Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[palerider]

Just one more quick thought and a question, to which I expect an answer....hopefully it will demonstrate to you how terribly flawed your logic is.

It is undeniable that your existence started at the zygote stage. I don't even think you are twisted enough to deny that.

That being said, how did you get to where you are today if your existence began as a thing that was not an organism...a thing that, according to you was incapable of growth, development, and homeostasis?

I eagerly look forward to your answer...and if you don't answer this question, the discussion is over....I won't continue to answer your challenges if you won't answer a simple question from me.

 

[fedor50]

And there it is....that blender of a brain of yours takes in information, twists it all out of context and regurgitates what you wish it said, and not what it actually says.

CAPABLE of response to stimuli....CAPABLE of reproduction....CAPABLE of growth and development and CAPABLE of maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

DEFINE CAPABLE - having the ability or capacity - predisposed to; inclined to

Do I need to go on? Do you know what capacity means? How about predisposed, or inclined. Zygote is not a permeant state of the organism called a human being. Human beings are organisms from the time they come into existence....you have grabbed on to a term for a very early stage in the life of a human being and twisted what it is into some sort of thing that is unrelated to being a human being....

You din't answer my earlier question. If you expect answers from me, then I have every right to expect answers from you whether you like answering them or not.

Did you come from a child....or were you a child?

Pale Rider, I WAS a child. You are correct in your argument and I cannot rebut it. You have successfully defended THIS part of your argument. However there are still certain flaws within other parts of your argument as you are about to find out...

And again, your blender of a brain has mangled what the definition actually said and spit out what you wish it said. You have left out a key word in the definition...CAPABLE. Is a human being capable of maintaining homeostasis? Is the human being in the zygote stage predisposed, or inclined to develop to a point where it can maintain homeostasis? Is a human being in the earliest stages CAPABLE of developing to a stage where he or she can maintain homeostasis?

You can't drop the word capable and demand right now...you can't separate the zygote stage from the rest of our development. We are human beings developing through stages called zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, and on and on. Zygote isn't a thing unrelated to human beings that never develops beyond that stage...zygote is a developmental stage of human being and every other multicellular life form.

Again you are correct according to this definition of the word organism. But not THIS one:

organism: An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

Organism - definition from Biology-Online.org

Notice that this definition says CAN and not capable. What do you say now? Does this definition still include a (human being?) at the zygote stage?

By the way, this definition of 'an organism' is hardly universally true. A sterile animal is not capable of reproduction and yet it is clearly an organism, in spite of what this definition claims.

So the unborn in the placenta maintains homeostasis...the placenta allows it to do so. It states clearly as possible that it does maintain homeostasis it uses the placenta to do so...what do you use to maintain homeostasis?

I am not really sure. How does my body use in order to maintain homeostasis?

Also, in relation to the unborn you are making a logical error Pale Rider. If something which is not the fetus (the placenta is a fetalmaternal organ) is needed for the fetus to maintain homeostasis, then the fetus is NOT maintaining homeostasis on it's own.

This is basic logic 101 Pale Rider. The fetus does NOT maintain homeostasis on its own. It is reliant on the placenta and on the woman herself.

A human being is capable of growth...as evidenced by the progressing stages of our development. A child is capable of being an adult...but it isn't an adult at this moment...it must grow to become an adult...zygote is not a permanent state....even if it were, your case would still fail because growth is clearly not a requirement to be an organism unless you are prepared to state, and prove that no single celled life form is an organism. Are you saying that none of the single celled life forms on earth are organisms?

You have me beat here. I cant argue with you so I will concede to your point.

Again...capable of growth... Is a human being capable of growth? Is a human being at the zygote stage of development capable of growing and developing given time and nutrients? You, in your desire to prove a point that really has nothing to do with anything have improperly separated zygote from human...you have some how twisted the facts in your mind till you are unable to see that you...yourself...personaly were once a zygote. You didn't come from a zygote as if a zygote were something separate from you and you emerged from it somehow, leaving the zygote behind to remain something other than an organism....you WERE a zygote...and you grew....and you developed...and you progressed through stage after stage of growth and development to grow into what you are today.

...And HERE is your GREATEST error. You assume that a human zygote is already a human being/organism when really it is simply a totipotent stem cell that will eventually become one. Firstly, some relevant quotes...

