Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[fedor50]

So are you going to argue that growth is the only factor that constitutes development? Development is the topic you know? You are just chock full of misunderstandings aren't you?

Pale Rider, earlier you have given me an accurate definition of an organism. You said:

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 according to the definition of organism that YOU provided me, a zygote must be capable of growing (scientifically) in order to be classified as an organism. It is NOT.

According to the science dictionary, growth is an increase in the SIZE of an organism. Again, I admit once a zygote has implanted, it does indeed grow - the new cells increase in size, etc. However, before that point the zygote gets no larger - it splits into several smaller cells,.

Again, I am simply using YOUR definition of what constitutes an organism in order to PROVE that a zygote does not meet your OWN definition of an organism. In other words, I am using your OWN words and arguments against you.

Of course there are other much more terrible problems with your argument as well. Big MAJOR problems. Like this one...

If personhood was granted at conception, it would be the government's duty under the law to investigate EVERY miscarriage (nearly a million a year) as a possible homicide. That is an undertaking so massive as to boggle the mind.

Can you not see some of the problems with granting personhood at conception?

 

[fedor50]

Put simply Pale Rider, there would be NO WAY for you to know whether or not a woman and a doctor performed an abortion unless they actually told you.

Seriously, how would you know that an abortion was performed Pale Rider if the woman and doctor NEVER told you?

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, earlier you have given me an accurate definition of an organism. You said:

So according to the definition of organism that YOU provided me, a zygote must be capable of growing (scientifically) in order to be classified as an organism. It is NOT.

Are you aware that it is possible to become so focused on a thing that you become stupid? Do you believe that increasing size is the only way that an organism can grow? Being a zygote is simply a stage we pass through. If we stayed zygotes, then we certainly would not be capable of growth. We don't.. Being a zygote is temporary. even though the morula entering the uterus is no larger than a zygote, would you argue that it has not GROWN more complex?

You don't seem to be able to grasp what growth means...or the term capable...or the idea of developing through stages. You act as if because the zygote is one celled, that that is it...As soon as it completes the first division, it is no longer a zygote...it is growing more complex. The facts are always going to defeat you so why keep pounding your head against an immovable object.

According to the science dictionary, growth is an increase in the SIZE of an organism.

Again, I admit once a zygote has implanted, it does indeed grow - the new cells increase in size, etc. However, before that point the zygote gets no larger - it splits into several smaller cells,.

Zygotes do not implant. The zygote has moved on to more advanced stages of development while in the fallopian tubes. By the time the uterus is reached, it is no longer a zygote....but a multi celled organism.

Again, I am simply using YOUR definition of what constitutes an organism in order to PROVE that a zygote does not meet your OWN definition of an organism. In other words, I am using your OWN words and arguments against you.

I don't have a definition. Science has one and the zygote is certainly an organism by any but the most idiotic interpretations of that definition. It is certainly capable of growth as it happens every time unless a spontaneous abortion occurs at that stage...it grows first more complex as it moves down the fallopian tubes and then begins to grow in size once it has a source of nutrients.

If personhood was granted at conception, it would be the government's duty under the law to investigate EVERY miscarriage (nearly a million a year) as a possible homicide. That is an undertaking so massive as to boggle the mind.

Easy enough... a simple blood test could do the trick and any woman seeking medical care for a miscarriage has blood work done anyway....simply another vial of blood.

Can you not see some of the problems with granting personhood at conception?

Personhood is....you either are a human being in which case you are a person...or you are something else...Zygotes are human beings and therefore are persons.

 

[palerider]

Put simply Pale Rider, there would be NO WAY for you to know whether or not a woman and a doctor performed an abortion unless they actually told you.

I could theoretically kill a complete stranger and no one would know unless I told someone. It is estimated that there are hundreds of serial killers who have never been caught who have killed hundreds of people each over the span of decades. People go missing...many of them are killed and their killers are never caught. Does that make it OK?

Seriously, how would you know that an abortion was performed Pale Rider if the woman and doctor NEVER told you?

