Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[palerider]

I never stopped arguing science. You never addressed my earlier question:

Explain to me how human egg cells are not also organisms according to you. They do react to stimuli, hardening the zona pellucida when a sperm enters. They do develop, from germ cells to oogonia to oocytes, etc. They are part of a system that maintains homeostasis. They can reproduce through fertilization or parthenogenesis.

If you really need such an explanation, then you have an even more feeble grasp of the facts than I originally thought. An egg is an egg. Give it a perfect environment and it will live out its entire existence as an egg and die as an egg. As you said, they are part of a system, not a separate entity.

In what way is a zygote an organism that a human egg cell isn't?

Again, is your grasp of human reproduction so tenuous? An egg, even in the most perfect environment is still just an egg....a zygote is a human being in the earliest stages of development... You will never be able to escape that most basic fact.

Hardly any zygotes ever get aborted but that isn't really the point. The argument that I have set out to prove is that a zygote is NOT an organism in the objective sense.

That is precisely the point. Your whole argument is a red herring. You are arguing about zygotes which are never aborted except by natural causes. You believe you can make a case that zygotes are not human (which you failed at) and even had you been successful it would have made no difference because zygotes are not in danger due to roe.

It is not an individual because it is not capable of independent existence;

And neither are you...you don't seem to be able to understand what independent existence means. To be an independent entity you must not be dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

Clearly you are dependent on all sorts of things for your existence....other animals for your food, plants, for food and the very air you breathe...All life is dependent upon other life for its existence. At this point you are trying to split hairs and say it is fine to kill if you are dependent to a certain degree when you are dependent as well. Perhaps a tough concept to grasp, but try thinking a bit....you will get it.

it is not genetically unique because of twinning;

Who says that you must be genetically unique to be an individual? It is genetically different from its mother which proves that it is not simply a part of her body as some idiots claim. There is no rule that in order to be an individual you must be genetically unique from all other members of your species....where do you get such ideas? Or do you just make them up as you go?

it is not separate but attached to the womans body via the placenta.

Who says that you must be separate from anyone else to be a human being? Where do you get these ideas? Here is a photo of two legal human beings. Are you going to tell me that they aren't?

A zygote is biologically linked to the woman, even though it has different DNA - just like a transplanted organ. And it is not capable of maintaining its life apart from the mother, therefore it cannot be a separate individual.

One of the above girls is biologically linked to her sister...she is not capable of maintaining a life apart from her sister....legally, she is an individual, she has a separate identity, hell each of the girls has her own drivers license.

Your arguments have decended into the same old tired easily refuted arguments that the pro choice crowd has been using for years...semantics, misdirection, misunderstanding, and if needed outright dishonesty. If this is what you have, then you don't have anything that I haven't already refuted on these very boards at least a dozen times.

You are today what you have always been since the time you came into existence....you didn't come from a zygote, you were a zygote...you didn't come from an embryo....you were an embryo...you didn't come from a toddler....you were a toddler....you didn't come from an adolescent...you were an adolescent...and on and on till you die.

You can't accept this because you don't want to accept it even though it is true. You, like most people who passionately argue the pro choice position find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of being a non sociopath holding a somewhat sociopathic position. You apply a twisted sort of goal oriented logic to first lie to yourself to a degree great enough to convince yourself and then you set out to get others to join you in your twisted logic to reinforce your own tenuous belief so that you can feel that you are on the right side of this argument. I don't envy your position. You will always have that nagging doubt at the edges of your subconscious that you are on the wrong side and are in fact favoring killing human beings out of convenience but your political beliefs won't allow you to accept what you know to be true...unless of course, you are a fundamentally honest person who is willing to admit that he is wrong and change a political view based on undeniable truth. Are you that strong?

 

[fedor50]

If you really need such an explanation, then you have an even more feeble grasp of the facts than I originally thought. An egg is an egg. Give it a perfect environment and it will live out its entire existence as an egg and die as an egg. As you said, they are part of a system, not a separate entity.

Again, you fail to actually answer the question... You said and I quote:

An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Any definition beyond that is doing nothing more than injecting weasel words making the definition less precise rather than more

So again I ask you, what SPECIFIC QUALITY does an egg lack that a zygote does not in ordered to be considered an organism?

According to YOUR OWN definition up above an organism is a form of life that must be capable of growing which an egg can do. They develop, from germ cells to oogonia to oocytes, etc.

According to YOUR OWN definition up above an organism is a form of life that must be capable of reproducing which an egg can do. They can reproduce through fertilization or parthenogenesis.

