First of all, the dictionary gives several definitions of what "person" means, including " The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality," which is more or less the sense of the word I intended.

I agree with you that personhood does not necessarily require intelligence - it's my opinion that it does, but I recognize that other opinions also exist. My point, however, is that debating over where "personhood" begins - if it begins at conception, or (as I'd argue) at some later point - is a legitimate and important part of the abortion debate. And few if any people are likely to think that there is only one meaning of "personhood"; on both sides of the debate, people understand that there are a variety of opinions.

This, to me, makes "personhood" a more useful thing to debate about than "human" or "life," because it mostly skips over the tedious "is human a biological term or a philosophical term" squabbling. The debate ends up being more about real issues, and less about wordplay. Or, such has been my experience, anyway.



Philosophical discussions of what constitutes a person go back centuries, I've been told, but I am not an expert and cannot say exactly when the earliest discussions were.

The definition of personhood isn't settled (I never claimed it was). Some people, like you, claim that personhood exists at zygotehood. Others, like myself, would argue that personhood cannot exist before higher brain functions. But I think that's a more fruitful and important debate to have then discussing the fact that embryos have individual DNA - a fact that no one disputes.

When does the life of a human being begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between?

Biologically speaking, the life of a human being is a continuation of the species. It has no beginning that we can prove, nor does it have an end until the entire species is wiped out. Even then an argument can be made that other species take up the DNA mantle, filling the biological survival slots left open.

Life adapts. It finds a way, eh?

As pointed out, this is messy. Untidy. Chaotic. It's the way things work.

Is reference to zygote/fetus as "potential life" misleading?

Sure, because life is life. It only gets strange at the microbio level, where chunks of molecules sort of behave alive, but are they really? Shoot, crystals behave in the same way, but we don't think of ice as being alive.

If so do you think think is purposeful on the part of "pro-choice" spokespeople?

Think think? Okay, I get it. Yep, and other political girations of logic are used on the other side, like human life is sacred. Who says, humans? Yeah, how convenient.

But it's okay to do war. Go figure, these humans are not rational!

Does this terminology have an anti-rational effect on the abortion debate?

The entire abortion debate is shot full of irrational arguments on both sides. The bottom line becomes how we want to structure law. Law is imposing rationality onto chaotic reality, and therefore cannot be promoted nor denied using chaotic biology arguments.

Still, a stick has to be thrust into the sand. Is abortion ethical? Is judging other people's desires and actions ethical? Seems to be some paradoxical things going on here. Add to this the third side of being anti-birth control, and we get a real mess. Oh yes, and the fourth side of overpopulation. War too.

Who is going to feed, clothe, house, educate, and employ? Who has responsibility? What is it to you? Why do war? Kill to save life?

Aye, irrationality abounds, as does chaos. Nobody has the rational high ground on this abortion debate. Where did you thrust your stick into the sand? That's what matters. But then a wind storm comes up, and just where was that stick? The dunes suddenly look all the same, and they all shifted!

For example, a strict anti-abortionist might find him or herself killing others to make a point. Seems that the stick got covered up. Or the stick might have been thrust with entirely different motivations, political ambition? Gotta watch out for that one. Also mental imbalance.

When does human life, or any life for that matter, begin? Does it really begin, or is it a continuation of a life beginning that we don't have the capacity to understand? Life doesn't just poof into existence, not what we can see anyway. It comes from already existing life, and that life did the same thing. That's obvious.

It's also obvious that humans contradict ourselves regularly, and without a blush.

The portion in italics is a usage example of the definition not the definition itself

Unless you want to argue that one would have to explore Antartica to be considered a member of humanity.


I don't think I fully understand this assertion.

When did I ever say the fact that a zygote is a human life necessarily have an affect on the ethics concerning it? It seems to me I've said precisely the opposite numerous times.

You're confused?

My brain and I were just having a quaint little discussion on how little sense this all makes.

What I meant was this. If a person is confused by the fact that a zygote is a living human, it is up to the person seek to sort out that confusion.

The concept is not inherently confusing, it's just another fact of life.

How could that be a useful debate when there is no hope of an objective answer?

We've had "personhood" debates before, it's just people lining up to take their best guess.

In any case if that is the debate you want to have then I'd love to have it with you.

The questions in this thread are not hidden commentaries on the issue of abortion. I meant precisely what I said and nothing more in asking them.

