Is a zygote a human being Veeky Forums?

How did you reach that conclusion, what is it if not human?
Alien of some sort? Maybe an animal? Maybe a star? I don't know, if it is not human what is it?

how about people with no actual opinion or understanding of things like politics, science and sexuality? people who just take an opinion they saw instead of actual research, people who decide to live the path of the memes and never question themselves? can those retards be called /peronswithrights/?

zygotes are such bros.

How could you ever prove this scientifically. the definition of "human" is subjective as fuck.

No, but it's awfully popular red herring for the GOP to get voters upset enough to vote for their party all the while riding the 1% dick once they get in power! But, that's okay, because MUH BABIES.

Do you contest the definition of what a dog is? Would you walk up to a dog and say, ''well, shit is this a dog? It's awfully subjective.''

>if it were viable to extract it and grow it in a tube one could

But it's not viable. A fetus is literally completely physically dependent on its mother.

No, it isn't

The definition of human being lies in the kingdom of science.

A zygote is a human, 50% genetic material from the father, 50% from the other

The definition of person is the one that is subjective as fuck. Across history you can how it has changed and even today people use it differently.

Chihuahuas are rats

if it was a dog zygote, maybe

> there are scientific arguments to proof this

You can't prove an object is a made up word with an arbitrary definition

OP, I wish you were a zygote so I could abort you

>OP, I wish you were a zygote so I could abort you

Reading your post cheered me up.

So that means I'm a human being right?

A zygote is the beginnings of a human being, so yes, it is human. Why abortion is such a controversial topic is because some people can't cope with the idea of ending another person's life. They can't deal with the fact that a parent is killing their child. Why is that? Because as social beings, we know what sentience feels like, and we don't want to end another individual's sentience. In my opinion, it's ending another individual's sapience. Since that zygote will not experience sapience, not even sentience, there shouldn't be a problem. You have no reason to feel pitty for something that has never experienced sentience. Its living of course, but so is bacteria, and we have no problem getting rid of that. 95% of abortions take place through a pill, and most pro-life supporters imagine it being pulling and ripping a baby out of the womb; but that isn't even the case the majority of time. I think that abortion should be legal up until the child experiences sentience, anything before is fine. While there may be a good chance an unaborted child might grow up on wellfare, killing children is not the best solution for getting people off of welfare, nor is the only one.

Anything that can breed fertile offspring with another human is what defines us. Well, actually, if you wanted to verify you are indeed classified as a human, just see which taxa you belong to and go down the line until you reach sub-species.

Go back to middle school please

i highly doubt that there's a clear-cut line between sentience and non-sentience. are babies sentient? are they *as* sentient as 20-year-olds?

A spore isn't a fern.

A zygote only has the potential to become a person. It obviously doesn't have the functions of a normal human being and if something goes wrong during the development cycle obviously it won't become a real person. How you define when in the development cycle should a fetus/embryo/baby be defined person and given human rights is not a question science can directly answer, but you can of course have personal opinions.

I think a person should be defined as when the central nervous system is basically developed, so that it can potentially feel pain, respond to outside signals and maybe have some sort of consciousness. I think it's fair to give it a safe margin but not as far back to the earliest fetus/zygote stage.

I think if a woman express that she wants an abortion, that abortion should be performed. And then she should be locked up in a mental hospital for even considering to kill her own child, what kind of sick people are those.

>conservatives totally cool with bombing weddings, funerals, schools, and hospitals full of people. Freak out about less than 100 cells being exterminated.

gota love that republican cognitive dissonance.

If it was up to me I would nuke the planet while riding horseback on one of the nukes.

Genetically, a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens.

But then, so were the millions of epithelial cells that you destroyed cleaning your teeth this morning. Right to life is not necessarily contingent on something being genetically human.

Indeed; the vast majority of conceptuses never see the light of day; the fate of 75% of zygotes is to be destroyed and reabsorbed by the female body. If the zygote is a fully autonomous human being, a subject of moral rights, then this is the most serious health problem facing humanity. 75% of people are dead from prenatal complications, it is by far the greatest single contributor to human mortality. Yet not even the most fervent right to lifers make this argument; you cannot on the one hand compare abortion to the holocaust, and on the other dismiss naturally zygote attrition as being unworthy of treatment.

Yeah but those are your own cells while the zygote contains the cells of a child

gotta love that leftist cognitive dissonance which assumes all republicans automatically contradict themselves

As a conservative who is consistent on his views surrounding abortion and innocent civilian children, it's honestly awe-inspiring at just how ill-prepared people are when they meet a conservative whose views are consistent.

