The zygote is a child with rights.

(A1) "Let's start with a basic class in biology. About every 28 days, the woman's ovary releases at least one egg that contains 23 chromosomes. A sperm containing also 23 chromosomes attaches to the egg. The sperm penetrates the egg and the male and female pronuclei exchange information. About 24 hours after the sperm penetrates the egg, the male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new genetically unique organism." (A2) "This is when a chemical called early pregnancy factor can be detected by sensitive blood tests that confirm that pregancy begins at fertilization. From fertilization to death the human organism is genetically the same. This is lso a Biblical fact. Job 3:3 says that Job was a male child at conception which is fertilization." (A3) "As a former zygote, I oppose abortion, and ulipristal acetate which prevents the baby from implanting. Contraception is something that works to prevent the zygote from being created. This is not just eligion, this is scientific fact. An atheist can be prolife. Christopher Hitchens might be who I'm thinking of. I don't hate the mother, I just want equality for all humans." Rebuttals: A1 - I agree with all of this. As you said, this is basic biology. A2 - I also agree that pregnancy begins at fertilization. However, I must note that genetics do not determine whether or not an organism is a human being. If Pro was suggesting something else, I ask that he/she specify on this if expecting a better argument on mine own behalf. I'll also add, the Bible is not a reliable source when relying on what is/isn't fact. Firstly, because I believe in no God, as I am an atheist (this being more-so extra information, as the Bible does not influence my opinions/decisions). Secondly, the Bible also makes claims of being able to fit, on a man-made, hand-made ark, two of every single animal in the world. That claim, in and of itself, is ridiculous. More on, It also says that a virgin gave birth, a serpent was able to speak and a woman disintegrated into salt. So as I said, this Bible is not a reliable source of factual evidence. A3 - Why do you oppose birth control? It's not killing anything, nor is it harming anything. It's preventing the woman from having something she does not want. Are you actually that against a woman doing to her own body as she pleases? It makes me glad that you are in no real position of power. Especially over a woman's freedom to choose what she does with her own body. A woman deciding whether or not she wants kids are her decision and hers alone. The moment someone starts to dictate on whether or not a woman should be able to decide that is, in my opinion, disgusting. I also find it unusual that you are (or perhaps, were) for sterilizing sex offenders, but against a woman choosing not to have a baby by taking birth control (even though she can change that at any given time). The reason I bring this up is that in your argument with another (as I always look at who I am debating with before I accept), your opponent brings up the excellent argument that there are many falsely accused sex offenders. However, you'd still be willing to risk them never having children, even over the possibility that they never did anything in the first place. As well as sterilization would not stop the sex offender from committing sex offenses. So to conclude, I must ask: why is it that you are (or as I said, perhaps 'were') for sterilization of 'sex offenders', meaning they cannot produce biological children of their own (even with the possibility of them not having done anything) so easily, but against a woman deciding whether or not she wants to have a baby at a certain time by taking birth control? Even though, like said, she could change that at any given time? Such as when she is ready for a child? It truly just makes no sense to me. Quite baffling, in all honesty. Link to debate: http://www.debate.org...