Biologically a zygote is a human organism. This is scientific fact.
An organism by scientific standards has the ability to act or function independently. A zygote by its very developmental nature does not.
Hmmm.. I take issue with this. A ordinary human cell, like that of hair, or skin, is not unique. A Zygote is unique. It may require energy and sustenance, but it is very unique, and an individual by all meaningful ways. One might liken a zygote to a parasite in some ways.
Tim-
No, it need only to be independant from its parents!! It's an important distinction.
Tim-
That makes no sense. A zygote independent from its parent still wouldn't be able to act independently. Do you know what a zygote is? Here is a picture:
rof A hair isn't a cell, it is a product of cells.
That makes no sense. A zygote independent from its parent still wouldn't be able to act independently. Do you know what a zygote is? Here is a picture:
Genetically... Independant, genetically!
Tim-
So if a zygote isn't independent, who processes it's food for it? Or does it get energy through telekinesis?
.... this can't be a serious question. The nutrition a mother receives is what fuels the development of a fetus, zygote etc. You do understand what is meant by independent. Correct?
.... this can't be a serious question. The nutrition a mother receives is what fuels the development of a fetus, zygote etc. You do understand what is meant by independent. Correct?
Well, just so there's no confusion, could you define what you mean by independence?
I've made that pretty obvious. A zygote, regardless of what species it is, is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on its host for survival. It can't reproduce, feed itself or perform any of the basic independent functions expected of independent organisms. To call a 'zygote' a 'human organism' is ridiculous.
If not human, then what is it? What else could it grow up to be? A chicken?
Tim-
What do you call eggs? Chickens? What about pinecones? Do you call them trees?
I've made that pretty obvious. A zygote, regardless of what species it is, is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on its host for survival. It can't reproduce, feed itself or perform any of the basic independent functions expected of independent organisms. To call a 'zygote' a 'human organism' is ridiculous.
It can reproduce, how do you think it becomes a foetus? Through cell division, which is reproduction. And it does feed itself, from carbohydrates that originated as sperm. What I think you don't realise is that a zygote is not attached to the uterine wall, it is usually going surfing down the fallopian tubes, and thus is only dependant upon the mother for the right environment, nothing more.
That's not what reproduction is are you kidding me?
So then what is reproduction if it's not something reproducing?
Semantically speaking, Hatuey has it dead on correct.As usual, an abortion debate that degenerates into a semantically argument. A zygote, biologically and genetically is human. It's DNA would be consistent with the DNA of one who is a member of the human species. It would not be a chimp. It would not be a chicken. It would not be a tree. It would be a human. Denying this is just semantical gymnastics that some pro-choicers do.
Oh, and an egg is a state of development. Depending on what species that egg is of, it could be a state of development of a chicken.