Getting into an argument on Reddit might be worse than arguing on Twitter. Some day I’ll learn.
Anyway, here was someone trying to claim that sperm aren’t alive, and that human life begins at conception.
When I agreed with the second quote and also pointed out that that 95% number is a made-up statistic, I got this insightful comment.
Well human life certainly does begin at conception…
You’re not a biologist, btw.
No one argues that a human zygote is something other than a human zygote. Unfortunately, I engaged with the clown claiming I’m not a biologist, and pointed out that those are also human sperm and human oocytes.
They were having none of that.
The question I always ask people who raise the claim that human life begins at conception…are human zygotes not the product of the fusion of human gametes? I
Yes… That’s what we call fertilization. Before conception the egg isn’t fertilized and only contains half of a human’s dna and only 23 chromosomes…
Human reproductive cells aren’t whole human organisms/human beings like a zygote is.
In biology, the zygote is called the cell of life because it usually is the first cell of a new organism. (since it’s basically a fertilized ovum.)
gametes are just the haploid stage of the human life cycle.
Yes… they are reproductive cells. Ofc, they’re haploid… Lol.
Are you sure you’re a biologist ’cause you sure don’t sound like one. Lmao.
I think I just got biologist-splained.
I also think they tripped over themselves. The whole argument rests on how we define what whole human organisms/human beings
are. I agree that a sperm cell isn’t a human being. Neither is a zygote, or a blastula, or a gastrula, and neither is a fetus with an undeveloped nervous system and non-functional lungs and an inability to survive without its placenta. “Human” is a modifier used to designate the ancestry of a cell, and is not synonymous with “human being.”
But what do I know? I’m not a biologist!