"Organism", semantics, and objectivity[W:70,89]

[iangb]

Many many pro-lifers (and the occasional pro-choicer) on this forum has stated, in varying forms, that "it is an objective scientific fact that a human zygote is an organism/human being". I keep popping up to dispute this, and the discussion disintegrates - only to re-emerge again quite quickly somewhere else. As such, this thread is designed to lay the matter to rest, one way or the other (I suspect that's unlikely to happen, but you never know your luck!). There are two ways in which this claim is disputed. First one goes in this post, second one in the next, complete with evidence for both. Apologies for the length!

Firstly, while "organism"/"human being" are indeed terms used by scientists, the manner in which they have come to be defined is not scientific in itself - it is merely semantic. That means that some scientists may consider a zygote to be an organism/human being, others do not - this is a subjective semantic differentiation, not an objective scientific one. "A human zygote is an organism" is a personal opinion, not an objective fact.

Evidence time! Mostly mined from previous posts of mine, I don't think any of it has actually be addressed before though...

1) "Human being" is not an objectively scientific term - rather, it is a psycological/philosophical one. What constitutes a 'human being' is not well defined, as with 'person' etc - even within the law, there are conflicting definitions (see foetal homicide laws, which vary wildly from state to state). A brief challenge - if you believe differently - define 'human being' (or even 'organism') and I will show you that your definition either includes things which clearly are not a human being (skin or sperm cells, for example, or transplanted organs), excludes things which clearly are human beings (conjoined twins or chimeras, normally), does not include a zygote/embryo/foetus, or is so convoluted and designed with pro-life in mind as to be uncitable.

2) Because these terms are not fixed, they are used for a variety of purposes. That means that...

...there are lots of different 'starting points' for an organism....

” In this argument, the question is at what point after fertilization of egg by sperm the cell mass becomes a human being. This seems an ethical impasse which science may not be able to resolve. For ethical decision making on stem cell research, we should determine when a new human entity comes into existence. According to the scientific facts, there are significant points for delineation of human embryos, including: the moment of fertilization, the point of implantation in the uterus, the initial appearance of the primitive streak (19 days), the beginning of heartbeat (23 days), the development of brain waves (48 days), the point at which essential internal and external structures are complete (56 days), the point at which the fetus begins to move (12-13 weeks) (Hinman, 2009), and the point when the foetus would be viable outside the uterus (Balint, 2001).”
~Bioethics in the 21st Century, Chapter 6: Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues (Farzaneh Zahedi-Anaraki and Bagher Larijani)
Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues | InTechOpen​

...and the definitions themselves are debatable, or irrelevant to use out of the specific context for which they originated...

” Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept.
…
The foregoing discussion suggests that when biologists pose questions requiring the recognition of organisms, they should be explicit about what criteria they are using and why. This does not, however, require that we use only one operational definition for all purposes.”
~Pepper JW, Herron MD (Does biology need an organism concept?) Biological Reviews 83: 621–627.
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/mherron/publications/BR_08.pdf

” Defining an organism has long been a tricky problem for biologists.
…
Amongst biologists, there has been a lack of agreement on exactly what is required to make something an organism. A common approach to defining an organism is to consider things that clearly are organisms, and to then determine the attributes making them what they are.”
~Stuart A. West, E. Toby Kiers (Evolution: What is an organism?) Current Biology Volume 19, Issue 23, 15 December 2009, Pages R1080–R1082
ScienceDirect.com - Current Biology - Evolution: What Is an Organism?

” Biology lacks a central organism concept that unambiguously marks the distinction between organism and non-organism because the most important questions about organisms do not depend on this concept.”
Jack A. Wilson (Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations) Philosophy of Science Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep., 2000), pp. S301-S311
Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations

” The evolution of organismality is a social process.
…
we do not necessarily need to define the organism to do most of our work as biologists”
~ David C. Queller and Joan E. Strassmann (Beyond society: the evolution of organismality) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 November 2009 vol. 364 no. 1533 3143-3155
Beyond society: the evolution of organismality​

Notice that, in order to address the point I am raising in this post, simply posting more reasons why you or others consider a zygote to be an organism is pointless. The problem I am raising in this post is not "a zygote is not an organism", but "the concept of an 'organism' is a subjective one".

