Fertilization vs. Implantation (1 Viewer)

[thatguymd]

I’ve always thought that the right to life should be granted at the moment someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles. Up until now this always appeared to be at conception (fertilized egg). Obviously that is what most of the pro-life side tries to establish and even pro-choice information doesn’t do anything to dissuade it (usually try to draw the line at consciousness or birth).

I recently read something that made me consider that my criteria may not happen until implantation or, at the very earliest, a 16 cell zygote. I saw this in “Human Identity and Bioethics” by David DeGrazia (if this just isn’t a credible source let me know why). Below I’ll post the key points with some of my comments. Let me know what you think. If you still believe that a human’s development begins at fertilization, let me know why.

First he says that a single cell zygote is a human organism but so is an egg or sperm cell. Normally, I’d mention the major difference of chromosomes. But he mentions this (which I didn’t know):

After the sperm cell enters the egg, their two sets of twenty-three chromosomes remain separate for about a day. As biologist Lee Silver explains, contrary to popular belief, fertilization itself is completed only at the two-cell stage:

[T]he chromosomes in the two pronuclei duplicate themselves separately, and then copies from each come together inside the actual nuclei formed after the first cell division. It is within each of the two nuclei present in the two-cell embryo that a complete set of forty-six human chromosomes commingle for the first time.

So, unless there is a difference other than chromosomes, we should at least move out to the two-cell zygote when fertilization is complete.

He then mentions this for the 2 thru 8 cell zygote:

So far, there is no specialization of these cells to perform different tasks; nor is there interaction or integration among them. In this sense, they are tantamount to a colony of eight contingently joined zygotes. They are not yet functioning as a single organism.

The cells are individual to the point where you can separate them and each one would become a human. So, it is hard to view this as a single person at this point.

Twinning didn’t bother me before because I viewed it as natural cloning. For example, if you cloned me, I was a human all along and you just created an additional human and the zygote did the same at an earlier stage. Not every human has to begin as a zygote but that doesn’t mean the zygote isn’t a human.

The problem here is not that it could clone but rather how it leaves itself open to it. All you have to do is divide its parts, and each will be a separate person. That’s not true of me.

Then comes 16 cells:

Differentiation of cells begins at the sixteen-cell stage, when the outer cells begin to transform into what will become the placenta.

Implantation:

Now, for the first time the embryo begins to absorb nutrients, gaining energy from its environment rather than from internal reserves – one of the characteristic features of an organism

Somewhere between 14 to 16 days after the beginning of fertilization:

…a line of cells differentiates into the primitive streak, the precursor to the spinal cord. Natural or spontaneous twinning is now impossible. The human organism is now uniquely individuated, and it clearly functions as a single integrated unit. From a biological understanding of what we are, therefore, there is no conceptual obstacle to identifying it as a being of our kind.

I am thinking implantation because it gains the last characteristic feature of an organism and the cells are already differentiating and working together. The last stage I don’t care about as much because twinning doesn’t have to be impossible for me. At this stage, I view it more as the twinning I mentioned above.

 

[Rogero]

First he says that a single cell zygote is a human but so is an egg or sperm cell. Normally, I’d mention the major difference of chromosomes. But he mentions this (which I didn’t know):

Quote:
After the sperm cell enters the egg, their two sets of twenty-three chromosomes remain separate for about a day. As biologist Lee Silver explains, contrary to popular belief, fertilization itself is completed only at the two-cell stage:

[T]he chromosomes in the two pronuclei duplicate themselves separately, and then copies from each come together inside the actual nuclei formed after the first cell division. It is within each of the two nuclei present in the two-cell embryo that a complete set of forty-six human chromosomes commingle for the first time.

So, unless there is a difference other than chromosomes, we should at least move out to the two-cell zygote when fertilization is complete.

This is essentially not a problem for calling it an organism, not on the grounds that they have fully mingled, but that they are already on the way to mingling having joined together into one cell. Since both haploids have joined into a ploidy they already an individual. This process is already begun, and it is a fact that cannot be changed, everything that makes the individual is present there in the one entity.

Quote:
So far, there is no specialization of these cells to perform different tasks; nor is there interaction or integration among them. In this sense, they are tantamount to a colony of eight contingently joined zygotes. They are not yet functioning as a single organism.
The cells are individual to the point where you can separate them and each one would become a human. So, it is hard to view this as a single person at this point.

