Are there pro-lifers which are also pro-egg?

[lightgigantic]

That's not known for sure, and anyway, it assumes that the "humanity" is defined as/gained with "autonomous" viability, or more precisely, the level of viability that the zygote has, tautologically, whichever it is.

The main problem is that not even the newborn baby is really autonomous; he or she depends totally on someone else to feed and nurture them, or else would die. Some weird hypothetical cultures could compare the act of voluntarily left the baby starve to death to deny the fecundation that the egg normally needs to survive and follow its natural life cycle (which could be stated either in a "anti-baby" or in a "pro-egg" way).

I wasn't aware that anyone had the scope for autonomous existence, even if they live to be 100

So it emphasizes the tautology, that is not merely a question of capacity of autonomous development, but developmental capacities particular and natural to the zygote stage.

Furthermore, the unfecundated egg can indeed start to develop itself into a fetus. It's a rare event, not known to ever have resulted naturally in a healthy mammal newborn, or in a natural mammal newborn at all (in all the confirmed instances I've read that it happened in humans, it had to be removed/aborted since it was not developing in the uterus, but near the ovaries, as often happens with normal zygotes as well, in which case they also have to be aborted), but I think that the possibility of rare natural occurrences can not be entirely ruled out. It was already achieved artificially with mice, and is viable (or even the exclusive form of reproduction) in other vertebrates. Every now and then we discover of something new, from new instances of parthenogenesis itself, to many weird things that were not thought to be possible (in the early 2000's some Italian woman got pregnant again a few months during an ongoing pregnancy).

If we hold that the development potential means something about "humanity", I think that this not well known potential of unfecundated eggs has some sort of implication. Fecundation or lack thereof can't be seen as a clear-cut divisor of "humanity".

what should be obvious, regardless of what advances are there in in vitro fertilization is that two very important ingredients are needed - sperm and egg - otherwise never the twain shall meet .....

From this perspective, one has to ponder whether eggs are in a certain way not much different from a zygote, that for some reason, would need a very important (and cheap) assistance to assure a higher chance of survival and healthy development, or whether zygotes/embryos are really all that "humanly" imortant just because they have about 40-60% of chance of developing completely.

its not clear how all this knowledge you are presenting some how has a new angle to spin - a zygote will exhibit symptoms in the space of a few months that an egg or sperm will not in a million years

If it is not "absurd" that a cell in which another cell entered and added some polymers should be considered an human being/person, it does not clear why is absurd the idea that the very same first cell could be human prior to the addition of (half of) the polymers; they're both living cells, they're the same cell, differing in millionth of a gram of some internal chemicals. Of course, I hold the opposite opinion, that neither cell is an unicellular human being. If one is absurd, both are likely similarly absurd, unless there's some really good reason why these polymers have such an "humanly" importance.

(Which is not just to say that they're needed to the normal development; I belive that keratin also is, but no one makes a case that we're not humans until the synthesis of keratin in some cell)

there may be various ways to produce a zygote, but I think for the time being we should simplify things and simply talk of what is currently capable for science (as opposed to science fiction)

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

To any moderator or whoever is responsible for that, I accidentally clicked on "report" instead of reply for Geoff's message. I don't know if it had any effect (perhaps it requires confirmation), I barely saw the screen because instinctively I went "back" with the Opera click gesture...

I equate it with diploidy, in which all normal component parts are present to produce a human. If a haploid developed, more power to them, but they would be rare and generally abnormal. Diploid versus haploidy is a very legitimate breakpoint for calling humanity, with exceptions as they arise.

Unless we consider that gametes are humans in a stage where they normally are haploid. Which is even more strictly corret than saying that the gametes aren't "human", when we're talking about human gametes.

