QuestionHello,
I recently came across your answer to someone who was asking about arguments one can use against choice.
You told him that a zygote is a "human being" at conception, that it was a "fact".
here are some of your arguments
) The biggest misconception of the pro-choice argument concerning "life" is to confuse a human person with a human being.
Please explain he difference, and what you are basing this on.
"Conception is the beginning of life,"
Please explain this, as is not the ova and sperm also alive? They are certainly not dead? so how can "life" begin, if both these are already alive?
"The conceptus is alive, it is of the species Homo Sapiens "
Again, so is the sperm and the ova before conception, and they are also both of the species Homo sapien. What is he difference following conception.
I realize you will say that it is a differnce of DNA, but I would argue that DNA does not define individuality, as identical sibling share DNA, but are still seperate individuals.
"Scientifically, the only thing the unborn can be is a human being."
How do you come to this conclusion? A preconception ova is just as human as it is after conception, and it is just as alive as it was before.
Aren't you really basing your argument on potential? Isn't this really just a potential "human being", just as a unfertilized ova is? To say that the ova is any more human after conception, does not make any more sense than saying it is more "human" after division, or implantation. They are simply arbitrary steps in a process that leads to a completed human being, or person.
"Scientifically, the only thing the unborn can be is a human being. This is a fact and not a matter of opinion."
I think you have fibbed some here, as it most certainly is a matter of opinion. The unborn most certainly can be something other than "human being", as much as a unfertilized ova can be something other than a "human being", that is to say human tissue, or human cells, unless you accept that all human tissue is also a "human being".
I look forward to your response.
Answer"Please explain this, as is not the ova and sperm also alive? They are certainly not dead? so how can "life" begin, if both these are already alive?"
Many arguments involve saying that the unborn is a human being, but not a person yet. The problem with this argument is the definition of person is arbitrary, often focused on sentience, development, size, environment or degree of dependency. Sperm and ova are human cells, but not beings. One big difference between ova and sperm and a conceptus is ploidy, sex cells are haploid while the conceptus is diploid. As for life, one could argue that life has continued unbroken since the first living thing and merely been transferred. However, what I am referring to is the start of a being's life, a new member of the species different from their parents.
"Again, so is the sperm and the ova before conception, and they are also both of the species Homo sapien. What is he difference following conception."
Again, ploidy and a different set of chromosomes unique from either parent. It is really the only major event that stands out in pregnancy. It seems a logical and ideal marker for the beginning of life.
"I realize you will say that it is a difference of DNA, but I would argue that DNA does not define individuality, as identical sibling share DNA, but are still separate individuals."
identical siblings might share the same set, but not with their parents. A new being in conception differs from their parents. Furthermore, an identical twin is formed from one conceptus that splits, much like a clone.
"How do you come to this conclusion? A preconception ova is just as human as it is after conception, and it is just as alive as it was before."
You are proving my point, but if the cell is human and unique from the parent and capable of becoming an adult human, it fulfills the requirements.
"Aren't you really basing your argument on potential? Isn't this really just a potential "human being", just as a unfertilized ova is? To say that the ova is any more human after conception, does not make any more sense than saying it is more "human" after division, or implantation. They are simply arbitrary steps in a process that leads to a completed human being, or person."
And ova or sperm only has the potential to die or become a conceptus. After which they cease to exist. A conceptus has the potential to become a human adult. Genetically this can be noted by the restriction of change. If the conceptus is a step, then what is the final step to a being? Also, if it is a potential human being or person, then what is it actually? A potential X must be an actual Y. If it's not a human being is it a cat, dog, something else?
"I think you have fibbed some here, as it most certainly is a matter of opinion. The unborn most certainly can be something other than "human being", as much as a unfertilized ova can be something other than a "human being", that is to say human tissue, or human cells, unless you accept that all human tissue is also a "human being"."
So you claim it is opinion and that is a fact? The unborn can be nothing but a human being. If it is not, then it breaks the rule of biogenesis which states that a species can only create it's own species from conception with the same. If it is only a part of the body then we have 50 of pregnant women walking around with XY chromosomes making them hermaphrodites. The cells you describe are human, but they are not beings. A being is unique from it's parents, only the conceptus fulfills this.
