Mod Warning http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-a-zygote-a-human-2.590256/page-18#post-1072901452 In the last thread there few arguments and no valid ones in favor the Zygote being "A Human/Person/Homo Sapiens" One poster advanced the potential argument - claiming that because the zygote is part of a process that might result in a child - this single cell should be given the status of a Human - with rights including the right to life. This argument fails simply on the basis of projecting the future into the present. Something that might exist in the future - is said to exist in the present - on the basis that it might exist in the future. This argument also fails on the basis that many other parts involved in the creation of a human - other living human cells involved in the creation process- are not considered Human. Then there is the problem that a few days after the zygote is created - we have ~250 zygotes .. each exactly the same as the Parent who ceased to exist after the first cell division. Do we now have 250 souls ? Are there any other arguments that might be advanced for the Personhood of the Zygote ?
I would argue that the value of life derives from both a combination of present state and future potentiality. They combine together and are both factors. (I can prove this very easily. If you were about to die in 2 seconds with 100% certainty, then your life at that point would have virtually zero value, or rather the value of not killing you, to be more precise. So potentiality has at least some importance) Obviously a zygote has very little in the way of present state. (But it does not have absolutely no intrinsic value) It should also be pointed out (to anyone ignorant enough to believe this) that women do not go to an abortion clinic to terminate zygotes. So I am wondering how relevant this issue is to the abortion debate.
are you talking about me? That was my argument, except for the 'might' part, which was your addition, not mine. but this was not part of my argument. I hope you're not talking about me here... I made it very clear that I think abortion should stay legal and unrestricted despite my view that it is usually the unnecesary and selfish killing of a human. Freedom of choice over ones own body takes precedence in the case of pregnancy, and selfishness should not be illegal. all those parts create a human. If you take my heart, you're not charged with theft because you stole one of my parts, you're charged with murder because I die. If those cells somehow result in 250 fetuses, then I'd say yes. Otherwise, no.
Don't know if this is intentional mindlessness or what - but how can you not understand that the majority of zygotes do not make it to the finish line - result in a born human ? You say - How can the zygote result in anything else but born human - when most often the result is not a born human - so your statement 1) makes no sense - and 2) does not show that a zygote is a human - as even if true (which you are not) - just because something isn't a fish - or will not result in a fish - does not mean it is a human .. so at best your claim remains unproven. So you can't say the zygote "Will" result in a human .. only that it might. How is it that you do not understand this simple reality ?
+1 This is just common sense but for abortionists to be able to justify killing they must dehumanize the victim.
This is really a silly argument to make. Is there a human being alive that wasn't at the "zygote" stage? Besides this is no argument to support abortion because we know abortion includes late term abortion and such horrors as those committed by Kermit Gosnell. Trying to justify abortion by reducing it down to the very early stages of conception is misleading and not intellectually honest.
You seem to have missed this question: ""Are there any other arguments that might be advanced for the Personhood of the Zygote ?"" I would change it to read , are there ANY arguments that might be advanced for the Personhood of the Zygote? Do you think "personhood" means one is free to do anything to anyone ?
Were there any arguments that could have been advanced for the personhood of slaves? Sure there were.
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.
I don't understand the premise you are trying to make with your question. I don't think personhood is defined as free to do anything to anyone. It has to do with legal protection and can be different according to the value one holds for individual human life. We don't hold a zygote as valuable human life or we wouldn't have abortion easily available. Legally a zygote is disposable according to the whims of the mother. Ancient Romans did not see newborns as persons and could dispose of them at will. Gotta give ancient Egyptions kudos...they were appalled that Romans left their newborns in the trash dump and activist Egyptions picked them up from the trash and raised them as their own. So some people believe that because women are most affected by child birth that they should be able to have the privilage of killing individual human life. Instead of proabortion activists trying to convince people that a zygote is not a developing human individual they ought to be honest and upfront.
But yet you want the ZEF to be free to harm another without their consent...you and I don't have that right, no one does...why do you make an exception for a ZEF? Abortion is easily available because women have the right of bodily autonomy and the right to a legal medical procedure. The pregnant one is the one who decides the value of their body part. To think women have abortions on a "whim" is quite misogynistic, unfeeling, and untrue. Irrelevant but how many kids have you adopted? Some do, most KNOW that women have the right of bodily autonomy, TOO. In what way do you see Pro-CHOICERS as not honest or upfront?
how interesting. They are evil and need to be destroyed. Lol. You do get the long term problem with that attitude right? It is legal because our society deems individual human life as disposable during the early stages. Of course that attitude can change either way...which is why activists make an effort to devalue a zygote as "harmful" Legally they can abort on a whim. none yet. most people can relate more with a woman and thus can emphasize more with her. You can't hug a cuddle a zygote. I said it in my post.