Part two coming very shortly - a list of sources which do not consider a zygote to be an organism.

to be continued...

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

…here!

Partly supporting the argument from my previous post, and partly because it echoes my own views, there is a whole bunch of evidence that a zygote should not be considered an organism/human being. Obviously unless this evidence can be countered, it stands as proof that ‘organism’ is at best a subjective term, at worst something which excludes a zygote.

There are, it must be said, some embryological textbooks which state that the newly-fertilised zygote is the start of a human being. However, the vast majority of such textbooks were published in the early 1990's or (often decades) earlier, before IVF was commonplace or much was known about stem cells. If you look at the most recent versions of many of these textbooks, these statements (which tended in the first place to be lines mentioned in passing in an introduction to the book) have been removed. At least one book has gone one step further to clarify:

”The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of conception, the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution”
Before We are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects - with STUDENT CONSULT Online Access Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology & Birth Defects: Amazon.co.uk: Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud: Books.​

...and other embryological textbooks offer views opposed to the pro-life claim:

” The zygote formed undergoes mitosis repeatedly to form the embryo which later develops into an organism”
Textbook of Human Oral Embryology, Anatomy, Physiology, Histology & Tooth Morphology: Amazon.co.uk: K.M.K. Masthan: Books​

...as do journal articles:

”each embryo, having the ability to develop into an individual, is valuable”
Morphological appearance of the cryopreserved mouse blastocyst as a tool to identify the type of cryoinjury
​

...and other biology textbooks:

Completion of mitosis then gives rise to two embryonic cells, each containing a new diploid genome. These cells then commence the series of embryonic cell divisions that eventually lead to the development of a new organism.
~The Cell: A Molecular Approach. 2nd edition. Geoffrey M Cooper.
Meiosis and Fertilization - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.​

...and even the medical dictionary:

Reproduction: the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
~Merriam-Webbster Medical dictionary (online).​

...which indicates if nothing else that the question is a subjective one, since multiple scientific sources give multiple conflicting answers. Note that the first source, Moore and Persuad, is from the updated edition of an older textbook that pro-lifers love to quote (Tosca has done it very recently). It’s an unequivocal statement from the mouth of a source which pro-lifers have already declared to be trustworthy, which puts them in the awkward position of conceding that what it says is true, or trashing a source which they originally held up as being the gold standard in such debates and, in doing so, displaying a not inconsiderable level of hypocrisy.

It's also worth pointing out that something being the 'beginning of' a human being is not the same as being a human being. There are plenty of examples of this: cake mix is the beginning of a cake (but is not a cake yet), the bride's entrance is the beginning of a wedding (but is not the wedding itself), the '.' character is the beginning of this post (but the post was not a post until I hit 'send'), and so on. Many of the sources that are claimed to be pro-life are worded this way, and as such do not actually support the pro-life POV.

Finally, there are plenty of other problems with a zygote being an organism which I will not go into in detail here. Things like the identity problem (when chimeras/monozygotic twins are made), the dependence problem (a zygote can only perform life functions through the direct biological intervention of the woman) and more (if my skin cells could be made totipotent, does that mean that all of my skin cells are human beings too?). I think I’ll save those for another day, though.

 

[nota bene]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

A zygote is an organism, a human organism that is completely itself. I am not interested in semantics. I do understand the difference between a scientific definition and a legal one.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, and I appreciate the thought you put into the OP. But for me, this is all about trying to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

A zygote is an organism, a human organism that is completely itself. I am not interested in semantics. I do understand the difference between a scientific definition and a legal one.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, and I appreciate the thought you put into the OP. But for me, this is all about trying to justify the unjustifiable.

The problem is, so many of the abortion debates boil down to this fundmental, and people keep using it as part of a larger argument, yourself included.

