Zygote V. Baby

[dairygirl4u2c]

The organism argument is interesting and a good argument but I don't think definitive.
I looked up organism on wikipedia etc. I found there are many semantics to how to define an organism. Some of the definitions would even exclude it being an organism, as it cannot reproduce or have any organs. Should the fetus first have an organ to be an organism? Well, there are many things that intuitively are organisms but do not have organs so much. If reproduction includes mitosis, then that could include regular cells too.
Bottom line, most of the definitions for an organism could be applied to a group of cells.

The snowman argument is poor but it's just an analogy to make the point. How about if you cut a worm in two, or cut off a plant and bury it. (I saw that some plants you can cut and bury it and it grows anyway). Is the two peices of worm two organisms simply by cutting it? I guess you could say that it is, but it seems you could also say it's half an organism that's able to form into a new organism. Just as the early cells could be argued to be cells that are able to form into a new organism.

I do note some on the internet say an organism isn'ta person. But i say if you can show it to be an organism in a meaningful sense, then it's a person.
[url="http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/stem-cells-if-argument-against-fetal.html"]http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/st...inst-fetal.html[/url]
that link is also interesting because that person is the only other person i've seen use the argument that you should be able to choose prochoice because of the uncertainty of personhood and the default position to allow liberty to decide instead of the government deciding. i've since recanted and put much more value on even teh possibility there's life, but it's interesting to see another use my old arguments, arguments i think are not unreasonable necessarily.

[Sirklawd]

The difference between a group of cells and a fetus is that in a fetus the group of cells is the entire thing. The one cell at the beginning, which then becomes 2 which then becomes 4, thats it. It is not seperate from some other whole.

Human life begins at conception with 1 unique human cell, very quickly that life is composed of two cells then 4 then 394892048239048290483902842390482 cells at birth and a million more at age 22 and so on. This process keeps going until that one fateful day where it stops.

This discussion of personhood and motorskills is trash. Individual human life is the only thing that matters. If a fetus is 4 cells and you take 1 of those away, its not a question of whether or not its still a "person" because you just destroyed it. The process is over. Just as if you cut off a mans head, theres X number of cells were just removed.. who cares. He's dead. Or if you take away teh same amount of cells but from his leg - great he's still alive.

This whole topic becomes ALOT less foggy when you let go of trying to define "person". It's a trap. It's meant to keep the arguement foggy. The only thing that matters is life and death. We were all 1 cell big at one point just as we all (God willing) will be a zillion cells big at say age 30 or 40 or whatever.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1284979' date='May 30 2007, 11:18 PM']The organism argument is interesting and a good argument but I don't think definitive.
I looked up organism on wikipedia etc. I found there are many semantics to how to define an organism. Some of the definitions would even exclude it being an organism, as it cannot reproduce or have any organs. Should the fetus first have an organ to be an organism? Well, there are many things that intuitively are organisms but do not have organs so much. If reproduction includes mitosis, then that could include regular cells too.
Bottom line, most of the definitions for an organism could be applied to a group of cells.

The snowman argument is poor but it's just an analogy to make the point. How about if you cut a worm in two, or cut off a plant and bury it. (I saw that some plants you can cut and bury it and it grows anyway). Is the two peices of worm two organisms simply by cutting it? I guess you could say that it is, but it seems you could also say it's half an organism that's able to form into a new organism. Just as the early cells could be argued to be cells that are able to form into a new organism.

I do note some on the internet say an organism isn'ta person. But i say if you can show it to be an organism in a meaningful sense, then it's a person.
[url="http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/stem-cells-if-argument-against-fetal.html"]http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/st...inst-fetal.html[/url]
that link is also interesting because that person is the only other person i've seen use the argument that you should be able to choose prochoice because of the uncertainty of personhood and the default position to allow liberty to decide instead of the government deciding. i've since recanted and put much more value on even teh possibility there's life, but it's interesting to see another use my old arguments, arguments i think are not unreasonable necessarily.[/quote]
Where are you getting your definition of "organism"?

