Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[palerider]

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

What gives you that notion? A woman has every legal right to defend herself if her life, is in fact in imminent danger. Who did you ever hear argue against the right of self defense. The operative term there is imminent danger...women can not, go about killing people who might cause her harm..

Why don't we bury miscarriages then?

I have an older brother who was miscarried who is buried and has a marker...and a death certificate. His date of birth and death are the same day even though he was probably dead before he was born.

 

[palerider]

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.

You have some strange notions which simply don't hold up when contrasted with reality. Such is often the case when the beliefs of zealots are closely examined. Who ever argued to "let" a woman die? That claim is nothing more than an exaggeration resulting from your overheated imagination. Do point me to any credible source that says that a doctor should "let" a woman die rather than saver her life if her child represents an imminent threat.

If you bossy creeps want to bring back shotgun weddings, you ought to be shot.

So if according to you, if one expects a pseron to be held responsible for their actions, then one should be killed? Is that really your stance?

The panhandling pulpit is for bullies.

You mean like Greta and her climate change blather?

Religion has always been controlled by upper-class dictators.

And alternatives to religion have always been controlled by upper class dictators. Socialism for example...

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.

That claim hardly stands up to logic...First off, my older bother who was miscarried is buried in our family plot. Second, how a body is disposed of has no bearing on what they were. Being a zealot, you can, and probably do run all manner of wild speculation through your mind...but like the ramblings of most zealots, yours simply do not stand when examined in the cold hard light of rationality.

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.

Historically, miscarried children who were identifiable as children were buried. My brother was certainly buried.

No real man would let religious punks boss him around.

Again, your zealotry has made this a religious issue for you...It isn't. It is a human rights issue. No one has the right to kill another human being for reasons that amount to little more than convenience.

 

[palerider]

"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."

You keep going on and on about that point as if the method of disposal for a corpse were one of the factors that determined what the corpse was. I have buried dogs...does that make them people? I, myself will never be buried...does that mean that I am not a human being? How a body is disposed of has nothing to do with what it is..

Your ramblings simply don't stand when viewed rationally.

 

[palerider]

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.

Like the great power hungry socialist tyrants who killed millions because they didn't want to sing in the choir? In addition to being a quasi religious zealot, you seem to be a jim dandy hypocrite as well. Any other character flaws you want to expose while you are on your rant?

 

[snowbound]

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."

A visit to the GYN office and routine paperwork asks and answers your question.

1. How many pregnancies have you had?
2. How many live births have you had?

That knit wit politician recently stated and then apologized for saying a miscarriage was nothing more than a “mess on a napkin.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...early-miscarriages-just-some-mess-on-a-napkin

 

[AugustineJurnior]

Many pro-lifers , in varying forms, constantly state that "it is an objective scientific fact that a human zygote is an organism/human being". I disagree. And today I plan on proving WHY.

First off, while "organism"/"human being" are indeed terms used by scientists, the manner in which they have come to be defined is not scientific in itself - it is merely semantic. That means that some scientists may consider a zygote to be an organism/human being, others do not - this is a subjective semantic differentiation, not an objective scientific one. "A human zygote is an organism" is a personal opinion, not an objective fact.

Here is my evidence to prove that I am right:

1) If you believe differently - define 'human being' (or even 'organism') and I will show you that your definition either includes things which clearly are not a human being (skin or sperm cells, for example, or transplanted organs), excludes things which clearly are human beings (conjoined twins or chimeras, normally), does not include a zygote/embryo/foetus, or is so convoluted and designed with pro-life in mind as to be uncitable.

2) Because these terms are not fixed, they are used for a variety of purposes. That means that...

...there are lots of different 'starting points' for an organism....

” In this argument, the question is at what point after fertilization of egg by sperm the cell mass becomes a human being. This seems an ethical impasse which science may not be able to resolve. For ethical decision making on stem cell research, we should determine when a new human entity comes into existence. According to the scientific facts, there are significant points for delineation of human embryos, including: the moment of fertilization, the point of implantation in the uterus, the initial appearance of the primitive streak (19 days), the beginning of heartbeat (23 days), the development of brain waves (48 days), the point at which essential internal and external structures are complete (56 days), the point at which the fetus begins to move (12-13 weeks) (Hinman, 2009), and the point when the foetus would be viable outside the uterus (Balint, 2001).”
~Bioethics in the 21st Century, Chapter 6: Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues (Farzaneh Zahedi-Anaraki and Bagher Larijani)
Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues | InTechOpen

...and the definitions themselves are debatable, or irrelevant to use out of the specific context for which they originated...

” Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept.
…
The foregoing discussion suggests that when biologists pose questions requiring the recognition of organisms, they should be explicit about what criteria they are using and why. This does not, however, require that we use only one operational definition for all purposes.”
~Pepper JW, Herron MD (Does biology need an organism concept?) Biological Reviews 83: 621–627.
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/...ions/BR_08.pdf

” Defining an organism has long been a tricky problem for biologists.
…
Amongst biologists, there has been a lack of agreement on exactly what is required to make something an organism. A common approach to defining an organism is to consider things that clearly are organisms, and to then determine the attributes making them what they are.”
~Stuart A. West, E. Toby Kiers (Evolution: What is an organism?) Current Biology Volume 19, Issue 23, 15 December 2009, Pages R1080–R1082
ScienceDirect.com - Current Biology - Evolution: What Is an Organism?

” Biology lacks a central organism concept that unambiguously marks the distinction between organism and non-organism because the most important questions about organisms do not depend on this concept.”
Jack A. Wilson (Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations) Philosophy of Science Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep., 2000), pp. S301-S311
Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations

” The evolution of organismality is a social process.
…
we do not necessarily need to define the organism to do most of our work as biologists”
~ David C. Queller and Joan E. Strassmann (Beyond society: the evolution of organismality) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 November 2009 vol. 364 no. 1533 3143-3155
Beyond society: the evolution of organismality

Notice that, in order to address the point I am raising in this post, simply posting more reasons why you or others consider a zygote to be an organism is pointless. The problem I am raising in this post is not "a zygote is not an organism", but "the concept of an 'organism' is a subjective one".

Those of us with actual science education laugh at what you DO NOT KNOW

. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins​

Steven Andrew Jacobs

And this is a recent University of Chicago PhD dissertation