Wait, are you defining being human as "will become a human"? That's using the word to define as a way to define itself.
I'm just going to quote myself.
I suppose that one could point out that in my paragraph I say, "The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child." Which would seem to indicate that it is not human. I would disagree.
How do you define what a human is? Should it be done by how looks? If I look like a human than I am a human. Should that include statues of humans? What about humans that don't have arms or legs? What about humans that have severe deformities? Should they not be human because they don't quite look it?
Some people are mute and others can't see. Are they not humans? Children are still developing (similar to the zygote) should children not be considered humans based on the fact that they haven't reached a certain stage?
I feel like this is just mere word play. It's called a zygote so it isn't a human. But then at the same time I could ask what kind of zygote is it. The response might be "A
human zygote". I could then respond "Oh you called it human."
On the other side, sperm and egg cells also carry the potential to become human under the right conditions (fertilization). They have to be fertilized. The unfertilized ovum has to enter into the proper conditional state before becoming a zygote. Left alone no separate sperm or ova will ever develop any further. But a zygote is naturally,
always set in a conditional state in which it will develop. I'm trying to say although the genetic material is there, the conditions surrounding them are too different. I can quote myself again.
Sperm and non-fertilized ova in their initial and original state (where they exist when created) will indefinitely remain the same material until they die. They will never, on their own become a human.
The zygote in natural cases exists automatically within the conditions in which it will develop into a human.
Human beings, yes, conscious beings, depends. On what, you'll ask? On how far the coma limits our consciousness. In dreams, or when we pass out, there are still parts of our brain that are active and "conscious", unlike in embryos.
But then at all points it's human and it's a human zygote, a human baby, a human in a coma. So then it phrases a new question "What is the criteria for being alive?" and then "Is abortion okay based? Yes, or no, based on whether the zygote is alive?" (instead of human) back to square one.
Depends on what you mean by human. Germ cells, zygotes, adults, all stages of human development are genetically human and alive. There is no dead phase, nor any phase not in the line of the homo sapiens.
What makes life, life and what qualities constitute human.
Is consciousness a requirement for life?
Are bacteria "conscious". I assume not as much as a human, maybe even only acting on "instinct/genetic coding". But they are alive no?.
Is having human DNA a requirement? No.
My finger is human but in a sense it isn't alive. And other animals are alive without being human.
Is it having a brain that makes you alive?
Jellyfish are alive without a brain, yet I suppose this could still be considered the consciousness question. They are alive, but with no brain are they conscious?
But then are not all human cells made up of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons? Which aren't "alive".
This is the point I wish to make, a human zygote in it's natural state. At the first moment of the zygote, it is in the place in which it will develop further and be a human child. And the development will begin instantly.
No other material or substance on earth, within it's natural initial state will have such instantaneous development into a human being. Not even sperm and ova, as if left alone, die as what they initially began as.
Which is the debate at hand in the scientific community now, no?
Is it not still an issue? I suppose it is also debated in the political realm, but I assume the scientific community will be the ones to show the evidence and produce the answer.
