Human life - a zygote or a tumor?

[ChristRocket]

I can win a debate with almost anyone on abortion. Mostly because they can’t answer the questions thrown back at them or turn away the explanations given to them. It’s a wonderful feeling when you know that you’ve made someone actually think about such a controversial topic.

One question a consistently get though is - how does the life of a zygote differe from that of a tumor? They are both alive and so they are both human life -

My general explanation would be this - A zygote has the potential to become a full human being. A tumor will never be able to exist on it’s own subsistence and has the potential of killing a person.

Is there a better way to explain this?

 

[beleg]

A zygote does not have the potential to be a full human being - it IS a full human being. Just in a different stage of development than someone who has been born. If given enough time (a measly nine months!), it will be recognized as human by law.

A cancer tumor is not a human, and never will be a human no matter how long you let it live in your body.

 

[TARRAT]

A tumor doesn’t have parents.

 

[Havard]

It’s not a toomah. Now get to the choppah!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I can win a debate with almost anyone on abortion. Mostly because they can’t answer the questions thrown back at them or turn away the explanations given to them. It’s a wonderful feeling when you know that you’ve made someone actually think about such a controversial topic.

One question a consistently get though is - how does the life of a zygote differe from that of a tumor? They are both alive and so they are both human life -

My general explanation would be this - A zygote has the potential to become a full human being. A tumor will never be able to exist on it’s own subsistence and has the potential of killing a person.

Is there a better way to explain this?

To add to what the PP wrote, a woman could have benign tumors (fibroids) in her uterus. They are not a separate human being nor will they develop into one.

 

[Telstar]

I can win a debate with almost anyone on abortion. Mostly because they can’t answer the questions thrown back at them or turn away the explanations given to them. It’s a wonderful feeling when you know that you’ve made someone actually think about such a controversial topic.

One question a consistently get though is - how does the life of a zygote differe from that of a tumor? They are both alive and so they are both human life -

My general explanation would be this - A zygote has the potential to become a full human being. A tumor will never be able to exist on it’s own subsistence and has the potential of killing a person.

Is there a better way to explain this?

A zygote is the earliest form of an embryo. In other words, it’s a fertilized egg which, if it continues to grow, will eventually become a fully developed human being. At this stage, it’s already human, but still needs to grow inside it’s mother. It is the first part of the natural biological progression of all human pregnancies. It is not an abnormality, at all.

On the other hand, a tumor is a mass of deformed (human) cells produced by an abnormal process in the body. It does not have any potential of becoming a human being. Instead, it can lead to the death of a human being if it becomes cancerous and is not removed as soon as possible. It is not naturally produced by any normal function of the body.

There is a huge difference between those two things.

 

[zz912]

In general, science defines life as an organism which holds seven general characteristics:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction.

A tumor at most only holds two (organization and growth), maybe three of these characteristics depending on how you determine metabolism. It is not homeostatic, as it requires the human host to regulate the environment it grows in. It does not metabolize, since it requires sustenance from the human host. It does not adapt, as it simply grows where it can, and does not respond according to stimulus, and it doesn’t react if a surgeon cuts it in pieces or cuts it out. And a tumor is not able to reproduce a new individual organism.

On the contrary, a zygote shows all of these characteristics (reproduction is possible when the person reaches the maturity needed. People arguing against this point would have to admit that an 8 year old is not alive, which is a silly point.)

These are the fundamental differences, among many, between the two.

 

[JimG]

A zygote is the starting point of a new and distinct individual of the human species.
A tumor is just a tumor.

 

[Pat_M]

I can win a debate with almost anyone on abortion. Mostly because they can’t answer the questions thrown back at them or turn away the explanations given to them. It’s a wonderful feeling when you know that you’ve made someone actually think about such a controversial topic.

One question a consistently get though is - how does the life of a zygote differe from that of a tumor? They are both alive and so they are both human life -

My general explanation would be this - A zygote has the potential to become a full human being. A tumor will never be able to exist on it’s own subsistence and has the potential of killing a person.

Is there a better way to explain this?

I would tweak this a little. As “beleg” has said, a zygote IS a human being. A tumor is definitely not a human being. It’s just a toomah as Havard said

I know that sounds a little hard-core, but if you calmly explain that you and I were once a zygote, and that if a doctor had killed that zygote, he would have been killing each of us, that might at least get them thinking. I guess every person/situation is slightly different. But at least the “zygote is a human being” assertion has the value of being true in terms of reality. Most of the pro-abortion comebacks are going to be on the level of hypothetical or comparisons that are real stretches because they are different situations, sometimes wildly different, or only rare circumstances.

 

[Frankenfurter]

A zygote is the result of sexual reproduction while a tumor is group of cells with a faulty copy of the genetic material of its host.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Zygotes are genetically distinct from their parents. They have their own DNA sequence. Tumors are not genetically distinct from any other cell around them. Tumors are part of the individual who has them.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

In general, science defines life as an organism which holds seven general characteristics:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction.

A tumor at most only holds two (organization and growth), maybe three of these characteristics depending on how you determine metabolism. It is not homeostatic, as it requires the human host to regulate the environment it grows in. It does not metabolize, since it requires sustenance from the human host. It does not adapt, as it simply grows where it can, and does not respond according to stimulus, and it doesn’t react if a surgeon cuts it in pieces or cuts it out. And a tumor is not able to reproduce a new individual organism.

On the contrary, a zygote shows all of these characteristics (reproduction is possible when the person reaches the maturity needed. People arguing against this point would have to admit that an 8 year old is not alive, which is a silly point.)

These are the fundamental differences, among many, between the two.

This won’t work. The emergent properties of life arise from something being alive not something being an individual. Tumors are very much alive (and in fact they do exhibit all seven emergent properties not just the two you stated), but tumors are not individuals.

 

[Will_Storm]

A slight nuance to this question: I have come across the claim that zygotes have, though extremely rarely, turned into teratomas or other kinds of tumors.

Is that true? If so, what bearing do you think it has on how we explain life beginning at conception to pro-choice-minded people?