I wouldn't...but does that make it OK. Is it fine to kill another human being if you don't get caught? Laws are in place to make getting caught a punishable offense. You could go and kill someone tonight if you liked...and if it were a stranger, you would probably never be caught....you probably won't do it though because the penalty for getting caught makes it just not worth taking the risk...if killing an unborn becomes punishable as murder...how many medical doctors do you think will take the risk? For that matter, how many women would take the risk. No amount of law can ever make a crime go away...someone will always try to get away with it...the law is to punish those who do and get caught.

Murder is illegal...punishable by up to death...does that mean that murder doesn't happen any more? By your way of thinking we may as well strike the murder laws from the books because people can still do it and get aways with it.

 

[fedor50]

Personhood is....you either are a human being in which case you are a person...or you are something else...Zygotes are human beings and therefore are persons.

Pale Rider, I would argue that possessing a functional brain is what makes us who we are... an individual human being.

A good example to show this is to compare the two cases of Lakshmi Tatma with Abigail and Brittany Hensel. What is the differences and similarities between them?

• Both cases originated from a single zygote
• In both cases, the zygote partially split to form more than one set of organs.
• In both cases, the results of the pregnancy was a single unified whole (the developing zygote did not split apart completely)
• However, Abigail and Brittany's zygote developed two separate functional brains, whereas Lakshmi's zygote only developed into one functional brain.
• Obviously Abigail and Brittany are two individual human beings, whereas Lakshmi is one individual human being.

So, what is it that caused the difference? Both cases underwent fertilisation in exactly the same way, so if fertilisation created an individual human being then both pregnancies should have ended with one individual human being. Since this is not the case, it cannot be fertilisation which creates a new human being. Nor can twinning - both cases underwent that, as well. The difference between the two - what I claim is the start of a new human being, is that one functional brain developed rather than two. It is a functional brain, capable of sensory perception, which makes us who we are. Not DNA.

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, I would argue that possessing a functional brain is what makes us who we are... an individual human being.

A good example to show this is to compare the two cases of Lakshmi Tatma with Abigail and Brittany Hensel. What is the differences and similarities between them?

• Both cases originated from a single zygote
• In both cases, the zygote partially split to form more than one set of organs.
• In both cases, the results of the pregnancy was a single unified whole (the developing zygote did not split apart completely)
• However, Abigail and Brittany's zygote developed two separate functional brains, whereas Lakshmi's zygote only developed into one functional brain.
• Obviously Abigail and Brittany are two individual human beings, whereas Lakshmi is one individual human being.

So, what is it that caused the difference? Both cases underwent fertilisation in exactly the same way, so if fertilisation created an individual human being then both pregnancies should have ended with one individual human being. Since this is not the case, it cannot be fertilisation which creates a new human being. Nor can twinning - both cases underwent that, as well. The difference between the two - what I claim is the start of a new human being, is that one functional brain developed rather than two. It is a functional brain, capable of sensory perception, which makes us who we are. Not DNA.

Again, your very narrow focus seems to render you unable to see anything like a larger picture. You focus in on growth and claim that since a zygote doesn't grow that it can't be an organism and I suppose in doing so, you fail to see that by your narrow definition, that a bacteria can not be an organism since it does not grow in size. By the same token, you seem to be unable to grasp that human development doesn't always take the same course...You seem to think that if our development doesn't proceed perfectly from step one to step two to step three that it renders us as something other than human.

Our humanity is determined by our DNA and clearly, that genetic structure has a wide range of permutations and mutations that can happen without changing our fundamental humanness.

 

[fedor50]

Again, your very narrow focus seems to render you unable to see anything like a larger picture. You focus in on growth and claim that since a zygote doesn't grow that it can't be an organism and I suppose in doing so, you fail to see that by your narrow definition, that a bacteria can not be an organism since it does not grow in size. By the same token, you seem to be unable to grasp that human development doesn't always take the same course...You seem to think that if our development doesn't proceed perfectly from step one to step two to step three that it renders us as something other than human.

Our humanity is determined by our DNA and clearly, that genetic structure has a wide range of permutations and mutations that can happen without changing our fundamental humanness.

