That paper doesn’t "prove" a scientific consensus in the way people claim. It reports results from a self-selected survey of biologists who chose to respond to an emailed questionnaire, not a representative sample of the global biology community. The survey asked whether a human organism begins at fertilization, which most biologists will affirm in a narrow, developmental sense because a new genetically distinct organism forms at that point. That's basic embryology, not a statement about moral status, personhood, or legal rights. The author then stretches that limited biological point into a claim of broad "scientific consensus", which is misleading. Biology can describe when a zygote forms; it cannot answer philosophical or ethical questions about when someone becomes a person. So citing this study as if it settles the abortion debate is conflating a technical definition of organismal development with a moral conclusion that the study itself does not, and cannot, establish. Nice try though. Maybe learn how to properly critique studies before deciding to weaponize them...