Of course you are right it is just an example. Funny, you read my post, quoted from my post, made a quip about my post, yet....

The question must be reiterated a third time.

So for this debate's clarification does being mean





Well I've tried that numerous times... but they say the third time is a charm.

I've answered this before...

The definition of the noun "being" does it does not require intelligence. Period.

Great...

I now concede that a zygote is a living human being.

I also want to say a human skin cell is a living human being.

1. They both meet the biological definition of life. (Therefore they are living)

2. They both are human.

3. They both exist. (Turnea's agreed upon definition of being)

Now, to answer the question: When does human life begin? Well that would all depend on which human being we are talking about. I guess it would be approrpiate to see AuthorMusician's definition.



Human life is constantly created whithin us by various mechanisms.

The question was not when does human life begin.

The question asked when does the life of "a human" begin.

And the answer is the same. If a human cell is a human being, then it's life begins at it's creation. And those creations are so vast and numerous it is best to use the term continuous.

..again this confusion is due to imprecise word use on my part. When I asked when does the life of a human begin, I meant the life of a member of the species Homo sapiens. Not the life of one of its constituent parts.

Shall we continue on these grounds or start another thread? Frankly, the dodging of the question that is going on in his thread could hardly be called constructive.

If nobody minds, I would like to address the question in the title: Why does it matter?

The argument matters because we as sentient beings feel a need to be informed of the consequences of our actions, ideally before we act. The pro-life people (that would include me) mean to discourage the practice of abortion because a human being in his or her early stages of development is involved.

AuthorMusician brought up the utterly schizoid nature of recognizing the sanctity of human life right up until the point that humans are sent to go kill other humans.

I am for life in the womb and against war--there are some of us, if few and far between. I know that if unimpeded in his/her development, the fetus is ejected from the womb and becomes a "newborn." The mother's life is changed, and the infant's conscious life is beginning. But if the child inside the womb is not aware of what is going on out here, the child is still a child.

Turnea

There is no confusion, there is no dodging and there is no need for another thread.

You have had this preconceived notion in your head that life begins at conception. To prove this you decided to strip all that it is that makes a human a human away, to what is left to be a human are bare minimum criterions. It requires no intelligence not even lower brain function by the definition you have presented. You broke it down to a cellular, because that's about all a zygote is.

When is a human being not a member of the species Homo sapiens?? I would think that is the core criteria for being a member. And due to your logic we have come to see that a skin cell is a living human being For the reasons I spelled out in the post before this. And all I had to do was meet your stripped down qualifications and standards of what it takes to be a human being.

Again,

A human skin cell is living, it does exist, it is human, which makes it a living human being which makes it a member of the species homo sapiens a.k.a humans. Do you wish any fries with that order of truth??

Very close, but not quite true.

To be a member of the species homo sapiens an organism must be able to combine gametes with another member and reproduce at some point in its development.

That is part of the biological definition of "species."

A zygote meets this criteria, a skin cell does not.

Did you really think biologists wouldn't define the difference?

Hmmm gametes... What are gametes??



So humans that are born without testicles or without ovaries and are unable to produce or combine gametes at any time in their development. So while they may be human beings like skin cells, they just don't get their membership into the homo sapiens club.

So what's the rest of the definition to be a card carrying member of a species??

and

Does a zygote have gametes to combine?? I don't think so..

I said at some point in the organisms development. Biological definition are based on the rule not the exceptions. Certainly developmental disorders can occur in individual members of a species ruining their reproductive capability.

A species must as a general rule be able to reproduce. As I said earlier this is why a mule is not a member of any species, they are sterile hybrids of two different species.

As a zygote developes up to puberty as a rule it will develop reproductive capability therefore it is a member of a species.

But exceptions do exist and science does not make room therefore strictly speaking humans without sex organs are not homo sapiens. Ridiculous?? yeah I think so too.

But let's get to an even bigger point.

A zygote stops developing at the stage of embryo. So throughout the full development stage of a zygote it never, as a general rule, will develop reproductive capabilities therefore it is not a member of a species.

Science does indeed "make room" for exceptions. It does not base the rules on them but room is made.

We are talking about developmental biology of homo sapiens in general, not in an individual. A child may die before he/she reaches puberty, this does not mean adolescence in not a biologically recognized step in development for all humans. The same goes for the zygote.



