Zygote

[Wootah]

Every cell in my 47 year old body is doing its best to keep me alive and to divide and split and produce me. This happened from cell 1 to cell 37.2 trillion. All of them, following their programming and making me ongoingly across time.

How is the zygote of a human not a human again?

[JoeyKnothead]

My argument is that each cell of your body has one purpose - to be part of the continuing you over time. That process begins at inception.

My data suggests cancer cells ain't em too concerned with someone "continuing over time".

This is kinda the problem with using common terms to try to tightly define something.

My cells, each and every one of em, had best be trying to at least see the pretty thing nekkid. That's the 'purpose' I assign to em.

Liposouction doesn't kill you. Its not reductio ad absurdum its false equivalence.

The fetus is reported to have minimal fat until 24 weeks of gestation. Percent lipid is approximately 6.25% in a 2.4-kg fetus and 13.9% in a 3.6-kg fetus (chemical analysis).

So then, can we conclude you'd be okay with liposuctioning out that particular 6.25%, or 13.9% of lipids from within a woman's body?

Cells from zygote to me at 47 only ever function to propagate me across time.

Cancer cells're known to cause an often significant decrease in the across time propagating of many folks.

Beyond that, there's cases where pregnancy (someone else's cells working to propagate em over time) can cause a decrease in a woman's cells to get to propagating her across time.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The same man who rapes, seduces, or persuades a woman with an act of sexual intercourse then insists on continuing his control over her by forcing her to carry his seed to fruition.

It sounds like you're saying that's a bad thing. Oh, what I wouldn't give to tell the pretty thing to just shut up. And her still fix me a mess of biscuits.

I could, might, may even, can understand, see the reasoning behind the idea that a zygote is fully human.

But that don't mean momma ain't.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snippings were snipped...

We are working out if we can kill a human just because they are a zygote. We are learning that our cells from t = 0 to t = now are working to propagate us over time and so that whatever we kill at t=0 or t=now is a human. So if killing humans is wrong, then it's wrong at t=0 or t=now.

That might be how you see it, but that's a bit of an off way to go.

I see it as a mother exercising her best judgement, often in the face of not good odds. From medical issues, to matters of abuse, to poverty, to mental or physical unfitness, women have to make a decision they know can put em to scorn, ridicule, prison, and all many of other such detriment.

This issue ain't just a zygote, and how proud we are of it. It's about the fundamental right for a woman to experience her womaninity in the best way she can. It's about a woman who wants a kid, but knows her environment ain't conducive to that kid prospering. It's about a woman who can't bear to bring a child into a heartless, cruel world. And yes, it's also about a woman who just doesn't want the inconvenience.

How can any man try to declare he knows better than a woman about this issue? About the pain and humiliation, the scorn and rage they encounter just to walk into an abortion clinic to see what're her options?

2022 documented years we humans have, and here we sit arguing if a woman is human enough to make a decision that affects her in so many profound and irrevocable ways.

Can the cells of a human zygote at t=0 propagate over time to not be a human?
Are my cells at t=47 years propagating not a human?

Is cancer fully human?

Women're more'n just a collection of cells, whose 'purpose' is to propagate the human species. They're here to inspire and enflame. To uplift us, and put us in our place. They're here so we can put em in a pretty dress and parade em up and down Main Street every Sunday. They're here to let us know how chauvinistic that last bit was.

This whole "propagate" angle strikes me as coming from one whose notions about "purpose" and "propagation" smell, horribly, of religious misogyny.

Women ain't just here to be brood mares, no matter how much fun they are to ride.

[Bust Nak]

How is the zygote of a human not a human again?

By not having the properties usually associated with being a human, capability for consciousness is a big one.

...learning that our cells from t = 0 to t = now are working to propagate us over time...

That would only be true if "us" existed at t=0; depending on whether a zygote becomes a human some time later, or is a human to start with.

As an argument, it's question begging, it presumes zygote is a human, in order to argue that it is a human, which in turn makes it wrong to kill a zygote.

I'm not committing the fallacy, you guys are. For you, at some random point the cells have value or no value.

But that's not a fallacy, when removing individual sand grains from a heap, over some point a heap does indeed stop being a heap.

[Wootah]

How is the zygote of a human not a human again?

By not having the properties usually associated with being a human, capability for consciousness is a big one.

1 - Most people in the street aren't conscious.
2- Conversely the human zygote is 100% as conscious as possible for it to be and that capacity grows until it starts diminishing from honestly about 18-20. So again relative to their moments of life the zygote is more conscious than most people.
3 - Actually, prove consciousness is an objective thing to even be worried about in this discussion. It seems like a metaphysical concept being introduced for no apparent reason.

But that's not a fallacy, when removing individual sand grains from a heap, over some point a heap does indeed stop being a heap.

