General Question

chefl's avatar

What is the difference between a zygote and a newborn in the context of the word "person"?

Asked by chefl (892points) July 11th, 2022
43 responses
“Great Question” (2points)

If a newborn baby is considered a person by law, even if he/she doesn’t have the many, many things that an adult has, and can’t survive if left alone, then why wouldn’t a zygote be considered a person even if it has almost none of the things a newborn or even a 3 month old fetus has? (Edited)

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

gorillapaws's avatar

A Cessna is missing a lot of things that a fighter jet has, but it’s still an airplane. The airframe and landing gear without an engine, wings, tail, controls, tires, yoke, etc on the assembly line at the factory isn’t an airplane yet.

LostInParadise's avatar

What can a zygot do that an amoeba can’t? Should we protect amoebas? What about individual sperm and egg cells? If you say that a zygot eventually becomes a full human, then how do you define a full human and why should we protect before it reaches that point?

Here is a question for you. If abortion is murder, shouldn’t a woman who asks for an abortion or who takes abortion pills be punished for murder and either executed or given a life sentence? Does the fact that no states have such laws indicate that nobody really thinks that abortion is murder?

RocketGuy's avatar

At early stages, it is dependent upon the host. It is a parasite. The host can choose to support it or not. This is the same as someone needing your blood type. Should someone come and hook you up? How about your liver, kidney?

LostInParadise's avatar

Keep in mind that an individual egg cell can be cloned into a full person. Does that mean that each egg cell is fully human and that menstruation results in genocide?

Response moderated
RocketGuy's avatar

The Bible also has phrases about “taking its first breath” being the start.

chefl's avatar

It looks like the only thing that’s incorrect in my OP is the spelling of the word zygote.

chefl's avatar

….if you’re all reading all the posts.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise No one needs to go to the Bible to see what @Blackwater_Park (and some others who say that they’re “pro-choice“see.
Also are you saying if hypothetically, someone that you trust brain-wise, shows you that that’s not what the Bible means, that you will be willing to switch your position?

LostInParadise's avatar

I am an atheist so I am not guided by the Bible one way or another. What I am saying is that there is no biblical support for the position that upon conception, the zygote is given a soul. That is not what is in the Bible and if fact the Bible supports abortion.

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise, According to this article/ website: https://theconversation.com/the-bible-says-nothing-about-abortion-so-being-anti-choice-is-a-cultural-and-political-decision-not-a-biblical-one-185858 in part:
Aristotle said abortion is appropriate as a means of controlling the size of a family, but should be performed early, “before sensation and life”.

But the Bible is simply silent on the question on which the Supreme Court has now pronounced. Old Testament scholar John Collins is right to say “on this issue, there is no divine revelation to be had”

But what some people believe what the Bible or other scriptures or Aristotle, say about abortion does not answer my dierect question (the OP).

Where are all those pro abortion posters in the various Roe vs Wade related threads?
They saw the light. Even @gorillapaws and @RocketGuy haven’t posted after my post previous to last.
Please just to make your side look good, help end the flagging of the posts that are clearly let’s say not spam. It’s not called winning a debate if the winning posts get flagged/removed .

chefl's avatar

By the way it doesn’t help the pro abortion side to make statements that make it sound like abortion has been banned by the Supreme Court. All it said is, we’ll leave it up to the States.

janbb's avatar

@chefl I doubt you’ve change anyone’s mind with your stellar arguments. To be fair, most people whether for forced-birth or pro-choice have their minds solidly made up.

LostInParadise's avatar

The question states that both newborns and zygotes lack many of the features of a full human, but that is not what should be considered. The question should not focus on the features that they don’t have, but which human features that they do have, and what is the minimum requirement for being considered a full human.

For one thing, a newborn can feel pain. I highly doubt that a newly conceived zygote has any sense of pain. By the time a child reaches 3 month old it has a sense of self. Link Certainly by this stage the child must be considered human and perhaps after one or two months, but certainly not at the zygote stage. A zygote has no more self-awareness than an amoeba.

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise If you want a real debate, debate with the other pro abortion posters on this and other threads. There are the ones who say yes to abortion till birth. (in the “In your opinion what are the best arguments for banning abortion” thread). And there is “I believe it’s murder, but I’m ok with it.” in 2 or so posts, (in other threads?)
And in this thread, the Cessna and fighter jet thing on @gorillapaws post for example. You are not debating with each other, why not?
Added: I don’t mean debating with a anti abortion poster is not a real debate. I don’t know which word to use. (Edited but not important)

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise Also you can get the moderators to put back the removed posts so people can see how silly anti abortion posters’ arguments are, which would help the pro abortion side, right?

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise The women (rich or poor and whatever ethnicity,....) who decide to give birth (whether to give up for adoption or not), however it was conceived and however imperfect he/she is/was, because aborting is an unthinkable thing to them, that must be about “forced birth” right? Debate with anyone who suggests that.

janbb's avatar

@chefl. That would be what the “choice” part of pro-choice is about clearly.