A zygote stops being a zygote because it has reached the next step in it's development. It remains the same organism, it simply goes by a different name.

The same is true when an adolescent stops being an adolescent and become an adult. This does not mean a teen is not a member of the species, though some continue to hold out hope...

Development is a process that happens to a member of a species, however it remains a member of its species throughout the whole process.

No, we are not talking in general, but rather specifically. The debate question was:

When does the life of a human being begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between?

That is pretty specific... "a human being". Now from there your logic of what it takes to be a human being led us down a path that made a skin cell a human being. From there you said that you misspoke and that what you meant is what makes us become a member of the species homo sapiens.

At this point I said a skin cell is a human being therefore it is a member of the species homo sapiens. You then explained that to be a member of a species an organism needs to be able to produce and combine gametes "at some point in the organisms development". If this is the objectively define requirement, then anything or anyone that doesn't meet it is simply out of luck.

But even in general context, a zygote throughout it's whole development will never produce gametes. Nothing can change that. This was a criteria that you set forth in order to become a card carrying member of the exclusive H.S. Club. A homo sapien may once have been a zygote, but a zygote has never been a homosapien. It doesn't even have sex organs at the very least.


emphasis mine

This is completely incorrect. A zygote stops being a zygote because it has reached the last, I repeat, last step in it's development. It is no longer a zygote... bye-bye zygote... hello embryo!! If the zygote is going to the next stage of development then it is still a zygote, which would mean you are a zygote. However, I refuse to believe I am a zygote. But this would take us back to what author musician said by life being continuous, because zygote is nothing but the next stage of gametes meeting and joining.



It has to become a member, first. What is the criteria to become a member of a species, again.



Again, they must become a member. What are the requirements. So far the best you have come up with is:

To become a member of a species something must have the ability to become something.... that has the ability to become something.... that has the ability to become something... that has the ability to become something... and so on... that will meet the qualifications of said species.

Droop224, I will not claim to be a biology teacher, I am merely trying to explain the basics of human development as best as I can.

All I can tell you is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it mean to be a member of a species and what it means for an organism to go through the stages of development.

Different stages have different names, but at each state an animal (in this case homo sapiens) is the same organism. You are a distinct organism from your parents, a member of the species in your own right. You have been from the moment of conception.

This is not Turnea's theory, it is basic biology.

If you want to know why biologist approach things this way then ask them.

Turnea

Do I?? Or is it just a fundamental misunderstanding of your presentation of what it mean to be a member of a species and what it means for an organism to go through the stages of development??



Is it?? When has biology claimed that personhood begins at conception?? Where does biology say that we are a human being at conception?? Like I said before, you've wanted to prove that we are human beings at conception, and thus you, not biologists, sent us tumbling down a rabbit hole of the absurd until we inevitably hit a bottom somewhere.

I would have never said that something merely has to exist to be a being. There were other definitions available to choose from. But you knew a zygote had no intelligence so you chose to define being as merely "existing." Again, your theory, not biology's theory. Well, your theory allowed me to logically open the door that a skin cell is a living human being, because it met your requirements of being a human being.

Now you did not challenge my assertion that skin cell met your requirements to be a human being, but instead changed the parameters that what you meant to say. You said:



I replied that if it is a human being it has to be a member of species Homo sapien

You say "no", to be a member of homo sapiens you must be able to produce and combine gametes.

From there I proved that a zygote did not have gametes and that some fully fledged humans didn't have gametes...

Which leaves us here.

Many people have tried to slow your willful headlong rush of giving a zygote the status of "a human being". But you would have none of it, instead taking a black/white mentality towards the issue of "life," "person/personhood" or "being". Choosing to see things in the singular domain of science. All are willing to concede a zygote is human. All are willing to concede a zygote is living. But it is not a human being, it has not reached that status. Your attempt to drop the word being was pointless. As I said before any attempt to use the phrase "a human" is merely an evasive way to convey the idea a "human being".

So, we do not have to consult a biologist, because I doubt a biologist will touch whether a zygote is a person or a human being. I have no doubt they will say a zygote will become a person or human being. But that which we will become is not what we are. So is a zygote still a human being??

None of them called for intelligence either, not that it matters.

The object in question has only to adhere to one definition in order to be accurately described by a term. That is the nature of language.


Only because it is what I meant to say. Clearly you don't believe I'm infallible, is it so hard to accept that did not phrase my question correctly?