Twinning didn’t bother me before because I viewed it as natural cloning. For example, if you cloned me, I was a human all along and you just created an additional human and the zygote did the same at an earlier stage. Not every human has to begin as a zygote but that doesn’t mean the zygote isn’t a human.

The problem here is not that it could clone but rather how it leaves itself open to it. All you have to do is divide its parts, and each will be a separate person. That’s not true of me.

Specialization is just another means of talking about the somatic cells which have not begun yet to form into bones limbs and organs of the parts of the body, this is an event to happen.

To help you think of this better, were talking about an individual before twin separation, and afterwords there being a separation, two individuals. That separation makes all of the difference, it does not exclude its identity by merely the fact of its plasticity. In Horticulture cloning happens all the time, and we call an individual plant, an individual plant, before the cloning process. Afterwords we have two plants. They are unique in this, because plants can do this to survive. The plasticity of the cells here does not abrogate the fact that when you say "colony" you already refer to something that is individually there, and different from every other organism in existence by its genetic fingerprint.

Then comes 16 cells:

Quote:
Differentiation of cells begins at the sixteen-cell stage, when the outer cells begin to transform into what will become the placenta.
Implantation:

Quote:
Now, for the first time the embryo begins to absorb nutrients, gaining energy from its environment rather than from internal reserves – one of the characteristic features of an organism
Somewhere between 14 to 16 days after the beginning of fertilization:

Quote:
…a line of cells differentiates into the primitive streak, the precursor to the spinal cord. Natural or spontaneous twinning is now impossible. The human organism is now uniquely individuated, and it clearly functions as a single integrated unit. From a biological understanding of what we are, therefore, there is no conceptual obstacle to identifying it as a being of our kind.
I am thinking implantation because it gains the last characteristic feature of an organism and the cells are already differentiating and working together. The last stage I don’t care about as much because twinning doesn’t have to be impossible for me. At this stage, I view it more as the twinning I mentioned above.

The individuated unit existed before this, because all of those other stages are only stages occurring to something that has been existing already.

 

[iangb]

That made for interesting reading, thanks. Do you have an online version of the text? I had a brief search and turned an (unsuprising) blank, but it's always worth a try...

First he says that a single cell zygote is a human organism but so is an egg or sperm cell. Normally, I’d mention the major difference of chromosomes. But he mentions this (which I didn’t know):

Is chromosome count an essential factor of something being a human organism? I'm fairly sure there are conditions linked to people having the 'wrong number' of chromosomes - but they're undeniably human organisms.

Does the author make his own definition of a 'human organism'?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Very interesting for sure, not that it has an impact on when I think personhood begins. :2razz:

 

[thatguymd]

This is essentially not a problem for calling it an organism, not on the grounds that they have fully mingled, but that they are already on the way to mingling having joined together into one cell. Since both haploids have joined into a ploidy they already an individual. This process is already begun, and it is a fact that cannot be changed, everything that makes the individual is present there in the one entity.

I know it isn't a problem calling it an organism. It was just differing it from sperm or egg cells - which could also be considered an organism.

While I may not be 100% clear on all the definitions here, I thought the point was that you don't have a ploidy when there is just a single cell zygote. Are you saying that they don't have to be in the nucleus to be a ploidy?

From what I understand, the chromosomes aren't inside the zygote at all. It is in the same place it was before the sperm entered - the nuclei of the sperm and egg. But since the sperm is inside the egg's membrane, it is the ploidy? So, the human's identity is in the egg itself and not the zygote? How can that be if the egg could have multiple humans inside it?

And what does it matter that the "process has already begun"? Wasn't that true when the sperm started to go inside? Just before? Etc. Isn't the point to find when the process of creating a human has completed and the human has begun its development?

And, again, with everything being inside "one entity" - what is that entity? The egg? Aren't there problems placing a human's identity on the egg itself rather than the zygote?

Specialization is just another means of talking about the somatic cells which have not begun yet to form into bones limbs and organs of the parts of the body, this is an event to happen.

To help you think of this better, were talking about an individual before twin separation, and afterwords there being a separation, two individuals. That separation makes all of the difference, it does not exclude its identity by merely the fact of its plasticity. In Horticulture cloning happens all the time, and we call an individual plant, an individual plant, before the cloning process. Afterwords we have two plants. They are unique in this, because plants can do this to survive. The plasticity of the cells here does not abrogate the fact that when you say "colony" you already refer to something that is individually there, and different from every other organism in existence by its genetic fingerprint.