If a zygote is objectively not an organism, abortion should be ethically and legally fine (or higher-level arguments about non-human 'persons' need to be invoked, though I can't think of many who'd use them).
If a zygote is objectively an organism, abortion should be ethically and legally questionable (or higher-level arguments about personhood, conflicting rights etc need to be invoked, which happens fairly often)

But if a zygote is subjectively either an organism or not, depending on your POV, then the nature of the debate hugely shifts. The pro-life position stops becoming "protecting the rights of the undeniably human just like emancipation" and starts being "forcing my subjective opinion onto others just like PETA". If you accept that other people are justified in believing differently from you about the nature of pregnancy, then it becomes increasingly difficult to moraly force them to accept your own views. You are entitled to your own opinions up to the moment that you try to force them onto other people.

I know that you personally are by far amongst the least abrasive etc of posters in this forum, and some of the OP was definitely aimed elsewhere. But still, I'd ask you two (chains of) questions.

1) Do you consider your claim (that a zygote is an organism) to be a matter of objective fact, or of subjective opinion? If the former, post #1 (and #2) poses you something of a problem; if the latter, you are faced with the problem I've just outlined in this post.
2) Subjective or objective, on what do you base your claim that a zygote is an organism? What about this basis makes it superior to the scientific sources I cited in post #2 which state the opposite?

 

[Paleocon]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Many many pro-lifers (and the occasional pro-choicer) on this forum has stated, in varying forms, that "it is an objective scientific fact that a human zygote is an organism/human being". I keep popping up to dispute this, and the discussion disintegrates - only to re-emerge again quite quickly somewhere else. As such, this thread is designed to lay the matter to rest, one way or the other (I suspect that's unlikely to happen, but you never know your luck!). There are two ways in which this claim is disputed. First one goes in this post, second one in the next, complete with evidence for both. Apologies for the length!

Firstly, while "organism"/"human being" are indeed terms used by scientists, the manner in which they have come to be defined is not scientific in itself - it is merely semantic. That means that some scientists may consider a zygote to be an organism/human being, others do not - this is a subjective semantic differentiation, not an objective scientific one. "A human zygote is an organism" is a personal opinion, not an objective fact.

Evidence time! Mostly mined from previous posts of mine, I don't think any of it has actually be addressed before though...

1) "Human being" is not an objectively scientific term - rather, it is a psycological/philosophical one. What constitutes a 'human being' is not well defined, as with 'person' etc - even within the law, there are conflicting definitions (see foetal homicide laws, which vary wildly from state to state). A brief challenge - if you believe differently - define 'human being' (or even 'organism') and I will show you that your definition either includes things which clearly are not a human being (skin or sperm cells, for example, or transplanted organs), excludes things which clearly are human beings (conjoined twins or chimeras, normally), does not include a zygote/embryo/foetus, or is so convoluted and designed with pro-life in mind as to be uncitable.

2) Because these terms are not fixed, they are used for a variety of purposes. That means that...

...there are lots of different 'starting points' for an organism....

” In this argument, the question is at what point after fertilization of egg by sperm the cell mass becomes a human being. This seems an ethical impasse which science may not be able to resolve. For ethical decision making on stem cell research, we should determine when a new human entity comes into existence. According to the scientific facts, there are significant points for delineation of human embryos, including: the moment of fertilization, the point of implantation in the uterus, the initial appearance of the primitive streak (19 days), the beginning of heartbeat (23 days), the development of brain waves (48 days), the point at which essential internal and external structures are complete (56 days), the point at which the fetus begins to move (12-13 weeks) (Hinman, 2009), and the point when the foetus would be viable outside the uterus (Balint, 2001).”
~Bioethics in the 21st Century, Chapter 6: Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues (Farzaneh Zahedi-Anaraki and Bagher Larijani)
Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues | InTechOpen​

...and the definitions themselves are debatable, or irrelevant to use out of the specific context for which they originated...

” Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept.
…
The foregoing discussion suggests that when biologists pose questions requiring the recognition of organisms, they should be explicit about what criteria they are using and why. This does not, however, require that we use only one operational definition for all purposes.”
~Pepper JW, Herron MD (Does biology need an organism concept?) Biological Reviews 83: 621–627.
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/mherron/publications/BR_08.pdf

” Defining an organism has long been a tricky problem for biologists.
…
Amongst biologists, there has been a lack of agreement on exactly what is required to make something an organism. A common approach to defining an organism is to consider things that clearly are organisms, and to then determine the attributes making them what they are.”
~Stuart A. West, E. Toby Kiers (Evolution: What is an organism?) Current Biology Volume 19, Issue 23, 15 December 2009, Pages R1080–R1082
ScienceDirect.com - Current Biology - Evolution: What Is an Organism?