”Totipotency - The ability of a cell to differentiate into any type of cell and thus form a new organism”
Medical Dictionary - Comprehensive Medical Terminology Search (search for ‘totipotency’)

” totipotent stem cells, which are capable of developing into a human being … each cell could develop into a human being on its own”
EUR-Lex - 52005DC0312 - EN

” The zygote formed undergoes mitosis repeatedly to form the embryo which later develops into an organism”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Textbook-Emb...der_8184488920

That’s three unambiguous statements, all from a variety of reliable sources, all agreeing that a totipotent stem cell (a zygote) will eventually become a human being/organism but is not yet one.

Your greatest error Pale Rider is in assuming that a totipotent stem cell is already an organism when according to the facts and MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS, it is not yet one.

That definition fails to demonstrate that a human being at the zygote stage is not an organism...Try again if you like.

I am curious, what is your source of the organism definition that you quoted earlier Pale Rider?

NOTE: I wil be out of town this weekend...going down to the coast of NC to see if I can get shark bit....seems that everyone else can lately. I may not have an opportunity to answer your next attempt till monday. Happy holiday.

#1) You are brave as HELL to still even consider going by the water now that sharks are biting people. Are you not really afraid? I damn sure would be.

#2) I heard you say in the past that you was a biochemist? So are you a dentist OR a biochemist? I am confused.

 

[fedor50]

Just one more quick thought and a question, to which I expect an answer....hopefully it will demonstrate to you how terribly flawed your logic is.

It is undeniable that your existence started at the zygote stage. I don't even think you are twisted enough to deny that.

That being said, how did you get to where you are today if your existence began as a thing that was not an organism...a thing that, according to you was incapable of growth, development, and homeostasis?

I eagerly look forward to your answer...and if you don't answer this question, the discussion is over....I won't continue to answer your challenges if you won't answer a simple question from me.

It is tough for me to answer this question Pale Rider because I believed that the womans body is what helped me to grow to where I was able to survive outside of the womb without her assistance. But I do believe that my existence began as a zygote.

Pale Rider, do you believe that a non-organism can transform into an organism?

 

[palerider]

It is tough for me to answer this question Pale Rider because I believed that the womans body is what helped me to grow to where I was able to survive outside of the womb without her assistance. But I do believe that my existence began as a zygote.

Your mother's body only provided you with an environment and nutrition. It didn't work any magic that changed you from a non organism into an organism.

Pale Rider, do you believe that a non-organism can transform into an organism?

How could an entity that can not react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, or maintain homeostasis possibly become an organism unless it were capable of the very things you believe it to be incapable of

 

[palerider]

Again you are correct according to this definition of the word organism. But not THIS one:

organism: An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

Organism - definition from Biology-Online.org

Notice that this definition says CAN and not capable. What do you say now? Does this definition still include a (human being?) at the zygote stage?

Do you think that "can" only means right now? A coin "can" land on either heads or tails when it is flipped...does it land on both heads and tails or is it capable of landing on heads or tails when it is flipped?

The word has many meanings from a metal container...to a toilet...to "having the possibility of". Again, words mean things and often have many meanings. You don't get to just grab one meaning and decide that is the one and the rest aren't applicable.

Again...how did you get to where you are today if you began as a non organism that was incapable of growth, reaction to stimuli...etc?

By the way, this definition of 'an organism' is hardly universally true. A sterile animal is not capable of reproduction and yet it is clearly an organism, in spite of what this definition claims.

I would think that the definition, any definition of organism would be talking about all members of the taxonomic family and not just an individual. Clearly there are few organisms in which none of the members can reproduce with the exception of a couple of hybrids who are born sterile.

Also, in relation to the unborn you are making a logical error Pale Rider. If something which is not the fetus (the placenta is a fetalmaternal organ) is needed for the fetus to maintain homeostasis, then the fetus is NOT maintaining homeostasis on it's own.

Perhaps you don't fully understand what homeostasis means. The unborn does not need the placenta to maintain homeostasis...homeostasis is the tendency for an organism to regulate its internal conditions such as the chemical composition of its bodily fluids etc. The mother has no hand in sending signals to the child's system to tell it that perhaps more sodium is required in the blood or less of some enzyme would be better....mom only provides a stable environment and nutrition...the child's system is responsible for maintaining its internal integrity.