As I mentioned in the OP, I don't have a problem with the zygote twinning necessarily. It was more how it leaves itself open to the twinning.

Perhaps it would help me if you went into greater detail about the plant cloning process. Do the cells of the original individual plant not interact with each other? Because that is the biggest problem I have with the zygote (8 cells and before). How do we call 8 cells acting on their own a single individual? Especially, when all you need to do is put each one inside their own membrane to be a separate human.

Also, after the first cell division - do you have one human or two? If I separate them, I will have two. So, if the two cells were destine to become one human, did I create one human or kill one and create two in the process? If the former, why did the identity not lie in both cells? If the latter, did I commit murder without destroying any life?

And why does "colony" refer to something "individually there"? A colony of ants is one ant? Please clarify.

Also, why does being genetically different matter? I mean, we were just discussing cloning. If we created a zygote from one of your cells and put it inside an egg, would the lack of genetic difference matter?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I’ve always thought that the right to life should be granted at the moment someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles. Up until now this always appeared to be at conception (fertilized egg). Obviously that is what most of the pro-life side tries to establish and even pro-choice information doesn’t do anything to dissuade it (usually try to draw the line at consciousness or birth).

Even so, the human organism doesn't have higher level thinking or even the ability to sense pain (the nervous system isn't fully developed) until much later, in the 3rd trimester.

I actually think that Nebraska's 20 week law is a good blend of morality/ethics and scientific research.

 

[thatguymd]

That made for interesting reading, thanks. Do you have an online version of the text? I had a brief search and turned an (unsuprising) blank, but it's always worth a try...

I just used books.google.com and amazon. Google - Human identity and bioethics By David DeGrazia. Both of those should show up. I believe you need to have a logon at amazon to see inside the book.

I tend to use both looking at books because neither has every page and the missing pages aren't always the same ones for both. I was looking around page 249...give or take.

Is chromosome count an essential factor of something being a human organism? I'm fairly sure there are conditions linked to people having the 'wrong number' of chromosomes - but they're undeniably human organisms.

It is more that a certain number of chromosomes will eventually mean you aren't human.

Obviously, the major thing for me is finding when human development begins. If the zygote is a single cell organism with fully active DNA and all the chromosomes of an adult, and doing nothing more than developing at that point - than that is what matters. It is more a marker (I thought at the time) when assembly ends and development begins.

Does the author make his own definition of a 'human organism'?

Based on what is in my OP alone, I believe he would put it when the "primitive streak" forms. But he mentions that he is more interested in drawing a line when it definitely hasn't occurred rather than when it has. So, he thinks it is impossible to put it before the 16 cell stage at the very least.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I’ve always thought that the right to life should be granted at the moment someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles. Up until now this always appeared to be at conception (fertilized egg).

Your whole post is interesting but I'm just quoting this to respond to it separately.

The basis of this belief, here, seems contradictory. . . as so it does with the 16-cell zygote which is brought up later.

'right to life should be granted when someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles.'
and then connect that to:
'that always appeared to be at conception'
or connect that to 'when it is a 16 cell zygote'

How can an organism be independent on their own internal principles when they, physically, are 100% dependent on another being for survival?

The connection *should* be stated as 'partially independent' or 'developing independence' or something of that nature.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your whole post is interesting but I'm just quoting this to respond to it separately.

The basis of this belief, here, seems contradictory. . . as so it does with the 16-cell zygote which is brought up later.

'right to life should be granted when someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles.'
and then connect that to:
'that always appeared to be at conception'
or connect that to 'when it is a 16 cell zygote'

How can an organism be independent on their own internal principles when they, physically, are 100% dependent on another being for survival?

The connection *should* be stated as 'partially independent' or 'developing independence' or something of that nature.

The scientific criteria for an organism to be viewed 'independently' is not that the creature must completely without dependency upon another.

Scientifically,... biologically,... a living zygote is seen as 'independent' because the lif it is living (however small an deniable by most of the readers here) is contained within it's own body.

It (a zygote) no matter how small, under-developed, deniable, un-concious, un-aware, inconvienient to others,... etc....

It is living a life of it's own.

period.

 

[iangb]

The scientific criteria for an organism to be viewed 'independently' is not that the creature must completely without dependency upon another.