>YOU THINK ABORTION IS MURDER?
>Me: Yes
>WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BROWN CHILDREN WHO GET BOMBED??
>Me: That's murder too.
>b-b-but.... oh....

This is an actual conversation I once had with somebody.

No, you'd be a zygote. Didn't you read what he said?

then either convince your elected representatives to stop being shitty or stop associating yourself with shitty conservative elected officials.

> 75% of zygotes is to be destroyed and reabsorbed by the female body

Citation needed

Are you comparing ovaries to a zygote?

To be fair, abortion isn't murder and you're clearly a moron for believing it is, so it's generally safe to assume your beliefs are filled with contradictions. Because you're a moron.

So what? OP asked if the zygote was genetically human. So it is; as are my epithelial cells. If the argument is that it's murder to kill anything whose DNA is human, then it is genocide to brush your teeth.

Alright, how about this chestnut? A new technology arises which allow us to transfer the conciousness of a dying patient to a computer. Said computer is no loger genetically human, but it contains all the memories, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the patient. As it is not genetically human, is it therefore not murder to smash that computer to bits?

Are we not just robots made out of organs?

stop you're going to make its brain melt down with your questions that run contrary to the programmed propogandization it runs on.

No, they're not.

Not who you're replying to, but I am honestly and unabashedly for abortions all the way up to the point until the fetus/baby is viable to live outside of the womb. Any second before that it's fair game to abort.

I don't even consider myself pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. I genuinely believe they should happen more often.

Moreover, I am fully in support of "soft eugenics." I believe the state should offer cash money to women and men who are drug addicts, mentally ill, criminal, indigent, ect. to get themselves sterilized. Say like $2,500 to men for a vasectomy and $5,000 to women for a tubal ligation, since it's a more complicated procedure. The amount of money it would save in the long run would be astronomical.

Seconded.

A plant isn't a mammal. A mammal isn't a human.

A zygote is a living organism with human DNA operating under a biological imperative to develop.

Minimum requirement for a person:

>living
>complete set of human DNA; specifically, enough information to encode an individual
>following an imperative to survive

If you kill something fitting the above, it's murder.

Your question's too emotionally charged and subjective.

If you wanna argue abortion focus on a utilitarian viewpoint: "abortions are bad because they hurt society in X ways" or "abortions are good because they aid society in Z ways".

Any other argument will just lead you to run around in circles and probably lose your friends.

It's murder. My beliefs are not contradictory. If you kill a human being, especially for your own convenience, it's murder.

I understand that it's hard to conceive of somebody with a differing opinion than your own; feel free to ask questions to uncover this inconsistency you believe I subscribe to. Or continue in your ignorance--whichever you prefer.

The thing is, some of our arguments against abortion are cultural. When you ask a modern westerner if a fetus is not sentient what about an infant at the same developmental stage they typically tie themselves in knots. However our ancient forebears, the greeks and the romans, believed precisely this. Infanticide by leaving the child on the side of a hill (exposure) was a common practice in ancient sparta. It continued in various places in europe until relatively recently. The spanish last name "Esposita" means "exposed", and was given to children who had been left to die by this manner and recued by the church.

In todays world, the philosopher Peter Singer continues exactly this argument; that like abortion, infanticide is not necessarily murder on the gounds that the newborn is not yet sentient.

Different guy. A zygote isn't a human being - so your beliefs are shit. That's my opinion.

We seem to all be able to accept the concept that life ends when brain activity ceases, though cells may continue to live for some time after that, often a LONG time.

It would seem reasonable to apply that principle to the beginning of life, and define human life beginning with brain activity.
.

>is there a clear cut line
Not exactly, but it takes a cetain level of development to experience it.

>as sentient as a 20 year old
Something is either sentient or it isn't, what the fuck has that to do with anything?

Utilitarianism has been refuted already.

Only science undergrads who can't keep with modern ethics support that crappy ethic theory.

Anyone here doing Human Embryology or some equivalent?

I like to plant my flag here as well. Any other pro-choicers on this thread like to link to this post so we give the pro-choicers and OP something of a consensus?

scientifically, your toenail clippings are "human", but that doesn't mean they have rights

Well yes, but I fail to see the relevance of that.