This is basic logic 101 Pale Rider. The fetus does NOT maintain homeostasis on its own. It is reliant on the placenta and on the woman herself.

Why yes it is, but you failed none the less mostly because you didn't really grasp what homeostasis is. Unless you are claiming that the mother send's signals to the child regulating its internal systems....a claim you could never support....then the child does in fact maintain homeostasis throughout its development...again, mom only provides an environment and nutrition.

..And HERE is your GREATEST error. You assume that a human zygote is already a human being/organism when really it is simply a totipotent stem cell that will eventually become one. Firstly, some relevant quotes...

"Simply"? really? The most complex cell in existence.....simply? Like zygote....totipotent stem cell is just what a human being is at its earliest stage of development. Using scientific words doesn't negate what we are talking about. An immature human being....no matter how immature, is still a human being. There is no getting around the fact. We don't become human beings having been something else for a period of time.. we start out has human beings and simply mature.

” totipotent stem cells, which are capable of developing into a human being … each cell could develop into a human being on its own”

I suppose you don't realize that text books in large part express any bias the author(s) have? You provided plenty of text book passages that claimed that science isn't solid on what an organism is or what is an organism, or even if the word organism is necessary...clearly that isn't true because the medical and biological dictionaries have no problem defining organism.

Write to your authors and ask them what species the "totipotent stem cell" is....ask them by what magic a non organism becomes an organism...ask them what sort of magic allows a human being to mature from a thing that is not a human being. Ask for the explanation without the use of weasel words.

That’s three unambiguous statements, all from a variety of reliable sources, all agreeing that a totipotent stem cell (a zygote) will eventually become a human being/organism but is not yet one.

Three biased statements by authors expressing their opinions.

Your greatest error Pale Rider is in assuming that a totipotent stem cell is already an organism when according to the facts and MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS, it is not yet one.

I haven't made an error...I know that I did't grow and develop from something that wasn't me....and I happen to know that I have been a human being from the time I came into being. I don't need anyone to tell me that...there is no bit of science on earth that attempts to explain how I became a human being beyond the bit that describes and explains fertilization...when fertilization is complete, a new human being exists...the only thing required from that point is a suitable environment and nutrition. Your error lies in trying to prove that you were at some time something other than a human being...no amount of technical jargon is ever going to make that happen. There is no magic that turns a non human into a human...we are never anything that we haven't always been except more mature.

I am curious, what is your source of the organism definition that you quoted earlier Pale Rider?

the medical dicationary.

#1) You are brave as HELL to still even consider going by the water now that sharks are biting people. Are you not really afraid? I damn sure would be.

I swam in the ocean without being afraid...other than the riptide which was running due to the wind...my chances of getting bit were about the same as getting struck by lightning while picking up my power ball winnings.

#2) I heard you say in the past that you was a biochemist? So are you a dentist OR a biochemist? I am confused.

BS in biochemistry...went on to study dentistry and specialize in orthodontics.

 

[fedor50]

Your mother's body only provided you with an environment and nutrition. It didn't work any magic that changed you from a non organism into an organism.

Pale Rider, YOU have already asserted that a ‘non-organism’ turns into an ‘organism’, since you say that fertilization (where two non-organisms combine) produces an organism. As such, to level that accusation against me weakens your OWN argument in an identical manner.

How could an entity that can not react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, or maintain homeostasis possibly become an organism unless it were capable of the very things you believe it to be incapable of

Pale Rider, you ALSO believe and have already asserted that a ‘non-organism’ can turn into an ‘organism’, since you say that fertilization (where two non-organisms combine) produces an organism.

But wait a minute... eventually your argument runs into some even BIGGER problems...

Fertilization is not an instantaneous process – according to your own argument, so you should be able to define the specific point in fertilization where the fusing cells become an organism.

 

[fedor50]

Do you think that "can" only means right now? A coin "can" land on either heads or tails when it is flipped...does it land on both heads and tails or is it capable of landing on heads or tails when it is flipped?

The word has many meanings from a metal container...to a toilet...to "having the possibility of". Again, words mean things and often have many meanings. You don't get to just grab one meaning and decide that is the one and the rest aren't applicable.

