Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not all zygotes make it to the next stage of prenatal development, however. Researchers estimate that 30 to 70 percent of all naturally occurring conceptions fail either before or at the time of implantation. [ie zygote stage]
Explore the Stages of Prenatal Development
Who do we charge with murder?
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
Semantics?
...and here we go again, with your intentionally mislabeling pro-choice people as "abortion proponents", as if other people don't recognize such duplicity.
...and here we go again, with your intentionally mislabeling pro-choice people as "abortion proponents", as if other people don't recognize such duplicity.
Please quote the definition for the word proponent and tell me which part you disagree applies to those who support keeping elective abortion legal.
Can you do that?
...and here we go again, with your intentionally mislabeling pro-choice people as "abortion proponents", as if other people don't recognize such duplicity.
Please quote the definition for the word proponent and tell me which part you disagree applies to those who support keeping elective abortion legal.
Can you do that?
I'm not interested in playing word games with you, Chuz. You know exactly what I am talking about.
...and here we go again, with your intentionally mislabeling pro-choice people as "abortion proponents", as if other people don't recognize such duplicity.
Please quote the definition for the word proponent and tell me which part you disagree applies to those who support keeping elective abortion legal.
Can you do that?
I'm not interested in playing word games with you, Chuz. You know exactly what I am talking about.
You are the only one complaining about the word. Words have meanings and I am using them according to their meanings. If you have a problem with the words or their definitions? Take it up with the staff / authors of the dictionaries.
Also, look at the poll. You don't have to be an abortion proponent or admit to being one. . . In order to participate.
...and here we go again, with your intentionally mislabeling pro-choice people as "abortion proponents", as if other people don't recognize such duplicity.
Please quote the definition for the word proponent and tell me which part you disagree applies to those who support keeping elective abortion legal.
Can you do that?
I'm not interested in playing word games with you, Chuz. You know exactly what I am talking about.
You are the only one complaining about the word. Words have meanings and I am using them according to their meanings. If you have a problem with the words or their definitions? Take it up with the staff / authors of the dictionaries.
Also, look at the poll. You don't have to be an abortion proponent or admit to being one. . . In order to participate.
Polls on a message board mean nothing to me. I already have firm opinions about those that want to take legal control of my wife and daughter's bodies.
As for abortion proponents, I know many people who would never even consider having an abortion because of their personal moral code, yet your fractured definition would call them abortion proponents because they believe that what over people do with their own bodies are none of their business. Your definition doesn't doesn't fly, Chuz.
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development. . .
And a human Zygote?
Anybody?
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
I think there is still a lot of semantics here.
To keep things light, I'll use a flippant example. If you ask someone, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" you will rarely hear people complain that the question is invalid because an egg IS a chicken.
I've seen people describe early developmental stages as not a human being. I prefer not a person. A zygote does not have a brain, nor any other organs, for that matter. It isn't even the "clump of cells" so often talked about in abortion arguments; that would be more accurate for a blastocyst. A zygote is, so far as I can tell, pretty much just the cell formed from fertilization, once the nucleus of the spermatozoon and ovum merge. I would be fine describing that zygote as a human being but not a person. I think the intent is the same, however: differentiating between a thinking, sentient being and one that is not.
I don't want to argue our positions on the value of a human life at any given stage of development. It tends to be one of the more pointless arguments possible; I don't recall ever seeing someone actually change their position on the subject during a discussion or argument. It might be best to clarify terms if you're going to argue about it, though. As it stands, you seem to be trying to catch people in a semantic trap rather than making a strong point.
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
I think there is still a lot of semantics here.
To keep things light, I'll use a flippant example. If you ask someone, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" you will rarely hear people complain that the question is invalid because an egg IS a chicken.