The issue of autonomy and independence is a red herring of old date: it is entirely normal for a newborn baby to not be autonomous, but one couldn't say it wasn't human on that basis. Every single form of life requires appropriate developmental conditions, and essentially none exists in isolation from any other, but one can't say they aren't members of that species until they hatch. Innumerable organisms - all organisms - also require quite specific conditions for growth and development at any number of life history stages; nothing is actually autonomous. So the autonomy issue doesn't hold.

If we absolutely must go down this road, it's an issue of normal or typical environment: a fish is not autonomous of water any more than a dog is autonomous of air. Neither is a human infant autonomous of a womb, nor a postpartum baby autonomous (given no other suitable food source) of breast milk. Sooner or later, in the absence of appopriate environment, the organism will die; heterotroph or autotroph both. The difference you're describing is one merely of ontological stage or state applied to a particular species, which would be widely considered a misnomer for every other ontological state and taxon known. In short (and since we're edging towards Roe vs. Wade): lawyers make for bad biology.

But actually I was not making the point that autonomy is a valid criterion for anything, but the opposite, just like you're doing.

But sperm - or gynogenesis, or temperature shock, or UV radiation, or short-term high pressure exposure - provide not merely a "few polymers", but rather the entire second half of a genome. That is no small addition by anyone's standard.

Best,

Geoff

It's not small, but from a biochemical point of view. I think that "humanity" is something more, that can't be comprised in a single or a bunch of cells or tissues, even though they may be biochemically determined to develop into an organism that is more than just biologically human.



The main point of the topic was to really ask if "pro-eggs" existed. Apparently not. Not that I"m totally opposed to continue this closely related conversation, anyway. But for my experience it just tends to be somewhat futile, for some reason.

Both sides seem to have an almost insuperable difficulty in seeing the beginning of humanity as something different than what they already see (and often both sides fail to understand that the other side does, leading to much confusion and even harsh accusations).

And apparently it's more a question of some "gut feeling" than something that one can be easily, logically, convinced. If it were not so, the debate would be just somewhat like "wait, but during quite some time diring the embryonic development, there's no brain activity, it's somewhat like if the embryo or fetus was a brain-dead person - of course it isn't exactly the same thing, but the point is that brain activity hasn't began yet, and it is what we really consider humanly important in all the other situations, not just cells and tissues with human DNA, or even living human bodies, headless or without functioning brains ", and the other side would say "wow! How come I never thought that! I mean, I knew that, but somehow I never thought about that from that angle, so I was reacting somewhat as if we were talking about 'real' people!".

Or, if is the other side which would really win the debate: "does not matter that there's no brain activity during the whole development. The fact is that the whole development is an ongoing process which, if not interrupted, will very likely result in brain activity. And even if it does not, it is different from actually hindering it from happening, just like if the wind breaks a branch from tree and kills someone, versus you actually getting the branch and killing someone with it". And the other side would just answer: "Wow. That's true. I have never saw by that angle. We can't interrupt the process once the fertilization took place, only before, because then a whole new process started, a process which has a considerably high likelyhood of resulting in brain activity at some point; differently from the egg left alone, whose death is by omission, not action, which makes a lot of difference as well. Let alone the fact that the egg isn't diploid yet, while after the spematozoon enters it, that's a whole another story, and we can consider that cell an human person already".

Or something like that. But then that would be science fiction, in either case.

 

[GeoffP]

Unless we consider that gametes are humans in a stage where they normally are haploid.

All right: and normally in that stage they die. The vast majority are never conceived.

But actually I was not making the point that autonomy is a valid criterion for anything, but the opposite, just like you're doing.

It sounded very much like that was your point. Could you clarify?

It's not small, but from a biochemical point of view. I think that "humanity" is something more, that can't be comprised in a single or a bunch of cells or tissues, even though they may be biochemically determined to develop into an organism that is more than just biologically human.

"Humanity" may well be, but not the definition of being human. On what scientific grounds could you call such a clump of rapidly developing cells not human?

Or something like that. But then that would be science fiction, in either case.

