[MHGinTN]

1. If a MACROPHAGE is human and it is life, it is human life.
The important point to note is 'individual' human life, as in an individual organism rather than an organ of an individual.

2. No one can prove that a human spirit does not exist along with within a PIZZA, simply by saying that the PEPPARONIS do not seem to support sentience. It was my intention to keep this discussion on the science and scientific definitions/modes of definition (as in form and function determining the age of the individual in existence). I like pepperoni and pizza, but whether such pig has a spirit before becoming pepperoni is irrelevant to this thread. The designation of individual human is the topic at hand.

[beavus]

The point is, you can't "prove" that YOU or I have a spirit or don't have a spirit, let alone proving the negative for the zygote. It's more a point of logic even than epistemology.

individual organism

So, how could rights have developed thousands of years ago when the concept of an organism had not yet even been formed? It seems to me there must have been some other observation that lead to the concept of human rights.

Even if that were not the case, surely you don't think that it is multicellularity that imparts rights? A snail is an organism. Should it have the same rights as you and me?