Oh yeah, and eggs also react to stimuli, hardening the zona pellucida when a sperm enters.

What specific QUALITY does a zygote possess that an egg does not that allows a zygote to be called an organism and an egg not one?

Oh yeah, and just simply saying:

An egg is an egg. Give it a perfect environment and it will live out its entire existence as an egg and die as an egg.

Completely sidesteps the question and avoids it. OF COURSE an egg is an egg and a OF COURSE a zygote is a zygote. What specific quality allows one to be an organism and the other not one?

Or in other words, how come a zygote can be an organism and an egg cant be one? They fit YOUR specific definition of what an organism is according to you.

 

[palerider]

So again I ask you, what SPECIFIC QUALITY does an egg lack that a zygote does not in ordered to be considered an organism?

Is your grasp of biology really this shallow? I ask because I am genuinely interested. I don't encounter many people claiming to have a scientific argument for pro choice who so entirely miss the basics. An egg is a part of a larger system...a zygote is the system....the system at its most immature state, but the system none the less.

According to YOUR OWN definition up above an organism is a form of life that must be capable of growing which an egg can do. They develop, from germ cells to oogonia to oocytes, etc.

This has you so twisted up inside that your capacity for logic has completely failed you...have you actually put any thought into what you are saying, or do you just come up with things to say without any idea of how they may be answered?

If you give an egg a perfect environment to spend its entire life cycle, at the end of that cycle, what will it be? Germ cells, oogonia, and oocytes, etc are just names that we use to describe an egg at various stages...much like we use embryo, fetus, toddler, adult, etc to describe the various stages of a human's development. Left to itself, the egg will never be other than an egg...and will always remain a part of a larger system..

According to YOUR OWN definition up above an organism is a form of life that must be capable of reproducing which an egg can do. They can reproduce through fertilization or parthenogenesis.

Actually according to my own words, I believe I said probably, or usually reproduction. Reproduction is not a requirement for an organism. And eggs don't reproduce.

You can't fertilize an egg and get another egg...and parthenogenesis? Really? the most advanced species capable of that trick is turkeys. The level to which this discussion has descended is astounding....aren't you embarrassed in the least?

What specific QUALITY does a zygote possess that an egg does not that allows a zygote to be called an organism and an egg not one?

How many times does one have to say a thing before it sinks in with you? An egg is part of a larger system...a zygote is the system...the system at its earliest stage but the system none the less.

 

[fedor50]

Who says that you must be genetically unique to be an individual? It is genetically different from its mother which proves that it is not simply a part of her body as some idiots claim. There is no rule that in order to be an individual you must be genetically unique from all other members of your species....where do you get such ideas? Or do you just make them up as you go?

Unique DNA does not an individual organism make, as I've said before - a transplanted organ has a different DNA from the woman. Does that mean that it too is an individual organism?

 

[palerider]

Unique DNA does not an individual organism make, as I've said before - a transplanted organ has a different DNA from the woman. Does that mean that it too is an individual organism?

It seems that you are becoming progressively more blind to the abject lack of logic you are applying to your arguments...if they may be called arguments. Is that transplanted organ a part of a larger system or is it the system? Consider that question and then try to answer your own question.

This is growing tiresome and tedious. You have left any sort of "original" argument and are now solidly into the arguments that I have already debunked at least a dozen times on these very boards. You can simply do a search for a particular topic and read my answer on it...the answers have not changed. How tortured must you be to start trying to make comparisons between transplanted organs and developing human beings. Can you not see the blatant logical error there?

 

[invest07]

All human life is based on DNA.
Each individual's DNA is permanently fixed at conception just after the sperm penetrates the egg. Very soon after this penetration, the sperm's double helix and the egg's double helix begin to sort of unravel and one helix detaches from the other side.
When the detached helix from the egg and sperm unite human life begins. At this point all of the person's DNA is fixed for life. A unique individual with characteristics controlled by DNA is created.
I don't know and I don't care whether this individual meets the definition of "Zygote" at the moment of conception.
This is a unique individual at the moment of conception and deserves all the rights and privileges of any human, regardless of whether they are in or out of the womb.
All abortion is death of a human.
And trying to "prove" a fertilized egg is not a zygote is pure deception.

Screw all the science and academic opinions and definitions for 1 minute and instead just use your brain and life experience to answer this question:
Is abortion death?

 

[fedor50]

It seems that you are becoming progressively more blind to the abject lack of logic you are applying to your arguments...if they may be called arguments. Is that transplanted organ a part of a larger system or is it the system? Consider that question and then try to answer your own question.