Quite possibly. I must stick by my training, however, to resolve the issue: the cells are every bit a member of Homo sapiens sapiens as I am. I don't know how else they can be objectively defined.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[Pronatalist]

Welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow more naturally, unhindered.​

I think I've heard that there are those who believe that once the spermatozoa enter the vagina unrestricted by a condom, they shouldn't be killed by means of spermicide gel, for instance. Only natural deaths due to failing to fertilize some egg are permissible.

Actually, "Pro-life is more consistantly prolife, when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

I guess that makes me pro-egg, if you want to call it that. I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control" for humans, since more and more people would be glad to live.

More people should be encouraged to marry young, and naturally use the "no method" method of "family planning," welcoming natural family growth.

Somebody on another forum said that marriage is for the survival of civilization, the proliferation of people, and the enhancment of reproduction.

So of course, I would advocate that the already "huge" world population enjoy "bareback" sex and not use condoms nor rhythm at all.

I do not believe in "earth control," or the deliberate "controlling" of nature to such an excessive extent as to be detrimental to man. Nature is resilient, and can far more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than people can be expected to struggle unnaturally with awkward, anti-life "birth control." I also think we fight too many forest fires, and that in more unpopulated remote areas, we should leave forest fires to burn naturally, unchallenged mostly, to burn themselves out, to cut back on runaway forest fire fighting expenses. Forest fires are a natural weather event, and of course we should expect there to be some large raging forest fires during the inevitable droughts. But often there's just too much fuel or danger or rugged inaccessible terrain, to bother with them. Man isn't ready to tame and "control" every aspect of nature everywhere. Some wilderness areas can remain "wild," and yet be open to humans to use and enjoy as they wish. Human population growth is one of the most beautiful things, to be left a bit "wild." Especially now that the numbers of women of childbearing age, around the world, are higher than they have previously been. Let natural baby booms persist and spread. Human population growth is beautiful, for it allows all the more fellow human beings to experience life.

Many pro-lifers also naturally tend to shun "birth control," as many people do love their children or are good at nurturing children too.

 

[Letticia]

Welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow more naturally, unhindered.​

Actually, "Pro-life is more consistantly prolife, when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

I guess that makes me pro-egg, if you want to call it that. I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control" for humans, since more and more people would be glad to live.

More people should be encouraged to marry young, and naturally use the "no method" method of "family planning," welcoming natural family growth.

You know, I actually checked your other posts to see if you were serious...

 

[Letticia]

Have you ever noticed how often someone with a pro-life stance is also a staunch supporter of the death penalty?

I dunno, you whacky americans and your complete inability to appreciate irony, it cracks me up sometimes

I am pro-choice, and pro-death penalty. I have no problem with killing a lump of cells without a brain or consciousness, and have even less of a problem with killing a conscious adult who uses his highly developed brain to kill or rape other people.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I am pro-choice, and pro-death penalty. I have no problem with killing a lump of cells without a brain or consciousness, and have even less of a problem with killing a conscious adult who uses his highly developed brain to kill or rape other people.

at least you are consistent

 

[Pronatalist]

Encourage large families worldwide, so that far more people may enjoy life.​

You know, I actually checked your other posts to see if you were serious...

A natural function of human life is to make more human life.

Of course I am serious. Natural increase is quite natural for humans.

Many people naturally believe that human population growth benefits or helps the progress of the human race.

Considering the powerful reproductive urges most humans enjoy, and the many compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, adds up to a global goal and natural desire to ENLARGE the entire human race, for the great good of the many.

Also, considering the dirty sordid history of contraception, ought to encourage people to consider the natural way, of married people letting the semen flow freely towards possibly fertilizing the egg, when the body is good and ready, as the elegant and natural and best way to go.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

All right: and normally in that stage they die. The vast majority are never conceived.

This is a "naturalist fallacy"; take it to the other side of the life spectrum to see better: most people at old ages die naturally, but that does not justify that we kill them with the excuse that they often die anyway.

