Dear Pro-Choicers, “Zygote” isn’t your friend

Hey. You’re a pro-choice enthusiast. How are you? I’m well. You think it’s okay to kill babies, and though I hate the idea, I don’t hate you. Please don’t mistake my confusion and passion for hatred and bigotry. That being said, I have some serious beef with you. I’ve already covered why your desperate “WHAT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST!!?!?!?!!?!??” plea doesn’t stun me, but something else has come up recently. Instead of shouting about extremely rare, and irrelevant, circumstances, you smirk, sip your tea, then simply say “Zygote”. You refer to babies as “zygotes” as a way to try and dilute your lunacy and ease your guilt. You try your darnedest to dehumanize the issue by dehumanizing the victim. It’s similar to saying, “Nah, don’t fret. I know your daughter was raped, but she was a whore. Am I right, or am I right?”. You raise your hand for a high-five and look around to see if anyone else has noticed your brilliance. Well, you won’t be getting any dap from me, and here is why.

Let’s take a moment and realize that a zygote, is a stage and not a thing in and of itself. You can’t just call something a “zygote” without specifying what kind of “zygote” it is. This is similar to someone calling a Pikachu a “second evolutionary state of a Pokemon”. Sure, that’s true, but that alone does not identify what we are dealing with. Metapod, Pupitar, and Wartortle are all “second stages”, but are totally different in function, type, and species. So, the first favor you could do me is say “human zygote”.

Now, if you would take a moment to stop slobbering on the genitalia of science so I can borrow it, I’d like to present something. People often use science to try and disprove the validity of the life of a zygote. Before I dive deeper please know that I do, in fact, enjoy science and I believe science is just an explanation of God’s creation and his meticulous work, so don’t label me as some Christian who thinks gravity is sinful. With that out of the way, let’s continue. Biology, a branch of science that specifically focuses on the living, has a nifty set of 7 characteristics that help determine life. The list differs in wording depending on where you look, but all hold the same core elements. Let’s apply all seven to a human zygote and see if the human zygote passes the test.

  1. Living things are composed of cells– Yup. Checks out. A zygote is composed of cells. Whether the cells is self sufficient isn’t the question. Revert back to the link for proof.
  2. Living things have different levels of classification– Again, this is true. Both cellular and molecular classification qualify. There is a system of classification and function within a human cell, whether that be the zygote or my skin cells.
  3. Living things use energy– Who would have guessed! Little worthless and ugly zygotes use energy. Those sly little catastrophes are doing well so far, but all good things must end…Right?
  4. Living things respond to their environmentCells are fully capable of responding and reacting to their environment. Hey, I’m starting to not like this science thing! It’s ruining your guilt-free trip to the clinic! You have a right to not be offended! Gosh, someone really has to stop this whole “science” thing.
  5. Living things grow– Whether by cellular division, cell enlargement, or a growth in total number of cells, living things grow. And last time I checked, if not viciously ripped to pieces, a zygote of any sort continues to grow into what its predetermined biological form was from conception. This is a process known as embryogenesis. Don’t hate me, hate science.
  6. Living things reproduce– If left alone to the point of proper maturation, a zygote will develop to become capable of reproduction. “But Cameron!?!?!! It cant reproduce NOW!!!!!!” Correct. You’re right. At the time of it’s legal age to be murdered, the human zygote can’t produce. Neither can a 4 year old or an infertile adult. Can I kill them without remorse? Never. It is a matter of biology and time in one case, and a matter of a biological mishap in another.
  7. Living things adapt to their environment or maintain homeostasis– Zygote is going for the perfect game! The home crowd stands on their feet! The anticipation is just killing us! Zygote throws the pitch! He got him! Zygote has proven itself to be life! What a miraculous display of homeostasis! He couldn’t have done it without his coach Science calling the shots. What a duo!

So, as you might have guessed, a “zygote” is life. You’ll just have to deal with it. Come up with a new argument. Anything else. Or maybe, just don’t. Maybe you’ve finally seen the corner you are backed in to. You can either swap sides or just admit you favor infanticide. It’s quite easy at this point. Before I go, you can have science back. I’m done using it for now. Continue as you were, and here are some knee pads and some tissues. You’ll need them.


4 thoughts on “Dear Pro-Choicers, “Zygote” isn’t your friend

  1. C. says:

    Also, not to be a troll, but do you really think the best way to get people to see with or even agree with your point of view is by being smug and cruel?


  2. Angry feminist says:

    I think your basic understanding of science is confused, selective, and reductive, at best. Your use of the characteristics of living things is not valid when it comes to your specific argument. For example, when pro-choicers reference the fact that a zygote is a “cluster of cells” I don’t think that anyone is postulating that a zygote isn’t a living thing; the basic premise is that the zygote is small enough to effectively be removed from the host’s body without causing considerable harm or pain to said zygote. Additionally, if you are basing your moral analyses on the basis of “living things,” then have you also never eaten meat? Picked a flower? Accidentally stepped on an ant? I foresee your ethnocentric, privileged, and severely-misguided reply to be something along the lines of, “BUT GAHD SAID IT IS OK FOR ME TO DO ALL THOSE THINGS,” which has no place in me dismantling your logic about living things according to biology, so don’t even go there. Finally, I find it deeply problematic and terrifying that you care more about the potential life that a zygote might grow to represent (whose quality of life is severely compromised if the mother does not want the baby or is unable to take care of it, I might add) rather than the life of an actually fully-formed adult woman. This is one of the largest concerns of Western society as we know it. And people say sexism doesn’t exist. LE SIGH.


  3. Dan McAnally says:

    Full Disclosure: I am related to the Blog Author.

    I apologize for my late arrival to this conversation, but I only recently became aware of this discussion. I wish to quickly come up to speed, and I would like to understand your point of view.

    First, I would like to know some of the basics. I noticed the unavoidably eye-catching moniker, “Angry feminist”. It seems obvious that it is intended to be provocative, and I have no doubt it has achieved that goal on several levels. In an earnest attempt to avoid misunderstandings, would you mind explaining your choice of ID? What I mean is, what is the purpose of the modifying adjective, “angry”? In what way does the adjective distinguish you from a general classification of “feminist”?

    I had not been introduced to the term “angry feminist” until today, and I further admit that I don’t readily recall other qualified classifications of feminist, either. I was wondering if you have encountered other types of feminists, such as “happy feminist”, “content feminist”, “confused feminist”, “surprised feminist”, or “fearful feminist”? And, if so, does the solidarity of your root feminism overpower the supposed conflict between these factions? If you were to meet someone, for example, who describes themselves as a “joyful feminist”, would you be suspicious that they weren’t truly dedicated to the cause?

    But, setting aside for a moment, if you will, the motives of others, I would really like to know (as briefly as you can, but without imposed restrictions) the genus of your by-name.

    Thank you in advance for your indulgence. I look forward to your correspondence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: