I'll agree that a zygote is living, just like your liver is living. But I don't agree that it's an animal(human). It has the potential to be a human, but it is not a human, as it doesn't exhibit any of the traits that define us as humans (except maybe that it has DNA, but thats common to all life, not just humans). As far as having a consciousness, I disagree. To have consciousness, one must have a mind. And to have a mind, one must have a brain. And a zygote doesn't have a brain.

So I gather that you are against it because you believe it is life from conception, and ending any life isn't for man to decide. But I suspect that even if you were convinced that it wasn't really life from conception, that you would still be opposed. So I don't feel like we have gotten to the core of your beliefs on the matter, and I would like to hear them.[/quote]

To begin with, if it were proven to me that life did not begin at conception, I would be 100% pro-choice. However, I know that life does begin at conception. I'd love to think that it did not. That way, I wouldn't have to realize that 53 million babies (by conservative estimates) are killed every year. As for zygotes, they don't have brains, but neither do insects, and insects unquestionably have a consciousness. As long as something is genetically distinct, alive and part of the animal kingdom, it has a consciousness. As long as it is human, it is a person. I cannot escape that, and I cannot support killing any person (except in self-defense). It has nothing to do with religion. The Bible makes reference to life existing before birth (Jacob and Esau), but it does not state that life begins precisely at conception. Moreover, I'm not a Fundamentalist, so I don't take all of the Bible literally anyway, and I think that the Bible contains human error. I also don't care what idiots in the Jerry Falwell camp say. I was very secular up until a year ago, but I was still 100% pro-life because science plainly put before me the fact that life does begin at conception. I don't remember what happened when I was a newborn baby. That means that my consciousness now is fundamentally different from my consciousness then. In the same way, I am certain that a newborn baby and a zygote each have a fundamentally different consciousness. However, arguing that such a difference can justify killing anyone in any circumstances could easily be used to justify killing the mentally challenged or the mentally ill, for example. The level of consciousness doesn't matter. The existence of consciousness does. I've run the issue through my mind hundreds of times and I can come to no other conclusion. I've taken a lot of heat for my stance, primarily because many assume that I am a Fundamentalist fanatic of some sort. That couldn't be further from the truth. I just blasted right-wing sites for a lie about gay marriage in another thread, for example. There are no gray areas on this issue, though. Once we start claiming that we can kill someone because they have a different level of consciousness, because we don't think that their life has enough quality or because their existence causes pain through no fault of theirs, we can justify killing anyone based on our own subjective perceptions. It's a line we just cannot cross.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)