The Media will never report this, and the left will never admit it, but...

They both are, one is just provided with the environment necessary for growth, the other is not.

 

If a zygote is not human life then what is it? Is it human death, or is it animal life?

 

So placed in an environment suitable for human fetal growth, does one of your sperm cells by itself grow through the various stages of human development?

Well????????

 

Sorry but just because a bunch of anti abortion Republicans tried to limit abortion through the back door by defining a fertilized egg in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act as a human does not lend your position any credibility. And we could just as easily say production of sperm or an egg is the first step in the process of creating a human being since an egg cannot be fertilized if there is no egg or sperm.

 

LOL, yeah I notice the difference between an infant and an adult too. So you are seriously suggesting we should base it on mere first glance appearance?

WOW!~

- - - Updated - - -

BLAH BLAH BLAH, the law is an actual enacted law. Your denial means NOTHING AT ALL.

A FEDERAL LAW recognizes the personhood of "CHILDREN IN UTERO AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT"

Can "yeah but...Republicans man" that one away!

The problem with your egg or sperm theory is a disconnect logically. Neither can become a human being without fertilization. Once fertilization takes place they have become a human being. It is that simple., The Sperm and egg individually theory is simple minded at best.

 

No it will not go through the cell division growth process. The issue is at what stage it becomes human development. And that has always been the issue. Or at least that has been the issue since abortion became a matter for the government to decide instead of the individual.

 

Where did I say it is not human life? My sperm is human life.

But a zyglote is not a human being and has virtually none of the attributes of a human being, except for DNA.

 

It is obvious. What is the minimum point at which growth begins? Fertilization. It is logical and rational.

- - - Updated - - -

Only every human being starts out as a zygote, not a sperm, not an egg, but a zygote.

 

Sure it does. Mix in the sperm with an egg and viola.

 

Sperm is a cell, not an organism, hence it does not qualify as (human) life.

What is your definition for human life?

 

But neither the sperm or the egg can by itself be a human being, so the human being starts when the human being is created, at fertilization.

 

These have many, many characteristics in common.

Human being



Human Being



They have virtually nothing in common with this:

zyglote

 

According to who's definition?

Human and not dead.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither can the zyglote by itself be a human being, it must be environment suitable for human fetal growth. So what?

 

So your criterion for deciding whether two things have commonality is by comparing their physical looks?

 

No. But in this case it serves the purpose.

 

I didn't come up with this definition. It is something that I was taught in a biology class in college. Organisms are either alive or dead. Cells either function or they don't. In order for an entity to qualify as any sort of life, it has to be at the level of an organism.

If you disagree with my biology professor, then let me hear your own criterion for determining whether an entity is a life or not.

A zygote is both of these things. Therefore, it is human life.

 

What "purpose" does having cursory looks on pictures and then making hasty conclusion (like you did) serve?

Do you agree with me that the difference between a zygote and a newborn baby is time and time only?

 

I already gave it.

So is my sperm. So what?

 

Good post but the second photo is not a human being.

 

Shows that a single celled fertilized has virtually none of the attributes of human beings.

Of course not. Are you really trying to say the zygote and baby are basically the same thing? They are radically different things in almost every way. I mean, just look at the photos. : )

Now, I agree that the zygote, under the right conditions, has the potential to become a human being. But so does my sperm.

 

...and time makes all the difference.....

If it's only time that makes a difference then a zygote should be able to be removed from the woman it's in, set on a shelf and left to develop on it's own, in it's own time

 

Heh heh, I was taking liberties. : )

 

And as you've been shown, just because something is human life doesn't mean it has rights.....

 

Yes, for the narrow purpose of prosecution for intentional physical injury or death of the pregnant woman. Nowhere else. And specifically not for cases of abortion.

 

And in fact, we give dramatically different rights to human beings depending on their level of development.

Young children do not have the right to vote, make a contract, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, watch dirty movies, decide where to live, marry, drink alcohol, and any other number of things we routinely take for granted as rights for mature human beings.