Pale Rider, it is obvious that you have now completely gave up on rationally defending your position. I find funny and hilarious that you are unable to answer ONE very simple and basic question...
Typical...the explanation has gone beyond your ability to understand so you claim that it is I who has given up. I gave you an answer, that you didn't like it, or couldn't understand it is not my problem...the problem lies entirely with you and your twisted misunderstandings of basic biological functions.
Can you provide a definition of organism that does not include things which clearly aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), and does include things which clearly ARE organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms)?
What in the hell are you talking about. Science provides a perfectly clear, understandable definition of organism, that doesn't include sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs etc. already...why do I need to make one up?
An individual form ofl ife that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multi cellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
That seems like a straight forward, accurate description of an organism to me....the fact that you can't square it with things that are organisms and are not organisms due to your very limited biological knowledge, again, isn't my problem....it is your own failing. Accept it and try to do something about it...I would suggest trying to get a firm grasp on the basics of biological reproduction rather than trying to make everything you read fit into your existing misunderstandings.
All I want you to do is provide me with a definition of the word organism that would ONLY apply to actual organisms and would NOT apply to any non-organisms.
No....all you want is to be able to make your misunderstanding and obsessions fit into the actual biological definitions that science has already provided.
The only dodge happening in this conversation is the one that has been happening since the beginning...you are dodging biological reality....you are trying to make actual biology fit into your twisted version of it.
Lets try this fedor50.. and since it is a discussion of science, stick to the scientific names. Can you name an organism that is called blastocyst? Can you name an organism that is called embryo? Can you name an organism that is called fetus? Can you name an organism that is called infant? Can you name an organism that is called child? Can you name an organism that is called adolescent? Can you name an organism that is called adult?
Of course you can't because there are no organisms that are named any of those things. An organism must have a taxonomic name and words like blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc., are not taxonomic names. Neither is the word zygote. Multicellular organisms pass through those developmental stages but no organism is taxonomically named after that stage.
Porpoises are taxonomically named Delphinidae Phocoenidae...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development, their species is Delphinidae Phocoenidae...never zygote, or embryo or fetus. They are properly called Delphinidae Phocoenidae at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.
House cats are taxonomically named Felis Catus...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development their species is Felis Catus...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus. They are properly called Felis Catus at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact....it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.
Human beings are taxonomically named Homo Sapiens...at specific stages in our development, we are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of our development, our species is Homo Sapiens...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or infant, or child, or toddler, or adolescent, or teenager, or adult, or old geezer....we are Homo Sapiens from the time we come into existence, through all of the stages of our development, and even after we die. We are always Homo Sapiens for the entire span of our lives because we can be nothing else. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.
Zygote is not a life form that is unworthyof a taxonomical name because it is not an organism....zygote is a developmental stage that all multicellular life forms who do have taxonomical names pas through...just as embryo is not a life form that is unworthy of a taxonomical name because embryo is not an organism...embryo is just a name that we use to describe a developmental stage of an organism...
ZYGOTE is not a thing....Zygote nothing more than a name given to an organism at specific stage in i t's development...
REPEAT...ZYGOTE IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT...NOT THE ORGANISM ITSELF, as is blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. The organism is whatever its taxonomical name says it is through all stages of its development for the entire span of its life and even after it dies.
You once passed through a stage of development called infant...you were called infant, but during that stage of your development you were not infant, you were Homo Sapiens passing through the infant stage of your development. Infant is not a name of an organism....infant is a developmental stage of an organism called Homo Sapiens. Zygote is the name given to a developmental stage of all multicellular organisms including Homo Sapiens.
And I could go on through every species of multicellular animal known to man repeating the hard, undisputable facts over and over and over again and it is my bet that you still would not be able to grasp the fact....more likely you would not be willing to grasp the fact because you don't want to grasp the fact. You know that as soon as you actually understand the facts and accept them for what they are, then you are in the position of being in favor of killing human beings for reasons that rarely rise above convenience and you can't bear that.
Hell, look at the nature of your argument...you only concentrate on zygotes and refuse to discuss abortion beyond that stage of development because you know full well that once past that stage even you can't twist and distort the facts enough to make something other than living organisms out of them. You completely ignore the fact that human beings are never aborted at the zygote stage...Your entire pro abortion argument is centered on a thing that never gets aborted in the first place. you don't find that fact psychologically telling? I damned sure do and I have had far more than just the basic psychology courses that damned near every college student takes in the first or second year. I am a dentist and live and breathe psychology every day of my life. You are afraid and you are broadcasting that fear on every channel..and if there is one profession that will teach you to know fear when it is presented in all its disguises, it is dentistry.
You are afraid fedor50...and pathologically so. Accept it or not...probably not. Your unwillingness to understand the biological facts of pre natal development may be a psychological condition resulting from some internal need to protect yourself from yourself. You hold a position that if you were able to look at it rationally would simply be unacceptable for whatever reason so you may be actually unable to learn and understand the biological facts of pre natal development.
My best guess would be that somewhere along the line you had some involvement in an abortion decision and could not comfortably live with the knowledge that you actually had a hand in the death of a real human being...perhaps some afterlife/judgment sort of thing weighs on you heavily. Well face it, if you ever had any hand in an abortion decision, it was not a zygote that was being aborted...it was by any twisted definition you care to give, it a multicellular, growing organism that was statistically already developed far enough along to feel the pain of being dismembered and killed.