Pale Rider, you have me beat on the growth argument. I admit, I have abandoned that argument. However, you are obviously trying to evade my question and argument. Here it is again:

Pale Rider, I would argue that possessing a functional brain is what makes us who we are... an individual human being.

A good example to show this is to compare the two cases of Lakshmi Tatma with Abigail and Brittany Hensel. What is the differences and similarities between them?

• Both cases originated from a single zygote
• In both cases, the zygote partially split to form more than one set of organs.
• In both cases, the results of the pregnancy was a single unified whole (the developing zygote did not split apart completely)
• However, Abigail and Brittany's zygote developed two separate functional brains, whereas Lakshmi's zygote only developed into one functional brain.
• Obviously Abigail and Brittany are two individual human beings, whereas Lakshmi is one individual human being.

So, what is it that caused the difference? Both cases underwent fertilisation in exactly the same way, so if fertilization created an individual human being then both pregnancies should have ended with one individual human being. Since this is not the case, it cannot be fertilisation which creates a new human being. Nor can twinning - both cases underwent that, as well. The difference between the two - what I claim is the start of a new human being, is that one functional brain developed rather than two. It is a functional brain, capable of sensory perception, which makes us who we are. Not DNA.

Pale Rider, How do you respond to this example?

Again Pale Rider, My criteria for 'individuality' would be that of individual awareness. How do we know that conjoined twins are two people (despite the fact they can have entirely the same DNA throughout their body) and yet a chimera person (comprised of different sets of DNA) is but one? It's the mind (not just the brain, which a corpse has) which makes us a 'person', not the DNA. It's (permanent) brain death which is recognized as the end of life, not the end of cell division (DNA replication).

By the way Pale Rider, earlier you said THIS:

Would you care to argue that it's DNA is not distinctly different from either it's mother or it's father?

Of course, you are right, the unborn's DNA IS different from that of the mothers and fathers. But so what?

This does not mean that the unborn is not part of the mothers body. My proof for this argument is chimeras.

Chimeras disproves your statement that the zygote is 'not a part of the mother's body'. It does so because it evidences individuals with a single body made of different DNA strands - not two separate 'parts' of two different people that happen to be sharing the same space. To claim that new DNA = not part of the same body implies that part of a chimera is not actually part of their body. Or people with heart/lung/kidney/liver/blood transplants, etc...

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, I would argue that possessing a functional brain is what makes us who we are... an individual human being.

Who we are isn't what makes us human. You suffer a head injury but you live...you could easily be someone different after the injury....different personality, operating on a lower level....near vegetable. You are no less human, you are just different from who you were. Who you are is a subjective realm....what you are is objective fact. You must leave the realm of the real in order to make your argument.

Pale Rider, How do you respond to this example?

I already responded...it really doesn't matter whether you like the answer or not. Who you are is really not important to the discussion....you could have been far different from who you are with the introduction of just a few different parameters early in your life....it would not have changed what you are which is the real issue here. We don't kill people based on who they are....or even what they are but based on what they have done if necessary.

Again Pale Rider, My criteria for 'individuality' would be that of individual awareness.

So you are in favor of executing individuals operating on a very low level...some autistics may not be self aware...there are multiple conditions that could leave a person self aware...do you think they become something other than human beings? Do you think it is fine to kill them if they are able to carry on without extraordinary measures?

How do we know that conjoined twins are two people (despite the fact they can have entirely the same DNA throughout their body) and yet a chimera person (comprised of different sets of DNA) is but one? It's the mind (not just the brain, which a corpse has) which makes us a 'person', not the DNA. It's (permanent) brain death which is recognized as the end of life, not the end of cell division (DNA replication).

What difference does it make? One human being, two human beings...irrelavent. That they are human beings is the issue. Emotional appeals based on who an individual may be represents a logical fallacy in any discussion.

Of course, you are right, the unborn's DNA IS different from that of the mothers and fathers. But so what?

It only proves that the unborn is not "part" of its mother's body that could be rationally removed like some vestigial appendage.

This does not mean that the unborn is not part of the mothers body. My proof for this argument is chimeras.