Scientifically,... biologically,... a living zygote is seen as 'independent' because the lif it is living (however small an deniable by most of the readers here) is contained within it's own body.

It (a zygote) no matter how small, under-developed, deniable, un-concious, un-aware, inconvienient to others,... etc....

It is living a life of it's own.

period.

Do you have any evidence for this?

A sperm cell is 'contained within it's own body' just as much as a zygote is; as is a skin cell, hair cell, blood cell, etc. Your use of the term - and I emphasise 'your use', to contrast with the 'scientific use' that you claim it is - not only makes the 'independent' qualifier a totally redundant one, but is tautological at the extreme. You're claiming a zygote must be 'an individual' simply because you consider it to be 'an individual'.

 

[thatguymd]

Your whole post is interesting but I'm just quoting this to respond to it separately.

The basis of this belief, here, seems contradictory. . . as so it does with the 16-cell zygote which is brought up later.

'right to life should be granted when someone is a human organism operating independently on their own internal principles.'
and then connect that to:
'that always appeared to be at conception'
or connect that to 'when it is a 16 cell zygote'

How can an organism be independent on their own internal principles when they, physically, are 100% dependent on another being for survival?

The connection *should* be stated as 'partially independent' or 'developing independence' or something of that nature.

I said "operating independantly". You don't believe it operates independantly? Something else is directing it?

Also, why does the phyiscal dependance matter? We are all phyiscally dependant. So, is it just because it is on one being? How spread out does my dependance need to be before I'm independant?

If the earth disappeared right now, I'd be SOL. So, I don't operate independantly?

If we create an artificial womb, then the zygote (single, 16-cell, whenever) would be operating independantly?

 

[OKgrannie]

I said "operating independantly". You don't believe it operates independantly? Something else is directing it?

Also, why does the phyiscal dependance matter? We are all phyiscally dependant. So, is it just because it is on one being? How spread out does my dependance need to be before I'm independant?

If the earth disappeared right now, I'd be SOL. So, I don't operate independantly?

If we create an artificial womb, then the zygote (single, 16-cell, whenever) would be operating independantly?

We are all socially dependent, or interdependent. We are not physically dependent. It matters if you're the one who's being depended upon and you don't want to provide for the dependent.

Why Abortion is Moral -- By Elroy

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

 

[Chuz Life]

The scientific criteria for an organism to be viewed 'independently' is not that the creature must be completely without dependency upon another.

Scientifically,... biologically,... a living zygote is seen as 'independent' because the life it is living (however small an deniable by most of the readers here) is contained within it's own body.

It (a zygote) no matter how small, under-developed, deniable, un-concious, un-aware, inconvienient to others,... etc....

It is living a life of it's own.

period.

(edited)

Do you have any evidence for this?

What kind of evidence do you require?

Do you disagree with what I said?

If so,... why?

A sperm cell is 'contained within it's own body' just as much as a zygote is; as is a skin cell, hair cell, blood cell, etc.

True.

Do you understand (appreciate) the significance in the differences between the individual cells of an organism and an organism as a whole?

Your use of the term - and I emphasise 'your use', to contrast with the 'scientific use' that you claim it is - not only makes the 'independent' qualifier a totally redundant one, but is tautological at the extreme. You're claiming a zygote must be 'an individual' simply because you consider it to be 'an individual'.

My claim is that a zygote (any creature of any species which is in the zygote stage of it's life) is biologically an 'individual' of its species,... Not because I say so... But because they can be observed as such; whether I personally regard them as individuals or not.

They are (in essense) 'self evident.'

 

[scourge99]

(edited)



What kind of evidence do you require?

Do you disagree with what I said?

If so,... why?



True.

Do you understand (appreciate) the significance in the differences between the individual cells of an organism and an organism as a whole?



My claim is that a zygote (any creature of any species which is in the zygote stage of it's life) is biologically an 'individual' of its species,... Not because I say so... But because they can be observed as such; whether I personally regard them as individuals or not.

They are (in essense) 'self evident.'

A brain dead baby or a brain dead adult is also an organism. I don't see why classification as an organism matters.

If a rock or a dog somehow mysteriously develops the capability to think and interact intelligibly at a human level, would you argue that such a being or object has no right to life? If not then this whole discussion about what is or isn't an organism is irrelevant to abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

A brain dead baby or a brain dead adult is also an organism.

