Abortion Rights MudPit

[PointOfViewGun]

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

They arbitrarily consider a sperm part of a human being. I can use the same logic to consider an embryo part of a mother. Especially given how much an embryo relies on the host to develop.

[Cope]

They arbitrarily consider a sperm part of a human being.

The cells which constitute an organism and contribute to its complete function must necessarily be described as being part of that organism. The categorization of the m gamete is therefore the opposite of "arbitrary".

I can use the same logic to consider an embryo part of a mother. Especially given how much an embryo relies on the host to develop.

A zygote/embryo may exist physically within its mother, but h/s is, as mentioned, a genetically distinct, individual organism in h/h own right. The difference between this and other cells comprising an organism but not constituting an organism in and of themselves has been explained repeatedly.

I might at this point add that no serious pro-choice activist contests whether a zygote/embryo is actually a human being (since it is a matter of scientific fact). They typically argue that induced abortions are justified on the basis that the embryo has not developed "personhood" and/or that the mother's right to bodily autonomy supersedes the embryo's right to life.

[enoch]

@Cope where does the moral imperative to preserve all life come from? The God of the Bible believed in taking life, usually as a punishment but at least once all the innocent were caught up in It’s flood of violence.

Complexity tells us more life would be preserved if we controlled the population growth hence more abortions preserve the living. The problem for me always boils down to a data point well known in my industry. The more fundamentalist one’s belief that all abortion is murder, the more likely one is to not care at all, and in fact oppose, helping the already born survive and prosper.

I think we can all agree on here this data point appears to be confirmed as universal.

[PointOfViewGun]

The cells which constitute an organism and contribute to its complete function must necessarily be described as being part of that organism. The categorization of the m gamete is therefore the opposite of "arbitrary".
A zygote/embryo may exist physically within its mother, but h/s is, as mentioned, a genetically distinct, individual organism in h/h own right. The difference between this and other cells comprising an organism but not constituting an organism in and of themselves has been explained repeatedly.
I might at this point add that no serious pro-choice activist contests whether a zygote/embryo is actually a human being (since it is a matter of scientific fact). They typically argue that induced abortions are justified on the basis that the embryo has not developed "personhood" and/or that the mother's right to bodily autonomy supersedes the embryo's right to life.

How does the egg contribute to the complete function of a woman but the fertilized egg doesn't?

[Cope]

How does the egg contribute to the complete function of a woman but the fertilized egg doesn't?

A zygote/embryo may exist physically within its mother, but h/s is, as mentioned, a genetically distinct, individual organism in h/h own right. The difference between this and other cells comprising an organism but not constituting an organism in and of themselves has been explained repeatedly.

[PointOfViewGun]

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

[Cope]

That doesn't explain the question I asked.

It was not claimed that the zygote does not contribute to the complete function of the mother. Not everything which contributes to an organism's complete function constitutes the organism itself (e.g. gut microbiota).

[PointOfViewGun]

It was not claimed that the zygote does not contribute to the complete function of the mother. Not everything which contributes to an organism's complete function constitutes the organism itself (e.g. gut microbiota).

Let me rephrase then. How does the egg, as a being contributing to the complete function of a woman, is part of the woman but a zygote, as a being contributing to the complete function of a woman, is not part of the woman?

[Cope]

Let me rephrase then. How does the egg, as a being contributing to the complete function of a woman, is part of the woman but a zygote, as a being contributing to the complete function of a woman, is not part of the woman?

See post #165.

[PointOfViewGun]

See post #165.

The genetic differences between an egg and a zygote seems to be quite an arbitrary distinction with respect to my question. It doesn't provide the explanation my question asks for.

[Cope]

The genetic differences between an egg and a zygote seems to be quite an arbitrary distinction with respect to my question. It doesn't provide the explanation my question asks for.

Differences in DNA are in no way an "arbitrary" when differentiating between organisms. The zygote and h/h mother interact but are separate, individual organisms.

[PointOfViewGun]

Differences in DNA are in no way an "arbitrary" when differentiating between organisms. The zygote and h/h mother interact but are separate, individual organisms.

The egg doesn't have the same DNA as the mother as well. Somehow differences in DNA doesn't matter there.

[Cope]

The egg doesn't have the same DNA as the mother as well. Somehow differences in DNA doesn't matter there.

Correct, it doesn't matter w/regard to the ongoing attempt to disprove the claim that zygotes are genetically distinct, individual organisms. The reason that gametes are not themselves considered separate organisms was discussed in the literature presented on the previous page.

In any case, this torrent of bad-faith argumentation has grown tedious. The need to contradict the scientific consensus on basic biology is derived from a desire to avoid acknowledging the implication that destroying a zygote is destroying a human being.

[enoch]

Correct, it doesn't matter w/regard to the ongoing attempt to disprove the claim that zygotes are genetically distinct, individual organisms. The reason that gametes are not themselves considered separate organisms was discussed in the literature presented on the previous page.

In any case, this torrent of bad-faith argumentation has grown tedious. The need to contradict the scientific consensus on basic biology is derived from a desire to avoid acknowledging the implication that destroying a zygote is destroying a human being.

tbf to science the word zygote exists specifically because a zygote is not a human being

[PointOfViewGun]

Correct, it doesn't matter w/regard to the ongoing attempt to disprove the claim that zygotes are genetically distinct, individual organisms. The reason that gametes are not considered themselves considered distinct organisms was discussed in the literature presented on the previous page.

Arbitrary distinctions. Arbitrary distinctions everywhere.




An argument was made based on egg being a contributing agent. That fell flat given that a zygote is very well a contributing agent as well.

[Cope]

Arbitrary distinctions. Arbitrary distinctions everywhere.

Insisting, without evidence or reason, that established biological categories (which have been repeatedly explained) are "arbitrary" is anti-intellectualism.

An argument was made based on egg being a contributing agent. That fell flat given that a zygote is very well a contributing agent as well.

Two entities sharing a similar characteristic does not make them the same entity. The suggestion that gametes and zygotes are the same is ridiculous on its face and has been disproved by the cited literature.

That being said, as we've predictably reached the stage of mindless gainsaying to avoid acknowledging inconvenient facts, I'm going to end the conversation here.

[PointOfViewGun]

Insisting, without evidence or reason, that established biological categories (which have been repeatedly explained) are "arbitrary" is anti-intellectualism.

Two entities sharing a similar characteristic does not make them the same entity. The suggestion that gametes and zygotes are the same is ridiculous on its face and has been disproved by the cited literature.

That being said, as we've predictably reached the stage of mindless gainsaying to avoid acknowledging inconvenient facts, I'm going to end the conversation here.

Gainsaying is not an argument.

[enoch]

Using the word gainsaying is silly. So so silly.

The argument not addressed is most of the recent posts are deeply reliant on what science has concluded, which is that zygotes are NOT human beings. End of story.

Genocides happen. We have to accept this fact. The Armenian genocide is a prime example of a human one. Abortion, however, is an example of a zygote one.

[Cope]

Using the word gainsaying is silly. So so silly.

The argument not addressed is most of the recent posts are deeply reliant on what science has concluded, which is that zygotes are NOT human beings. End of story.

This is false; read the literature/argumentation presented. See in particular:

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

Oddly enough, the veracity of these statements was acknowledged on the previous page, prior to a deflection to theology:

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

[enoch]

This is false; read the literature/argumentation presented. See in particular:



Oddly enough, the veracity of these statements was acknowledged on the previous page, prior to a deflection to theology:

I memba. How about you answer that question on theology now? Infidel level standards as previously in the thread. We need to read the word Zygote in the Logos.