Do you really believe that is a valid analogy? The child is separate from its mother...the mother is separate from the child. The placenta is a barrier between the two. And do you really think the way a chimera is formed has any relevance to the physical relationship between a mother and her unborn. You just keep reaching for straws and after this whole discussion is done and you have lost on every point...you will maintain your present belief and try the same lost argument on the next person to come along. What is the point?

Chimeras disproves your statement that the zygote is 'not a part of the mother's body'.

No they don't. In this, like everything else, you have abandoned logic in favor of fantasy, and assumption. Mother and child are not chimeras....so chimeras prove nothing with regard to mother and child. You may as well say squids prove that the child is part of its mother's body for all the relevance it has to the topic.

It does so because it evidences individuals with a single body made of different DNA strands - not two separate 'parts' of two different people that happen to be sharing the same space.

Again, you are failing to see that the two are not sharing the same space...the child is compartmentalized away from, its mother. It's body is separate. The placenta is a barrier between the two. The child is not growing directly out of the mother's tissues like a wart...it has its own space....it's own little condo within the larger building which is its space.

To claim that new DNA = not part of the same body implies that part of a chimera is not actually part of their body. Or people with heart/lung/kidney/liver/blood transplants, etc...

Failure again....transplants are attached directly...no barrier... And then there is the fact that it doesn't matter. If you had absorbed a twin during your development, you could well have two sets of DNA in your body....would it matter? Would you be less human...So long as the DNA is human, what does it matter? Human DNA...human being. Reaching for straws...building straw men...by your own admission, your argument has failed...why keep grasping. There is no twist that you can introduce that will not be defeated because as you admit, the science is against you and an emotional argument can not win in a scientific debate.

 

[fedor50]

Do you really believe that is a valid analogy? The child is separate from its mother...the mother is separate from the child. The placenta is a barrier between the two. And do you really think the way a chimera is formed has any relevance to the physical relationship between a mother and her unborn. You just keep reaching for straws and after this whole discussion is done and you have lost on every point...you will maintain your present belief and try the same lost argument on the next person to come along. What is the point?

1) Genetics does not determine being 'part of an organism'. If the woman happens to be a chimera then she will already have a body composed of cells with multiple DNA strands. If she has had an organ transplant then the transplanted organ is now a part of her body; not the donors.

2) Biologically speaking, the developing embryo is attached to the womans body in a way akin to how one of her organs is developed. After birth, the baby may well contain some immune cells with the baby's , and vice versa.

3) In general, the thing that differentiates between 'part of the body' or not is 'is the rest of the body required for the part to survive?' For example, my finger is part of my body because it would die were it to be cut off. Before viability, this also applies to a zygote/embryo/fetus.

If you had absorbed a twin during your development, you could well have two sets of DNA in your body....would it matter? Would you be less human...So long as the DNA is human, what does it matter? Human DNA...human being. Reaching for straws...building straw men...by your own admission, your argument has failed...why keep grasping. There is no twist that you can introduce that will not be defeated because as you admit, the science is against you and an emotional argument can not win in a scientific debate.

A chimera is made by joining together two or more complete zygotes, which (according to you) are each individual organisms. As such, you would expect a chimera to also be two (or more) individual organisms. Since, according to you, a chimera is only one organism, this indicates in the strongest possible terms that your premise is incorrect – a zygote is not an organism.

To futher muddy the waters - a single zygote is capable of both developing into multiple organisms and merging with another zygote to develop into a single embryo. This does not mix well with the idea that 1 zygote = 1 organism.

To finish things off, I'll leave you with a quote Pale Rider from two embryologists writing in their book:

"The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer, because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of fertilisation, the the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution"
~p328 "Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and birth defects" (Persuad, Moore)

 

[palerider]

2) Biologically speaking, the developing embryo is attached to the womans body in a way akin to how one of her organs is developed. After birth, the baby may well contain some immune cells with the baby's , and vice versa.

Sorry, but it isn't. Wishing it were so does not make it so. The grasping nature of your argument is just getting sad.

3) In general, the thing that differentiates between 'part of the body' or not is 'is the rest of the body required for the part to survive?' For example, my finger is part of my body because it would die were it to be cut off. Before viability, this also applies to a zygote/embryo/fetus.

