Abortion Rights MudPit

[antaeus]

There is a difference between what pro-choice activists refer to as a "viable life" and a life (hence the modifier "viable"). It is a matter of scientific fact that a zygote is alive. This is not an "opinion".

Lots of things are living. Eggs and sperm are living. The opinion part, is that you choose to assign the moment already living sperm and egg combine as the moment after which abortion is morally incorrect. Whereas my opinion, is that life at this point is too unstable as to be considered a viable future person, and won't be at least until it has started to grow recognisably human organs (etc).

Aren’t all cells alive? And a zygote is just a diploid cell pretty sure. Should we not go out in the sun because it kills cells? I don’t think your argument says as much as you seem to.

Don't get too carried away. Cope has already made clear that he believes it is the combination of cells into a zygote that marks the start of a new person. I don't think he's entirely incorrect there either. The modifier 'viable' is important in my thought process.

[enoch]

Why is this diploid cell so special? Humans can make them in a lab. It’s not even a divine act. Or a miracle. It’s just biology.

Or if you prefer @Cope

Does a zygote have a soul?

[antaeus]

Why is this diploid cell so special? Humans can make them in a lab. It’s not even a divine act. Or a miracle. It’s just biology.

Or if you prefer @Cope

Does a zygote have a soul?

You're missing the point.

Cope is basing his judgement on that moment, whether or not it is made in a lab. As it is the moment of conception, it is a logical moment of consideration for the start point for protections under the law. I don't entirely share that opinion, but I understand why Cope holds that opinion. We left the divine nature of life (including talk of a soul) behind on the last page.

What moment would you consider correct for applying all protections under law to a new person? conception? heartbeat? independent viability? birth? We all have to pick one.

[Cope]

Lots of things are living. Eggs and sperm are living. The opinion part, is that you choose to assign the moment already living sperm and egg combine as the moment after which abortion is morally incorrect. Whereas my opinion, is that life at this point is too unstable as to be considered a viable future person, and won't be at least until it has started to grow recognisably human organs (etc).

He/she is a living human organism. Other individual cells are alive, but unlike zygotes, they are not complete systems with distinct DNA capable of growth and development. There is maintained biological identity which exists throughout development from the moment of fertilization to death. An adult is not identical to his or her childhood self, and the child was not identical to the zygote from which he/she developed. However, the zygote, child and adult are all the same organism.
.

Don't get too carried away. Cope has already made clear that he believes it is the combination of cells into a zygote that marks the start of a new person. I don't think he's entirely incorrect there either. The modifier 'viable' is important in my thought process.

"Viability" refers to the time at which a fetus can survive outside the womb; this is an arbitrary frame for conferring value on the life.

[antaeus]

this is an arbitrary frame for conferring value on the life.

*shrug*

I'm ok with grey areas. Or assessing on a case by case basis.

Going back a few pages to the paradox of a disembodied IVF blastocyst... If someone dies after an egg is fertilised, but before implantation of the blast... and a donor recipient can't be found, we have a non-viable human life - nothing we can presently do will alter that fact (one day that will change and we can revisit the conversation). I know accidents can't be helped, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but the viability of that life is important to me in the consideration of a position on the topic. Compare this scenario to a mother who dies in a car accident when an unborn child is at 37 weeks, the baby could be saved - it is viable in it's own right at that point.

I'm interested in where to draw the line between the two extremes.

[Cope]

*shrug*

I'm ok with grey areas. Or assessing on a case by case basis.

Going back a few pages to the paradox of a disembodied IVF blastocyst... If someone dies after an egg is fertilised, but before implantation of the blast... and a donor recipient can't be found, we have a non-viable human life - nothing we can presently do will alter that fact (one day that will change and we can revisit the conversation). I know accidents can't be helped, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but the viability of that life is important to me in the consideration of a position on the topic. Compare this scenario to a mother who dies in a car accident when an unborn child is at 37 weeks, the baby could be saved - it is viable in it's own right at that point.

I'm interested in where to draw the line between the two extremes.

I see the part of my post which established the existence of a distinct human life at the point of conception (hence the term conception) has been ignored (again) in favour of a return to obscure hypothetical cases.

The "viability" stance typically relies on emotional reasoning. By the time a fetus can survive outside the womb, h/s has developed physical characteristics which trigger a visual association with humanity. Destroying an embryo at this stage of development has the appearance of infanticide and it is more complex/dangerous than a 1T abortion.

[Hobbes]

[PointOfViewGun]

Mortality applies to zygotes as it does to all. Deliberate intervention by man to end an innocent human life is justified neither by inevitability of death nor the rate or morality among certain groups. The implication that high rates of spontaneous mortality among the unborn justifies induced abortions is an inversion of the truth; the prevalence of natural reproductive failure implores us to protect, not terminate, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.

For zygotes natural mortality is not the same as it is for living humans. It is natural process that many many many zygotes will go wasted. So abortion is part of god's natural design. That's the point made here.

[Cope]

For zygotes natural mortality is not the same as it is for living humans.

Zygotes are living humans. As above, this is not a matter of debate.

It is natural process that many many many zygotes will go wasted. So abortion is part of god's natural design. That's the point made here.