” Biology lacks a central organism concept that unambiguously marks the distinction between organism and non-organism because the most important questions about organisms do not depend on this concept.”
Jack A. Wilson (Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations) Philosophy of Science Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep., 2000), pp. S301-S311
Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations

” The evolution of organismality is a social process.
…
we do not necessarily need to define the organism to do most of our work as biologists”
~ David C. Queller and Joan E. Strassmann (Beyond society: the evolution of organismality) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 November 2009 vol. 364 no. 1533 3143-3155
Beyond society: the evolution of organismality​

Notice that, in order to address the point I am raising in this post, simply posting more reasons why you or others consider a zygote to be an organism is pointless. The problem I am raising in this post is not "a zygote is not an organism", but "the concept of an 'organism' is a subjective one".

Part two coming very shortly - a list of sources which do not consider a zygote to be an organism.

to be continued...

A human bring is a being, which is human, and which has the ontological potential to develop into a fully grown human.

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

A human bring is a being, which is human, and which has the ontological potential to develop into a fully grown human.

To quote myself in the same post that you quoted:

Notice that, in order to address the point I am raising in this post, simply posting more reasons why you or others consider a zygote to be an organism is pointless. The problem I am raising in this post is not "a zygote is not an organism", but "the concept of an 'organism' is a subjective one".

You implied argument, that a zygote is a human being, is irrelevant because it does not relate to the main problem I outlined in the post. Either your post here is trying to make an objective claim, in which case it runs into the problems mentioned in the post, or you are trying to make a subjective one, which renders it somewhat useless from the pro-life POV.

Furthermore, it raises the question of what constitutes a 'being'. I suspect we would follow a semantic chain back to 'organism' and then the whole shebang would begin again. Just by counterexample; a sperm cell has the ontological potential to develop into a fully grown human (and incidentally, a child with an incurable terminal disease does not have the potential to develop into a fully grown human, but is nonetheless called a 'human being')

 

[prometeus]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

A zygote is an organism, a human organism that is completely itself.

By your edict no less?

I am not interested in semantics.

No one is, but referring to science as semantics does show what you are interested in.

I do understand the difference between a scientific definition and a legal one.

Apparently not.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, and I appreciate the thought you put into the OP. But for me, this is all about trying to justify the unjustifiable.

The unjustifiable in your opinion with nothing factually justifiable. Par for the course.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

A human bring is a being, which is human, and which has the ontological potential to develop into a fully grown human.

By definition, a 'human being' or a person is born. That is the legal definition.

All else is subjective and a matter of belief

 

[Paleocon]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

By definition, a 'human being' or a person is born. That is the legal definition.

All else is subjective and a matter of belief

That's just your opinion.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Firstly, while "organism"/"human being" are indeed terms used by scientists, the manner in which they have come to be defined is not scientific in itself - it is merely semantic.

But, that's simply your opinion!

Whether it's semantic or not - the SCIENTIFIC FACT still remains that life begins at conception.

That means that some scientists may consider a zygote to be an organism/human being, others do not - this is a subjective semantic differentiation, not an objective scientific one.

:roll:

Doesn't make sense.

How can a scientific FACT not be objective? :lol:

If it's a scientific fact - it becomes the truth!

If it's scientific, and it's a fact - it IS objective!


Objectivity means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Based on that argument you're trying to use - I can say that you're not being objective about this.

 

[sangha]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Whether it's semantic or not - the SCIENTIFIC FACT still remains that life begins at conception.

No, the SCIENTIFIC FACT about the beginning of life is "Life began millions of years ago"

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

…here!

Partly supporting the argument from my previous post, and partly because it echoes my own views, there is a whole bunch of evidence that a zygote should not be considered an organism/human being. Obviously unless this evidence can be countered, it stands as proof that ‘organism’ is at best a subjective term, at worst something which excludes a zygote.

