You left out the other half of what I said... Yes, every cell has that material, but other cells don't come until after the formation of the zygote. You don't have those other cells unless you have a human in existence.
There are numerous sides to this kind of argument, and I just don't see it as a valid direction to take. For example, there is NO evidence that a zygote will result in a living human. Many do. Many do not.
Yes, the zygote is a human. You are contradicting yourself and are now forming a paradox. We have already established as fact that the zygote is a human (that it is of the homo sapien species). If it is not of the homo sapien species, then what species IS it of? The "potential" has already occurred once the sperm penetrated the egg and formed a zygote. All the necessary genetic material for human development is now present and striving to form itself into that which you see pushed out from the womb upon childbirth. Because it is of the homo sapien species and is the beginning point for full human development. What makes you say a ZEF isn't a human? Fingerprints and organs do not develop into human beings. A zygote DOES. --- Fingerprints and organs come AFTER the zygote. The utter nonsense isn't mine. You are denying science and logic. Because that is the main reason and justification for why people get abortions. I have. I am holding discourse with one right now (you). You simply call it by another name though ("abortion") Yes, it is. It is the killing of a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. It is no different than me choosing to kill you. Is that something that you'd be okay with? In your position that you are okay with the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. If I were to kill you, then I would likewise be killing a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. Given this specific position of yours that you are taking, you are likewise condoning me choosing to kill you. Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
I took from your post your claim .. if you have other claims fine .. right now we are dealing with your claim that DNA makes the zygote a Human. Clearly this claim is not true - if taken by itself .. meaning something needs to have "MORE" than just Human DNA to be characterized as a Human .. and nothing you said satisfied this condition - you have not given "more" . So .. you agree that Human DNA is not all that is required .. What else you got ? come up with something or stop making this claim. The claim is that you don't have human cells prior to a human being in existence .. which is correct .. - humans in this case .. Mother and Father .. That does not make the Zygote a human .. nor the cell that comes after. Animate does not come from inanimate . The zygote came from a human .. and then divided. All of our cells divide - just like the zygote .. cell division does not make the zygote "A human". and the zygote coming from a human does ot make it a human .. Nor .. does a cell having human DNA - and being capable of division make that cell a human. I stated before .. give a definition of what a human is - and show how the zygote meets that definition .. doesn't matter which one you use .. but pick something.
The "more", as I said already, is that this particular instance is the very beginning stage of human development. It is the first stage where all genetic material necessary for human development is present. -- Ergo, what has been formed is a human in the zygote stage... Upon further development, the human enters the embryo stage... then the fetus stage... then the newborn stage... then child... then adolescent... then adult... then elderly... then dead. The zygote stage is the very beginning stage of all the stages of human development. Some additional "more", as I've also already eluded to, is the fact that the zygote has germinative potential (IOW, the natural ability to become an adult human). This is different from any other cells (such as skin cells and etc.) I've already provided it to you, and have done so again. Already explained what makes a zygote a human. If you wish to continue denying science, that's your prerogative. Correct. But that's not what's going on here. The zygote came from mother and father... and then it subsequently divides and becomes an embryo and fetus and newborn and child and etc... ... yet a zygote has natural germinative potential while those other cells don't. This has already been provided to you. RQAA. (repetitive question already addressed) RQAA. (and repeated again in this response) Already did.
I too do not know why they just can't get the valid remark that follows. CKW said: ↑ The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. (From Britannica) If you kill it then development of that individual is stopped. Each stage from zygote to the last stage of development...after puberty...is the development of that same individual. Killing it at the first stage, or after its a newborn or when it's at 18 years of age brings the same result...that individual human life would be dead. Just because that human life hasn't yet developed to the point of being held, or to the point of having a conversation with it, does not make that life any less of an individual.
No you didn't provide more .. all you have done thus far is claim DNA - and now you want to add some nonsense that has already been refuted .. that being a stage in the development of a human somehow makes your claim that a zygote is a human true... but it doesn't. The sperm is part of the creation of a human .. as is the egg . .. as is the glint in your fathers eye when he looked at your mommy.. Being a stage in the creation of a human - is not a human .. You can't say .. "its a developing human" until you first show that a human exists - and you have not .. this is circular "Its a human because its a human" silliness. A zygote does not develop into a human - it is a cog in a wheel .. of human creation ... one among many cogs that have come before .. and many that will come after. At the zygote stage .. not a single cell that will be part of the human in the blueprint has been created .. What I find difficult to accept - is that a human can exist .. without a single cell from that human existing. According to your claim - The mighty zygote is a human.... which means that the 2-300 cells that come after .. are also individual humans.. which is one of the reasons why the "Genetic Perspective" while popular with the public - has fallen out of favor among scientists. There are 4 other main perspectives on when human life begins (note the adjective form - this does not mean a human exists .. just that something we can identify as "human" .. regardless ..none of the other perpsectives put the beginning of something we can letigimately call "Human" at conception .. never mind claim a human exists. You have to refute these other 4 perspectives in order to show your claim is true at the end of the day .. but you have yet to come up with any valid arguments from the Genetic perspective although you are heading towards one .. which is the potential argument - that sometime down the road a human might exist - projecting the future into the present. You want to make this argument .. fine .. but then tell us why this future possibile potential over-rides the rights of a woman.
Going to the early stage of the zygote is not intellectually honest when it comes to abortion. We all know that it does not stop there. Pro-abortion folks support it all the way to partial birth abortion.
Probably not to 100 percent of them but based on comments on many forums, seems plenty of them would happily slice and dice a term baby.
I would like just one of the “a zygote is a human” crowd to explain what they think this is http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-this-human.592231/
Most pro choice do not support up to that far .. but regardless . It is not the choice sides fault that the anti aborts want to start controlling a womans body at that point. Further ..if one can't understand the the zygote stage .. how on earth would one understand the later stages which are far more complex - and the anti aborts are hopelessly lost in most cases at understanding the zygote stage so we have to start their education there.
A preposterously false claim .. you see - absolutely no thought at all been put into that claim. animate does not come from inanimate ... life does not begin at conception .. both egg and sperm are alive .. as was father and mother. That is not the question - the question is when is a human present ... a Person. and at the zygote stage not a single cell from that person exists. How do you reckon a human can exist - without a single cell from that human existing ?
Robert, Robert, Robert How many times do I have to tell you that late term abortions are almost invariably done for foetal abnormality
Doesn’t fail in my opinion. You are asking for opinions right? I mean you can’t artificially grow it to be anything other than a human. You don’t just discredit a sunflower seed to the simple definition of a seed do you? It quite literally is a sunflower seed. Just as this would be a human seed. I agree with whoever made the argument you are trying to avoid
Mostly missing brain sometimes the brain is there but outside the cranial vault - which is inoperable what many do not understand is that these are WANTED pregnancies gone tragically wrong
You did not make a moral claim .. simply claimed life begins at conception - which .. moral or otherwise .. is false as life comes from life. The life of a single human cell called the zygote begins .. a life which ends a short time later. What kind of moral claim are you making ? Do you think the zygote has a soul ?
