And yet, after all the discussion about the criteria for aliveness no one seriously denies that a zygote it alive. Those who want to call it a part of the mother agree that it is alive, those that want to call it a unique individual agree that it is alive. When the egg and the sperm were both parts of the mother and father they were alive and after they joined they remained alive (after all the cells did not die) and as it developed from one celled organism to multi-celled organism it remained alive.
No intelligent people claim that it is not human. It comes from humans, it has the DNA of humans as opposed to say dogs, it continues to grow as a human, etc.
The question has been for a long time now whether or not it is a person.
And does it have the right to life. For all the rest of us just being alive and being human and being innocent grants us the right to life. But for the unborn there is an added criteria, namely, that we prove it is a person.
Being a person has traditionally been based on being alive and human but for some there are now added criteria - that they cannot even agree on. Does it need to be self-aware or sentient, or feel pain, or want self-determination?
It is scary how much the debate mirrors the debate about whether or not black people were persons. Or Jews. Or Indians. Or non-Yanamamo (who had the very simple rule that if you were not born in their tribe you were not human).