Again...how did you get to where you are today if you began as a non organism that was incapable of growth, reaction to stimuli...etc?

Pale Rider, most of the textbooks state that a totipotent cell undergoes differentiation to form a new organism. This unambiguously implies that a unicellular zygote cannot be an organism, because otherwise the phrase ‘form a new organism’ would be grammatically incorrect – something which is already an organism cannot ‘form a new organism’. The definition specifically refers to a ‘fertilized ovum’ as something that has totipotency.

"Totipotency - The ability of a cell to differentiate into any type of cell and thus form a new organism"

I would think that the definition, any definition of organism would be talking about all members of the taxonomic family and not just an individual. Clearly there are few organisms in which none of the members can reproduce with the exception of a couple of hybrids who are born sterile.

I agree with you here.

Perhaps you don't fully understand what homeostasis means. The unborn does not need the placenta to maintain homeostasis...homeostasis is the tendency for an organism to regulate its internal conditions such as the chemical composition of its bodily fluids etc. The mother has no hand in sending signals to the child's system to tell it that perhaps more sodium is required in the blood or less of some enzyme would be better....mom only provides a stable environment and nutrition...the child's system is responsible for maintaining its internal integrity.

So you really believe that the child maintains homeostasis and does not need the placenta in order to do so? Almost every scientific source I have read states that the placenta plays a very important role in the child being able to maintain homeostasis.

Why yes it is, but you failed none the less mostly because you didn't really grasp what homeostasis is. Unless you are claiming that the mother send's signals to the child regulating its internal systems....a claim you could never support....then the child does in fact maintain homeostasis throughout its development...again, mom only provides an environment and nutrition.

I will concede to your argument here because I am not currently able to factually argue with what you said.

"Simply"? really? The most complex cell in existence.....simply? Like zygote....totipotent stem cell is just what a human being is at its earliest stage of development. Using scientific words doesn't negate what we are talking about. An immature human being....no matter how immature, is still a human being. There is no getting around the fact. We don't become human beings having been something else for a period of time.. we start out has human beings and simply mature.

Pale Rider, do you agree that ‘totipotency’ can refer to something other than an organism?

Most of the textbooks state that it is the differentiation into other types of cells which helps to transform the ZEF into a new organism. As one textbook states...

“The zygote divides many times and is progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation” - Before We Are Born (p.24)

I suppose you don't realize that text books in large part express any bias the author(s) have? You provided plenty of text book passages that claimed that science isn't solid on what an organism is or what is an organism, or even if the word organism is necessary...clearly that isn't true because the medical and biological dictionaries have no problem defining organism.

Write to your authors and ask them what species the "totipotent stem cell" is....ask them by what magic a non organism becomes an organism...ask them what sort of magic allows a human being to mature from a thing that is not a human being. Ask for the explanation without the use of weasel words.

So now the textbooks are all bias because they claim that it is the differentiation into other types of cells which helps to transform a ZEF into an organism?

Again...

“The zygote divides many times and is progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation” - Before We Are Born (p.24)

I haven't made an error...I know that I did't grow and develop from something that wasn't me....and I happen to know that I have been a human being from the time I came into being. I don't need anyone to tell me that...there is no bit of science on earth that attempts to explain how I became a human being beyond the bit that describes and explains fertilization...when fertilization is complete, a new human being exists...the only thing required from that point is a suitable environment and nutrition. Your error lies in trying to prove that you were at some time something other than a human being...no amount of technical jargon is ever going to make that happen. There is no magic that turns a non human into a human...we are never anything that we haven't always been except more mature.

Pale Rider, I have already told you that brain activity is what I consider the most important to being a person. Judging by your criteria, how come Lakshmi is considered to be one 'person', but Abigail and Brittany are considered to be two?

the medical dicationary.

I was more so asking which specific one.

I swam in the ocean without being afraid...other than the riptide which was running due to the wind...my chances of getting bit were about the same as getting struck by lightning while picking up my power ball winnings.

That sounds awesome man. How often do you travel? And I hope that you did someday manage to win the lottery.

BS in biochemistry...went on to study dentistry and specialize in orthodontics.

Nice man. Do you enjoy the type of work that you do? And in person, do most people perceive you as nice and a pushover OR mean and ruthless?