Think it through. You are saying at =now you have consciousness (a heap) and at time=earlier you were not conscious. The heap 'fallacy' is on your side.

That would only be true if "us" existed at t=0; depending on whether a zygote becomes a human some time later, or is a human to start with.

Have you ever seen or heard of a human zygote not becoming a human? Are you, Bust Nak, really going to argue that?

As an argument, it's question begging, it presumes zygote is a human, in order to argue that it is a human, which in turn makes it wrong to kill a zygote.

It is not question-begging at all.

My initial post said: Every cell in my 47-year-old body is doing its best to keep me alive and to divide and split and produce me. This happened from cell 1 to cell 37.2 trillion. All of them, following their programming and making me ongoingly across time. How is the zygote of a human not a human again?

If humans exist and we can say that we are human at t=now and t=now-1 then when were we not human?

When was this statement not true: Every cell in my body has always been doing its best to keep me alive and to divide and split and produce me ongoingly across time.

Hey for the sake of clarity, maybe you are in debating mode when you posted, can you Bust Nak type down that you don't think a human zygote is a human zygote. Just to know who I am talking to these days.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #45

Most people in the street aren't conscious.

Semantic fallacy. You're using the word in a different context.

Have you ever seen or heard of a human zygote not becoming a human?

Organic material [food] and water, when taken into the human body, become "human". Are they human before that?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #46]

When you use the word conscious you are literally using a word that has no meaning. Don't take it from me take it from one of the four horsemen Daniel Dennett

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+co ... nt=gws-wiz

So let's take this consciousness red herring off the table and move it to another thread and once you prove it exists we can see if it applies to this debate.

Does consciousness exist?
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=39501

[Wootah]

Organic material [food] and water, when taken into the human body, become "human". Are they human before that?

You are straw-manning. My topic is quite specific. Go back to the topic.

Also in biology the food you eat and the energy in it does get absorbed into your body and feeds your cells which are you and is my topic.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #45

Have you ever seen or heard of a human zygote not becoming a human?

If a human zygote becomes a human, then it isn't a human to begin with.

When you use the word conscious you are literally using a word that has no meaning.

Then your comment about most people in the street not being conscious has no meaning.

[Bust Nak]

1 - Most people in the street aren't conscious.

Hence the "capability for" qualifier. If you can think of a better phrase that would cover not just the conscious, but those in a coma or passed out drunk, then please tell me, "capacity for" perpahs, "sentience" maybe?

2- Conversely the human zygote is 100% as conscious as possible and that capacity grows...

So none then, hence not qualify as a human.

3 - Actually, prove consciousness is an objective thing to even be worried about in this discussion. It seems like a metaphysical concept being introduced for no apparent reason.

Then just stick to the everyday layman concept of what consciousness mean, acting like how you'd expect a till assistant you see at your local market, for example, to act.

Think it through. You are saying at =now you have consciousness (a heap) and at time=earlier you were not conscious. The heap 'fallacy' is on your side.

Yes, I am saying that now I have a heap, but earlier there was no heap. No, that's not a fallacy, it's just how heaps work. As a heap gets smaller, at some point it would be ambiguous, maybe it's still a heap, maybe it's not. Keep removing grains, sooner or later it definitely isn't a heap. The fallacy is thinking there would always be a heap, even down to a single grain.

Have you ever seen or heard of a human zygote not becoming a human? Are you, Bust Nak, really going to argue that?

Yes. That depends on whether a zygote becomes a human at some point, or is a human to start with. Assuming it becomes a human at some point, then trivially, those zygotes that don't make it far enough in development do not become humans, which happens frequently.

If humans exist and we can say that we are human at t=now and t=now-1 then when were we not human?

Again that depends on whether a zygote becomes a human at some point, or is a human to start with. Assuming it becomes a human at some point, then that time is t < X where X is the point when a zygote (via intermediate stages) becomes a human.

When was this statement not true: Every cell in my body has always been doing its best to keep me alive and to divide and split and produce me ongoingly across time.

For the third time, that depends on whether a zygote becomes a human at some point, or is a human to start with. Assuming it becomes a human at some point, then that statement is not true at t = 0, it did not happen with cell 1, there was no "me" at that point to keep alive.

I charged you with begging the question because you made the assumption that it starts of as a human on these points above (when presented as an argument for a zygote being a human, as opposed to being just plain questions.)

Hey for the sake of clarity, maybe you are in debating mode when you posted, can you Bust Nak type down that you don't think a human zygote is a human zygote. Just to know who I am talking to these days.

I do think a human zygote is a human zygote, it's a tautology. I presume you meant to ask whether I think a human zygote is a human or not.

I hold that a human zygote is not a human, but becomes one later on, as per my criteria for being a human.