My definition of human is as outlined here:

A living zygote fits these requirements. Further, I accept a strict definition of murder as the premeditated taking of human life. Under the premise that a zygote (and thus an embryo, a fetus, and all forms of a child through gestation) is human, abortion, which ends the life of an entity fitting the definition of human, is murder. Further, my view is entirely consistent (and may, in fact, be derived from a well-defined set of premises).

You're free to try to convince me why I should not accept this definition of human, but I doubt your argument will have much weight beyond anecdotes and dissonance.

I know all about infant viability tests throughout various cultures in history, and almost spoke about them in my post. I'm on the fence about bringing them back. I excluded them because I'm not 100% on making that leap, mostly due to the fact that a responsible adult could give birth to a baby which may die if exposed overnight, but though modern medicine, would otherwise grow up to be healthy and well-adjusted.

Your cut off point is when it's no longer completely dependent on the mother to survive? Why?

>Something is either sentient or it isn't, what the fuck has that to do with anything?
Babies don't pass the mirror test for self-awareness until 18 months of age. Is infanticide OK up to 18 months of age then?

I have a question.

Were you as a human being, not once a zygote?

Correct.

define "following an imperative to survive", please
as far as I'm aware the zygote isn't consciously doing shit

if you surgically remove a quarter of my liver to use as a transplant, does the liver have human rights? it's not conscious but neither is the zygote. both are just mindlessly following their genetic programming to grow and survive

>Utilitarianism has been refuted
How do you refute the notion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? I personally believe the value of a person is based on what they are capable of contributing to society, so if there is a boat filled with 20 beggars, but a boat with 2 entrepeneurs, I'm going to rescue the latter, if there ever came a situation I could save only one.

I disagree. I believe that life ends when its continuation is beyond possibility.

As far as our medical knowledge goes, we know no way of reanimating an individual once he or she has reached below a certain threshold of brain function. In this instance, we can feasibly consider this individual dead. If, however, we developed a treatment which moves this threshold, the current definition of the end of life moves with it.

As such, I would pose that life begins at the point that its continuation becomes feasible; logically, for the individual, this point is conception.

>I'm gonna choose one of the several definitions of human being which most closely fits the narrative which suits my argument
>I'll even admit in my post that these are the bare minimum in terms of requirements for being human
>You can't convince me otherwise because your arguments are anecdotal and cognitively dissonant

wew lad

It hasn't been refuted, it's a perfectly valid framework to work in. It sometimes get a bit edgy, but it's still valid.

I really doubt anyone here has any real experience in that field. If I did I would not risk even discussing it anonymously because of how much trouble it can bring.

Personally I have worked with mouse embryos. Really not much to say about it morally. When it was done it was done professionally and scientifically. I have seen early abortions performed as well. Again not so much the emotionally charged imagery the opponents try to instill.

it's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" any moral philosophy

you cannot, starting only from "is" statements about how the universe works, arrive at an "ought" statement about how things *ought* to be and how people *should* behave

Self-awareness isn't the determining factor of sentience; even fish are sentient

Gotta draw the line somewhere - I would actually draw the line at sentience, or the ability to make lifelong memories, but that's just cruel to kill a toddler ;) Besides - no one can say where that point is. The cut off point I suggested is much more viable.

Read up on Kant's categorical imperative. If a thousand Romans were made deliriously happy by the feeding of one christian to the lions, is it right to feed the christian to the lions? Is it right to forcibly remove blood and organs from universal donors to save patients in need of a transplant? If I invented a machine capable of sucking all the pain and suffering from society and transferring into the body of a single child, would I have made the perfect utilitarian city, or would that be monstrous? I'm with Kant on this, utilitarianism has been comprehensively refuted.

This implies that developing infants inside a womb do not experience sentience
>;)
What is this? Facebook?

Then how were you created?

A zygote is, as you say, following its genetic programming to develop into an individual; further, that genetic programming imperative IS to develop into an individual.

A liver, on the other hand, is following its own biological imperative to function as a liver, and to assist you, the organism, in your survival. And, yes, I would count it as murder if somebody completely removed your liver, as the entirety of your organism encodes you as an individual, and removing that liver without replacement would certainly bring death to you.

I agree with you, I was only sharing my opinion in response to utilitarianism.
See the guy I replied to

Take out the word sentience in my post then if it make you feel better. Point still stands.

Also, if I did remove a quarter of your liver and somehow modified it to operate under the imperative to form into a new individual, yes, it would and should have human rights.

Yes it is, but why do you think it's wrong to kill human beings?

A zygote may be human, but it certainly isn't a person.