Are there any TV shows that you enjoy watching?

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, YOU have already asserted that a ‘non-organism’ turns into an ‘organism’, since you say that fertilization (where two non-organisms combine) produces an organism. As such, to level that accusation against me weakens your OWN argument in an identical manner.

Sorry guy....a sperm and an egg do not constitute "A" non organism. They constitute two non organisms that combine to form an organism. There is no known example of "A" non organism turning into an organism.

But wait a minute... eventually your argument runs into some even BIGGER problems...

My argument runs into no actual problems...only the imaginary ones you invent when you distort what is being said to you.

Fertilization is not an instantaneous process – according to your own argument, so you should be able to define the specific point in fertilization where the fusing cells become an organism.

I did...when fertilization is complete.

 

[fedor50]

Sorry guy....a sperm and an egg do not constitute "A" non organism. They constitute two non organisms that combine to form an organism. There is no known example of "A" non organism turning into an organism.

It is the differentiation into other types of cells which helps to transform the ZEF into a new organism. Here is some scientific quotes and evidence...

“The zygote divides many times and is progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation” - Before We Are Born (p.24)

”Totipotency - The ability of a cell to differentiate into any type of cell and thus form a new organism”
Medical Dictionary - Comprehensive Medical Terminology Search

These quotes imply that a new organism is formed by the process of differentiation – not, as you would have it, by fertilization.

And you AGAIN say that you can’t have a non-organism cell turn into an organism cell. However, this is exactly what you are claiming happens when a sperm and egg (two non-organism cells) unite.

My argument runs into no actual problems...only the imaginary ones you invent when you distort what is being said to you.

You never answered my earlier question. How come Lakshmi is considered to be one 'person', but Abigail and Brittany are considered to be two?

I did...when fertilization is complete.

In humans, the reproductive cycle is defined (by Stedman’s Medical Dictionary) as “The cycle of physiological changes that begins with conception and extends through gestation and parturition.” While the first cellular step of the reproductive cycle is a single cell (the zygote), it is not the end product – the end product is the individual organism which is completed at parturition (birth).

In other words, the zygote is the first cellular step in the reproductive cycle, not the end result.

 

[palerider]

It is the differentiation into other types of cells which helps to transform the ZEF into a new organism. Here is some scientific quotes and evidence...

“The zygote divides many times and is progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth and differentiation” - Before We Are Born (p.24)

”Totipotency - The ability of a cell to differentiate into any type of cell and thus form a new organism”
Medical Dictionary - Comprehensive Medical Terminology Search

These quotes imply that a new organism is formed by the process of differentiation – not, as you would have it, by fertilization.

Again...the dictionary says otherwise....textbooks reflect the bias of the authors and when they are in conflict with scientific dictionaries...I am afraid that the dictionary wins.

And you AGAIN say that you can’t have a non-organism cell turn into an organism cell. However, this is exactly what you are claiming happens when a sperm and egg (two non-organism cells) unite.

A non organism can't turn into a new organism. Neither sperm nor egg turn into anything....they provide the necessary material for an organism to form...once fertilization is complete, neither egg nor sperm exist. Neither of then "turned into" anything...they merely provided the building blocks for the new organism to come into being

You never answered my earlier question. How come Lakshmi is considered to be one 'person', but Abigail and Brittany are considered to be two?

Irrelavent...are they human beings or not...that is the topic of discussion...if they are human beings it doesn't really matter how many human beings they are.

In humans, the reproductive cycle is defined (by Stedman’s Medical Dictionary) as “The cycle of physiological changes that begins with conception and extends through gestation and parturition.” While the first cellular step of the reproductive cycle is a single cell (the zygote), it is not the end product – the end product is the individual organism which is completed at parturition (birth).

All I see there is a description of the growth cycle of an organism from beginning to end.

In other words, the zygote is the first cellular step in the reproductive cycle, not the end result.

In twisted words you mean....you are making inferences that the definition does not make. The first step in the growth of the organism...That is what I have been telling you all along...zygote isn't a destination..it is merely a step in the growth of an organism....the end step in the particular stage of development that could be called gestation ends at birth...from there, the development continues but is called something else. each stage can be backtracked to the earlier and there is no point at which the human being becomes something other than a human being...the only thing the human becomes as you back track is less mature.

