The fact is, a zygote has just as much potential as a newborn baby, and you cannot get around that.

A zygote is at one stage of development, and a newborn is at another.

I feel sorry for you that you MUST resort to philosophy in order to respond to my discussion instead of science, but I understand- because it is impossible for you to argue against what I’ve said using Science.

But it is a complete, functioning, human baby.

There is a good deal of value judgement here. There have been many cultures in human history in which children, no matter what their age, were considered literally the property of their father until he died. A friend of mine, from Ethiopia, has trouble with the idea that in America, a child can ignore their parent’s wishes at age 18. He was raised in a tradition that father could beat the son no matter how old the son is. On the other hand, he has trouble with the idea that parents can leave their property to anyone they wish, rather than it being law that the children inherit, period.

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, generally facetious, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it.” In many cultures, that was literally true. Remember the line in Romeo and Juliet, “An you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend”?

For a lot of reasons, our culture does not consider children to belong utterly to the parent, to do with as the parent pleases. We may not expose babies on the mountain top if we have doubts about them. We may not beat disobedient ten year olds to death. But that is a value judgement we have made. Paternal power of life and death over the family coexisted with the Pythagorean opposition to abortion.

It is not uncommon for a “pro-life” person to argue, if its OK to abort a fetus, why not kill a ten year old? The reason is, because a fetus is a fetus, and a ten year old is a ten year old. I can break that down empirically, but ultimately, a ten year old is more than the sum of his or her parts. So is a fetus, but many of the parts of a ten year old aren’t even there yet, nor does what is developed acting in concert in the manner that the parts of a ten year old do.

I advance that argument only to the point that society should not forcefully step in while an undeveloped fetus is still inside a woman. If you view a fetus growing in you differently, society, by the same token, may not step in to tell you otherwise.

Is a newborn baby the moral equivalent of a fully grown human adult?

For example, I have accepted the citations from microbiology textbooks Gerard has offered, and explained why it does NOT lead me to the conclusion that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a new-born baby.

On the other hand, I have given you detailed citations directly from Roe v. Wade, and you have said, oh no, some web site told me different, you must be wrong.

Your question regarding soul is way off topic, as were your previous comments along the same line. What I said is, if the physical body is sufficiently damaged, to the point that the brain is dysfunctional, a point may be reached where I am no longer there. Where my soul is, God knows. Just as the complete absence of brain activity, zero EEG, is accepted as a measure of death, even while there is still a heart-beat, if my body is on autonomic function, with no conscious thought, no self-aware me still present, nothing left even to wake up, then I’m gone. Turn off all artificial life support, perform no surgery, do not insert a feeding tube.

Nope. You are disregarding the data itself.

The data never says anything about human rights- it simply states that an unborn child from the moment of conception is a human being. You have covered your ears and said “lalallalalaa” in order not to acknowledge what even most Planned Parenthood and NARAL people will even admit! It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

Stamping your foot and saying “It is so science” doesn’t cut it.

But presenting the facts as they are does cut it. And the science IS there to prove that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception. Just look at Gerard’s recent posts on embryology to see some of the science there. Good grief. The problem really is that some people prefer to hide from facts! And that’s all there is to it!

Don’t you have any sense, Bethany, of how childish it is for us to simply shout these opposites at each other? If we can still seriously disagree, then the science is NOT settled. At some point, a debate may end up with only the Flat Earth Society denying that the earth is a sphere and circles the sun, while everyone else knows better, and the data is irrefutable. But at this time, there is significant disagreement among both microbiologists and citizens on these matters. We aren’t disputing the data. We’re disputing the conclusions to be drawn from the data. Stamping your foot and saying “It is so science” doesn’t cut it. Claiming to “let facts speak for themselves” is self-delusion bordering on narcissism.

God will still love me after I’m dead, but that doesn’t mean there is any remaining earthly purpose in my empty body. Don’t you get it Bethany? If my mind is gone, I’m not there.

Siarlys, I am not naive. No matter HOW persuasive the argument, NO minds are ever changed unless the person being debated is willing to actually hear and consider the facts involved, and consider the idea that they might actually be wrong.