True.

I don't see why classification as an organism matters.

It clearly matters to those who try to deny that classification to zygotes, embryo's and even (per some who've posted here) fetuses.

Why do you suppose they fight so hard to deny even the classification of "organism" to a newly conceived zygote?

If a rock or a dog somehow mysteriously develops the capability to think and interact intelligibly at a human level, would you argue that such a being or object has no right to life?

No need for all that.

I already argue that every living thing has a 'right' to the life it is living, the right to (try to) defend itself and to survive as best it can. "period."

If not then this whole discussion about what is or isn't an organism is irrelevant to abortion.

If you want to convince yourself that something is not relevant, go right ahead. I'm goin this way~~~

 

[iangb]

What kind of evidence do you require?

Do you disagree with what I said?

If so,... why?

The evidence being that, of all the possible meanings that 'independent existence' could take, your version is the one that should be used - and the one that is used in the relevant context.

True.

Do you understand (appreciate) the significance in the differences between the individual cells of an organism and an organism as a whole?

Aren't you claiming that you're talking about a single-celled organism here?
In answer to your question - the difference is that of 'independent existence'. That's as I use the term, not as you do - to mean 'capable of living and developing without biological attachment to the main body'; in other words, beyond viability.

My claim is that a zygote (any creature of any species which is in the zygote stage of it's life) is biologically an 'individual' of its species,... Not because I say so... But because they can be observed as such; whether I personally regard them as individuals or not.

They are (in essense) 'self evident.'

That last line, I think, is a real teller. When someone says 'self-evident' to me, I immediately think of an axiom - your axiom is that a zygote is an individual, an axiom that you share with a great many pro-lifers. But something self-evident - an axiom - is not necessarily true. And it is most certainly 'in the eye of the beholder'. Different people, different axioms, different worldviews. It's possible this is one of yours.

 

[thatguymd]

We are all socially dependent, or interdependent. We are not physically dependent. It matters if you're the one who's being depended upon and you don't want to provide for the dependent.

Why Abortion is Moral -- By Elroy

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Um... did you read my post? Or just saw the word dependant and posted a standard argument?

So, dependance on the earth's existence is social dependance?

And that's quite an interesting definition of physical dependance. Almost like they wanted it defined to match this situation.

Based on your own definition - the ZEF isn't physically dependant if we create an artifical womb, correct? Doesn't it seem strange to base whether a ZEF has a right to life on something outside the ZEF?

 

[scourge99]

It clearly matters to those who try to deny that classification to zygotes, embryo's and even (per some who've posted here) fetuses

Why do you believe it matters to them? Why would holding such a position matter either way?
It appears you are doing everything you can to avoid answering the question: why does classification of an organism matter in the abortion debate?

That goes for both pro-life and pro-choice sides. Apparently you don't have an answer chuz.

Why do you suppose they fight so hard to deny even the classification of "organism" to a newly conceived zygote?

why don't you tell me since you are so enthralled with the discussion?
Why are you so adament in addressing such a thing unless its relevant?
I don't see how its relevant to either side.

No need for all that.

I already argue that every living thing has a 'right' to the life it is living, the right to (try to) defend itself and to survive as best it can. "period."

how is this relevant to my question?
Do you believe its morally permissable to kill a dog, animal, object with intellgence and reasoning capability roughly equivalent to a human adult? Why or why not?

Your response that the dog, animal, or object has a right to defend itself does not answer the question.

If you want to convince yourself that something is not relevant, go right ahead. I'm goin this way~~~

[/quotea] so its a secret why its relevant? Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

I am speculating that its because you don't like the inevitable conclusion we would arrive at if you were to answer directly. That this whole discussion about what is or isn't an organism is fairly irrelevant to the abortion debate.

 

[Chuz Life]

The evidence being that, of all the possible meanings that 'independent existence' could take, your version is the one that should be used - and the one that is used in the relevant context.

Where do you get this "My version" business? We all have the same "version" (reality) in my opinion. It then becomes a matter of how willing we are to respect and adhere to that reality when promted to consider it.

Aren't you claiming that you're talking about a single-celled organism here?

A zygote is for a relatively brief period of time unicellular,... And it is an organism contained in it's own little body or vessel at that time. Sure.

Point?

In answer to your question - the difference is that of 'independent existence'. That's as I use the term, not as you do - to mean 'capable of living and developing without biological attachment to the main body'; in other words, beyond viability.