 

[noday8]

Very very interesting debate. I was googling the question if a zygote is a single celled organism because I have made the statement that we all as individuals changed/evolved from a single cell. So I thought to myself, how do I describe that single cell zygote, is it an organism.

I have come to realize through you two that I was not a zygote but I was within the single celled zygote. Me, my placenta, my umbilical cord and the sack were all within the zygote.

I have also realized that our dna does not equate to being an individual since identical twins shared the same exact dna from conception.

I have also realized that being a person is beyond being an individual since conjoined twins are two persons within one individual body.

I have also realized that one person can have two sets of dna. I have never heard of that before reading this debate.

Very very interesting!

 

[palerider]

Very very interesting debate. I was googling the question if a zygote is a single celled organism because I have made the statement that we all as individuals changed/evolved from a single cell. So I thought to myself, how do I describe that single cell zygote, is it an organism.

I have come to realize through you two that I was not a zygote but I was within the single celled zygote. Me, my placenta, my umbilical cord and the sack were all within the zygote.

I have also realized that our dna does not equate to being an individual since identical twins shared the same exact dna from conception.

I have also realized that being a person is beyond being an individual since conjoined twins are two persons within one individual body.

I have also realized that one person can have two sets of dna. I have never heard of that before reading this debate.

Very very interesting!

Zygote is a very short lived stage in the development of a human being. The whole unique individual argument is nothing more than a straw man devised by the pro choice crowd to try and avoid discussing the actual biology of human development. There is no criteria that requires that we be unique individuals to be persons and the know it. The unique individual arguments revolves around a long debunked idea that the child is some how part of its mother's body and therefore analogous to a tumor rather than an actual human being till such time as it is born.

The pro choice argument is chock full of straw men, false analogies, lies, misinterpretations of biological processes, and any other form of dishonesty that you care to name. Such is the nature of those who are pro choice. Those who are not feeling deep guilt and self hatred over being pro choice may well be characterized as sociopaths...They acknowledge that unborns are human beings but think that it is perfectly fine to kill them anyway....the very definition of a sociopath.

Those that argue the pro choice position are plagued by guilt and self revulsion and therefore will say anything, no matter how far from the truth, or how misguided in an effort to convince themselves that they don't deserve the self disgust they feel over their position. They will knowingly lie in an effort to convince someone to join the lie with them in an effort to alleviate some of the revulsion their position causes within them. A statement to their mental state regarding this particular topic.

 

[noday8]

You will not like the fact that I do not see a zygote as a human being. That is just my opinion based on all the information that I have come across. I also believe that having abortions are wrong whether it is a zygote or already a fetus. I personally advise people not to have abortions but I also do feel it is not within my authority to force my opinion on another person.

Your argument that a zygote is a less mature state of being a human being is interesting. But a zygote is not a human being in my opinion because an umbilical cord, placenta, sack and fluid come from the zygote too. It is kind of like calling an egg from your fridge a chicken.

Sociopath is a very heavy stone to throw at someone. Many call me only prochoice although I tell people that I believe abortion is wrong. Am I a sociopath enabler in your opinion since I also believe it is their wrong to overcome or stumble with?

I believe also that the point about a zygote doubling up over and over again does point out a flaw in your argument. Since each cell is exactly the same as the original then are they also human beings or are they what scientists call stem cells?

I actually believe that that stone that you are attempting to lob is too heavy and will only fall on your own two feet leaving you with no traction for future arguments. We as human beings throughout history always seemed to look at the unborn differently than a new born. There are birthrights, citizenship and religious tradition that have always seemed to be around within recorded history. Both within recorded philosophy and the bible there is a difference between the newborn and the unborn.

Me personally, I believe a fetus is absolutely a human being and Roe v wade should be challenged again with today's science. I believe that I am pretty liberal but I would change it if I were a supreme court justice.

 

[palerider]

You will not like the fact that I do not see a zygote as a human being. That is just my opinion based on all the information that I have come across. I also believe that having abortions are wrong whether it is a zygote or already a fetus. I personally advise people not to have abortions but I also do feel it is not within my authority to force my opinion on another person.