This is growing tiresome and tedious. You have left any sort of "original" argument and are now solidly into the arguments that I have already debunked at least a dozen times on these very boards. You can simply do a search for a particular topic and read my answer on it...the answers have not changed. How tortured must you be to start trying to make comparisons between transplanted organs and developing human beings. Can you not see the blatant logical error there?

Pale Rider I admit that I cannot defeat your scientific arguments because you have made more logical and consistent arguments than I have. But I do have one more FINAL question to ask you:

Are you then claiming that a totipotent stem cell IS a human being and organism?

I only ask this because all of the evidence I have linked to says that a totipotent stem cell develops into an organism but not that it IS one... yet.

Several different scientists said that a zygote develops into an organism. This can only mean ONE thing: A zygote is not yet an organism but rather it will eventually with time develop into one.

How else am I suppose to interpret that statement?

 

[fedor50]

All human life is based on DNA.
Each individual's DNA is permanently fixed at conception just after the sperm penetrates the egg. Very soon after this penetration, the sperm's double helix and the egg's double helix begin to sort of unravel and one helix detaches from the other side.
When the detached helix from the egg and sperm unite human life begins. At this point all of the person's DNA is fixed for life. A unique individual with characteristics controlled by DNA is created.
I don't know and I don't care whether this individual meets the definition of "Zygote" at the moment of conception.
This is a unique individual at the moment of conception and deserves all the rights and privileges of any human, regardless of whether they are in or out of the womb.
All abortion is death of a human.
And trying to "prove" a fertilized egg is not a zygote is pure deception.

Screw all the science and academic opinions and definitions for 1 minute and instead just use your brain and life experience to answer this question:

You said that all human life is based on DNA. Tell me, what is the difference between human life and a human being?

Is abortion death?

Is unplugging someone from life support death?

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider I admit that I cannot defeat your scientific arguments because you have made more logical and consistent arguments than I have. But I do have one more FINAL question to ask you:

Are you then claiming that a totipotent stem cell IS a human being and organism?

Finding a new word to name a thing does not change what it is...zygote, embryo, fetus, child, toddler, adolescent, adult, old geezer. All the same thing....all names we use to describe a human being at a particular stage of their development. Calling a zygote a totipotent stem cell doesn't change what it is....a zygote is a human being at its most immature state possible....calling it a totipotent stem cell doesn't alter what it is. Word games can't make something other than it is. At best, you may fool someone who doesn't understand the words and is that the sort of victory you want to score?...winning by fooling someone who doesn't understand the words? Do you count victories against children on your score card?

I only ask this because all of the evidence I have linked to says that a totipotent stem cell develops into an organism but not that it IS one... yet.

I have asked repeatedly for you to provide some evidence of metamorphosis in the human developmental cycle....metamorphosis would suggest that we become something that we weren't already. A single cell can most certainly be an organism...most of the life on earth is of a single cell nature. People write definitions...and people have agendas. Do you think that perhaps those who attempt to write definitions that deny that we are human beings from the time we come into being may have an agenda?

Several different scientists said that a zygote develops into an organism. This can only mean ONE thing: A zygote is not yet an organism but rather it will eventually with time develop into one.

Or it could mean that they have a bias. Perhaps the present debate is constricting funding for embryonic stem cell research and some convincing (if false) argument may re frame the debate and get the money moving?

How else am I suppose to interpret that statement?

Interpret it how ever you like....it is clear that is how you operate. When the basic facts and definitions of human development fail you, you go about looking for someone who agrees with you...you then accept what they say as fact even though what they have said doesn't jibe with the fundamental facts. Did you spend as much time looking for scientists who accept the basic definitions and accept that a zygote is an organism? Did you believe them? Doesn't their statement jibe more closely with the fundamental facts?

Knowing that most of the life on earth is of the single celled variety...and knowing that all of those single celled entities are, in fact, organisms, why would you believe a scientist who suggests that a single celled human being is not an organism?

And again, why are you arguing zygotes? They are never aborted...the abortion discussion is not about zygotes. You know full well that arguing about zygotes is a red herring because if you move forward to the point at which a child implants in the uterus, you would have no argument at all.

 

[palerider]

You said that all human life is based on DNA. Tell me, what is the difference between human life and a human being?



Is unplugging someone from life support death?

You should realize you have lost the argument and are, in fact, on the wrong side of an argument when all you have are word games and semantics? Accept that you favor killing human beings for reasons that rarely rise above matters of convenience and live with it...or do the intelligent adult thing and modify your position to reflect the facts rather than railing against them as if wishing hard enough could make a human being into something else to ease your conscience.

