Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[palerider]

Overall true. Some seem to think that people that were elected to a position of power should be allowed to twist and ignore science whenever they want. If that's true, then I guess those people would have no problem if those elected into office made infanticide legal and arbitrarily declared human infants "non humans" because they lack a functional IQ of 50 for example.

The court that decided roe was very careful to never refer to unborns as human beings...they always referred to unborns as potential human beings even though the science even at that time was crystal clear that unborns were, in fact human beings....the US Code at that time defined person as "a human being" just as all of the law dictionaries at the time.

 

[Glenbob]

Hello,
That was a very good debate. Can you tell my in a simple way how to explain to pro-choice people that a zygote is an organism?
The pro-life won as usual.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Hello,
That was a very good debate. Can you tell my in a simple way how to explain to pro-choice people that a zygote is an organism?
The pro-life won as usual.

You can't. In any debate with a pro-choice person I have ever have they will refer to the Courts as their source, not the science. Although Princeton is not a pro-life bastion, these articles present the argument quite well:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

[Wag more]

After penetration of the egg by a sperm the male and female DNA sort of uncoil and recoil together. At that point in time the yet to be born human's DNA is set in chemical stone. A geneticist could tell you the gender, hair and eye color, tall or short, athletic or academic, whether or not the genes indicate sickle cell anemia or alzheimers, Downs syndrome, and a whole bunch more.
My opinion is that life begins when the mom and dad DNA unite. The new DNA molecule immediately begins rapid division and is very much alive. The DNA blueprint for the yet to be born human is complete.
Just because the baby is not yet born does not mean it is not alive.

 

[dogtowner]

After penetration of the egg by a sperm the male and female DNA sort of uncoil and recoil together. At that point in time the yet to be born human's DNA is set in chemical stone. A geneticist could tell you the gender, hair and eye color, tall or short, athletic or academic, whether or not the genes indicate sickle cell anemia or alzheimers, Downs syndrome, and a whole bunch more.
My opinion is that life begins when the mom and dad DNA unite. The new DNA molecule immediately begins rapid division and is very much alive. The DNA blueprint for the yet to be born human is complete.
Just because the baby is not yet born does not mean it is not alive.

It's a unique organism even if an identical twin.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

After penetration of the egg by a sperm the male and female DNA sort of uncoil and recoil together. At that point in time the yet to be born human's DNA is set in chemical stone. A geneticist could tell you the gender, hair and eye color, tall or short, athletic or academic, whether or not the genes indicate sickle cell anemia or alzheimers, Downs syndrome, and a whole bunch more.
My opinion is that life begins when the mom and dad DNA unite. The new DNA molecule immediately begins rapid division and is very much alive. The DNA blueprint for the yet to be born human is complete.
Just because the baby is not yet born does not mean it is not alive.

The process of growth even from the doubling of cellular content is life.

 

[lawland]

Sorry once again for posting in an old thread, but the original post (the first post in this thread) was very persuasive and resourceful. It is very difficult to refute that the classification of a zygote as an organism is semantic. Moreover, the argument also raises questions about (i) the nature of scientific classification and (ii) science's claim to universal objectivity.

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks, all!

 

[palerider]

Sorry once again for posting in an old thread, but the original post (the first post in this thread) was very persuasive and resourceful. It is very difficult to refute that the classification of a zygote as an organism is semantic. Moreover, the argument also raises questions about (i) the nature of scientific classification and (ii) science's claim to universal objectivity.

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks, all!

The original post was self serving, unsupportable pap...If you believe bullshit semantics to be rational thought, capable of supporting the argument he made, then you are as easily fooled, or self deluded as the original poster.

We don't begin our development as something else, and then "become" human...we start off as humans and then mature...any other argument requires that biology as we know it be scrapped and replaced with some new fantasy biology where a couple gets pregnant and goes to the doctor not only to find out whether it is a boy or a girl, but to find out if it is a human, or perhaps a pomeranian.

 

[Maverick92]

The original post was self serving, unsupportable pap...If you believe bullshit semantics to be rational thought, capable of supporting the argument he made, then you are as easily fooled, or self deluded as the original poster.