If wishes were horses...we would all ride. Wishing the unborn were part of its mother's body will never make it so and chimeras have nothing to do with the biological relationship between a mother and a child. Your arguments have become so convoluted that they are losing all touch with reality.

A chimera is made by joining together two or more complete zygotes, which (according to you) are each individual organisms.

Not according to me...according to science which you have already admitted.

As such, you would expect a chimera to also be two (or more) individual organisms. Since, according to you, a chimera is only one organism, this indicates in the strongest possible terms that your premise is incorrect – a zygote is not an organism.

You would expect it because you wish it to be so...You would expect it because you are out of touch with reality. You would expect it because your arguments are driven by an agenda rather than a cold, unemotional eye on the science. I wouldn't expect it at all. I would call it one of the many variations of human development...nothing more...and I would never even attempt to analogize it with pregnancy.

To futher muddy the waters - a single zygote is capable of both developing into multiple organisms and merging with another zygote to develop into a single embryo. This does not mix well with the idea that 1 zygote = 1 organism.

Already been through that.....for a very short time. human beings are capable of asexual reproduction. So what? And the idea that one zygote = one organism is your thing...not mine. I am, and have always been perfectly aware that was not the case since I knew that for a short while we are all capable of asexual reproduction. Your attempt to make rules which human development must follow in order to remain human would be humorous if the didn't reveal such an abject lack of knowledge of the nature of human development.

To finish things off, I'll leave you with a quote Pale Rider from two embryologists writing in their book:

"The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer, because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of fertilisation, the the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution"
~p328 "Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and birth defects" (Persuad, Moore)

I would ask the author to describe the metamorphosis that embryo's undergo in order to become human beings...I would ask him what species they were prior to becoming human beings. I would accuse him of bastardizing hard, unblinking science with politics. I would say that he has made the statement of an intellectual coward rather than an unapologetic statement of scientific fact.

 

[fedor50]

Sorry, but it isn't. Wishing it were so does not make it so. The grasping nature of your argument is just getting sad.

something is 'part' of your body if there is a physical connection to that part of the body. In the case of an arm, this connection is muscles, skin and tendons. In the case of the lens, this connection is ligaments. In the case of a foetus, this connection is the umbilical cord (arteries, veins and Wharton's Jelly).

If wishes were horses...we would all ride. Wishing the unborn were part of its mother's body will never make it so

...because you consider muscle/ligaments to be different from arteries and veins, clearly. But the distinction between the two, in terms of the actual connection, is absolutely minimal. Both are physical, organic bonds.

and chimeras have nothing to do with the biological relationship between a mother and a child. Your arguments have become so convoluted that they are losing all touch with reality.

I only bring up chimeras because you love to say that the unborn has different DNA from the mother proving it is a unique individual.

But as THIS link shows: chimera individuals - two zygotes can merge to form a single organism, with different bits of the organism having different DNA.

When you are talking about life in the 'absolute' terms and saying things like "The unborn has different DNA from the mother", only one example is needed to break the 'absolute' paradigm. In this case, chimeras prove that unique DNA does not imply a unique individual.

Not according to me...according to science which you have already admitted.

So when 2 zygotes (2 organisms) merge to form a chimera (1 organism) are you saying that one of the zygotes dies? And if your argument is that one of the zygotes does die, how do you know? and how do you determine which one has died?

You would expect it because you wish it to be so...You would expect it because you are out of touch with reality. You would expect it because your arguments are driven by an agenda rather than a cold, unemotional eye on the science. I wouldn't expect it at all. I would call it one of the many variations of human development...nothing more...and I would never even attempt to analogize it with pregnancy.

Again, 2 zygotes merge to form ONE chimera. Does one of the zygotes die?

I would ask the author to describe the metamorphosis that embryo's undergo in order to become human beings...

Essentially the question that you are asking is "What is the mechanism which causes an embryo to become an organism?"