And that's true also for zygotes, as about half of the conceptions end in spontaneus abortion.

And even for newborns, to whom one would neglect food and nurture, that, just like fecundation, are needed to improve the chances of survival and develpment.

It sounded very much like that was your point. Could you clarify?

Some people say that the humanly relevant distinction between the zygote and the egg is that only the former tends to live "by itself", while the egg, wihtout the action of two other persons, would die. It can be translated as "the egg is not as autonomous/viable as the zygote" (but the rationale could be resposability for the sexual intercourse or something else, more than an intrinsic importance of human life).

I don't think that viability or autonomy is what really matters here, "for human life"; as was pointed at some point, even newborn babies aren't fully autonomous/"viable", they depend on nurture, on other people to provide the adequate environment, and no one is arguing about the permissibility of killing newborns based on that. The same applies to the idea that the abortion would be permissible as long as the baby wouldn't be yet able to breath outside the womb, but I think that it also applies to the idea that the unfertilized egg dies if we let it die.

"Humanity" may well be, but not the definition of being human. On what scientific grounds could you call such a clump of rapidly developing cells not human?

I don't think it's a "scientific" statement; scientifically, they're humans, but the gametes are as well.

It's a moral judgement, which is somewhat necessarily arbitrary, I think. Moral judgements are not something that is "really" true or false, it's something that can't be measured objectively like joules or kilograms, or even positive/right and negative/wrong. Depends first on "minds" existing, as there are no right or wrong in the middle of the dust in the void, then on cultural backgrounds and, depending on the cultural background, may depend or not in specific circumstances of each situation to be analyzed.

For instance, I personally don't value the life per se in a general way. I don't see nothing wrong in the mere act of killing an individual plant, or many plants. Or bacteria. To me, they're somewhat like "rocks" in this moral sense, despite of all the scientific differences, that these are entirely different things.

The problem exists to me only we're talking about killing things with living brains (or doing something that results in that or in worse life conditions for brains, preferentially human brains).

I can't say that it's a scientific statement, though. Science is just about "raw" descriptions of the things, not about this sort of values.

One could hold the belief that life per se, of any sort (or human life at any stage, or human life, but not gametes) is important, but I just don't "feel" that way.

 

[Pronatalist]

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. Keep the door to life open.

Plants and animals are different. We may, are charged, to prune and maintain them, to better serve us.

 

[lightgigantic]

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. Keep the door to life open.

Plants and animals are different. We may, are charged, to prune and maintain them, to better serve us.

meanwhile wear a handkerchief around your mouth in the midday traffic of Kathmandu ....

 

[Pronatalist]

Now it's not so bad, if most all these other people all around, are as moral as us?​

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. Keep the door to life open.

Plants and animals are different. We may, are charged, to prune and maintain them, to better serve us.

meanwhile wear a handkerchief around your mouth in the midday traffic of Kathmandu ....

Yeah, I know what you seem to be saying. Should we reproduce so much, if it's already seeming to get "crowded" in places? Of course we should. I would much rather "wear a hankerchief," than be fewer in number, and not get to live at all. As some poster said, "World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." Parents can't "wait" well perhaps almost "until hell freezes over," for the population to finally dip a little, to have their precious darling children. They can have their children now, while they are still fertile, by allowing human populations to naturally populate denser and denser, and encouraging naturally possibly large families, in the most crowded of places. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Let the cities become larger and closer together, so that so many more people may somehow fit onto the planet, if or as need be. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed.

But, there is no commandment to live in Kathmandu, is there? There are a few other places people can live. It must not be that big a city, as I have never heard of it.

Somebody on some other forum, said we can either find more space for more families, or curtail the number of people. Now most people have children, so which "option" do you think the breeding parents might find more desirable? Build more cities and towns and suburbs upon suburbs, so as to find or make places for so many people, as people need the jobs anyway, and will pay for or build their own homes and infrastructure.