Incorrect.

It is at this point that your misunderstanding of human development comes into play. Pay attention to the word in italics it is about to become very important.

To wit.

Whereupon I explained the scientific fact that the definition of a species is set on the rule and not the exception. In the abscence of adverse circumstances a human will develop from zygote stage of adult stage with reproductive organs capable of exchanging gametes.

This is not true of a skin cell.

Your counter what that an zygote ceases to exist at the embryonic stage.

This is simply false amlost to the point of ridiculous (hence the call for a biology teacher). An organism does not cease to exist simply because it goes by a different developmental term. The zygote is the same organism that become the blastula, which is the same organism which become the embryo, the fetus, the infant etc etc.

These are the stages of development for any healthy human being.


If this is your assertion what proof do you offer to back it?

I cannot change the facts for convenience, the answer is yes as it always will be.

When does the life of a human being begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between?

Is reference to zygote/fetus as "potential life" misleading?

If so do you think think is purposeful on the part of "pro-choice" spokespeople?

Does this terminology have an anti-rational effect on the abortion debate?

To the first question, if scientist found fertilized eggs on Mars would it be potential life or would the headlines read, Life found on Mars?

Potential life, as life, is the one and the same, uninterrupted it will live. In lust it is could be, but with fertilization life begins and you can call it the twinkle in the eye of the parents or not but it isn't reversible without unnatural manipulation. The argument otherwise would limit life to consciousness in perfect state of reason. Babies cannot reason so they are not life. Elderly cannot often reason so exterminate them? At what point does the being have a soul? Not provable if people have souls. What is provable is the process and birth is the opposite of birth control, regardless the unnatural control of birth it is control and ends human life. Baby's are not parasites in women's wombs.

Korean people celebrate the first years birthday at 100 days after the childs delivery and I think they have it correct.

I disagree on what you say about language and definition. In fact I think context determines which definition we use for a word. For instance

When you're with the Flintstones,
have a yabba dabba doo time,
a dabba doo time,
we'll have a gay old time.

Now the song doesn't suggest that we are going to a party with our friend Wertz, while he wears a bow tie and nothing else, blowing on a whistle. And to use the definition of gay which states:



instead



Would be far more appropriate.

We use the appropriate definition to meet the context, we don't just pick whichever we want. Be that as it may, you believe a being needs merely exist... remember this, it is important.



Funny the timing that you realized you meant to say something else, huh. But thats not a big deal... it may hang you, yet.



I will concede that a zygote is a development stage every human being goes through, as a matter of fact, I never argued otherwise. That does not make a zygote a human being nor are human beings zygotes.


Allow me to make an analogy.

A man decides that he wants to become a free mason. He talks to someone who knows how to get the ball rolling. The man has to do this and has to do that. Learn this and learn that and at sometime he is admitted to the free mason's. He is now a free mason. Now all he did before were still necessary development point to becoming a free mason. But simply because he is a free mason now does not mean he was a free mason then, even though he is still the same person.

You say a zygote is a human being, but biologist, in general, have not taken a stance at which point in our development we become human beings. Your repeated claims of only looking for truth and dealing in facts are beginning to ring a little hollow.

This statement,
"A human zygote is a developmental stage of a human being."
is a scientific fact.

This statement,
"A human zygote is human"
is a scientific fact.

This statement
"A human zygote is a human being"
is not a scientific fact, but rather a repeated theory of Turnea

As many have tried to tell you. What makes us a being or gives us life in the sense of "A living being, especially a person" is not scientific, but philisophical. Your willing to give the status of human being to anything that is human and exists. Philisophically, I thik this is absurd. And I think many would agree with me.

Now let's address what it takes to be a member of species homo sapiens I keep finding things, but I want your source so I can read what all the criteria for belonging to species homo sapiens. Far as I know a zygote may have to become a member of homo sapiens, just like it has to become a human being...

Only because "human being" is not a technical term. They have indeed taken a stance on whether a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens, which again is the real point here.

Appeal to Popularity is a common logical fallacy.

No one has as of yet been able to disprove my assertion, merely offer their own unbacked opinions.


I'll see if I can find a reference. Though I suspect it will be nonspecific seing as what you are asking for is, as I've noted, a fact of basic biology not unique to humans.

It's a bit like asking if a kitten is a member of felis domesticus, it's hardly a point of contention.

