Developmental Psychology
I’m currently writing a million page essay (maybe I’m exaggerating on the million page, but maybe 10) on the stages of life from the zygote to late adulthood. It’s been an amazing semester. I’ve read and learned about how and why people change and it’s been the most remarkable thing.
To think that a human can grow from a hollow shell into an emotionally, mentally, physically, interesting being is mind blowing.
Every human is different. Every human can inherits a different combination of genes.
Every human is beautiful. I’ve met a beautiful person throughout these five months.
You are beautiful in every single way. :)
Dear Pro-Lifers: STOP ERASING WOMEN* (or anyone with a uterus)
patheos.comSeptember 6, 2012 By Libby Anne 112 Comments
I’ve talked before about pro-lifers erasing women* in their discussion of abortion. Well, I was perusing the Patheos evangelical channel and I found this YET AGAIN.
“I’m sure evangelical youngsters everywhere would rejoice if their elders decided that they should have sex with great frequency because “if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.” But alas, there is a key distinction between a sperm and a zygote. A zygote, left to develop naturally, will tend to develop into a human being. You can have a tank of millions of sperm, but without an egg not a single one will develop into a human being.”
Did you see where women* got erased? Here, let me help you out:
A zygote, left to develop naturally, will tend to develop into a human being.
There, right there, is where women* are removed from the picture entirely. Somehow zygotes magically develop into human beings…like, by themselves. Nothing else involved there. No one else effected. But that’s simply untrue. A zygote will NOT develop naturally into a human being if left to itself. Rather, in order to develop into a human being it has to have massive intervention from an outside source. Namely, a woman*. Without this intervention, a zygote will not become a human being.
I’m sorry if it seems like I’m splitting hairs here, and I realized perfectly well that the author of that piece probably didn’t even realize he was doing this (which almost makes it worse), but every time a pro-lifer erases women* like this, I can’t help but cringe. No, more than that, I want to yell.
I am a person! I matter! You can’t erase me like that!
And yet they do. Over and over and over again. Sometimes I think they are blissfully unaware that they’re doing this. And then they wonder why women get mad. And then they react with confusion when people accuse them of being anti-women.
So, note to pro-lifers: STOP ERASING WOMEN*.
If someone wants to make a case against abortion, they need to actually address the reality that this discussion involves women’s* bodies in an intimate and completely invasive way. They need to stop pretending they can talk about zygotes and fetuses without mention of women*. They need to listen to women* and understand what is involved. They need to realize that “saving babies,” if that is what they must call it, involves convincing or forcing women* to allow the zygote or fetus to physically occupy their bodies, turning their lives upside down for nine months. Maybe if they actually act like they understand what it is they are asking, maybe then we can talk about it. Until then, I can’t. I’m too angry
Pregnancy and abortion intimately involve women’s* bodies. You can’t separate that out of the equation and just talk about zygotes and fetuses. It’s time pro-lifers realized this. I am tired of being erased. Enough is enough.
Edit: The article I quote in the OP stated that “You can have a tank of millions of sperm, but without an egg not a single one will develop into a human being.” Reader Adele just left a comment pointing out that “You could have a tank of millions of zygotes but without a woman* not a single one will develop into a human being.”
*anyone with a uterus
"A zygote is only a potential human in the same way that an acorn is only a potential oak tree" fallacy debunked
The problem here is that you’re trying to compare an adjective and a noun. Basic English lessons, folks.
“Zygote” is an adjective.
“Human” is a noun.
“Acorn” is an adjective.
“Tree” is an adjective.
“Oak” is a noun.
You see, we’re talking about different levels of development of species. Oaks are species. Humans are species. Deal with it.
Now, an oak doesn’t start off as a tree, does it? It starts off as an oak acorn. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not inherently an oak. Of course it’s an oak! It just needs time to become an oak tree. It needs time to develop into another stage of its life.
Similarly, a non-human thing can’t become a human. But, a human zygote can become a human fetus, then a human infant, then a human child, then a human adult. If zygote humans are only potential humans, then why are infants not potential humans? Or, why don’t we call everyone under the age of 18 “potential adults?”
Categories, categories, categories.
Addendum: I guess everyone’s really angry, as usual. I should have been more clear, but you really can’t help but notice that “zygote” and “acorn” are just descriptions (i.e. adjectives) of humans and oaks at different points in their development. So yes, “zygote” and “acorn” are just describing (acting as adjectives) the stage of life of that species (noun) in the same way that “adult” and “tree” describe a different stage of life of a species.