BTW, cars are getting cleaner, and was it really so long ago, that there was horse manure all over the streets?

And if one is all the worried about pollution, then why should one pollute their own body directly, with nasty cancer stick cigarettes, ugly tattooing inks, or contraceptive potions and poisons? Go more for the more normal and natural look, no bizarre hair colors, and welcoming our babies to naturally push out as they will. Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? Nothing beautiful and elegant at the natural flow of human life unhindered, helping to build up mighty civilizations?

 

[GeoffP]

This is a "naturalist fallacy"; take it to the other side of the life spectrum to see better: most people at old ages die naturally, but that does not justify that we kill them with the excuse that they often die anyway.

But an old human is a developmentally integral form; it has achieved a reasonable semblance of the average fertilized human zygote at that age class. It is no fallacy to make such a contrast between an activated diploid entity and a unactivated haploid one.

Some people say that the humanly relevant distinction between the zygote and the egg is that only the former tends to live "by itself", while the egg, wihtout the action of two other persons, would die. It can be translated as "the egg is not as autonomous/viable as the zygote" (but the rationale could be resposability for the sexual intercourse or something else, more than an intrinsic importance of human life).

A haploid cell has no future, however. It cannot develop further without the minimum of duplication of the haploid genome.

I don't think that viability or autonomy is what really matters here, "for human life"; as was pointed at some point, even newborn babies aren't fully autonomous/"viable", they depend on nurture, on other people to provide the adequate environment, and no one is arguing about the permissibility of killing newborns based on that. The same applies to the idea that the abortion would be permissible as long as the baby wouldn't be yet able to breath outside the womb, but I think that it also applies to the idea that the unfertilized egg dies if we let it die.

Well, here I disagree on the grounds of common sense. We cannot fertilize every egg, nor is any haploid human egg in any fit condition to develop into a human being without at least haplodiploidy occurring.

I don't think it's a "scientific" statement; scientifically, they're humans, but the gametes are as well.

Actually, they are merely haploid human tissue. There is no 'whole' of which they are nominally representative. But by the same token, a kidney cell is not a human; not even a brain cell is a human. They are only tissue, even diploid as they are. We cannot decry the wholesale loss of individual (and developmentally isolate) cells, or we should be forced to have several million funerals every week. And who would make the coffins?

One could hold the belief that life per se, of any sort (or human life at any stage, or human life, but not gametes) is important, but I just don't "feel" that way.

Then I prefer the 'amoral' scientific definition of human life, as seems the most rational one so far.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[Prince_James]

Buckaroo Bonzai:

I was wondering. Despite of being a strawman-like analogy (but I don't believe it is indeed a strawman) I use to try to show how the whole idea that the zygote is just like a human is flawed, it's not really any less logic than the idea that life "begins" at ovulation (actually precedes it as well).

It is indeed a strawman because an ovum and a zygote are two different things. To refute the life of an ovum is not to refute the life of a zygote.

Thought experiment:

Take an ovum and take a zygote and place it within two different artificial wombs (which shall function like real wombs).

Wait 9 months.

What do you have?

In one, you have a fully formed baby (zygote). In another, you have an ovum sitting in an artificial womb.

Ova and sperm are reproductive cells. A zygote is the first stage of development in the human lifespan.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Buckaroo Bonzai:



It is indeed a strawman because an ovum and a zygote are two different things.

It's not really a strawman. The analogy does not imply that both are exactly the same thing, with all the same properties. It's acknowledged.

And even all the post-zygote developmental stages are not "the same thing", in the same manner.

What the analogy does is to compare, which is more humanly important, the completion of the individual genotype, resulting immediately only in a cell, or something else, something more? Can we really speak of unicellular human beings, just because of the human diploid genome, or "humanity" is more than that?

To refute the life of an ovum is not to refute the life of a zygote.