I don't believe that droop was appealing to popularity. He was just trying to say that others on this debate thread have argued against the line of logic you're presenting here. Of course, this doesn't mean you're incorrect just that you're in the minority.


I assert that "20 ft. aliens with long green tentacles, three eyes, 60 light years from here enjoy coin collecting". I also assert that it is incumbent upon you to disprove it.

The implication as I see it is that you claim my assertions are non-falsifiable. This is incorrect. My argument is laid out on on established scientific terms, no guesswork involved. If I have presented the facts incorrectly it should be possible to point this out.


Burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion, I agree. But I have offered my proof. I have met my burden.



My complaint is that I have not recieved a rebuttal of my reasoning so much as simply a blanket, irrational denial.

Actually, I was attempting to demonstrate that the burden of proof resides with the one making the assertion. The claim "no one has been able to disprove X" implies the opposite.


Have you? I still think there is much ambiguity of terminology that should be resolved before moving forward. I suggested that words be chosen that are not laden with alternative interpretations. Instead, create categories where unambiguous (or at least mutually acceptable ambiguous) terms may be itemized.


Fair enough. What specific blanket, irrational denial(s) do you chafe against?

In the case of the term "being" I agree and noted this quite a while ago in the post.

I noted this was imprecise word usage on my part, and I was attempting to ask when the life of a member of our species begins, the beginning of the life of "a human" in other words.

That word is not laden with alternate interpretations at all. The only other term which may garner complaints of ambiguity I will address below.


The denial that an answer to the (rather straightfoward) question of when the life of a human begins even exists.

To claim that "life" (our other "ambiguous term) is a philosophical concept of undetermined meaning and that therefore whatever use a person puts it towards may be correct is decidedly irrational.

Either something is alive or it isn't as I've mentioned before. If someone wants to argue that another definition of life is more appropriate let them post that definition so that it might be debated.

From where I'm sitting it sound a lot like "Well I have my own definition of life and I'm not telling so "

To deny use of the term life would make this debate entirely untenable and I don't see where it is needed.

The problem is that both "life" and "human" are contextually sensitive. You would like to have definitions which are context independent. But, they are not.


Hmm... I don't think anyone said that "life" is of undetermined meaning. I think the whole goal of this exercise was to discover a mutually acceptable meaning. However, you must realize that "life" is a term laden with many contextual interplays. If you wish something to be exact, then you need to define the exact context you're speaking of.


I don't believe a tautological definition of "life" is very helpful. I don't see how that definition forwards the debate at all. All I was trying to do was get you to define your terms as precisely as possible since this appears to be your goal. The wikipedia has a number of entries on life which may get us closer to what you're after. Note that there are quite a few definitions all of which likely have some unsatisfying exceptions.

I have no problem with context, however when asking a question about one species of mammal at a select set of phases in its development I don't see where multiple contexts apply.

Context must not become a all-size-fits-all answer, by its very nature context does not occur in a vacuum.


Then why did other debaters not offer their own own meanings?

In fact if one was to browse this debate you would find their was very little quibbling over the fact that a zygote was alive.

You will note the Wikipedia article you linked to followed my definition very closely, allowing only for contextual difference that do not come into play in this debate.


I'm not often one to appeal to common sense but I think the fact that the question did not refer to "music, food, movies, magazines, radio, or games" should be abundantly clear.

That leave us with personal, biological, and philosophical.

I love philosophy but the fact is a debate on the philosophical beginnings of life would be the very definition of pointless. This was meant to be a debate not a poll.

I could see some room for personal life, even though I doubt even a new born infant has anything that could be called a personal life .

So I will clarify, of the contexts recognized I would like to make it clear that biological life is what is being referred to in this debate.

The debate is about the rationality of the abortion debate. Biology is the only context in which this consideration would apply (again with the unlikely exception of personal.)

I agree. From reading back through the thread, it seems like "life" is being used more or less in a biological context. However, once we stray into the domain of "human life" or "human being" or just "human", I think this is where the debate becomes muddled. If we were to remain in the strictly biological domain, then I don't believe you will ever get a satisfactory answer with regard to the political and/or moral domains. You wish to discuss "pro-choice" or "pro-life" as it pertains to biology, however both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" positions are founded on moral and political principles, biology in and of itself has very little to say.