I cannot reach into your mind and force it to be concerned with the welfare of others less fortunate than yourself.

However, I have been a part of seeing many people change their stance from pro-abortion to pro-life after they looked at the evidence and realized that their position was very wrong.

It is not within my power to make your mind change- it is within my power to present facts, and let those facts speak for themselves. I can hope and pray that you will decide to listen but that is all I can do.

I can no more change your mind than I can make myself grow 6 inches taller.

No, Siarlys, that is projection.

It is indeed you who has a deeply held set of convictions which you will not allow science to interfere with.

You continue to insist that a human being doesn’t exist at conception, when Science PROVES that it does.

THAT is willful ignorance. My belief about human life in the womb is supported by science and biology. You have YET to come up with a true scientific explanation for why you believe a zygote is not a human BEING. You have only provided philosophical reasons that you don’t consider those human beings to be PERSONS.

Like I said, you feel you have no inherent worth. I find that terribly, terribly tragic and sad.

You don’t believe that God loves you despite what happens to you. You believe that you are only worth something as long as you can have a certain level of productivity.

I don’t know if it was your mother or father or someone else in your life who influenced and shaped you to feel this way, but I am honestly so, so sorry.

What a sad thing when you don’t know that you’re loved UNCONDITIONALLY.

There is no such thing as a pregnancy without a child.

No, you can repeat this as many times as you want, but the fact is that embryology tells us that from the moment of conception, there already IS a human being present.

The zygote possesses ALL that is necessary for a human being to exist.

Embryology tells us that from the moment of conception, there is a unique new pattern of 23 chromosomes which, if the process is not interrupted by all manner of factors, some natural, some deliberate human action, will grow into a human being. It is a matter of interpretation, not empirical data, to say that this is a person entitled to full legal protection independent of the mother. Like all scientists, you have your own viewpoint, perspective, convictions, biases, and you bring all of that to your work. So has every other scientist who ever lived.

The fact that you have a very deeply felt set of convictions, which you would have regardless of the science, and which your church had before sonograms and fiber-optic observation of fetal development, strongly suggests that you fit data into your conclusions, rather than arriving at your conclusions because you saw the data. That doesn’t mean your conclusions are wrong either, but it does induce some caution concerning statements like “taken all the guess work out of it.” I don’t think you are lying to me, but I think you are deluding yourself.

Since you don’t add a grain of salt to your assertions, I do add one when reading them. If you added the grain of salt yourself, you might actually be a more effective advocate, better able to actually change minds. Incidentally, NARAL doesn’t seem to be very good at adding a grain of salt to their own assertions — because they should be considering the data you put forward. Assuming they can make a valid point, they should do so by incorporating new data, as I tried to do with the data from 101 Reasons.

Moving on to Bethany’s car accident scenario, if a car accident left me essentially without either the personality or abilities I have now, it could be so damaging that no, I would no longer exist, and the useless body that used to be me would have no real purpose. I could envision being quadraplegic, equipped with a computer capable of taking dictation and performing program commands from a human voice, and still having a purpose. We could, for example, continue this conversation, and I could do online research and publish biographical articles. But if I were not even capable of thinking about such things, if my sole function were to site in a room and stare, unable to think, unable to make the value judgements I can make now, unable to recognize my niece if she came to visit me, no, I would have no purpose. Likewise, if I were continuously underwater for fifteen minutes, please don’t try to resuscitate me — too many brain cells would have been destroyed and I wouldn’t be there even if you stabilized heart and lung functions.

It may have escaped you, but sometimes I try to give you a broader picture of my life, so you have a context for our discussion. I understand the difference between

a) slitting a person’s throat,

b) a person consciously refusing treatment,

c) an adult deciding to refuse treatment for a helpless child,

d) killing a healthy child,

e) killing a child who is not healthy,

f) terminating a pregnancy before a child is fully present.

I consider (b), (c) and (f) to be acceptable, depending on circumstances. I consider (a), (d), and (e) unacceptable in any conceivable circumstances. You consider (f) to be no different that (d) and (e). That’s what we’re arguing about.