Really?

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

This is of course completely true.

This is of course true. We are ourselves from the moment of conception. We were all once teenagers developing into adults, toddlers developing into teenagers, babies developing into toddlers, fetuses developing into babies and embryos developing into fetuses, but we were always alive and ourselves.

So instead of admitting I have a point, you are going to just change the subject?

Further, this discussion is wandering way off topic, so I’ve been thinking about summarizing my original point in relation to Gerard’s original post, rather than continuing what amounts to a verbal fencing match over small sub-points that we know we aren’t going to agree on. We won’t agree on this either, but at least we could perhaps refocus the conversation.

“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

Like all the citations Gerard has assiduously researched and provided, this is undisputably factually true. Whether the data provided therein shows that a human being exists from the moment of conception requires interpretation. Key phrases in my view are “beginning” and “primordium.” Likewise, from another citation, “growing into another individual of the species.” Indeed the zygote is the beginning stage of a process that will grow into another individual of the species. Where we differ is whether interrupting that process destroys a human being, or removes cells that WOULD have grown into a human being.

What is actually present in a zygote is a uniquely coded set of 23 chromosomes, and epigenetic chemical coding for diversification into a variety of more specialized cells. That is not, in itself, sufficient basis to make it independent of the woman in whose body it exists, or to rescind her autonomy. When the basic organs of a human body have all grown and are functional, then, as Justice Blackmun wrote, state interest in protecting this independent life becomes paramount.

Absolutely I can prove it. If you asked me to prove it, I would show you the biological and scientific evidence which shows that a cat most certainly is a different species than a human being. It’s very easy.

Can you PROVE that just because they belong to another species, they are not entitled to the same rights as we are? It’s really a value judgement, ours or God’s.

Siarlys, you have again jumped to another issue and missed the point. I never said anything about whether cats have value or rights. I said that a cat is not a human being. It is not the same species as “homo sapiens”. That is easily provable by using science and logic.

And if the unborn child, at any stage of development, was not a human being, it would be easily provable using biological and scientific evidence as well.

Come to think of it, there are PETA people who honestly are starting to advocate that dogs and cats have rights. Why should only people have rights, not dogs and cats? I have no patience for that argument, but I believe the county board for the city and county of San Francisco voted that pets in that county no longer have “owners,” they have “guardians.” As someone who relies on the Bible, I’m sure you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between a human being and any other kind of mammal. But PETA doesn’t. Can you PROVE that just because they belong to another species, they are not entitled to the same rights as we are? It’s really a value judgement, ours or God’s.

When the movie “The Fly” came out, theaters advertised “We will pay you $1000 if you can prove this could not happen” (a man’s head getting stuck on a fly and a fly’s head stuck on a man). One kid kept going back offering one “proof” after another, and finally the manager said “You can’t prove a negative kid.” Logically, you can’t. You can reduce liklihood to 0.00000000001, but you can’t prove it couldn’t happen. Of course most of us also dismiss it as not worth worrying about.

The word person simply adds no clarity to our discussion. It’s not a matter of what you are talking about.

Why do you pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about?

I can prove that a cat is not a human being.
Could it really be much more difficult to prove that a fetus is not a human being, if it is true?

I’ve told you in detail what I consider necessary before the pregnant woman’s autonomy is limited by the indisputable existence of a distinct, independent human being. You are committed to other criteria.

The zygote is indeed a human zygote. It is not a human being. It is the seed of a human being. It is capable of becoming a human being. It is not there yet. Again, you disagree, but I haven’t left anything out about what I believe and recognize. I have detailed every biological change which differentiates a zygote from a human being. You don’t consider those changes significant. One cell or a billion, no organs (only organelles) or a dozen, that doesn’t change the status of what exists inside the womb to you. To me, those differences are quite essential.

Personhood? It’s a word. Its not a bad word, but not one that adds clarity to this discussion. I looked up person in a paperback American Century Dictionary, since it didn’t have a separate listing for personhood. (1) individual human being, (2) living human body. Then there is persona, aspect of the personality as shown to or perceived by others. I don’t see any meaningful distinction from the terms I have been using.

That more than answers Dan’s little footnote.

And, I have answered at length and in detail the series of quotes from embryology text books previously posted. Not even Dr. Nadal has directly responded to what I’ve said about those citations, he just keeps referring to the citations I’ve already responded to.