It is not. I specified in my first or second comment in that thread that abortion should be legal and unrestricted, which is precisely the opposite of your claim of what I said. Either you didn't read it, you forgot it, or you're lying.
Many things we covered . -- but fine .. we can amend position .. You think the zygote is a human - but one without rights including the right to life .. This does not change the fact that you are making the potential argument .. in defence of your "Zygote is a Human" claim.
It is life, a human, it is a human life. It doesn't start as one form of life and change into another form of life. Basic biology. (International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36 (in press) WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN? "SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. (copyright February 1999) B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact: Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths. Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!" Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate. Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�." Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson: "... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.) Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being." Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities. Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings." Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development. Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy." Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again: "...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16 Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.) Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly: "Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.) Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated." Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (198.20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day. The term "pre-embryo" was also used as the rationale for permitting human embryo research in the British Warnock Committee Report (1984),21 and then picked up by literally hundreds of writers internationally, including, e.g., Australian writers Michael Lockwood, Michael Tooley, Alan Trounson�and especially by Peter Singer (a philosopher), Pascal Kasimba (a lawyer), Helga Kuhse (an ethicist), Stephen Buckle (a philosopher) and Karen Dawson (a geneticist, not a human embryologist). Note that none of these is even a scientist, with the exception of Karen Dawson, who is just a geneticist. Oddly, the influential book by Singer, Kuhse, Buckle, and Dawson, Embryo Experimentation,22 (which uses the term "pre-embryo," and which contains no scientific references for its "human embryology" chart or its list of "scientific" terms), along with the work of theologian McCormick and frog developmental biologist Grobstein, was used in the United States as the scientific basis for the 1994 National Institutes of Heath (NIH) Human Embryo Research Report.23 That Report concluded that the "preimplantation embryo" (they, too, originally used the term "pre-embryo") had only a "reduced moral status." (Both the Warnock Report and the NIH Report admitted that the 14-day limit for human embryo research was arbitrary, and could and must be changed if necessary.) It is particularly in the writings of these and other bioethicists that so much incorrect science is claimed in order to "scientifically" ground the "pre-embryo" myth and therefore "scientifically" justify many of the issues noted at the beginning of this article. This would include abortion, as well as the use of donated or "made-for-research" early human embryos in destructive experimental human embryo research (such as infertility research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, etc.). To begin with, it has been demonstrated above that the immediate product of fertilization is a human being with 46 chromosomes, a human embryo, an individual member of the human species, and that this is the beginning of the embryonic period. However, McCormick and Grobstein24 claim that even though the product of fertilization is genetically human, it is not a "developmental individual" yet�and in turn, this "scientific fact" grounds their moral claim about this "pre-embryo." Quoting McCormick: "I contend in this paper that the moral status�and specifically the controversial issue of personhood�is related to the attainment of developmental individuality (being the source of one individual) ... It should be noted that at the zygote stage the genetic individual is not yet developmentally single�a source of only one individual. As we will see, that does not occur until a single body axis has begun to form near the end of the second week post fertilization when implantation is underway."25 (Emphasis added.) Sounds very scientific. However, McCormick�s embryology is already self-contradictory. Implantation takes place at 5-7 days. The "single body axis" to which he refers is the formation of the primitive streak, which takes place at 14 days. McCormick often confuses these different periods in his writings. But McCormick continues: "This multicellular entity, called a blastocyst, has an outer cellular wall, a central fluid-filled cavity and a small gathering of cells at one end known as the inner cell mass. Developmental studies show that the cells of the outer wall become the trophoblast (feeding layer) and are precursors to the later placenta. Ultimately, all these cells are discarded at birth."26 (Emphasis added.) The clear implication is that there is absolutely no relationship or interaction between these two cell layers, and so the "entity" is not a "developmental individual" yet. However, quoting Larsen: "These centrally placed blastomeres are now called the inner cell mass, while the blastomeres at the periphery constitute the outer cell mass. Some exchange occurs between these groups. ... The cells of this germ disc (the inner cell layer) develop into the embryo proper and also contribute to some of the extraembryonic membranes."27 (Emphasis added.) Similarly, it is not factually correct to state that all of the cells from the outer trophoblast layer are discarded after birth. Quoting Moore: "The chorion, the amnion, the yolk sac, and the allantois constitute the fetal membranes. They develop from the zygote but do not participate in the formation of the embryo or fetus�except for parts of the yolk sac and allantois. Part of the yolk sac is incorporated into the embryo as the primordium of the gut. The allantois forms a fibrous cord that is known as the urachus in the fetus and the median umbilical ligament in the adult. It extends from the apex of the urinary bladder to the umbilicus."28 (Emphasis added.) Since scientists, in trying to "reach" young students in a more familiar language, sometimes use popularized (but scientifically inaccurate and misleading) terms themselves, the ever-vigilant O�Rahilly expresses concern in his classic text about the use of the term "fetal membranes": "The developmental adnexa, commonly but inaccurately referred to as the �fetal membranes,� include the trophoblast, amnion, chorion, umbilical vesicle (yolk sac), allantoic diverticulum, placenta and umbilical cord. They are genetically a part of the individual and are composed of the same germ layers."29 (Emphasis added.) Consequently, it is also scientifically incorrect to claim that only the inner cell layer constitutes the "embryo proper." The entire blastocyst�including both the inner and the outer cell layers�is the human embryo, the human being, the human individual. cont... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