We don't begin our development as something else, and then "become" human...we start off as humans and then mature...any other argument requires that biology as we know it be scrapped and replaced with some new fantasy biology where a couple gets pregnant and goes to the doctor not only to find out whether it is a boy or a girl, but to find out if it is a human, or perhaps a pomeranian.

Hey Palerider. Your argument seems to be:
1 A zygote is an organism

2 All organisms belong to a particular species

3 The zygote belongs to the species homo sapiens

4 A member of the species homo sapiens is a human being.

But isnt a member of the species homo sapiens just a human organism?

According to the law, a human being is an infant member of the species homo sapien which is born alive.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Granted, there doesnt seem to be any moral difference between a human organism immediately before it exists the birth canal and that same human organism immediately following its exit, but isnt it an example of equivocation to argue that the killing of a human being 1: a member of the species homo sapiens) should be illegal when the law references a human being 2: (a member of the species homo sapiens born alive). Isnt the real debate about whether there is a moral value difference between a human being 1 at earlier stages of development and a human being 1 at later stages? This debate would be contested in the realm of philosophy rather than biology, right?

I'm currently sitting on the fence when it comes to this topic. I dont have a horse in the race. This is just an observation I've made reading through this thread.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hey Palerider. Your argument seems to be:
1 A zygote is an organism

2 All organisms belong to a particular species

3 The zygote belongs to the species homo sapiens

4 A member of the species homo sapiens is a human being.

But isnt a member of the species homo sapiens just a human organism?

According to the law, a human being is an infant member of the species homo sapien which is born alive.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Granted, there doesnt seem to be any moral difference between a human organism immediately before it exists the birth canal and that same human organism immediately following its exit, but isnt it an example of equivocation to argue that the killing of a human being 1: a member of the species homo sapiens) should be illegal when the law references a human being 2: (a member of the species homo sapiens born alive). Isnt the real debate about whether there is a moral value difference between a human being 1 at earlier stages of development and a human being 1 at later stages? This debate would be contested in the realm of philosophy rather than biology, right?

I'm currently sitting on the fence when it comes to this topic. I dont have a horse in the race. This is just an observation I've made reading through this thread.

Pro-Life, If Consistent, Would Prefer the Death of the "Mother" Over Aborting the Fetus "Baby"

Why don't we bury miscarriages then? And how would its death certificate read without a date of birth? Outside of the mercenary pulpit, common sense prevents any woman from saying, "I've had five children, but two of them died in miscarriages."

 

[Maverick92]

Pro-Life, If Consistent, Would Prefer the Death of the "Mother" Over Aborting the Fetus "Baby"

Why don't we bury miscarriages then? And how would its death certificate read without a date of birth? Outside of the mercenary pulpit, common sense prevents any woman from saying, "I've had five children, but two of them died in miscarriages."

"Pro-life would prefer the death of the mother to the death of the fetus"
Idk how you think that follows. Show your work.

"Why dont we bury miscarriages?"
Because thats silly? Also, we dont bury miscarriages, therefore what?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"Pro-life would prefer the death of the mother to the death of the fetus"
Idk . Show your work.

"Why don't we bury miscarriages?"
Because Also, we don't bury miscarriages, therefore what?

Illogical Guilt by Association With Radical Feminism Is What You're Really Counting On

Abortion, according to the Puritanical know-it-alls, is first-degree murder. Letting the "mother" die is negligent manslaughter, which is a lesser offense than murder. Pushy preachers shy away from logic. Their weaseling out of the consequences of their theories is as dishonest as the Left's lie that "racism" is a reaction to mere skin color.

Left and Right are both mortal enemies of Populism. If you bossy creeps want to bring back shotgun weddings, you ought to be shot. The panhandling pulpit is for bullies. Religion has always been controlled by upper-class dictators. That's why the plutocrats pay off the mercenary clergy, all the while cynically and secretly aborting the unwanted fetuses resulting from their own spoiled-putrid lifestyle. They've been doing that for centuries, especially because slavish weaklings think that being born rich is a sign of the Will of God that they be so.