An organism is any living thing - in school we studied single-cell organisms such as ameobae and paramecii. And a cell is not just a "blob of protoplasm" but an incredibly complex living thing capable of feeding, breathing, and waste removal - all the basic functions of life.

As for saying an embryo is not a living organism because it cannot reproduce - that is just absurd. By that standard, human beings would not be organisms (and thus, according to you, not persons) until they have reached puberty!

Any reputable scientist would claim the embryo is a living organism (though some of an atheistic bent may deny its "personhood.')

[dairygirl4u2c]

I do note that you've provided statements by scientists before Congress who said they thought that the zygote is the same as you and me. I don't think scientists are unified on that. I think it's an ethical decision using biological factors to gauge, just as when a person dies is an ethical decision.

As for reproduction, someone who can't reproduce simply is deformed or old etc. A zygote never could do it to begin with, so I don't think that's too far off a factor. But whatever, it's a factor in simply one person's definition of organism, there's no firm definition. I am mainly using the wikipedia article fyi.
Reproduction could also be applied to mitosis, cells dividing. But with that, and even with your point of cells, that's all things a regular cell can do, but regular cells are not organisms. I do realize that a regular cells isn't going to grow into a person, but potential is not a person, and you have to show something definitively different other than a linear progression. Do you think an egg is an organism, a chicken? Do you think an acorn is an organism, a tree? (even if you do, I still maintain my point)
Cells are not organisms, usually.
Remember, I'm not saying the zygote is not a person, I'm saying it's uncertain. It could be single cells growing into a person, similar to blocks. I'm not saying it's lumps of organic matter put together like blocks normally are, I'm saying the cells are programmed to form like blocks. It's just an analogy to make my point, not full proof.

But, with that said, I found an interesting conversation similar to this on the internet where the person in your position posted the definition of a textbook and the person in my position pretty much ignored it.
-”The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
(Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)
[url="http://wordmunger.com/?p=588"]http://wordmunger.com/?p=588[/url]

I'm starting to think it's more of an organism. But I'm still wondering if it is, and if it's in a meaningful sense other than perhaps a strict defiition of an organism when that could apply to cells too.
And I'd like to see more scientists say that it's a person or an organism if you say that they all say it. (or if you don't say that, you can't say only reputable ones hold your position if there's a reasonable split of opinion)

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here is an interesting argument that it's not an organism. I think it's a non and a catholic theologians arguing about whether there's a soul, and partly arguing whether it's an organism as a basis for decision.
I don't see many articles from actual theologians, so that's interesting. I should go out of my way more often instead of forming theories myself when there's so many out there already.

[quote]The last reason why the soul theorist shouldn’t insist on the early embryo being an organism is that at the one-cell stage the only organism the human being could be is the zygote. But if the zygote is essentially an organism then it has the persistence conditions of a one-cell organism. And cells go out of existence when they divide and thus cease to be alive when they do so as we saw in the earlier discussion of the amoeba. We are not begging any questions here and insisting that zygotes are essentially one-cell organisms and thus stipulating that they couldn’t become two-cell and then three-cell organisms. Rather, we are insisting that if zygotes are organisms that are essentially alive then they persist as long as do the same life processes in which they are caught up. It is a misuse of the phrase “same life processes” to say that the two cells produced by fission and the precursor zygote both belong to the same life processes. To see this, contrast zygotic division with the cell division in your adult body. Both the precursor and the post-fission cells are caught up in the same life processes of the multi-cell organism that is you. The two-cell and three-cell embryo don’t function as a living unit. The embryo doesn’t keep its temperature, gases and pressure within safe homeostatic parameters; its component cells don’t participate in a shared metabolic process; and if two of its three cells are destroyed, the remaining cell is left unaffected. If readers lost any 2/3 of their bodies, it is quite the understatement to say that their remaining 1/3 would be affected.32