LostInParadise's avatar

@chefl , You don’t respond to any of my points or answer any of my questions, so I will let you have the last word.

My stance is very simple. It is okay to kill the fetus before it becomes a person and not afterward. In this regard, we should err on the side of caution. It may not be possible to choose a specific point at which the fetus can be considered human. We should be able to choose an early time when the fetus is definitely not human and a later time when it definitely is. We can then allow for an abortion up to the earlier time and not afterwards.

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise Please don’t let me have the last word.
Re. your “It is okay to kill the fetus before it becomes a person”
“It is okay to kill a person before it becomes a toddler”?
“It’s okay to kill a person in a coma, after all, they can’t feel pain, just like “a zygote can’t feel pain”?

chefl's avatar

@LostInParadise The idea is to minimize the number of abortions just like it is to minimize the number of people who could get sick in the first place, minimize the number of people who need hospitalization, who could die from sickness, minimize population from becoming victims of flooding and so on.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
RocketGuy's avatar

Nobody actually LIKES abortion. It’s probably less desirable than an appendix removal operation. It’s just that most people want the choice, in case they actually NEED one.

chefl's avatar

The zygote/ fetus not part of the woman’s body like the appendix is, for example,

chefl's avatar

The choice not to abort and the choice to abort are not the same. How far from being the same are they? Polar opposites.

janbb's avatar

I’m out of here!

RocketGuy's avatar

@chefl – no, the fetus is a parasite.

chefl's avatar

*“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the ideal of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”
“Editorial “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society” California Medicine , September 1970”

chefl's avatar

@RocketGuy 1)My mother didn’t see me as a parasite so I’m here.
2)If a parasite was in my body I would like to get it killed, so why the “Nobody LIKES abortion.”?
3)If a woman got pregnant on purpose it’s a not a parasite? right? I mean science is science it can’t be a zygote/fetus, if you got pregnant on purpose and a parasite if unplanned.

RocketGuy's avatar

Your mother chose to keep feeding the parasite.

chefl's avatar

I got nothing.

gorillapaws's avatar

@chefl “I got nothing.”

Let me help you out.

You hear “parasite” and think tape-worm or leach, or tick or other unpleasant organism. Parasites are a specific subtype of symbiotic relationship they’re not inherently “evil” or anything. They do objectively steal nutrients from their host without providing a biological benefit as a mutualistic symbiote might. When @RocketGuy describes a fetus as a parasite, that’s literally what’s happening from a biological perspective. He’s not infusing this objective description of the relationship with morality, you’re the one associating parasite with bad and then reacting to the baggage you’ve saddled the description with.

chefl's avatar

@gorillapaws “I got nothing” meaning the pro abortion side’s arguments are so stellar, I got nothing to counter that. I don’t know why anyone would think it might be an insult. It is not like anyone would think that it is meant to dehumanize the zygot /fetus, the when they can’t come up with anything.

“One who leaches off others whilst pretending to be their friend. Once they have their fill they move on to the next victim.
That Slimbo is a real parasite. Waited till his mate got a big payout then he and his mates bled him white then disappeared.” (Urban Dictionary)

And even if @RocketGuy thinks he was a parasite before he/she was born, after he/she was born, no longer a parasite. So, how do you get to the non-parasite stage, if you abort it though? And are all offsprings who haven’t started working parasites?

Again like I wrote somerhere above have the posts that were flagged /removed back on so that the pro abortion side can look good. I can’t imagine anyone from anti abortion side flagged it. It must be some kind of glitch don’t you think?

gorillapaws's avatar

@chefl It’s disingenuous to misrepresent your opponent’s position and then attack the misrepresentation. That’s called a strawman. We’re clearly talking about the biological definition of parasite and not the colloquial definition referenced on Urban Dictionary.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume you’re right and that when @RocketGuy refers to a fetus as a parasite he was really trying to disparage all fetuses as jerks who want to take other people’s money. That @RocketGuy somehow hates all fetuses and wants to abort them? because he’s “pro abortion” (as you’ve been saying). The necessary consequence of such a position is a desire to see the extinction of the human race.

Now ask yourself this: “does that make any fucking sense whatsoever? Do you really think that’s what @RocketGuy actually believes?” or, could it be that you’re being intentionally disingenuous and obtuse in your arguments?

You asked the question. We took the time to explain to you how your logic is broken and flawed. If you have an argument to make then make it.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
RocketGuy's avatar

Being that the fetus feeds on the mother’s bodily fluids, the mother ought to have a choice in allowing that to happen. If she allows it, great. If she does not want such dependency, then she ought to be allowed to remove it. In most societies people do not allow others to pull bodily fluids or organs from others without their permission. That would be inhumane to the donor.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`