FoxHastings said: ↑ But yet you want the ZEF to be free to harm another without their consent...you and I don't have that right, no one does...why do you make an exception for a ZEF? WHERE TF did I say they were evil? NO WHERE. Why would you say I did??? Because you couldn't address the facts?? Do YOU have the right to harm another without their consent? Try answering a question Abortion is easily available because women have the right of bodily autonomy and the right to a legal medical procedure. The pregnant one is the one who decides the value of their body part. Do you deny that pregnant women have a right to bodily autonomy as YOU do? No it is not an effort to devalue a ZEF, it is a fact, pregnancy causes women harm. If you can PROVE that pregnancy cause women no harm DO SHOW IT. That doesn't mean they do....but they have that right. To think women have abortions on a "whim" is quite misogynistic, unfeeling, and untrue. Ya, not many "Pro-Lifers" do. What has that got to do with my statement: "" most KNOW that women have the right of bodily autonomy, TOO.""
Spot on! Why don't the abortionists get this? Prolly because they are too busy churning out propaganda and BS.
They want woman to perceive an unborn child as a parasite or nothing more valuable as a skin cell. That way they get more abortions and more abortions late term. They view child birth as the curse for women.
+1 With access to birth control and the option to keep it in their pants women have many options to keep from getting pregnant in the first place.
I'm only concerned with whether you were misrepresenting my argument or not. Was it mine you were referring to in OP?
I didn't miss the question. It was addressed at length in the original thread. My concern is whether the OP was referring to me specifically or not, because if OP was, then OP is attributing things to my argument that were not made by me. Personhood does not mean one is free to do anything to anyone. Why would you think that? The legal definition of a 'person' is not necessarily even a human. A corporation can legally be 'a person.' The word is derived from 'persona' and refers to many different types of bureaucratic entitities that only exist in theory or on paper, IMO like characters in a work of fiction. "the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers. A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law. Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.). Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Personhood legal definition of personhood (thefreedictionary.com) I tend to try to use the word 'human' instead of 'person' for this reason. And no, humans shouldn't be able to do anything they want to eachother either. Offensive physical violence against humans, for example, should always be both illegal and unlawful.
FoxHastings said: ↑ You seem to have missed this question: ""Are there any other arguments that might be advanced for the Personhood of the Zygote ?"" I would change it to read , are there ANY arguments that might be advanced for the Personhood of the Zygote? Do you think "personhood" means one is free to do anything to anyone ? I don't. I asked YOU quite clearly "Do you think "personhood" means one is free to do anything to anyone ? Where in there does it say a ZEF is a legal person? And every reference is to BORN people. Then if a ZEF is ever deemed a "person" the woman has every right to kill it....it is harming her and she has every right to stop the harm, JUST AS YOU AND I DO. Do you think a ZEF should have more rights than BORN persons?
I havn't misrepresented a thing - Your claim that a zygote always result in a born human is simply false. What part of "The zygote might make it" do you not understand ? You said "No no no" it is not a "might" and this is pure nonsense. and Yes .. the OP is referring to the "Potential Argument" which is the argument you are making. That the zygote "Might" become a born human one day - and on this basis it qualifies as a human in the present.
I said I believe they are human. I didn't not claim they are legal persons. And no, I don't think they should have more rights than born humans or 'born persons'. Why would you ask that, when I have not indicated anything of the sort?
"One poster advanced the potential argument - claiming that because the zygote is part of a process that might result in a child - this single cell should be given the status of a Human - with rights including the right to life." Was this referring to my argument or not?
Indeed the above argument is "silly" - commiting the assumed premise fallacy - and assuming that there was a human inexistence which went through the zygote stage. The second reason the above claim is false is that just because the blueprint is part of the development process of a car -does not make the blueprint a car. We are talking about zygotes .. not late term fetuses. Glad you are OK with Abortion up to the late term though. That is a far more sensible and defensible place to claim the existence of human. Talking about the zygote is neither misleading - nor intellectually honest.. Not wanting to deal with the realty surrounding the zygote in an attemt to dismiss reality is what is both "Misleading and intelletually dishonest" - thus once again you are projecting your failings onto others.
