This is a strawman. One need not be a pure individual alone in the woods to question whether a plural first person pronoun includes oneself and a zygote.

I am not a zygote. Me and a zygote are a human being and a cell, not "we".

You have your work cut out for you to prove the a single cell is the same as a human, and then a bigger effort to then distinguish the single cell from an animal.

"The problem with your argument is the definition of "we"."

There is no society without "we" and agreed upon commitments to each other. Anyone who wishes can go off and live in the wilderness and be a government and people of one. They can manage themselves - or not - according to any rationale they choose. But as soon as you get two or more people together, they must establish ground rules of acceptable action toward each other. And for that to happen, each individual involved has to identify and respect the innate and inherent worth of the other individual regardless of any trait or condition. They may not make as much money. They may choose a different occupation to us. They may choose to have a different ideology or political view. But as soon as we start denigrating another individual's base value and identification as a member of the human race, all notions of equality and human rights fly out the window.

Everything devolves into "survival of the fittest" and the government mentality of "might makes right." Any action at all becomes justifiable. One can not derive equality under the law from such a standpoint. Laws againts rape and incest rely upon what? The dignity and equal rights of a woman with a man. Laws against theft similarly rely upon a respect for/acknowledgement of the other individual's right to personal property. Go down the list and every single legal precedent falls when one disavows the equality of the individual. Anarchy reigns. Tyranny rules.

Then we have to be vegetarians?

I'm not even engaging in a discussion on the sentience of a single cell. That is simply religion.

If we can get to the point where we all agree
1. a zygote is not a human being. That is religion, and expressly excluded.
2. that the woman bears the burden, and should have the right to choose, but
3. she shouldn't kill a human;
4. and have a real discussion about when a fetus becomes a human being

Then there can be progress. Until then, religion is arguing with a secular "religion" and no progress can be made because no thinking is involved.

Build a machine to detect/measure sentience then. Until you do, you can't say whether something is sentient or not.

Get your tubes tied. It's pretty effective. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

and sentience is KEY to my argument that a zygote is not a human being.

We all evolved on the same planet so you could just as easily ask what separates any species from any other species and then go through the exercise of listing and comparing characteristics. Besides physical characteristics, I suppose you could point out humans generally develop a more sentient mind during the life cycle. To be brief, this opens up a lot of possibilities the rest of the animal kingdom lacks.

I'm sure you are aware religious people would be quick to point out man has a "soul", but one doesn't need a religious argument to point out sentience to the degree humans possess it is a significant separator from the animal kingdom.

Then what separates humans from other animals?

And now Mississippi is already working on outlawing birth control. States all over this country are going to start outlawing any personal conduct they disapprove of because this opinion does away with the "fiction" of a right to privacy. You cannot have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without a right to privacy.

Lots of states still have statutes making sodomy a crime (and which, by the way, is often so broadly defined as to outlaw oral sex). Adultery was still a crime in many states until the recent past.

Strap in. The government is heading for your bedrooms and anywhere else you may want to have privacy.

Because they didn't want to discuss their personal business?

Yeah, Doby didn’t either. Some lurking coward terrified of discussion.

I disagree. A woman doesn’t want a pregnancy. People who insist the zygote is a human use government force to compel her to carry it to term. Government force employed to compel one person against their desire to support another. If you believe the zygote is a human being, this is the very definition of servitude. If you believe the zygote is just an interesting cell, a thing, it is really, really unethical. Forcing a woman to nine months of unhealthy distress, potential risk and often irreversible change to her body for the benefit of a cell with no mind, no feelings, no memories. Absurd.

I have had discussions with biology researchers (interesting story actually) about the potential relationship between cancer and evolution. They explained that this is not a wild idea, but completely reasonable and being studied. Sharks rarely get cancer, and have evolved quite slowly. Cancer is overwhelmingly the reverse case, where the host’s life is dependent on removing the cancer. If cancer is a new emerging life, is it ethical to remove and kill it?

" I do not see how you get there without religion." A living human zygote is a living human zygote as surely as A=A. It can be scientifically proven to exist in the real world. Self awareness, happy, sad, etc. are irrelevant characteristics that don't change what it is, which is the first step of the human life cycle. No religion or mysticism required.

Assigning the definition "servitude" to the gestation period of the normal and natural life cycle of our species is absurd. Insisting on that definition requires a religion all of its own.

I did not down vote you and +1 bumped you back up. Your arguments are common, well expressed, and need discussion.

A woman forced by government to serve a zygote she doesn’t want for nine months, including health risk to her body. Servitude.

Not even complicated.

How is canning Roe servitude? That doesn't make sense.

Really, so people should not take responsibility for their actions. Birth control ,self discipline, adoptions are far better options. In the event of danger to the mother or incest , rape it seems a reasonable act. But not after 3- 4 months. That’s my opinion. You are welcome to yours as well.

There are a lot of birth control options.

If you don't want to have a baby, there are many methods of birth control.

Only if they are Democrat Congressmen

How about live birth (full term) abortion?
Are you down with that?
Asking for a friend.

First, this is a diversion from Trader Joe's constant Fluck-ups: Afghanistan, Oil prices, Inflation, Everything shortages, Open border invasion, Starting a Nuclear war with Russia. And why aren't we talking about the felonious criminal who leaked top secret information out of the Supreme court? Or the seditious thugs threatening SC Judges at there homes? Another felony. But just like the dirtbags who burned 600 cities, murdered 80 innocent people and caused billions in damages in 2017-18... as long as it helps Demon-Rats it's all good. The party of Rats is the clear and present danger to the future of the Republic's existence as we know it. Here is one more thing the party Rats is diverting your eyes from: ceding our sovereignty over to the WHO. No joke. A binding ruling where some foreign asshat can declare anything as "a health emergency" and decree any rule they feel necessary. like, say, disarmament? The vote (which you will never hear about until after it's a done deal) is set for May 28th.
Oh yeah, California wants to murder their babies one month after birth? (no joke) Why not one year old? Ten years? Why not kill them when they get to be pesky teenagers? H*ll lets just kill them all, random like (yes, I'm joking). When crowds start flocking to that fake Indian Warren you know reason has gone straight over the cliff.

As you should, each and every time, even if married. However, what if it bursts or slips?

hence I would still use a condom.

Nature routinely interferes with the growth and development by causing miscarriages and/or failure to achieve implantation in the first place It isn't a pregnancy until implantation occurs. Up to 35% of pregnancies are terminated by Mother Nature herself.

If one doesn't want to have a baby, why should one be forced to do so? If one abhors the prospect of pregnancy and childbirth and absolutely does not want to raise a child, why should she be forced into such discomfort, risks, etc.? Should she be forever barred from the enjoyment of sexual relations?