I've seen people describe early developmental stages as not a human being. I prefer not a person. A zygote does not have a brain, nor any other organs, for that matter. It isn't even the "clump of cells" so often talked about in abortion arguments; that would be more accurate for a blastocyst. A zygote is, so far as I can tell, pretty much just the cell formed from fertilization, once the nucleus of the spermatozoon and ovum merge. I would be fine describing that zygote as a human being but not a person. I think the intent is the same, however: differentiating between a thinking, sentient being and one that is not.
I don't want to argue our positions on the value of a human life at any given stage of development. It tends to be one of the more pointless arguments possible; I don't recall ever seeing someone actually change their position on the subject during a discussion or argument. It might be best to clarify terms if you're going to argue about it, though. As it stands, you seem to be trying to catch people in a semantic trap rather than making a strong point.
I thought the point would be obvious even to the most casual observer.
The point being made is that there is no physiological difference between a human being who is in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development and a human zygote.
Still, I have invited abortion proponents and even non proponents to explain the differences if they believe there are any.
Semantics?
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
I think there is still a lot of semantics here.
To keep things light, I'll use a flippant example. If you ask someone, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" you will rarely hear people complain that the question is invalid because an egg IS a chicken.
I've seen people describe early developmental stages as not a human being. I prefer not a person. A zygote does not have a brain, nor any other organs, for that matter. It isn't even the "clump of cells" so often talked about in abortion arguments; that would be more accurate for a blastocyst. A zygote is, so far as I can tell, pretty much just the cell formed from fertilization, once the nucleus of the spermatozoon and ovum merge. I would be fine describing that zygote as a human being but not a person. I think the intent is the same, however: differentiating between a thinking, sentient being and one that is not.
I don't want to argue our positions on the value of a human life at any given stage of development. It tends to be one of the more pointless arguments possible; I don't recall ever seeing someone actually change their position on the subject during a discussion or argument. It might be best to clarify terms if you're going to argue about it, though. As it stands, you seem to be trying to catch people in a semantic trap rather than making a strong point.
I thought the point would be obvious even to the most casual observer.
The point being made is that there is no physiological difference between a human being who is in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development and a human zygote.
Still, I have invited abortion proponents and even non proponents to explain the differences if they believe there are any.
Semantics, yes. However, I am trying to get beyond the semantics with this thread.
Abortion proponents (in general) will refuse to accept / acknowledge the biological fact that there is no physiological difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a human zygote.
They seldom if ever will acknowledge the fact that it's a human being, child, etc.
Nevermind the biological fact that a child in the zygote stage of their life is the same organism, has the same DNA and the same biological parents at the moment it became a zygote.... that he or she will when they finally emerge from the womb.
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
I think there is still a lot of semantics here.
To keep things light, I'll use a flippant example. If you ask someone, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" you will rarely hear people complain that the question is invalid because an egg IS a chicken.
I've seen people describe early developmental stages as not a human being. I prefer not a person. A zygote does not have a brain, nor any other organs, for that matter. It isn't even the "clump of cells" so often talked about in abortion arguments; that would be more accurate for a blastocyst. A zygote is, so far as I can tell, pretty much just the cell formed from fertilization, once the nucleus of the spermatozoon and ovum merge. I would be fine describing that zygote as a human being but not a person. I think the intent is the same, however: differentiating between a thinking, sentient being and one that is not.
I don't want to argue our positions on the value of a human life at any given stage of development. It tends to be one of the more pointless arguments possible; I don't recall ever seeing someone actually change their position on the subject during a discussion or argument. It might be best to clarify terms if you're going to argue about it, though. As it stands, you seem to be trying to catch people in a semantic trap rather than making a strong point.
I thought the point would be obvious even to the most casual observer.
The point being made is that there is no physiological difference between a human being who is in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development and a human zygote.
Still, I have invited abortion proponents and even non proponents to explain the differences if they believe there are any.
There is no physiological difference because those are just two different ways to say the same thing. It's like saying there is no physiological difference between an adult human and a human grown-up; they are just different labels for the same entity. The statement is pointless because it is redundant. You are basically saying there is no difference between a zygote and a zygote.
