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.
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'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'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.
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.
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.
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.
I will.
That little detail is quite significant in the overall debate about some of the other things you mention in this post. Like;
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?"