Actually, no one has "refuted" that the ovum is life, because it is alive, not less than the zygote it becomes by being fecundated.

Thought experiment:

Take an ovum and take a zygote and place it within two different artificial wombs (which shall function like real wombs).

Wait 9 months.

What do you have?

In one, you have a fully formed baby (zygote). In another, you have an ovum sitting in an artificial womb.

Ova and sperm are reproductive cells. A zygote is the first stage of development in the human lifespan.

If we accept for a moment that the zygote is an human being already, then is reasonable to question why wouldn't the egg alone be as well. They differ in essentially two things, that are somewhat reducible to one: the haploid stage/its nucleic acids and the "developmental readiness" it confers to the cell.

Well, assuming that the zygote is an human being and pondering whether the egg isn't, would be reasonable to ask why any one of these factors is what confers human-being dignity to the cell? Why is to not fecundate an egg any different from not feeding a newborn baby?

We could then make a similar thought experiment, comparing the further development of a newborn baby that is fed to the one that is let to starve to die; then by just looking at the obvious, that the one that dies dies, we would conclude that only by feeding is that humanity is obtained.

Assuming that the zygote is an human being, and being agnostic regarding the human egg's dignity status, the comparison is quite baffling.

In both cases, most of what there is in one stage is already extant on the immediately preceding stage: most of the fecundated egg is already present on the nonfecundated egg, and most of the fed baby is already present in the unfed baby.

If we were to keep assuming that the overall view that the egg isn't yet a human being before fecundation, then we'd have to find something very special on the sperm cell that really confers the "humanity" to the egg, but isn't present in the sperm itself, since it's accepted to be unimportant.

The only possible conclusion of such path of thought would be that the nucleic acids configuration is what confers the human importance to a cell; that the haploid cell isn't human, but the diploid is (or at least, if it is a non-disturbed, perhaps not artificially induced, totipotent cell).

Then, assuming that it's not a huge tautology in order to just keep with the overall position that the egg isn't human and the zygote is, we would have to ask why the state of these nucleotides matter so much regarding humanity. The closest thing to an answer would be that they make the further development much more likely to happen. But then we're facing again the analogy with feeding.


Honestly, I don't think I did a strawman above. These are reasonable flows of thought of someone who would accept that the zygote is an human being, but would wonder whether the egg alone is as well or is not, taking into account that the fecundated egg is.

I think that the only possible conclusion would be that the egg is as well; that all the possible rationales for the classic stance that the egg isn't would be tautological; that is, that they would require to arbitrarily put much importance in some seemingly humanly irrelevant difference between the two states of a cell, just in order to maintain the desired, pre-conceived conclusion, regardless of any conceivable, obvious, importance of this given aspect.

Alternatively, it would require something more than what is within the scope of scientific investigation, such as the belief that a "soul" enters the egg with the spermatozoon.

 

[one_raven]

Buckaroo,
Not all anti-choice people are vegetarians.
Humans are animals, but animals are not human.

Granted, those who call themselves "pro-life" but support the death penalty, support war and fire-bomb abortion clinics are certainly hypocrites.
But to expect anti-choice people to not eat eggs is at the very best an absurd jump.

Not everyone is anti-abortion. There are many in the feminist movement who want to make abortion mandatory.

You are going to have to qualify that observation.

 

[Myles]

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. Keep the door to life open.

Plants and animals are different. We may, are charged, to prune and maintain them, to better serve us.

Who "charged" us ?

 

[Prince_James]

Buckaroo Bonzai:

It's not really a strawman. The analogy does not imply that both are exactly the same thing, with all the same properties. It's acknowledged.

Arguments depend on the two being comparable. Zygotes and ovums are two distinct things.

And even all the post-zygote developmental stages are not "the same thing", in the same manner.

What the analogy does is to compare, which is more humanly important, the completion of the individual genotype, resulting immediately only in a cell, or something else, something more? Can we really speak of unicellular human beings, just because of the human diploid genome, or "humanity" is more than that?