If the fetus is a person, it should be buried when it dies from a miscarriage. It isn't buried, so it isn't a person until it is born. If it was natural to believe that the fetus is a "baby," then miscarriages would have always been buried with full funeral rites. Your pushy screeching is not only unnatural, it's not even in your Bible.

No real man would let religious punks boss him around. Preach to the choir and leave real Americans alone. Get out of our country and go live in a theocracy like Iran. Your weepy description of the fetuses is as unmanly as the Left's crybully thug-hugging. Bleeding-heart girlymen on both ends of the specious spectrum.

 

[Maverick92]

Illogical Guilt by Association With Radical Feminism Is What You're Really Counting On

Abortion, according to the Puritanical know-it-alls, is first-degree murder. Letting the "mother" die is negligent manslaughter, which is a lesser offense than murder. Pushy preachers shy away from logic. Their weaseling out of the consequences of their theories is as dishonest as the Left's lie that "racism" is a reaction to mere skin color.

Left and Right are both mortal enemies of Populism. If you bossy creeps want to bring back shotgun weddings, you ought to be shot. The panhandling pulpit is for bullies. Religion has always been controlled by upper-class dictators. That's why the plutocrats pay off the mercenary clergy, all the while cynically and secretly aborting the unwanted fetuses resulting from their own spoiled-putrid lifestyle. They've been doing that for centuries, especially because slavish weaklings think that being born rich is a sign of the Will of God that they be so.

If the fetus is a person, it should be buried when it dies from a miscarriage. It isn't buried, so it isn't a person until it is born. If it was natural to believe that the fetus is a "baby," then miscarriages would have always been buried with full funeral rites. Your pushy screeching is not only unnatural, it's not even in your Bible.

No real man would let religious punks boss him around. Preach to the choir and leave real Americans alone. Get out of our country and go live in a theocracy like Iran. Your weepy description of the fetuses is as unmanly as the Left's crybully thug-hugging. Bleeding-heart girlymen on both ends of the specious spectrum.

Wow! A whole wall of text and not a single statement that could be considered a rational argument.

"If the fetus is a person, it should be buried when it dies from a miscarriage. It isn't buried, so it isn't a person until it is born."

Not even all people are buried anyway. Some are cremated. This is just a thinly veiled appeal to popularity. Perhaps pro-life people do believe miscarriages should be buried on the basis of the reason or system they use to argue the unborn is a person.

"If it was natural to believe that the fetus is a "baby," then miscarriages would have always been buried with full funeral rites. Your pushy screeching is not only unnatural, it's not even in your Bible."

At one point is was "nAtUrAL" to believe the earth was flat. Now we have reason to believe what seems to be the natural truth is utter bullshit.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wow! A whole wall of text and not a single statement that could be considered a rational argument.

"If the fetus is a person, it should be buried when it dies from a miscarriage. It isn't buried, so it isn't a person until it is born."

Not even all people are buried anyway. Some are cremated. This is just a thinly veiled appeal to popularity. Perhaps pro-life people do believe miscarriages should be buried on the basis of the reason or system they use to argue the unborn is a person.

"If it was natural to believe that the fetus is a "baby," then miscarriages would have always been buried with full funeral rites. Your pushy screeching is not only unnatural, it's not even in your Bible."

At one point is was "nAtUrAL" to believe the earth was flat. Now we have reason to believe what seems to be the natural truth is utter bullshit.

You've Made Theism Look Ugly. Thanks for Your Service.

As always happens to power-hungry fanatics who have a desperate need to feel superior to those not in their choir, you grab onto any objection, not caring if it is nitpicking and irrelevant. You are basically preaching to yourself that,"All I need to do is oppose and I will feel like I refuted whatever someone outside my choir is saying."

For example, you use one natural belief that turned out to be wrong to illogically condemn all natural beliefs. But I see that you are incapable of realizing what you are doing, so it's best to let you expose to others how much your arrogant need to feel superior has crippled your thoughts.

 

[palerider]

According to the law, a human being is an infant member of the species homo sapien which is born alive.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Today..that is what the law says...Perhaps you should look at the law as it was written at the time of Roe v Wade. Rewriting the law doesn't change the reality of what the supreme court did back then...and calling a human being something else for legal purposes doesn't change the biological reality in the least.