You are being idiotic. Even little children can understand that like begets like. Cats don't beget cockroaches. Humans don't beget bacterium.

A human zygote is entirely human DNA. It is zero percent cat. Zero percent bacterium. A human zygote has more in common with any other human than it does with any other living thing.

The differences you speak of in reference to a human zygote compared to an average, adult, awake human are differences of circumstance or degree not kind. For example, a really small human, like an infant is clearly a human. Likewise someone who has their limbs amputated or someone in a coma (unconscious). The differences between a zygote and a normal adult human are indeed great, but they represent only difference in development.

You were a zygote once, like everyone else reading this.

The matter of being "worthy of protection" as you put it is another matter, a question of ethics/mortality. I view many of the distinctions our legal system has erected to separate an "abortable fetus" and a non abortable infant as arbitrary. Literally the ability to respire independent of the mother is the standard. It's so arbitrary that broader application of the principle would mean we could freely murder someone on a ventilator, as they are not independently respiring. You seem to draw an equally arbitrary and more vague distinction at some point of gestation. Where is that event, week, etc.?

I draw the line at conception...the moment that one becomes human. Before that you are just gametes. Non vague, non arbitrary. But the truth is that because such a legal standard would not admit the free sex ethics so many in our democratic society desire, our courts/legislatures have devised a bunch of nonsense to justify abortion. If you want to know who's to blame, most people need to only look in the mirror.

You are being idiotic. Even little children can understand that like begets like. Cats don't beget cockroaches. Humans don't beget bacterium.

A human zygote is entirely human DNA. It is zero percent cat. Zero percent bacterium. A human zygote has more in common with any other human than it does with any other living thing.

The differences you speak of in reference to a human zygote compared to an average, adult, awake human are differences of circumstance or degree not kind. For example, a really small human, like an infant is clearly a human. Likewise someone who has their limbs amputated or someone in a coma (unconscious). The difference between a zygote and a normal adult human are indeed great, but they represent only difference in development.

You were a zygote once, like everyone else reading this.

The matter of being "worthy of protection" as you put it is another matter, a question of ethics/mortality. I view many of the distinctions our legals system has drawn to separate an "abortable fetus" and a non abortable infant as arbitrary. Literally the ability to respire independent of the mother is the standard. It's so arbitrary that broader application of the principle would mean we could freely murder someone on a ventilator, as they are not independently respiring. You seem to drawn an equally arbitrary and more vague distinction at some point of gestation. Where is that line.

I draw the line at conception...the moment that one becomes human. Before that you are just gametes. Non vague, non arbitrary.