Hello Pale Rider, you might remember me from a while back, we debated the scientific aspect of abortion and I admit you bested me, but that was then.
I have spent a significant amount of time researching and studying the science and now I believe that I am finally prepared to properly challenge you and take you on once and for all.
And I shall defeat you using science and prove why it is NOT accurate to classify a human zygote as a human being.
First Argument: Species Membership
Classification of an organism as "Homo sapiens" requires that 1) the entity is an organism to begin with and 2) that this organism has membership (requisite characteristics) in all the following clubs:
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The zygote has only one. Domain eukaryote. It is a single eukaryotic cell. So a zygote does not fit the classification of "Homo Sapiens"
Conclusion: The zygote does not have the characteristics required to be classified as a Homo sapiens under the rules of taxonomical classification.
Second Argument: No, The science is NOT settled!
I have seen you the past quote statements from medical textbooks agreeing with you that a human zygote is a human being. But NONE of this actually matters and here is why...
Quoting a sentence from textbook and crying "LOOK LOOK" it says "its a human being" is not an argument for much. If science claims that something is true that means that there is a rational chain of evidence proving that claim is true.
There is no such chain of evidence in Science - or some consensus among subject matter experts that a zygote is "a living human being/Homo sapiens"
Basically, some textbook claiming defacto "zygote is a human being" must support that claim with "the WHY"
Essentially Pale Rider, the problem with your argument is your assumption that the zygote ( a single human cell) is a human.
This is an assumed premise - one which I have never seen you back up - and so your argument is a logical fallacy.
Further, there are 5 main scientific perspectives on "When a human beings life begins".
Metabolic
Genetic
Embryological
Neurological
Ecological
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/...nlifebegin.pdf
Only one of the above scientific perspectives (Genetic) puts the beginning of human life at conception - and this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists for reasons described in the above link (the text is from a developmental biology textbook).
So ... the BEST anti-abortion position one can achieve with respect to whether or not the zygote is a human is "Experts disagree".
Third Argument: Most Scientific Experts DISAGREE With You
Yes Pale Rider, most scientific experts actually DISAGREE with you.
Here is some commentary by Dana Krempels PH.D (Prof and the U of Miami) in Evolutionary Biology/visual physiology
Biology: Classification of Homo Sapien cells as HS themselves, homo sapien, sex cells
As I stated from the outset .. the best place the Anti-abort position can get to from a scientific perspective is "Experts disagree".
It is then abject nonsense to make "defacto" claims such as "the zygote is a human being according to science". While we may be able to find SOME scientists (perhaps even a few from the Domain Science/Biology) that argue that the zygote should be classified as a human being. There are a whole bunch that do NOT.
FINAL Argument: The NAIL In the Coffin
Here is the REAL, final reason why the science will NEVER be on your side in this debate Pale Rider.
The single cell at conception (the mighty zygote) ceases to exist shortly after conception. This cell, and many cells after will never be part of the human that these cells are constructing.
If not one cell in the structure of a human exists. How then can a human being be said to exist?
In other words Pale Rider, the zygote is not part of the cells that make up the body of the human. The cells that come AFTER the zygote (totipotent cells in the blastocyst) will create those cells further down the road.
If not one cell in the structure of human exists then, how can a human be said to exist ?
How can a human being exist when no cells that make up it's body exist?
If you want to defeat me and win your argument then you must prove THIS:
The zygote is a human cell. You already agreed in the past that individual human cells (other than the zygote) are not human beings.
What is the difference between the zygote and these other human cells such that its status should be elevated to that of a human being?
I have spent a significant amount of time researching and studying the science and now I believe that I am finally prepared to properly challenge you and take you on once and for all.
And I shall defeat you using science and prove why it is NOT accurate to classify a human zygote as a human being.
First Argument: Species Membership
Classification of an organism as "Homo sapiens" requires that 1) the entity is an organism to begin with and 2) that this organism has membership (requisite characteristics) in all the following clubs:
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The zygote has only one. Domain eukaryote. It is a single eukaryotic cell. So a zygote does not fit the classification of "Homo Sapiens"
Conclusion: The zygote does not have the characteristics required to be classified as a Homo sapiens under the rules of taxonomical classification.
Second Argument: No, The science is NOT settled!
I have seen you the past quote statements from medical textbooks agreeing with you that a human zygote is a human being. But NONE of this actually matters and here is why...
Quoting a sentence from textbook and crying "LOOK LOOK" it says "its a human being" is not an argument for much. If science claims that something is true that means that there is a rational chain of evidence proving that claim is true.
There is no such chain of evidence in Science - or some consensus among subject matter experts that a zygote is "a living human being/Homo sapiens"
Basically, some textbook claiming defacto "zygote is a human being" must support that claim with "the WHY"
Essentially Pale Rider, the problem with your argument is your assumption that the zygote ( a single human cell) is a human.
This is an assumed premise - one which I have never seen you back up - and so your argument is a logical fallacy.
Further, there are 5 main scientific perspectives on "When a human beings life begins".
Metabolic
Genetic
Embryological
Neurological
Ecological
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/...nlifebegin.pdf
Only one of the above scientific perspectives (Genetic) puts the beginning of human life at conception - and this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists for reasons described in the above link (the text is from a developmental biology textbook).
So ... the BEST anti-abortion position one can achieve with respect to whether or not the zygote is a human is "Experts disagree".
Third Argument: Most Scientific Experts DISAGREE With You
Yes Pale Rider, most scientific experts actually DISAGREE with you.
Here is some commentary by Dana Krempels PH.D (Prof and the U of Miami) in Evolutionary Biology/visual physiology
Biology: Classification of Homo Sapien cells as HS themselves, homo sapien, sex cells
As I stated from the outset .. the best place the Anti-abort position can get to from a scientific perspective is "Experts disagree".
It is then abject nonsense to make "defacto" claims such as "the zygote is a human being according to science". While we may be able to find SOME scientists (perhaps even a few from the Domain Science/Biology) that argue that the zygote should be classified as a human being. There are a whole bunch that do NOT.
FINAL Argument: The NAIL In the Coffin
Here is the REAL, final reason why the science will NEVER be on your side in this debate Pale Rider.
The single cell at conception (the mighty zygote) ceases to exist shortly after conception. This cell, and many cells after will never be part of the human that these cells are constructing.
If not one cell in the structure of a human exists. How then can a human being be said to exist?
In other words Pale Rider, the zygote is not part of the cells that make up the body of the human. The cells that come AFTER the zygote (totipotent cells in the blastocyst) will create those cells further down the road.
If not one cell in the structure of human exists then, how can a human be said to exist ?
How can a human being exist when no cells that make up it's body exist?
If you want to defeat me and win your argument then you must prove THIS:
The zygote is a human cell. You already agreed in the past that individual human cells (other than the zygote) are not human beings.
What is the difference between the zygote and these other human cells such that its status should be elevated to that of a human being?