In other words, biology has something to say about life and about human life and perhaps even about human beingness. It has little or nothing to say about the morality of those subjects. This ultimately is the problem you're wrestling with as I see it. To make this as clear as I can, let me propose a thought experiment. Let's say there's an exact mutually acceptable definition of "human beingness" in the biological domain, that is, terms are used of or relating to the field of biology to construct this definition. Now, let's say you wish to say something about the moral implications of this definition; well, you'll have to layer another definition on top of the biological definition to give yourself something that works in the moral domain. In other words, there is almost no overlap between these two different domains.

If you still don't believe me, try something which isn't as tightly contested. Try something like "tree". Here you could say something in the biological domain about trees completely independently of the ethics (or even economics) of cutting down trees, for example.

At conception.



Yes, living systems are being developed as soon as the metabolism begins to function. Everything that makes us human is present in the Zygote and within 11 weeks every vital organ is funtioning.



Absolutly, in fact, I think prolifers calling abortion murder has an anti-rational effect as well

Turnea

Can we logically deduce from all that is said in this debate about what is life, what is human, and what it is to be a being that a human skin cell meets the requirements of a living human being?

This I agree with entirely, I believe the ultimate decision on abortion may well be a fundamentally irrational one no matter what side one takes.

Biology can tell us what a zygote or fetus is, it cannot tell us what its value is.

Nevertheless I do believe that knowledge of the biological facts concerning the matter is valuable in that at least the leap of faith it takes to come up with a position on abortion won't be rooted in misinformation such as the concept of "potential life".


Yes, which as I've said before is why that should not have been my question. It only obscures the true point of contention.

That is when does the life of "a human" begin?

The word "being" was dropped pages ago.

Turnea
Very Good!!

Is it your contention that a skin cell is not a human?? And that a zygote is a human???

Again as explained before, yes.

A skin cell is a piece of a human. I wouldn't call a kidney a human either.

A zygote on the other hand is an organism unto itself. Single-celled but whole.

This is the whole tricky language issue. Clearly, we would agree a skin cell and a zygote are both alive. They both are human. They are both "organisms". One type of cell is specialized for skin production whereas the other type of specialized for embryo production. A skin cell is not skin just as a zygote is not an embryo. That said, a zygote is a precursor to an embryo.

One could argue that a zygote contains all the genetic material necessary to produce an adult human, and since we give adult humans a moral status different from other living things, one could feel compelled to give a zygote or embryo the same status. However, this is only half the story, no? A zygote cannot become an embryo and an embryo cannot become a fetus without the gestational, nutrient bath of the mother's womb. It is tempting to separate the genetic material housing from the gestational housing, however at our current level of technology this is impossible. Of course, even if we did achieve a completely "motherless" human, a zygote/embryo would still require some technology designed to mimic the gestational housing provided by a mother. Thus, a zygote and embryo are subcomponents to the reproductive process during those development stages.

So here's the thing. We want to apply concepts used in everyday experience (person/human/etc.) on that which doesn't fit the clean language boundaries we have created for those everyday experiences. Or rather, we do have words with exact definition but they are unsatisfactory to some because they do not map cleanly to the world of thinking/talking/walking humans. Because of this, the debate always seems to get muddled.

From one perspective, we can take the moral status of ex-embryonic/post-fetus humans and walk backwards along the causal chain until two haploid cells combine granting all those intermediary developmental stages equivalent moral status that we give the "ex-embryonics/post-fetus". From another perspective, we can walk up the chain from haploid cells, to diploid/zygote, to embryo, to fetus granting all those developmental stages the equivalent moral status we give to any cell or set of cells. I believe that both perspectives have merit and both perspectives are too rigid. I suppose I believe in proportionality, but anyway that strays too far from the debate topic.

So, back to the whole "potential life" thing. I agree that it is a misleading term, however I do not ascribe malicious intent behind its usage. If people only understood and used a more exact biological definition of "life", then of course they would realize that "potential" is wholly inaccurate. There is no doubt that there is living stuff. However, what they mean, when the term is used, is "potential person" or even "potential ex-embryonic/post-fetus human". At least, it's what I think they mean .

This obscures the issue. Certainly a developing embryo requires the physiological support of the mother's womb. This does not mean it is a part of the mother.

The zygote is, at conception a wholly separate organism. I brought up the roughly analogous case of a kangaroo in a pouch. Without the pouch the baby kangaroo (born woefully underdeveloped when compared with many other mammals) would die almost immediately.