"Something else, something more" is a judgement which has no foundation. You want to know what is human: It is very simple to determine that. A zygote fullfills those requirements, thus it is human. An ovum does not, therefore it does not.

Actually, no one has "refuted" that the ovum is life, because it is alive, not less than the zygote it becomes by being fecundated.

Zygotes are independent beings, alive and distinct from the mother. Ovums are alive in the same sense that a cell in one's heart or liver is alive. IN fact, less so, as they are reproductive cells whose only function is to meet up with a sperm, and which is deficient in chromosomes to accomplish this.

If we accept for a moment that the zygote is an human being already, then is reasonable to question why wouldn't the egg alone be as well. They differ in essentially two things, that are somewhat reducible to one: the haploid stage/its nucleic acids and the "developmental readiness" it confers to the cell.

You forget also that a zygote is complete, whereas an ovum is one half of its reproductive purpose.

Well, assuming that the zygote is an human being and pondering whether the egg isn't, would be reasonable to ask why any one of these factors is what confers human-being dignity to the cell? Why is to not fecundate an egg any different from not feeding a newborn baby?

We could then make a similar thought experiment, comparing the further development of a newborn baby that is fed to the one that is let to starve to die; then by just looking at the obvious, that the one that dies dies, we would conclude that only by feeding is that humanity is obtained.

It is well understood that all life requires food to be sustained. That death should result if food is deprived over a significant amount of time bears nothing on the life of the thing in question. If anything, death implies life. If Death, than Life. Death, therefore life.

In both cases, most of what there is in one stage is already extant on the immediately preceding stage: most of the fecundated egg is already present on the nonfecundated egg, and most of the fed baby is already present in the unfed baby.

If we were to keep assuming that the overall view that the egg isn't yet a human being before fecundation, then we'd have to find something very special on the sperm cell that really confers the "humanity" to the egg, but isn't present in the sperm itself, since it's accepted to be unimportant.

The sperm is of paramount importance to the life of a zygote. Half of what makes it a zygote comes from the male reproductive cell. When the spermazoa meets the ovum and fertilizes the ovum, we have a zygote. The zygote then has qualities which are not found in either the sperm or the ovum. It differs substantially from each. It has a full genetic code. It is a distinct being from both mother and father. It will grow into a fully formed adult human being in 20 or so years of development through various earlier stages, both in and out of the womb, but primarily (time wise) without...No sperm creates a child on its own, nor does any ovum.

Then, assuming that it's not a huge tautology in order to just keep with the overall position that the egg isn't human and the zygote is, we would have to ask why the state of these nucleotides matter so much regarding humanity. The closest thing to an answer would be that they make the further development much more likely to happen. But then we're facing again the analogy with feeding.

Or the fact that DNA defines humanity as an analytic proposition. Just as a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man.

I think that the only possible conclusion would be that the egg is as well; that all the possible rationales for the classic stance that the egg isn't would be tautological; that is, that they would require to arbitrarily put much importance in some seemingly humanly irrelevant difference between the two states of a cell, just in order to maintain the desired, pre-conceived conclusion, regardless of any conceivable, obvious, importance of this given aspect.

There are substantial differences. Let us go over them again:

1. An ova is incapable of producing an adult human on its own.

2. An ova is a reproductive cell with no other function but to meet up a spermazoa to become fertilized, which once fertilized, it ceases to be (the result is a hybrid entity deriving DNA from both mother and father).

3. Ova have half the chromosomes of humans. This is because of the above process.

Meanwhile:

1. A zygote is capable of producting an adult human on its own.

2. A zygote is a single-cell first-stage of development in humans. It is not a cell within its own body (as a liver or heart cell), but a human itself. In fact, it is the human body.

3. Zygotes have all the chromosomes and other genetic qualifications to be human.