The earliest stage of a human being's development is a human being. It amazes me that people have trpouble comprehending that. A sperm can never be a human being without having fertilized an egg. Once the egg is fertillized, the new human organism is created. That human organism is a human being. See above. A sperm can never grow to be an infant, adolescent, etc, but a zygote can if not killed before reaching those stages. You are mistaken. A sperm never develops into a zygote. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new organism is created. That is the beginning of the development of that human being. Using your logic you may as well say the thought the people had of having sex is a developmental stage.
So your definition of human is the point at which something begins to metabolize and grow? So why should that determine whether something has any rights? After all, a tumor can grow, but we don't give those any preferential treatment, and no one seems to have any bones about destroying them either. So what's the difference between that and what you call human? Is it that a tumor will never become an independent and or cognitive being? Is that it? Is that the sole identifying factor? Potentiality? Is that your only fallback? And the zygote can never become an embryo without the mother providing it with further sustenance, so what's your point? A sperm when combined with an egg, will become a zygote, which when combined with nutrients from the mother, will be able to grow into embryo with more nutrients, and then into a fetus, before becoming an infant, and so on. So yes, a sperm can grow into an infant, not when isolated, but neither can the other stages grow when isolated from the mother's support. At each stage if the entity is destroyed, then that will prevent it from reaching the further stages. That goes for every stage though. If a sperm is killed then it will never become a zygote, if a zygote is killed it will never become an embryo, if an embryo is killed then there's no chance that it will form into a fetus, if a fetus is killed then it cannot become an infant, if an infant is killed,....well you get the idea. What? Really? Then where does the zygote come from??? And where does the sperm end up? Is the sperm traded through some void in exchange for a zygote which is completely separate from the sperm???? Which the sperm is a part of. How does that apply to the logic I've used? Though the thought of sex would be a part of the human cycle of life if that's what you're referring to. Everything a human does leading up to sex is a part of that cycle, including the sex itself, what happens immediately after the sex, the birth of a child, and the subsequent sex life of that child. Ask yourself, what defines a human as apart from some other species? What is it that makes us human, as opposed to being just another animal? -Meta
Not something, a human being. A tumor is not a human being and can never be a human being. Your apples and oranges comparisons are silly. It is not a "fallback" it is a logical and reasonable criteria. And a born human being cannot survice without the proper envirionment, so all human beings are not human beings? You are confused. A newborn will become a toddler, who will become an adolescent, who will become an adult and so forth, unless taken away from the proper environment. Why does this have anything to do with whether or not they are people or human beings? You are mistaken. A sperm can never grow into an infant. Who said it was destroyed at each stage. A sperm isn't a stage. The stages begin after the organism exists, which is after fertilization. You really should read some biology texts.
Why should metabolism be the defining criteria for what makes a human? I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position. If the potential to become a thinking and independent being is your criteria for determining what a human is and what has rights, then a sperm would fit that description just as a zygote would. Neither of them can think, and neither is independent, but both have the potential to become a thinking, mostly independent being under the right circumstances. I didn't say that. I hope you see now how absurd your criteria are when it comes to granting rights. That's an excellent question. You tell me. What are you talking about? I just described the whole cycle whereas the sperm combines with an egg to form a zygote which takes in nutrients to undergo various stages until it becomes what is known as an infant. The infant can never have existed were it not for the sperm. A sperm is a part of the cycle, if the sperm is destroyed, then there will be no fertilization, no embryo, no infant. Already have. I think you should read a few more. You don't seem to know that a sperm is necessary for a zygote to exist. Why should metabolism and growth determine what has rights? Why should potential alone determine what has rights? What defines a human as apart from some other species? What is it that makes us human, as opposed to being just another animal? -Meta
Nobody but you has suggested it should. what a blatant lie. You should go back and read my responses again. A sperm is not a human being and can never develop into one. A zygote is a human being, and will develop through the other developmental stages if not interrupted by death. You're building a strawman then tearing him down. The criteria you dreamed up and attacked is not mine. If you cannot comprehend what I posted, it is poin tless for me to continue to try to explain this to you. So what? It could never have existed if not for the birth of the male parent in the equation either, so is everyone's father a developmental stage of their growth? See how inane your comments are?
I agree claiming that anything related to the life cycle of a human (developmental stage or otherwise) is a human does not make sense. Sperm and egg are part of the development of a human. Certainly a human can not develop without going through this stage just as a human can not develop without going through the zygote stage.
Here is one of your responses: The point is that the zygote can never become a zygote without a sperm. You are arguing "potential". There is no potential for a zygote without a sperm.
Not arguing potential at all. You are misunderstanding again. The zygote is not a human being because of potential, it is simply a human being period.
I don't believe I've suggested that anywhere. If anything, I've suggested that that is an improper criterion. Why do you think I'm lying? I'm not making a strawman, I'm trying to figure out what your criteria are by asking you, but you seem reluctant to tell us. But you did specifically post the following,... So you said it yourself right there that potentiality is your criteria, and I assumed that metabolism might also be part of your criteria, because you said that being a developmental stage was important, the general difference between a developmental stage, and a non-developmental stages, being the level of metabolism. You also insinuated in this post that growth specifically was part of the criteria. So yea, no, I don't see how that's a straw-man when you said yourself that potentiality and or being a developmental stage are your criteria for defining what a human is and what should have rights. If those are not your criteria, then tell us right now what your criteria are then. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if you don't say anything, then its hard not to try to fill in the blanks. It is a developmental stage of their being. Actually, this speaks to the inanity of your very own criteria. -Meta
Incoherent ( or arbitrary ) responses like this are worthless. Why should metabolism and growth determine what has rights? Why should potential alone determine what has rights? What defines a human as apart from some other species? What is it that makes us human, as opposed to being just another animal? -Meta
Claiming something over and over again does nothing to support that claim. You have been ranting on and on about "a developmental stage". A sperm is a developmental stage without which the human could not exist. A sperm is not a human, and neither is a developmental stage of a human.
Just humoring a raving lunatic. Educate yourself will you: http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap6.htm I suppose this is a lunatic fringe site also?
So now that you realized you made a mistake you have to resort to name calling. Quite pathetic attempt to cover up the mistake. No not at all, quite informative, but it says nowhere that a zygote is an organism. Did you actually read what you linked to and more importantly did you understand any of it?
