blastula

The question is whether the rights of the zygote->blastula->fetus->baby trump the rights of the woman who is carrying it.

A blastula of cells shortly after conception is not capable of feeling pain, but a fetus at 8 months likely is.

I also remember from a biology book that in a lab they mixed two blastula(?) of small lizards(?) or something like that.

If you chop off a finger, a blastula of stem cells will develop on the tip, at least until the skin grows over and stops it.

I find it uncomplicated to argue that a blastula is not a human (yet) and the potential for life is not a useful moral metric either (otherwise it'd be immoral not to maximize fertilization and child output).

Then created the real cheese puffs from real frog stem cells: > Pluripotent stem cells are first harvested from blastula stage Xenopus laevis embryos, dissociated, and pooled to achieve the desired number of cells.

With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, have myocytes and are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development.

I generally agree, but to nitpick: I’d say a blastula is a “human” insofar as the term identifies a distinct organism of the human species.

I went to Wikipedia and found this definition: "With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development".