Why not just say a zygote is a human being, or that once fertilization occurs, a new human being exists, and go from there?
I'm afraid I've never heard someone try to argue about the difference between calling it the zygote stage of human life and a human zygote. It's just two ways of labeling the same thing. I don't know that I've ever seen or heard someone deny that the zygote is a stage of human development.
If I'm reading this right, you are trying to compare a zygote to a newborn as though they are the same. Certainly they are the same organism at different stages of growth, but there are massive anatomical/physiological differences in the two stages.
There is a difference between acknowledging that the zygote stage is an early step in human growth and development and acknowledging that a human zygote itself already is a human being. And there in lies the rub.
You might be surprised how many would even disagree with you that a human zygote is even an organism... let alone a human one.
I think there is still a lot of semantics here.
To keep things light, I'll use a flippant example. If you ask someone, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" you will rarely hear people complain that the question is invalid because an egg IS a chicken.
I've seen people describe early developmental stages as not a human being. I prefer not a person. A zygote does not have a brain, nor any other organs, for that matter. It isn't even the "clump of cells" so often talked about in abortion arguments; that would be more accurate for a blastocyst. A zygote is, so far as I can tell, pretty much just the cell formed from fertilization, once the nucleus of the spermatozoon and ovum merge. I would be fine describing that zygote as a human being but not a person. I think the intent is the same, however: differentiating between a thinking, sentient being and one that is not.
I don't want to argue our positions on the value of a human life at any given stage of development. It tends to be one of the more pointless arguments possible; I don't recall ever seeing someone actually change their position on the subject during a discussion or argument. It might be best to clarify terms if you're going to argue about it, though. As it stands, you seem to be trying to catch people in a semantic trap rather than making a strong point.
I thought the point would be obvious even to the most casual observer.
The point being made is that there is no physiological difference between a human being who is in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development and a human zygote.
Still, I have invited abortion proponents and even non proponents to explain the differences if they believe there are any.
There is no physiological difference because those are just two different ways to say the same thing. It's like saying there is no physiological difference between an adult human and a human grown-up; they are just different labels for the same entity. The statement is pointless because it is redundant. You are basically saying there is no difference between a zygote and a zygote.
Why not just say a zygote is a human being, or that once fertilization occurs, a new human being exists, and go from there?
Thank you.
I wish you would start a thread and include a poll to see how many people actually agree with you on all that. If I try it, I already know what the results will be. I also think you would be surprised at how many (dare I say) abortion proponents actually will disagree on most of what you said.
It defies logic to me too.
Well, as I said, I'm sure some would argue that a zygote is not yet a human being, because they are defining human being with the development of organs and organ systems, or perhaps with sentience. I understand, and wouldn't want to argue that particular label.
I'd be more interested in the underlying issues: is a zygote a person? Does a zygote deserve constitutional protection? At what point in development does a fetus become a person and gain constitutional protections, if it is not at fertilization? Those seem like better questions to me.
Getting into it over the definition of human being, particularly in the context of prenatal development, has too much chance of people just refusing to come to an agreement on how they will define terms.
Well, as I said, I'm sure some would argue that a zygote is not yet a human being, because they are defining human being with the development of organs and organ systems, or perhaps with sentience. I understand, and wouldn't want to argue that particular label.
I will.
That little detail is quite significant in the overall debate about some of the other things you mention in this post. Like;
I'd be more interested in the underlying issues: is a zygote a person? Does a zygote deserve constitutional protection? At what point in development does a fetus become a person and gain constitutional protections, if it is not at fertilization? Those seem like better questions to me.
Yes, those are very significant questions to be sure. And, the first step to answering those questions is to establish whether or not a human being who is in the zygote stage of their life is actually "a human being" or not. Isn't it?
Getting into it over the definition of human being, particularly in the context of prenatal development, has too much chance of people just refusing to come to an agreement on how they will define terms.
Huh?
What do you mean by "they define terms?"
