism.
Each indiviaul alive today began their lifetime continuum at their unique conception. Each individual alive today has been an alive individual human being since their unique conception. Very many alive individuals today had their individual life checked for genetically related disorders long before their lifetime continuum reached the age of having distinct and complete organs, but the fact that medical people tested them so early in their lifetime and took the test results to be valid for them as an individual human being already is testimony that individual human being status begins at conception, regardless of the arbitrary definitions applied speciously for debate purposes wooing civilization toward 'enlightened cannibalism.'
Blindly slaughtering our fellow individual human beings while they were in the womb, for lo these many deacdes, has brought us to this 'felicitous' juncture in civilization's gestational stage, where we are manipulated by lies to look forward with eager anticipation the exploitative use of fellow individual human beings, to cure and sustain we older individual human beings.
Constitutional Persons:An Exchange on Abortion
The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court. In Stenberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology." "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it." Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier! The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.