A embryo doesn’t have lungs, or a brain, either. A fetus is not a “whole being”.
People are born without parts all the time. Legs, immature lungs, missing kidneys etc.
Does that make them something other than human?
I’m not sure if you’re talking about an embryo or a fetus, but we’ll say you’re talking about early physical development.
Can you take one cell, which isn’t a whole being, from a zygote, which is a whole being, and not kill the whole being (the zygote).
What right does anyone have to decide that a human being in the early stages of physical development has no human rights?
Every argument about abortion points to the physical status of the unborn. What difference does the level of development make? If it’s a human zygote, it’s a human being.
Yet those who support a woman’s right to commit abortion say that a human isn’t a “person” until it reaches a certain, arbitrary level of physical development.
That’s bad enough. There are some who support a woman’s right to commit abortion at any stage of development.
What difference does it make if a person has fully formed lungs yet? Does having immature lungs, or having only the cells that will develop into lungs, give you the right to kill a human being?
And if the zygote isn’t human, then what is it?