The co-location solution that we earlier offered for the puzzle posed by twinning is not available here in the case of the zygotic division since the result isn’t two embryos but a single two-cell embryo. What the soul theorist should do is to understand the zygote as being contingently rather than essentially an organism. “Organism” should be seen as a phase sortal. Compare this with the phase sortal “professor” or “student.” Most readers of this paper are identical to either a student or professor. But neither is essentially a student or professor. That is, they don’t go out of existence when they graduate or retire. The property of being a student or professor is not essential to any of our readers. We suggest that the same is true regarding the human being and the organism. The zygote is an organism but it isn’t essentially an organism. It can survive the loss of the property of being alive. The soul configures matter that results in living beings at one time, but not at another. After the zygote divides, the soul configures a mass of tissues, each of which is composed of living cells, but this human being is not again a living organism until some later time – perhaps the period 2-3 weeks after fertilization that many theorists point to.33[/quote][url="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5DPO8y29zCEJ:www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dh25/articles/Fission%2520and%2520Confusion.doc+%22zygote+is+an+organism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us"]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5DPO8...;cd=4&gl=us[/url]
same link but a doc link and so usually smells of elderberries more: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dh25/articles/Fission%20and%20Confusion.doc

I think it's also important to note that citing ameobas and few celled organisms is just an analogy to make your point and not definitive. Ameobas don't divide their wholes as do single celled zygotes. The ameoba would die if it did. It's specific and unique for zygotes to form into a person.

The following is interesting just for it's straightforwardness.
[quote]this doesn’t address a different and more important problem which is the absence of good biological reasons to posit a single multi-cell organism the first few weeks post fertilization.17 Most pro-lifers are too quickly persuaded by the embryonic unity and developmental telos to claim that it is then a human organism. They can’t imagine that the embryo could be anything other than a living organism. So their response is to stretch the meaning of “organism” beyond biological respectability.18 Our contention is that they can defend ensoulment at fertilization without reinterpreting what it means to be a living organism. There surely can be sufficient unity between things that would compel us to judge that they compose a larger object without that unity being such that the entity would have to be considered biologically alive. In fact, there are good metaphysical, biological, and theological reasons for not maintaining this.[/quote]

I think that theologians are arguing shows it's reasonably disputed, and that it's more of an ethical decision using bio signals than purely black and white bio.

Edited June 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1285704' date='Jun 1 2007, 12:17 AM']I do note that you've provided statements by scientists before Congress who said they thought that the zygote is the same as you and me. I don't think scientists are unified on that. I think it's an ethical decision using biological factors to gauge, just as when a person dies is an ethical decision.

As for reproduction, someone who can't reproduce simply is deformed or old etc. A zygote never could do it to begin with, so I don't think that's too far off a factor. But whatever, it's a factor in simply one person's definition of organism, there's no firm definition. I am mainly using the wikipedia article fyi.
Reproduction could also be applied to mitosis, cells dividing. But with that, and even with your point of cells, that's all things a regular cell can do, but regular cells are not organisms. I do realize that a regular cells isn't going to grow into a person, but potential is not a person, and you have to show something definitively different other than a linear progression. Do you think an egg is an organism, a chicken? Do you think an acorn is an organism, a tree? (even if you do, I still maintain my point)
Cells are not organisms, usually.
Remember, I'm not saying the zygote is not a person, I'm saying it's uncertain. It could be single cells growing into a person, similar to blocks. I'm not saying it's lumps of organic matter put together like blocks normally are, I'm saying the cells are programmed to form like blocks. It's just an analogy to make my point, not full proof.

But, with that said, I found an interesting conversation similar to this on the internet where the person in your position posted the definition of a textbook and the person in my position pretty much ignored it.
-”The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
(Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)
[url="http://wordmunger.com/?p=588"]http://wordmunger.com/?p=588[/url]

I'm starting to think it's more of an organism. But I'm still wondering if it is, and if it's in a meaningful sense other than perhaps a strict defiition of an organism when that could apply to cells too.
And I'd like to see more scientists say that it's a person or an organism if you say that they all say it. (or if you don't say that, you can't say only reputable ones hold your position if there's a reasonable split of opinion)[/quote]
Your argument regarding reproduction is still nonsensical.
"As for reproduction, someone who can't reproduce simply is deformed or old etc. A zygote never could do it to begin with, so I don't think that's too far off a factor."
Are these old or deformed people not organisms too? And of course, as I've mentioned, people can be too young to reproduce.
A four year old kid could never "do it to begin with," yet no sane person would would deny that the 3-year-old is an organism/person! Both zygotes and young children are living organisms, yet neither is yet at a stage of physical development wher it can reproduce. Most organisms must reach a certain stage of development before being able to reproduce.

