You will have to explain why this “potential” is qualitatively different than the “potential” human being represented by a zygote, other than just claiming it to be so by definition. For the record, I agree with you, but not because of any finding of science in the last 60 years. I don’t think any recent scientific finding adds to this essentially moral question.
How we should treat humans is a moral question, but what constitutes “human” is not. That is a matter of science, and of taxonomy. “Zygote”, “embryo”, and “fetus” are stages of development, like “infant”, “teenager”, etc. An embryo must be an embryonic
something… embryonic pig, embryonic dolphin, etc. A human embryo is, obviously, human.
There were systems of thought in Nazi Germany that held that it was desirable to kills Jews simply for being Jews. What totally non-religious argument could you have given to a Nazi intellectual that would convince him that his ethical position was wrong?
You honestly think that religion is the only ideological defense against Nazism? That no one could rationally and ethically oppose the Nazi ideology on non-religious grounds?
As flattering as that is toward religion, I’m pretty sure any atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc. in the world could and would tell you that religion is not necessary to mount a convincing defense of human rights against the Nazi ideology. (Whether they’d be convinced by it is another matter…)
If so, then show me that totally non-religious argument.
Do you, LeafByNiggle, or do you not believe that the law should prohibit me from killing you?
If you say yes, you believe in human rights and I don’t need to justify it; it is already common ground.
If you say no… no offense, but I wouldn’t believe you. I’m sure you’d say differently if someone had you at gunpoint.
But that isn’t the question. The question is whether a zygote is an “unborn human being”. You are going to have to address that question head on, not side-stepping it by circular reasoning.
What else could a zygote be?
Obviously he or she hasn’t been born yet… and if he or she’s not human, then what is (s)he? A platypus? “Zygote” is a stage of development, not a species.
The species - in the matter of this issue - is human; human offspring. Pre-natal human offspring. So yes, a zygote is an unborn human being.
The pro-life position is not weak. And it doesn’t need any bogus science to back it up.
I’m puzzled but pleased to hear you say this. What accounts for the way you’ve questioned the non-religious foundation of the pro-life position in this thread, then?
I said a sperm and an egg considered as a pair, and not yet fused. But you have not yet explained why a zygote and a sperm-egg pair, not fused, are different with regard to the term “potential human”. Both, if left alone with the proper nutrients in the mother’s womb will develop into a fetus that can implant in the uterus and develop to a baby. The unfused sperm-egg pair needs nothing more than the zygote needs. In what sense are they not equally qualified or disqualified to be called “potential human”?
Are you sure you know what you’re talking about? By the time that human is a fetus it will already have implanted
long beforehand…
That analysis only makes sense for someone who already agrees that a zygote is an actual human being. What would you say to convince someone who is not sure that a zygote is an actual human being?
What would you say to convince someone who is not sure that a teenager is an actual human being?
Probably nothing, because such a denial would be stupid. Unfortunately, you can’t argue with someone dismissive of the facts.
“Zygote” is a stage of development… if it’s the result of conception by humans, then it’s a zygote of the human species… just like an embryonic pig is, tautologically and self-evidently, a pig.
Just saying it over and over again very emphatically is not an argument.
Tautologies can’t really
be argued for. If someone refuses to admit a basic definition, like 2=2, that can’t be helped. That doesn’t make it any less true or tautological. A human zygote is
by definition human. What else do you want? I fully confess that I have no idea how to convince by discourse someone who is stupid and/or denies tautologies. That has nothing to do with an argument’s validity.
And saying that it is an actual human being because it defines a unique DNA set is also not sufficient because that particular argument applies to the sperm and egg combo before fusing too.
But there is no living organism with that actual DNA set that *exists *until *after *fertilization. There’s no biologically human living thing to kill before fertilization, so pre-fertilization there is no possible dispute or controversy.
Of course the egg and sperm, when considered together, have a complete DNA set. Once an egg and a sperm have been selected there is nothing left to decide. All the DNA that will ever be there is already there and no more. All the genetic traits are determined by that selection even before the two haploid cells merge.
And if there happens to be only one sperm cell present so that only one combination is possible, is that not unique?
Doesn’t matter; you can’t kill a “possible combination.” You
can kill a living human organism… whether it’s an adult, teenager, toddler, infant, fetus, embryo, or zygote.