An opinion based on flawed knowledge is worse than useless...but hold it if you must. As to being within your authority to enforce what is right...that is what the law is for. If you know that an unborn is a human being but think that it is OK to kill them, then you fall in the sociopath category...if you know they are human and think it is wrong to kill them for convenience but lack the backbone to favor bringing the force of law to bear then you would be more accurately characterized as a coward...one who stands by while wrong is being done to the helpless and does nothing is the foulest sort of coward.

Your argument that a zygote is a less mature state of being a human being is interesting. But a zygote is not a human being in my opinion because an umbilical cord, placenta, sack and fluid come from the zygote too. It is kind of like calling an egg from your fridge a chicken.

If that egg is fertilized, then it is indeed a chicken in one stage of development or another...the eggs you get from the grocery are obviously just eggs as those hens don't fraternize with roosters but if you get your eggs from free range hens who meet roosters on a regular basis then you know that what is inside that egg is indeed a chicken as it is not unusual to crack one open and dump a more developed chick into your frying pan.

As to what comes from a zygote...your argument is flawed. Something can only come from a thing large enough to provide the mass of the thing it is coming from. A glass of water can come from a lake...a glass of water can not come from a drop of water Umbilical cord, placenta, etc...and every thing that comes after are simply stages of development..if you must say they come from somewhere, then you would more accurately say they come from nutrients consumed by the unborn as that is where the building blocks actually come from...the developing human being merely assembles those raw materials into tissues necessary for continued development....exactly as your body consumes raw materials and reassembles then into the requirements to continue living.

You didn't come from a zygote...you were a zygote, if only for a short time.

Sociopath is a very heavy stone to throw at someone. Many call me only prochoice although I tell people that I believe abortion is wrong. Am I a sociopath enabler in your opinion since I also believe it is their wrong to overcome or stumble with?

Believing that it is fine and right to kill a human being for reasons that rarely fall outside of the definition of convenience is a deplorable mindset deserving of the term sociopath...or perhaps even psychopath. If you believe it is wrong but lack the backbone to wish for the force of law to be brought against the practice then call yourself enabler if you like...if it makes you feel better...coward is the term that comes to my mind.

I believe also that the point about a zygote doubling up over and over again does point out a flaw in your argument. Since each cell is exactly the same as the original then are they also human beings or are they what scientists call stem cells?

As I pointed out, there is a brief period in the development of a human being when we are capable of asexual reproduction...that is if a zygote has divided and then becomes separated from the other cell, two individuals will result...and it is possible, though unlikely that those two individuals could asexually reproduce. Many states are temporary in human development as are many abilities....as we age and mature, our biology simply becomes less flexible.

I actually believe that that stone that you are attempting to lob is too heavy and will only fall on your own two feet leaving you with no traction for future arguments. We as human beings throughout history always seemed to look at the unborn differently than a new born. There are birthrights, citizenship and religious tradition that have always seemed to be around within recorded history. Both within recorded philosophy and the bible there is a difference between the newborn and the unborn.

In history, we didn't know as much about human developmental biology as we do now and I suppose ignorance could be used as a poor excuse, if one is the sort to try and make excuses...not so in the present. The biological argument is settled...now the pro choice movement generally tries sophist philosophical arguments aimed at alleviating their own deserved self revulsion.

Me personally, I believe a fetus is absolutely a human being and Roe v wade should be challenged again with today's science. I believe that I am pretty liberal but I would change it if I were a supreme court justice.

So perhaps at this point you should perhaps start developing the backbone a mature adult should possess and actually stand for something rather than playing the part of an enabling coward who is afraid that a stand, fully supportable by hard cold fact might offend someone..

 

[noday8]

So we obviously disagree but of course since you are absolutely so sure of yourself that means that I am an enabling coward.

By what authority would you have the law changed? Your own or by We The People. I guess you will have your hands full with so many so called sociopaths and their so called coward enablers. Also with this worlds history of seeing the unborn differently than the newborn.

Your hateful anger is kind of amusing but sad and pathetic at the same time. I believe that you believe yourself to be an expert but you seem very far from it. You are more of an E-Warrior. Believing what aligns with your beliefs and doing what ever it takes to make yourself feel bold in defending such belief.

Have a good life. May God continue to bless you and I with Christs Will, Love, Forgiveness, Wisdom, Knowledge, Discernment and Mercy.