Yes,.. we have well established the fact that I use the facts, definitions and reality surrounding the moment of conception 'inclusively' and you use the attributes that the newly conceived (fill in the blank here) has to 'exclude' them.

No news in that.

That last line, I think, is a real teller. When someone says 'self-evident' to me, I immediately think of an axiom - your axiom is that a zygote is an individual, an axiom that you share with a great many pro-lifers. But something self-evident - an axiom - is not necessarily true. And it is most certainly 'in the eye of the beholder'. Different people, different axioms, different worldviews. It's possible this is one of yours.

You yourself refereed to an individual zygote,... just now,... as "a zygote."

That would be "a zygote" as it would be apart from any other.

And that simple faux pas seems to go right over your head.

But I know (from the way you conduct yourself in these threads) that you know better. You do 'get it.' You simply are too invested in your points of view to ever admit to it.

 

[Chuz Life]

1: Why do you believe it matters to them?

2: Why would holding such a position matter either way?

It appears you are doing everything you can to avoid answering the question:

3: why does classification of an organism matter in the abortion debate?

That goes for both pro-life and pro-choice sides. Apparently you don't have an answer chuz.

4: why don't you tell me since you are so enthralled with the discussion?

5: Why are you so adament in addressing such a thing unless its relevant?

I don't see how its relevant to either side.

6: how is this relevant to my question?

7: Do you believe its morally permissable to kill a dog, animal, object with intellgence and reasoning capability roughly equivalent to a human adult?

8: Why or why not?

Your response that the dog, animal, or object has a right to defend itself does not answer the question.

9: so its a secret why its relevant?

10: Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

I am speculating that its because you don't like the inevitable conclusion we would arrive at if you were to answer directly.

That this whole discussion about what is or isn't an organism is fairly irrelevant to the abortion debate.

If you want to believe it's irrelevant,.... why the 10 questions?

 

[scourge99]

If you want to believe it's irrelevant,.... why the 10 questions?

I have stated why I don't find any reason that it is. If you believe I am wrong then please present your evidence or reasoning so that I and others may evaluate it. If I'm wrongi want to know WHY.
Do you expect me and others to trust that you have some reason or evidence but are simply unwilling or unable to share it?

Do you believe you are fooling readers or me by dancing around the questions?

 

[Chuz Life]

I have stated why I don't find any reason that it is. If you believe I am wrong then please present your evidence or reasoning so that I and others may evaluate it. If I'm wrongi want to know WHY.
Do you expect me and others to trust that you have some reason or evidence but are simply unwilling or unable to share it?

Do you believe you are fooling readers or me by dancing around the questions?

I believe the other readers know, appreciate and understand the relevance of whether or not a zygote can be classified as an organism. I also believe (despite your insistence that you don't) that YOU understand the relevance.

I chuz not to be baited.

 

[scourge99]

I believe the other readers know, appreciate and understand the relevance of whether or not a zygote can be classified as an organism. I also believe (despite your insistence that you don't) that YOU understand the relevance.

I chuz not to be baited.

Does anyone else here know why its pertinant to the abortion debate to define organism and to precisely determine when a developing human reaches such a classification?

I agree that all humans are organisms and that we only know organisms that are capable of thought and intelligent actions. But I contend its not the classification as organism that is relevant to a determination of what actions or inactions are morally permissable against them.
I believe it is narrowsighted and therefore irrelevant to focus on such criteria without reason. Instead, one should determine the exact criteria for qualification of rights rather than willy-nilly picking common attributes from things presuppossed to have rights.

That is, the fact that all things that we grant rights to are organisms isn't the reason for the rights. It is merely a commonality.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is, the fact that all things that we grant rights to are organisms isn't the reason for the rights. It is merely a commonality.

Here's a clue....

"Your right that you have to your life,.... was it granted to you? Or, would you have your right to your life,... even if a majority in your society decided that you don't qualify by whatever arbitrarily decided factors they could come up with to decide that you don't?"

 

[1069]

Well, I've already posted my opinion of the great "fertilization vs. implantation" debate.
I hate to be redundant, so you can just go read it here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...e-your-stance-abortion-if.html#post1058673895

Those are my thoughts on why prolifers have recently made such a big stink about believing that life begins at implantation, rather than conception.

As for myself, I don't believe it begins at either, and what's more I don't care one iota.