The generic answer would be ‘development’. As Before We Are Born states, ”The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer because opinions are affected by religious and personal views.” - in other words, when an embryo becomes an organism depends on the subjective view of the observer, so there is no specific point, nor a specific mechanism, for an embryo to become an organism. One viewpoint is that such a mechanism involves differentiation – as a quote from Stedmans states, it is the differentiation into other types of cells which helps to form a new organism. Similarly, ‘Before we are born’ (p.24) states that “The zygote divides many times and is progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation”

And THIS Pale Rider, has been my entire argument all along. Whether or not a zygote is an organism is subjective, NOT objective.

Different scientists define organism differently and different scientists look for different criteria for what makes an organism. Some relevant quotes:

”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

” 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
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

” 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

Again, that’s probably enough for now. Hopefully I’ve shown here that ‘organism’ is not a singular, objective definition – instead it has multiple definitions which are both created and used subjectively, and rarely for scientific purposes. Whether or not a zygote is an organism depends, as I said initially, on how you define ‘organism’ – and that isn’t something that biologists are in agreement about, nor really should it be, since the question is largely irrelevant to biology. As I posted before – whether a zygote is classified as an organism or not does not change anything about it which is objectively measureable. As such, the classification is a purely subjective matter.

 

[fedor50]

If wishes were horses...we would all ride. Wishing the unborn were part of its mother's body will never make it so and chimeras have nothing to do with the biological relationship between a mother and a child. Your arguments have become so convoluted that they are losing all touch with reality.

By the way Pale Rider, I have seen you repeatedly call the fetus innocent but this is incorrect.

It is the innocence of a vacuum, there is no ability to form intent or act. Much like the 'innocence' of a tree or mushroom. It can just as easily be the future repository of evil. More rationally, it will be somewhere in-between.

And thus, that 'innocence' has no value...unless you value it in trees and mushrooms?

Also calling a fetus a child will NEVER make it a child. Most people do not consider a fetus to be a child.

 

[palerider]

something is 'part' of your body if there is a physical connection to that part of the body. In the case of an arm, this connection is muscles, skin and tendons. In the case of the lens, this connection is ligaments. In the case of a foetus, this connection is the umbilical cord (arteries, veins and Wharton's Jelly).

There is no direct connection between the child and it's mother...in fact, there is no direct connection between the placenta and its mother. The connection is more like velcro.. exchanges take place across membranes rather than any direct connection. This is all way over your head...you don't know the facts and are apparently just making it up as you go.

...because you consider muscle/ligaments to be different from arteries and veins, clearly. But the distinction between the two, in terms of the actual connection, is absolutely minimal. Both are physical, organic bonds.

None of those approximates the "connection" between mother and child...no connective tissue in your body represents a valid analogy.

I only bring up chimeras because you love to say that the unborn has different DNA from the mother proving it is a unique individual.

You bring it up because somewhere in your mind, you have grasped on to the idea that a human must be a unique individual...not so...the only thing that matters is that the child's DNA proves that it is not part of its mother's body....there is no rule that says that you must be unique in order to be a human being. If you could be cloned, your clone would not be unique, but would certainly be a human being.

QUOTE="fedor50, post: 232984, member: 4741"]
Again, 2 zygotes merge to form ONE chimera. Does one of the zygotes die?[/quote]

Does it? I would bet not....You seem to be stuck on zygotes...a zygote is not a thing...a zygote is a temporary developmental phase that a larger thing passes through. Perhaps one of the human beings no longer exists as a human being, but that happens as they progress out of the zygote stage...in fact, the simple act of merging makes them two cells which, by definition means that we are no longer talking about a zygote. You have this whole topic so convoluted in your mind that you are not capable of making sense...you are thrashing around grabbing at any topic...anything whatsoever that you think you can make an argument out of without actually considering any of it. If one of the humans is absorbed and dies...what relevance does that have to the topic of whether or not a woman has the right to kill another human being for reasons that rarely rise above the level of convenience?

When you are talking about life in the 'absolute' terms and saying things like "The unborn has different DNA from the mother", only one example is needed to break the 'absolute' paradigm. In this case, chimeras prove that unique DNA does not imply a unique individual.