cont.... Finally, McCormick claims that this "pre-embryo" has not yet decided how many individuals it will become, since the cells are totipotent and twinning can still take place. Therefore, they argue, there is no "individual" present until 14-days and the formation of the primitive streak, after which twinning cannot take place.30 However, twinning is possible after 14 days, e.g., with fetus-in-fetu and Siamese twins. Quoting from O�Rahilly again: "Partial duplication at an early stage and attempted duplication from 2 weeks onward (when bilateral symmetry has become manifest) would result in conjoined twins (e.g., �Siamese twins�)."31 (Emphasis added.) And even Karen Dawson acknowledges this as scientific fact in her article in Embryo Experimentation: "After the time of primitive streak formation, other events are possible which indicate that the notion of �irreversible individuality� may need some review if it is to be considered as an important criterion in human life coming to be the individual human being it is ever thereafter to be. There are two conditions which raise questions about the adequacy of this notion: conjoined twins, sometimes known as Siamese twins, and fetus-in-fetu. ... Conjoined twins arise from the twinning process occurring after the primitive streak has begun to form, that is, beyond 14 days after fertilization, or, in terms of the argument from segmentation, beyond the time at which irreversible individuality is said to exist. ... This situation weakens the possibility of seeing individuality as something irreversibly resolved by about 14 days after fertilization. This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of using the landmark of segmentation in development as the determinant of moral status."32 (Emphasis added.) It is unfortunate that the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel33 did not read this particular portion of the Singer et al. book before making their recommendations about the moral status of the early human embryo. The scientific fact is that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo" in the real world. The term is a complete myth. It was fabricated out of thin air in order to justify a number of things that ordinarily would not be justifiable. Quoting O�Rahilly, who sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica, again: "The ill-defined and inaccurate term �pre-embryo,� which includes the embryonic disk, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book.34 (Emphasis added.) Unfortunately, the convenient but mythological term "pre-embryo" will be used to "scientifically" justify several of the other "scientific" myths to follow, which in turn will be used to justify public policy on abortion and human embryo research world-wide. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Every human being who has ever existed began as a HUMAN at the zygote stage of life. There has never been a case where a male and female of the species together created some other form of life through conception of their sperm and ovum. No dogs, no monkeys, no zebras all have been human.
You have missed it and diverted it. Read the title the question is it a "human". If created by humans OF COURSE it is a human.
Good GRIEF talk about "silly" arguments. Cars are not living beings. We're talking two stages of human life, babies are not adults. It's called science and intellectually and scientifically honest, claiming otherwise is dishonest. Not wanting to deal with the fact that it is a human life that is killed during an abortion is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
I kept some of the demonstrably false gibberish the rabid prolife princeton site - Lets go through some of this laughable nonsense posing as science. 1) radical difference between sperm and zygote True - but does not state what that the difference is that makes one "a human" and the not. That is not "Science" that is a claim without support followed by 2) Abortion is the destruction of a human - a second unsupported claim - assumed premise fallacy. And that is it .. no explanation - no why - we are just supposed to accept some radical Pro Life propaganda as fact. Clearly you were fooled - I hope this helps. Now here is a real Fact - one stated to you numerous times - Of the 5 different scientific perspective on "When human life begins" - only one puts the beginning at conception. And as correctly stated by the above - one of the few things it gets right - the question is not when "Human life" begins - a mistake that you make over and over, and over, and over and over - despite being corrected over and over and over - .. but when a human exists .
Didn't say it wasn't human - do try to figure out the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective.
Sure would be silly - but not as silly as you making up these silly things and falsely attributing them to others because you have no argument. Except - as per the link you posted but clearly didn't understand .. we are not talking about "Human life" So spewing false accusations and not understanding the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective is what you call "Science and intellectual honesty" ? Thats funny
Your claim that everything created by Humans is "a human" is laughable demonstrably false nonsense. Not that this is unusual for you but, could you not think for a second or two before opening mouth ? A human turd is something created by a human. Please tell me you don't think a human turd is a human.
Your claim that I said EVERYTHING created by humans is human is a patent distortion of what I said, in fact quite dishonest on your part. I was specific to life, a HUMAN LIFE. "..of the Zygote". If created by two humans OF COURSE it is human. But even your stupid argument fails because yes if a forensic expert was to exam that turd he would declare it a human turd. That you do no understand the difference between a zygote or a fetus or a baby and turd is laughable but pitiful at the same time.
I didn't falsely attribute anything to and yes this is about human zygotes, a stage of human life. And if you want to talk dog zygotes, they are dog life. Monkey zygotes are monkey life.
Don't project your lack of understanding onto me .. YOU said . " Read the title the question is it a "human". If created by humans OF COURSE it is a human" You don't even know what your own words mean .. "If created by humans - of course it is a human" means everything created by humans is a human. Which is of course patent nonsense.
What joke - pretending not to remember your post of a few hours ago .. falsely accusing me of making the argument that Cars are living beings Go and get something other than false accusation - I know you are famous for this - having no valid arguments of your own but time to get a grip on reality .. and quit making stuff up.
The question is not if it is human - but if it is "A Human" .. time you and Blue figured out the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective. .. been correcting you both for years .. have you no ability to learn ?
No I didn't .. I asked if it was "A Human" .. do try to figure out the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective
the answer is yes because it's not a giraffe it's not an elephant it's not a dog it's not an arm. so are you asking if it's a thought like human empathy? That's using human as an adjective to describe empathy. Using human as an adjective to describe human genetic material would be odd because that would be a noun.
