Human being and person have sociological-philosophical-spiritual connotations, and thus there is debate about the application of these terms to prenatals and, historically, to some postnatals, too.
But that's all aside from hard-science.
When it comes to hard-science, when it comes to taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, all of these scientific discplines are in complete concensus agreement and they have been for over 35 years: a prenatal, a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus), is an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.
That's the same thing we postnatals are: an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.
And that makes sense.
A day before we're born, are we that much different, hard-science designation-wise? Of course not. We're still an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.
We may not be a human being to some, or a person, but these aren't exclusively hard-science terms.
And no matter how far back you want to go in gestation to debate the developmental qualifications for the human being or person status of a prenatal, there simply is no hard-science debate about the reality that a prenatal at any stage of development -- zygote, embryo, fetus -- is a living human, the same designation a postal is given by hard-science: a living human.
As the previous poster said, "What, only two choices?"
Indeed, I've seen some pretty amusing arguments both pro-choice and pro-life, and I simply can't identify with some of the denials and exaggerations that come from these two ldeologically extremely polarized camps.
Yes, it seems like the pro-choice camp goes to some pretty laughably bizarre extremes of sophistry to deny the living human reality of prenatals, and the pro-life camp goes to some rather wild exaggerations of development terms to make a prenatal a lot more than it is.
But I guess after so many years of intense emotional debate, they've both been pushed to the extremities of irrationalism on the matter, to where neither is really in possession of the foundational truth.
I feel fortunate to not be caught in that dualistic paradigm.
So where does that put someone who recognizes a prenatal is a living human just like a postanal is a living human, realizes that until we can reduce the number of unplanned/undesired conceptions that abortion will happen, doesn't want to see women butchered in back-alley abortions, doesn't want to see viable humans butchered either, supports Roe v. Wade and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services as the best law we've got in the matter for so many reasons, doesn't want to see women suffer degrees of post-abortion adverse side-effects both psychologically and physiologically, wants hi-tech conception prevention "pills" in everyone's hands to super drastically reduce abortion to the degree of rarity to thus spare nearly all prenatal humans from premature death, and wants both sides to come to their senses, accept the foundational truths of the matter, and realize the current law and high-tech conception prevention pills are the only real solution to the abortion conflict?
As usual, there is no ideological label for such a position on this issue, or maybe any issue, in the wide expanse of territory in the center apart from either of the ideological wing positions.
But nameless or not, that's still the position on the matter that makes the best sense to me.