Again, who ever said that you must be a unique individual in order to be human? Again...you are grasping at straws...And most importantly...this has no bearing on the pro life/pro choice debate whatsoever...it is a straw man...it is a red herring....it is a meaningless tangent.

Your next post doesn't really warrant comment. It represents little more than a sloppy attempt at philosophy...it resembles the sort of "philosophical" rhetoric that all of the great despots have used in order to dehumanize the segment of their populations that they wished to exterminate. The pro choice movement is well known for this sort of genocidal rhetoric in an ongoing attempt to dehumanize the target of their rage.

I will comment on one sentence however: You said

"And thus, that 'innocence' has no value...unless you value it in trees and mushrooms?"

Tell me honestly...would you hold that attitude and express it publicly if you were in a court of law, on trial for your life, for a crime that you did not commit? My bet is no...which once again proves your hypocrisy and inconsistency.

 

[fedor50]

There is no direct connection between the child and it's mother...in fact, there is no direct connection between the placenta and its mother. The connection is more like velcro.. exchanges take place across membranes rather than any direct connection. This is all way over your head...you don't know the facts and are apparently just making it up as you go.

Again, Pale Rider, you could not be more wrong:

Placenta
The vascular organ in mammals except monotremes and marsupials that unites the fetus to the maternal uterus.
Unite
1. to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form asingle whole or unit.

Try again?

None of those approximates the "connection" between mother and child...no connective tissue in your body represents a valid analogy.

Is there or is there not a biological connection between a woman and a fetus? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Tell me honestly...would you hold that attitude and express it publicly if you were in a court of law, on trial for your life, for a crime that you did not commit? My bet is no...which once again proves your hypocrisy and inconsistency.

A fetus does not have ANY capacity to be either innocent or guilty since it cannot act or form any intent.

 

[palerider]

Again, Pale Rider, you could not be more wrong:

Placenta
The vascular organ in mammals except monotremes and marsupials that unites the fetus to the maternal uterus.
Unite
1. to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form asingle whole or unit.

Playing with definitions rather than actual knowledge again? As I already pointed out, there is no direct connection between mother and child...I pointed that out because it is fact. The connection between them is analogous to velcro where transfers between mother and child are made across membranes.

The velcro like tissue are called placental villi of various types...they do not form any sort of real connection to the mother...again, exchanges are across membranes.

Here is a rough diagram of what the arrangement looks like...as you can see...no direct attachment. This is, of course an extremely enlarged representation...again, the relationship is akin to, and analogous with velcro....transfers of nutrients and wastes between mother and child are carried out in the intervillous space across the membranes of the chorionic villi.

And here is a basic explanation of what they do:

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/fplacenta/villosite05.html

I don't expect for you to understand the text or to be able to make heads or tails of the images...your entire quest has not b in to actually learn anything at all about human development..but to find some loophole that will ease your tortured conscience.

Try again?

No need...I got it right the first time. You should perhaps try and learn the basics at least before you engage someone like me in such a discussion.

Is there or is there not a biological connection between a woman and a fetus? A simple yes or no answer will do.

There is no direct attachment....the request of a yes or no answer only illustrates how little you actually know on the topic. There is a relationship akin to velcro...but no attachment such as that of a kidney to your bloodstream.

A fetus does not have ANY capacity to be either innocent or guilty since it cannot act or form any intent.

More pseudo philosophical claptrap not worthy of any real consideration....I suppose you would deny the existence of biological intent....or be surprised that such a term or concept even exists...again, your knowledge on this topic, and every tangent you have touched on is rudimentary at best...very shallow, with no real grasp of either concept or specific.

Your lack of knowledge of the nature of the relationship between woman and child is pathetic...but don't feel bad...I have encountered many pro choice women who know as little as you...about their own bodies. For them, it must have been humiliating to have been schooled on the inner workings of their bodies by a man.

If you are going to argue the topic, then perhaps you should take the requsite time and effort to actually learn the material...of course, the more you learn on the topic, the more you will realize the futility of trying to make any sort of pro choice argument on scientific grounds. The argument simply won't fly because the humanity of the unborn is undeniable...and if you can't win on the science...you can't win.