Human Life Begins at Fertilization

I’d like to thanks e.gibson again for debating this issue with me. I will spend this round rebutting his arguments and I’ll conclude with my closing remarks. Con’s fundamental mistake is that he assumes that until an organism can be classified as a member of a certain species, it is not a member of that species! Remember, my fundamental argument is: “By the end of the fertilization process, (instigated by two human beings) what follows is this: a living, whole organism of the human species.” Con’s response is that zygotes “do not meet the criteria for species classification. Therefore, they are not a member of the human species.” Imagine the first biologists that classified this flying frog (Rhacophorus suffry) two years ago.[1] According to Con, the flying frog became a flying frog once it was classified, not once it was conceived! This is obviously false. Even though humans were not aware of this species of frog nor had we named it, the flying frog still existed in obscurity. It didn’t change species once we named it. It remained the same kind of thing it always was. All it had now was a name. It would be really bizarre for us to staff biologists at every hospital delivering room, whose job it is to determine the species of a newborn baby. Why? Because we know that when two humans reproduce, a new human comes out. And that new human began her life as a human zygote, then developed into a human embryo, then a human fetus, and is now a human infant. Con accused me of not rebutting his fundamental argument, because he thought I was trying to show that the organism is alive, something he had already agreed to, when in fact, I spent most of my round two demonstrating that a single-celled entity can be an organism, and that in the case of humans, we know that zygotes are members of the human species. I don’t think Con did this on purpose, but I think it explains why he had such a low view of my round two. He thought I was ignoring his fundamental argument, when in fact I was responding directly to it. Con points to Muntjac deer that have 46 chromosomes, arguing that having 46 chromosomes is not enough to characterize human beings. I agree. That doesn’t mean humans don’t have a unique DNA fingerprint. It simply means that some other animals also have 46 chromosomes in their unique DNA fingerprint. Con states that I am “simply stating that zygotes bear the potential to become humans, one day.” That is not at all my argument. I believe zygotes are full members of the human species from the beginning of their life as an organism. I don’t think they change species somewhere down the road after they develop tissues. Zygotes aren’t potential humans. They are humans with the potential to develop themselves into older more developed humans. I spoke of the zygote “developing itself,” because there has been some confusion in the abortion debate about whether the zygote develops itself like a Polaroid, or if the zygote is constructed like a car. Richard Stith wrote a great piece on this,[2] but I didn’t expand on this point because Con didn’t argue that the zygote does not develop itself. My questions about species membership is not “irrelevant.” It’s directly to the point Con is making. I’ve made a case that the zygote is a human organism, which Con disputes because it doesn’t have tissues yet and thus can’t be classified. My question that if the zygote is not of the human species at the beginning of her life, “when does she become human” is completely relevant. Either you are the same species during the entire existence of your life, or you have the ability to change species during your lifespan. My opponent is arguing the latter. I’m just asking for some evidence. Con accuses me of making pro-life claims in regards to abortion. Not at all. I have offered evidence from both embryologists, the true experts on this issue, as well as pro-abortion-philosophers on whether the zygote is a human organism. I quoted pro-abortion-philosophers because if anybody would want to dispute a human zygote’s species membership, it would be a pro-abortion-philosopher. Yet they virtually all admit that the zygote is a living human, and instead try to argue for abortion rights based on whether the zygote is a full person or not, or whether that zygote has the right to the mother’s body. Con stands as a lone wolf against all the scientific evidence that the zygote is not just alive, but a living human organism, and refuses to believe it. I wonder if there is ANY level of evidence that would convince Con? I hope so, because if people from both sides of any issue can’t find common ground on the most elementary biological facts of the case, there is little hope of moving the discussion forward. Luckily, unlike Con, all embryologists and the vast majority of pro-abortion-choice people can agree that scientific evidence shows that zygotes are living human organisms. Vote Pro. Sources: 1: http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2 http://www.firstthings.com...