As for chickens and eggs, if a chicken egg is fertilized, there is a young chicken (an organism) growing inside the egg. In chickens and related avian/reptilian animals, the female egg is simply outside the mother's body, rather than inside.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1285709' date='Jun 1 2007, 12:43 AM']Here is an interesting argument that it's not an organism. I think it's a non and a catholic theologians arguing about whether there's a soul, and partly arguing whether it's an organism as a basis for decision.
I don't see many articles from actual theologians, so that's interesting. I should go out of my way more often instead of forming theories myself when there's so many out there already.

[url="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5DPO8y29zCEJ:www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dh25/articles/Fission%2520and%2520Confusion.doc+%22zygote+is+an+organism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us"]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5DPO8...;cd=4&gl=us[/url]
same link but a doc link and so usually smells of elderberries more: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dh25/articles/Fission%20and%20Confusion.doc

I think it's also important to note that citing ameobas and few celled organisms is just an analogy to make your point and not definitive. Ameobas don't divide their wholes as do single celled zygotes. The ameoba would die if it did. It's specific and unique for zygotes to form into a person.[/quote]
Quite frankly, I can't even follow what the heck this person is trying to say. The zygote is simply the first stage of the new human life - cell splitting is the process of growth which continues until adulthood. And claiming teh zygote/embyro is not alive is nonsensical. A non-living embryo is a dead embryo. That's what abortion does - it kills a living (human) organism. No biologist would deny the embryo is alive.

[quote]The following is interesting just for it's straightforwardness.
I think that theologians are arguing shows it's reasonably disputed, and that it's more of an ethical decision using bio signals than purely black and white bio.[/quote]
That wasn't straightforward - it was nonsensical. As I've pointed out, on a purely biological level, it is obvious that an embryo/fetus is a living thing - an organism.

As for "good metaphysical, biological, and theological reasons" for claiming it is not alive, they have provided none.

People will deny all sorts of obvious things for ideological/political reasons, in this case, for allowing abortion.
One could just as easily state, "Educated and intelligent people have disputed the humanity of Blacks and Jews."

Simply pointing out that people make a claim does not prove its reasonableness.
Reasonable arguments need to actually be presented.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]I think Zygote is an ugly word.

Its like an alien form of a goat....
[img]http://www.fadeeva.com/Beasts/stuffed_goat.jpg[/img]


I would much rather call them babies.
[/size]

Edited June 3, 2007 by CrossCuT

[jeffpugh]

hehehe

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think there's a difference between the whites and the blacks disputing the other as not life. They were basing things on skin color and the bible, things that are by far not scientific or meaningful. You analogy stands about them unreasonably disputing life, but I think you have to admit it's just an analogy to make a point, but it's not parallel much at all.

I remember people arguing about whether an egg was a chicken long before, without regard to, the debate about abortion. They were legitimately arguing and not ignorant of science. That could be applied to the zygote too. It only starts getting "clear" when religion and politics starts getting involved.

Okay I pull my argument from reproduction because it's getting us sidetracked. The point there was that cells can't reproduce like organisms can, so the zygote couldn't be considered organisms. Your point about how kids can't reproduce made me realize you consider the zygote an organism that will one day reproduce. So, the reproduction argument is only getting us back to the argument about whether it's an organism or person.

My point still remains though, that there are so many different definitions of organism. And my main point is that any of the definitions that you could use to apply to the zygote are okay, but you could just as easily apply a definition of a cell to the zygote.

