Your “statement of fact” conflated the word “life” to mean both cellular life and fully human life.
“Fully human”? So, we’re not entirely human when we are in utero? Are we part something else? Does our genome gather more genes as we develop that make it complete? If so, were do those genes come from?
No, an entire genome is complete once a zygote is formed. If a genome is complete, then that zygote is a complete individual member of his or her species. Scientifically, that means that they are “fully human”. The genome determines the species and our species is human.
Yes, science agrees that the first human cell is alive, in the same way science considers all single cell organisms “alive”.
Great, so you admit they are alive, even though you refuse to admit that they are fully human. You completely ignore the individuality part, though. Why?
No, science says nothing about whether the first single cell of a human’s beginning is fully human and qualified for full protection from the state, because that isn’t a matter for science to decide, but philosophy.
Again, scientifically they are fully human. If you don’t think so, please list the minimal scientific criteria to determine what is human. Then tell me at what stage of development do we change from subhuman or partially human to “fully human”. Please use science to do this.
It’s a judgement. Science can only produce facts — the first cell is alive in the same way all cells are alive; it has human DNA and potential to grow into a human; so do other kinds of human cells
No, sir. The “first cell” or zygote, is not just any cell. The zygote is completely human and in the first stage of human development. No cell “has the potential to grow into a human”. Zygotes cannot “become human” or are
“part human”, they simply ARE human. Other human cells are part of an organ, or if in the embryonic stage can become a organ. Only zygotes are the organism itself. Every human is a one cell organism in the beginning.
it has zero means to detect the environment, zero sentience, zero ability to move, zero ability to survive outside its nurturing environment, none of any of the other factors or capacities or abilities that some consider essential to differentiate living human cells from fully human beings.
The essential question is a matter of philosophy, not science: what features are essential to raise a human cell, indisputably as alive as any bacteria cell, to qualify in our society’s judgement as fully human?
No, sir. In our discussion, the question is, “scientifically speaking, is elective abortion the killing of an individual human life?” You deny that they are fully human, but do not produce any scientific information to prove it.
Do you not know that there is a clear scientific definition of what a human is? In this debate, you must prove that science does not have an objective definition of “human”. If you cannot, then you have to admit that scientifically speaking, elective abortion is the intentional killing of an individual human life.
Stick with science. Basic human natal growth and development. The birds and the bees. I will not let you wiggle away by throwing subjective, nonscientific arguments into an objective scientific debate.