Experimental science “sees” of course with eyes, but also with its instruments. Theoretical science “sees” with high level mathematics, “seeing” before experience,” afterwards substantiated by experiment. In either case “so long as he (scientist) renders a true account of what he sees, he is a servant of the creator, sometimes unconsciously and even against his well” (from “Everyman a Priest” by Hertz).

As for me there is no doubt, medical science today is demonstrating the possibility of a “human artificial womb.” Cryogenic storage of an in-vitro fertilized ovum is accomplished; normal gestation period is extended by suspended animation. Modern incubation in hospitals is today aiding survivability of premature babies.

The “human artificial womb,” when it comes to fruition, will absolutely prove all that is needed is a fertilized ovum (advanced in nuclear DNA).

It is not a responsible position to any longer question the viability of a zygote becoming a fetus becoming a human, as did the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 for Roe v Wade. That action, a question of the 14th Amendment, in particular a question of a woman’s privacy, which was not and is not circumscribed by that 14th Amendment. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the court, as to privacy, is in error.

Justices Rehnquist and White in their minority opinion made such a point among other points.

Seven justices in their majority opinion erred in attempting to make analog what is in fact digital. “Is alive” or “is not alive” is a digital question. Binary mathematics for digital allows no proportionality; there is no in-between, no continuous function. There is an “ambiguity region,” but it is not the “trimesters” as that court ruled.