And you have to admit, that your analogy of a few celled organism is not enough to prove your point, correct? An ameoba does not form into a super organism. It's specific and uniuqe for zygotes to form into greater organisms. Your point is good that an organism can be a few cells, but it's just a point and not definitive analogy. It does meet the standards of many gooddefinitions of organisms. But you could still point to definitions of cells.

So, what exactly is your clincher argument? It doesn't seem like you have any. Anything you provide can be refuted by negation.
And you can't it seems find a clincher, because it's gray. It's unreasonable to think it's not reasonably disputed.


One thing scientifically that that theologian pointed to was: "its component cells don’t participate in a shared metabolic process." I'm not sure about the science behind this and how much like an amoeba cells work together.
The other stuff was mainly trying to describe philosophically how you could call the zygote by many things. Basically, it could be called an organism, but it's not definitively an organism when you compare it to every other undisputed organism out there.

Edited June 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1287912' date='Jun 4 2007, 09:17 AM']I think there's a difference between the whites and the blacks disputing the other as not life. They were basing things on skin color and the bible, things that are by far not scientific or meaningful. You analogy stands about them unreasonably disputing life, but I think you have to admit it's just an analogy to make a point, but it's not parallel much at all.

I remember people arguing about whether an egg was a chicken long before, without regard to, the debate about abortion. They were legitimately arguing and not ignorant of science. That could be applied to the zygote too. It only starts getting "clear" when religion and politics starts getting involved.

Okay I pull my argument from reproduction because it's getting us sidetracked. The point there was that cells can't reproduce like organisms can, so the zygote couldn't be considered organisms. Your point about how kids can't reproduce made me realize you consider the zygote an organism that will one day reproduce. So, the reproduction argument is only getting us back to the argument about whether it's an organism or person.

My point still remains though, that there are so many different definitions of organism. And my main point is that any of the definitions that you could use to apply to the zygote are okay, but you could just as easily apply a definition of a cell to the zygote.

And you have to admit, that your analogy of a few celled organism is not enough to prove your point, correct? An ameoba does not form into a super organism. It's specific and uniuqe for zygotes to form into greater organisms. Your point is good that an organism can be a few cells, but it's just a point and not definitive analogy. It does meet the standards of many gooddefinitions of organisms. But you could still point to definitions of cells.

So, what exactly is your clincher argument? It doesn't seem like you have any. Anything you provide can be refuted by negation.
And you can't it seems find a clincher, because it's gray. It's unreasonable to think it's not reasonably disputed.
One thing scientifically that that theologian pointed to was: "its component cells don’t participate in a shared metabolic process." I'm not sure about the science behind this and how much like an amoeba cells work together.
The other stuff was mainly trying to describe philosophically how you could call the zygote by many things. Basically, it could be called an organism, but it's not definitively an organism when you compare it to every other undisputed organism out there.[/quote]
or·gan·ism(ôrg-nzm)
n.
1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Basically, an organism is anything alive. If anyone can prove that a human zygote/embryo is not alive by the normal biological definition of life, they might have a point. But I have seen no such proof. A non-living embryo is a dead embryo. You cannot kill that which is not alive to begin with.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i changed my mind a little. i think it's reasonable to say it's not reasonably disputed, and a person/organism.

i had been thinking about it, and i realized that simple cells don't exist alone without either being a unicellular organism, or being part of a greater organism. a newly fertilized egg then makes sense to call an organism, as cells floating freely doesn't make much sense.
also, combine that with what i said to Al, that the zygote sustains itself (in the sense it tells itself what to do etc) and ya got a good case.

i still wonder what exactly a unicellular organism is though... if it's really more than just cells floating freely or if they're more like animals. and i still wonder if simple cells can't just float around and not be organisms... you can still apply teh definition of a cell to it just as much as you could the definition of organism. and i still wonder about how cells work together in organism that are typically thought of and the newly fertilized egg cells.
so i still think it's reasonably debated, but i think i err on the side of it being an organism for reasons more than just being safe based on basic science arguments, and actually for strong scientific reasons (that is, stronger reasons that i've ever heard any pro-life person argue before).