It is unjustified for man to deliberately cause the death of the innocent, irrespective of the inevitability of death.

[PointOfViewGun]

Zygotes are living humans. As above, this is not a matter of debate.

Don't just claim it. Establish it. What makes a zygote human?

[Cope]

Don't just claim it. Establish it. What makes a zygote human?

Demanding evidence of an already established claim is bad form, particularly when you have already acknowledged that a zygote is a living human:

You have to accept that god by design aborts infinitely more living humans than those that are actually born and that there is a huge bowl of fertilized eggs in heaven.

Nevertheless:

O ' Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being the single-cell human zygote is biologically an individual, a living organism an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

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

[enoch]

Yes but where is your proof God defines a zygote as life?

[PointOfViewGun]

Demanding evidence of an already established claim is bad form, particularly when you have already acknowledged that a zygote is a living human:
Nevertheless:

You seem to be confusing going along with someone's terminology with actually arguing for its validity. If you think zygotes are living human beings then you need to acknowledge that god by its design aborts virtually all of them. In fact, humanity is the exception.

The description you quote does an awful job at making an argument for zygote being a human being. It doesn't even try to explain what is a human being. In fact, its argument seems to rely on correlation. It produces some of the human proteins so its a human? A sperm has at least half the genetic code of a human is it a human? Not really. An explanation needs to first establish what is a human being. Then you can try to argue whether a zygote is a human being or not.

[Cope]

You seem to be confusing going along with someone's terminology with actually arguing for its validity. If you think zygotes are living human beings then you need to acknowledge that god by its design aborts virtually all of them. In fact, humanity is the exception.

This point has been addressed on multiple occasions. To reiterate: zygotes are part of humanity, not an exception to it.

The description you quote does an awful job at making an argument for zygote being a human being. It doesn't even try to explain what is a human being. In fact, its argument seems to rely on correlation. It produces some of the human proteins so its a human? A sperm has at least half the genetic code of a human is it a human? Not really. An explanation needs to first establish what is a human being. Then you can try to argue whether a zygote is a human being or not.

In short, a human being is an individual organism belonging to the species Homo sapiens. The difference between an zygote and a gamete and has already been explained:

He/she [the zygote] is a living human organism. Other individual cells are alive, but unlike zygotes, they are not complete systems with distinct DNA capable of growth and development. There is maintained biological identity which exists throughout development from the moment of fertilization to death. An adult is not identical to his or her childhood self, and the child was not identical to the zygote from which he/she developed. However, the zygote, child and adult are all the same organism.

[PointOfViewGun]

This point has been addressed on multiple occasions. To reiterate: zygotes are part of humanity, not an exception to it.
In short, a human being is an individual organism belonging to the species Homo sapiens. The difference between an zygote and a gamete and has already been explained:

Sperms and eggs are part of humanity for sure too. Doesn't make them human beings. To compare adult to a kid and a child to a zygote is taking too many leaps. Its truly asinine to equate adult/child comparison to child/zygote comparison. None of this tells us whether a zygote is a human being though.

[Cope]

Sperms and eggs are part of humanity for sure too. Doesn't make them human beings. To compare adult to a kid and a child to a zygote is taking too many leaps. Its truly asinine to equate adult/child comparison to child/zygote comparison. None of this tells us whether a zygote is a human being though.

As explained and sourced (now repeatedly) a zygote is a human being (an individual organism belonging to our species). There are fundamental differences between zygote and the gametes from which h/s was created:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down's or Turner's syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.


To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

[PointOfViewGun]

As explained and sourced (now repeatedly) a zygote is a human being (an individual organism belonging to our species). There are fundamental differences between zygote and the gametes from which h/s was created:

There are fundamental differences between a zygote and an actual human being as well. I still see no attempt at explaining what is a human being which is necessary to establish that a zygote is one.

[Cope]

There are fundamental differences between a zygote and an actual human being as well. I still see no attempt at explaining what is a human being which is necessary to establish that a zygote is one.

It has been stated at least twice that a human being is an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species (a basic scientific definition). A zygote meets this criteria for the reasons explained and expanded on in the source material. More supporting material:

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell.

Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and egg in the “moment of conception” generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism; it is “an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”

[T]he embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion … a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the developmental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings.

Why the human zygote is an organism and why it matters

[PointOfViewGun]

It has been stated at least twice that a human being is an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species (a basic scientific definition). A zygote meets this criteria for the reasons explained and expanded on in the source material. More supporting material:

A sperm is also considered an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species. This is especially true given that bestiality is illegal in almost everywhere in the world. Such high level definitions and what is essentially arbitrary distinctions doesn't really tell us if a zygote is a separate human being or not. Hence, we wonder into the field of figuring out when a zygote becomes an actual human being separate from the host.

[Cope]

A sperm is also considered an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species. This is especially true given that bestiality is illegal in almost everywhere in the world. Such high level definitions and what is essentially arbitrary distinctions doesn't really tell us if a zygote is a separate human being or not. Hence, we wonder into the field of figuring out when a zygote becomes an actual human being separate from the host.

A sperm cell is not, by any means, an individual organism. Read the cited material.