Kangaroo
That does not mean the the kangaroo is not a kangaroo as much as the mother.

Human beings have developed the the ability to have these stages of development occur internally, but the stages are the same.

There is a fundamental biological difference between a zygote and a skin cell (or any differentiated tissue for that matte.).

You're splitting hairs. A skin cell can also exist apart from the original skin organ. Are you arguing that a skin cell is not part of the skin organ because of this?


I won't disagree that one could create a situation where a zygote could exist independently from its gestational environment. However, this is simply not the evolutionary adaptation which mammals (including humans) are using. In order for a zygote to move to its next stage of development, i.e. embryo, without technological intervention, it requires a very, very specific environment. The environment is so specific, in fact, that to speak of the zygote as the both necessary and sufficient component for continued development is inaccurate. While a zygote is necessary, it is not sufficient.


The mother is an adult kangaroo while the offspring is a baby kangaroo. Surely, you're not arguing that the infant kangaroo is an adult?


I agree there's a difference, but a "fundamental biological difference"?

Turnea



The Kangaroo in the pouch and the mother Kangaroo have something significant in common. They were both birthed.

But that's just a quip. I have another question. Even if your claim is true that a zygote is an organism unto itself, by what reasoning do you call a zygote a human?

Is there?

The only difference I can see is in its 'potentiality'. Taken as a point-in-time, a zygote and a bunch (say an equivalent number of cells) of skin cells are pretty much exactly the same. They live for about the same emngth of time when cut off from the human body, they will both multiply and divide, though the zygote will do this at a faster rate, that is hardly relevant.

As to it being a 'being in and of itself', that is a non-statement. What makes the Zygote more of a 'being' then a bunch of skin cells apart from its potentiality?

Now that the prospect of clonig exists, and fresh, health skin cells could technically be cloned into a being, do the skin cells therefore not also contain a certain degree of 'potentiality'?

Apart from this 'potentiality', I cannot actually see any real difference between the skin cells and the zygote. If you maintain there is some, then you will need to demonstrate it to me, and explain exactly what the difference is.


Nobody can deny the great difference of what the zygote MAY become in months time (remembering that over 70% of pregnancies end in very early miscarriages, usually not even detected by the woman), but we are not talking about what 'might be later', we are talking about what is.


Let me put it another way: to state that a zygote is 'a being unto itself' means nothing, as it is not a being in any measurable way different from a pile of skin cells. However, even if you were to accept this fallacious argument, I would like to point out that s sperm cell is by that definition also a 'being unto itself', and it too has 'potentiality' of turning into a child eventually. So is spilling semen also 'murder'?

A skin cell is part of a person's tissue. It is one brick in a wall of similarly differentiated cells meant to act as a single organ. A zygote is not part of the mother's tissues it is, again, a different, and separate organism. In fact the mother's tissue normally does not even touch fetal tissue, if this occurs between parent and offspring of different bloodtype it can be fatal to the embryo.

There's a medical term for that I learned years ago and cannot remember.

Edited to add:
I think I'll leave this one to the experts.
Solving the Pregnancy Paradox

The same is true of the infant kangaroo, without the pouch death comes quickly and certainly.


Of course not. Surely you would not argue and infant kangaroo is not a kangaroo?

...and yet you continue to argue a zygote is not a human.

Yes, I will try and explain that best I can in response to Vermillion's post.

It should hopefully answer droop224's question as well.


You are correct only in a sense. In biology "potentiality" does not happen in a vacuum. A zygote has the potentiality to form all types of human tissues (which eventually make up an adult human) only because it is different form a skin cell in structure.

This is where the problem of not being a biology major comes in. I know how this works, less see if any of that tutor experience paid off and let's me explain it.

Let's begin with the zygote. It comes into being with the union of sperm and egg. That is where the first and most fundamental difference comes into play.

The union of the two haploid gametes into a diploid zygote creates the genetic recombination that results in (nearly) every person being genetically unique.

For the next couple of differences we can have a little help from Wikipedia.

Structurally a zygote is like an egg cell (with the exception of the addition of sperm cell genetic material) that is to say.

Embryogenesis



A differentiated tissue cell is another matter altogether.

Cellular differentiation

Once differentiated in other words once certain genes to create certain proteins are turned "on, a cell (such and a skin cell) is pretty much "monopotent." That is to say it can only give rise to another skin cell.