Your argument above is just another word game. Alter the words a bit to make your statements more accurate and logical...what is the difference between a live human being and a human being....answer all human beings are human beings but not all human beings are alive.

Refer to the dictionary

Human: A member of the species Homo sapiens
Being: the state or fact of existing

All humans are beings, alive or dead. We identify them all the time. We don't classify them as some other species because they are dead...they are human beings...albeit dead ones, but human beings none the less.

Honestly, you really should drop this argument for just a short while and put as much effort into understanding the psychology behind trying to win an argument based on semantics and word games...and the willingness to even engage in that sort of argument. There are clear psychological factors at work. At some level you have to grasp what you did with invest07.....you just lost that very sort of argument with me and then immediately engaged in the same sort of argument with him...would you have felt better had you been able to convince him to join your position?...Would it have negated the fact that you lost that argument to me?...Would your argument suddenly become valid if you could confuse or fool someone with it?

Psychology fedor50....we do things for a reason...always. It is always to our advantage to understand why we do them even if we don't like facing up to our true reasons. When an argument is defeated, on any point, it is defeated. To revive a lost argument against someone else in hopes that you can fool or convince them does not alter the fact that the argument has already been lost. What sort of psychology is at work that would make you willing to attempt to convince someone else with an argument that you have already lost once? What sort of psychology is at work that would make you actively try to get someone else to join you in a position that has already been defeated? Would you really feel some sort of victory had been gained by convincing someone to join you in a position that has already been defeated? What sort of victory is that? How could it possibly benefit you in any healthy way?

 

[fedor50]

Your argument above is just another word game. Alter the words a bit to make your statements more accurate and logical...what is the difference between a live human being and a human being....answer all human beings are human beings but not all human beings are alive.

Refer to the dictionary

Human: A member of the species Homo sapiens
Being: the state or fact of existing

All humans are beings, alive or dead. We identify them all the time. We don't classify them as some other species because they are dead...they are human beings...albeit dead ones, but human beings none the less.

As pointed out repeatedly before - my skin cells have human DNA in them. They're not a human organism.

It seems you're confusing "DNA when used to identify the species the DNA comes from" with "DNA when used to identify if something is an organism or not". The former is legitimate objective science - whereas the latter is what you are arguing for, despite its falsity.

 

[invest07]

fed50
Human life is a characteristic of human beings that are alive (alive as in not dead)
And removing all forms of life support does result in death.

 

[fedor50]

fed50
Human life is a characteristic of human beings that are alive (alive as in not dead)
And removing all forms of life support does result in death.

Again, what is YOUR definition of a human being?

The definition that Pale Rider gave me could include human skin cells too. Here is exactly what Pale Rider said and I quote:

Refer to the dictionary

Human: A member of the species Homo sapiens
Being: the state or fact of existing

This specific definition could also apply to human skin cells too. Heck, it could apply to human hair. So his definition does not work. Can you provide a more better one?

I mean really think about Pale Riders answer: A human skin cell would certainly identify as having human DNA. And that human skin cell certainly does exist in reality. So according to Pale Riders OWN definition, a human skin cell could be identified as a human being if his definition is to be taken as literal.

Again, can you provide a more better definition of human being? One that does not also include human skin cells or human hair?

 

[fedor50]

This is what I am talking about. We need a definition of human being that does not also include human skin cells.

A human skin cells DNA would certainly identify it as being human. And it does exist in reality.

So is a human skin cell really a human being according to the definition that you guys provided me?

 

[invest07]

F150

"This specific definition could also apply to human skin cells too. Heck, it could apply to human hair. So his definition does not work. Can you provide a more better one?"
First of all your middle school English teacher would be really disappointed my your use of the phrase "more better"

The definition quoted clearly referred to a complete and functioning being. It was not referring to just one component.
It was talking about the whole car and not just the alternator.
A follicle of my hair is affected by my DNA but not by the entire double helix strand.
Part of my entire DNA double helix made my hair brown in the past and now turned it graying.
Part of my DNA dictated my hair is straight and that I am not yet bald.
A completely different part of my DNA made me 5"9.6" tall and another sequence of DNA made me flat footed.
The entire DNA double helix is ME and I am a human being.
A strand of my hair may be part of me but it is only a small part.

Instead of arguing over definitions, I would suggest you set the science aside for a moment and use your own brain and your life experiences to answer this question: "Does an abortion result in death?"
If you answer "yes" then ask yourself one more question: "Does anyone have the moral right to kill an innocent unborn child?"