No I meant to say yes I was once a zygote

Killing human beings is murder by definition. Perhaps you justify the murder of some classes of humans, but that's another argument.

I do not justify murder.

The classic example of the train derailment according to which you can save a person or ten of them from being hit by the train turns against utilitarianism when you ask if the person is your child to whom you would save. A primitive utilitarian would say that you must save the ten anyway, and it would clearly be morally monstrous. A sophisticated utilitarian will begin to argue that you must save your child because if you save the ten you destroy the institution of the family on which the society is based and that causes more harm. But at the moment when the sum of good and evil already depends on social institutions that do not depend on the sum of good and evil, utilitarianism becomes incoherent because it bases morality on something else, albeit the disguise of utilitarianism.

There are many other objections to utilitarianism, but that is one of the strongest.

What happened to manslaughter?

Well, no, not exactly; the notion that the cut off point should end at the ability to make life-long memories is left to be justified. The reason I brought up sentience being the cut-off point, is because that's why some people are offended at the thought of ending another person's life: they experience sentience. No one other than people that don't understand biology have a problem with killing life that is alive through only chemistry and being able to respond to external stimuli.

If you remove half of my liver I continue living.
The remaining part of the liver can actually regrow on its own, and this sort of thing is often done when someone's liver dies and another offers to be an organ donor.

So, the quarter of my liver that was removed is sitting in a cooler somewhere, but in the near future will be shoved into some poor soul in need of an organ donation.

The quarter-liver can and will follow its genetic programming to develop and grow into a full liver again.
Is it murder to throw that liver in the trash if the prospective recipient waves a magic want, suddenly gets better, and no longer needs an organ donation?
The liver was a living, growing, human thing.

How come its a double homicide if the women was pregnant?

Or self defense? Is that murder?

You're not the only one who can play the bullshit semantics game, hombre.

Yeah its murder, its murder under self defense though. Like if the mother was gonna die if she had this baby, she can murder it under self defense.

This doesn't "refute" utilitarianism, it just suggests that there is more to making decisions when being forced to choose. This just suggests that utilitarianism is not the final step.

The difference between you and your liver is that the genetic expression and set of followed imperatives of your liver does not encode an individual. The expression of the DNA in your liver encodes and manifests as a liver, and its imperatives support this manifestation. Again, if your liver were modified to encode and manifest as an entire person, then your modified liver should have human rights.

You, on the other hand, are an entire organism, and the entirety of your parts express an individual. Similarly, the entirety of the parts of a zygote express an individual, operating under the imperative to develop as said individual.

And my point was that "sentience" is debatable depending on how you define it. Some use the word to mean self-awareness. That's more along the lines of what I was arguing - pardon me for using the term incorrectly.

In any event, one can be certain that an infant at the point of being able to survive outside of the womb is not self-aware by any reasonable definition. Hence it being my safe cut off point.

Anything else?

The justice system is fairly religious.

If it's under self defense than legally it isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful killing, not the act of

Even if you use this argument, it doesn't support murder in the case of elective abortion. In fact, elective abortion would be a textbook case of murder that would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

You're right, I'm fucking retarded.

mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More
verb
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
"somebody tried to murder Joe"
synonyms: kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher, slaughter, massacre, wipe out

Note the term "unlawful" in both definitions. Killing in self defense is not unlawful.

See? Bulshit semantics. Do you have a real argument or are we just going to continue playing games?

Abortion isn't unlawful either. At least not for now - you just may get your wish granted in the future, however.

Sentience doesn't have an arbitrary defintion. Self-awareness to the extent of recognizing yourself is something based off of intelligence, not the ablity to experience emotion, to imagine. Feeling emotions isn't subjective either; having an endocrine systen releasing the hormones unique to sentient life is what allows for emotions to occur. While a child may not be "done" completely, the vividity of what they experience is not necessarily as different from a newborn. Then there's the case of premature births.

Omit 'to imagine,' as that is too arbitrary for anyone to argue with.

Utilitarianism is a very broad framework. The fact that people have different interpretations doesn't exactly refute it. The other popular frameworks have the same issue.

The REAL issue with it is that causality doesn't happen in a vacuum. Utilitarianism attempts to judge an act by its results. But every result leads to more results, making the sum change in happiness impossible to predict. At some point you've got to make an arbitrary cutoff where you go, "ok, beyond this point I don't care about the effects"

On the other hand, I think it's the framework closest to how humans actually think. It's the results that we usually care about. What's contentious is just which results we care about.