That still sound like only potential to you. Understand that potential is no accident, it is a function of how genetic material in the cell is used.

I understand the full comprehension will require a bit of a dialouge on this so fire away.

When does the life of a human being begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between?

As secularist, I have the luxury of forming my own opinion on this, but not of being able to claim that I am any more right, then someone who disagrees with me. Because i've realized that there is really no conclusive way of proving an opinion true or false, i've also realized that in this issue, I should basically believe whatever I feel like believing. In this case, that life begins at conception (because id rather not believe that 40 million Americans have died in the past 26 years).

Is reference to zygote/fetus as "potential life" misleading?

No. If I don't consider a fetus human, then acknowledging that it has the potential to become human is not misleading, and I believe that is what the above phrase is meant to mean.

Does this terminology have an anti-rational effect on the abortion debate?

No, but as I said, if you take this debate to its core, we are merely talking about what we consider human. If I don't consider something human until it leaves the womb, then all you can do is try to point out humanesc attributes of the uborn, and if I claim those things are irrelevant, then the arguments over. This method of reasoning can be attributed to a lot of things, but general isn't, because in most issues, both sides of the argument generally hold more morals in common.

Again, we're doing the language dance or, more accurately, semantics dance . To speak of a zygote as something independent of the mother (without technological intervention) is ...well... illogical. Both are required for the developmental stages to progress. If we can't agree on this point, then the debate will go no further.


If homo sapiens were marsupials instead of "placentals", then we would still be talking about zygotes and embryos, however the debate would likely involve the ethics of ex vitro embryos; perhaps, in a parallel universe this is occurring . The law does define an in vitro stage of development after which voluntary miscarriage is illegal.


No, I continue to argue that it is the context that is important when using terms. The term "human" is overloaded. It is used in many different domains -- morphology, genetics and ethics -- to name a few. Each domain says something different about human. I would either like to use different words or get commitment that a word in one domain will not then be used to transfer into another domain (under the covers, if you will).

You will notice I did not say independent. A zygote is certainly dependant.

I said it was separate, because it is. The zygote is not part of the mother. It needs the mother most desperately but they are two different humans.


Were are not talking about the law. In biology the birthed infant kangaroo is (as noted in the earlier Wikipedia article) roughly analogous to an embryo.


I don't see where this has occurred at all. We are speaking of the pre-natal development a human. That is a biological concept by definition.

I thought we already agreed to stick to the sphere of biology.

Turnea
.

But most things I have read seem to call a human zygote a human zygote, they do not classify it as a human. How have you come to classify a human zygote as a human??

You have done an excellent job in differentiating a zygote from other human cells, but that tells us the differences, that does not make it a human. Are you finding a lot of biological text refering to a zygote as a human??

Again, I state just because a zygote will become a human does not make it a human, so why do you continue to call it a human rather than a human zygote??

A zygote does not "become" a human. Development happens to an animal species, it does not turn something into a member of its species.

This is not unique to humans, it is again simply a basic biological fact.

It is akin to asking why a kitten is a cat simply because it is referred to as a kitten.

So you continue to assert. But biology has not taken the stance you set forth. Biologist, in general from what I have read, do not say a zygote is a human. You have come to this conclusion, I am asking how.



Is it really... Wouldn't it be more akin to asking why a zygote of a cat is not referred to as a cat.

Merely because biologist have little motivation to state what is, to them, the obvious.


About equal really. Both questions would be difficult to answer because of the basic nature of biology in question.

Again, this is not me talking. If you wanted to have a debate on why a vegetable is a fruit with a botanist, have at it. But the facts are the facts.

Whoa... you got me there.. Maybe it is because they recognize a human zygote as human, not a human.

But we come full circle back to the fact that a human is a philosophical term.



How can you not see it is you talking?? If biologist wanted to take a stance that a zygote is a person, then they would have. This is your stance, not theirs.

You give many facts and those facts for the most part have been agreed upon, but your assertion that a zygote is a person or a human is not one of the biological facts you have presented. This is an assertion from your facts. But your factsdo not logically lead me and others to the conclusion your assertion presents. Draw me a map, maybe I can get there.

false. A human is the common name for a member of the species homo sapiens. Just as "house cat" is the common name for felis domesticus.

Biological terminology.

They haven't taken a public stance on whether an infant is a person either.

Again they are unlikely to state the obvious.