There are, it must be said, some embryological textbooks which state that the newly-fertilised zygote is the start of a human being. However, the vast majority of such textbooks were published in the early 1990's or (often decades) earlier, before IVF was commonplace or much was known about stem cells. If you look at the most recent versions of many of these textbooks, these statements (which tended in the first place to be lines mentioned in passing in an introduction to the book) have been removed. At least one book has gone one step further to clarify:

[I]”The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of conception, the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution"[/I]
Before We are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects - with STUDENT CONSULT Online Access Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology & Birth Defects: Amazon.co.uk: Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud: Books.​

Your quote is incomplete. Here is Keith Moore's actual quote:


Keith Moore, in his textbook Before We Are Born responds to the question "When does the embryo become human"," as follows:12

"This is a difficult question to answer because one's views are affected by one's religion and the views of one's peers. The scientific answer is that the embryo always had human potential, and no other, from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosome constitution.

Two things are definite: (1) human development begins at fertilization and (2) the zygote and early embryo are living organisms. My personal view is that the embryo becomes a human being during the eighth week when it acquires distinctive human characteristics, but you will have to decide for yourself after wide consultation. "

Moore has provided two answers: the biological one and the socio-legal one.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_09defensehumandev.html

That quote is consistent with his other statements from his various books.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


Even the title of his book!

The Developing Human: clinically oriented embryology

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

2) Because these terms are not fixed, they are used for a variety of purposes. That means that...

...there are lots of different 'starting points' for an organism....

” In this argument, the question is at what point after fertilization of egg by sperm the cell mass becomes a human being. This seems an ethical impasse which science may not be able to resolve. For ethical decision making on stem cell research, we should determine when a new human entity comes into existence. According to the scientific facts, there are significant points for delineation of human embryos, including: the moment of fertilization, the point of implantation in the uterus, the initial appearance of the primitive streak (19 days), the beginning of heartbeat (23 days), the development of brain waves (48 days), the point at which essential internal and external structures are complete (56 days), the point at which the fetus begins to move (12-13 weeks) (Hinman, 2009), and the point when the foetus would be viable outside the uterus (Balint, 2001).”
~Bioethics in the 21st Century, Chapter 6: Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues (Farzaneh Zahedi-Anaraki and Bagher Larijani)
Stem Cells: Ethical and Religious Issues | InTechOpen​

There is a controversy with stem cell - specifically EMBRYONIC stem cell - because of the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. Therefore, you get biased opinion when you talk to someone who supports stem cell research. And of course you'd get various "starting points," because they keep trying to shift the parameters!

Who would've thought that some would equate a 5 year old child to a fetus? Just shows you how they can easily shift things around once there's been a precedence!

A 5 year old boy is like a fetus - Iangb, do you buy that?

...and the definitions themselves are debatable, or irrelevant to use out of the specific context for which they originated...

The fact that life begins at fertilization is not debatable!

It's already a scientific fact! Proven.

” Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept.
…
The foregoing discussion suggests that when biologists pose questions requiring the recognition of organisms, they should be explicit about what criteria they are using and why. This does not, however, require that we use only one operational definition for all purposes.”
~Pepper JW, Herron MD (Does biology need an organism concept?) Biological Reviews 83: 621–627.
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/mherron/publications/BR_08.pdf

” Defining an organism has long been a tricky problem for biologists.
…
Amongst biologists, there has been a lack of agreement on exactly what is required to make something an organism. A common approach to defining an organism is to consider things that clearly are organisms, and to then determine the attributes making them what they are.”
~Stuart A. West, E. Toby Kiers (Evolution: What is an organism?) Current Biology Volume 19, Issue 23, 15 December 2009, Pages R1080–R1082
ScienceDirect.com - Current Biology - Evolution: What Is an Organism?

” Biology lacks a central organism concept that unambiguously marks the distinction between organism and non-organism because the most important questions about organisms do not depend on this concept.”
Jack A. Wilson (Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations) Philosophy of Science Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep., 2000), pp. S301-S311
Ontological Butchery: Organism Concepts and Biological Generalizations

” The evolution of organismality is a social process.
…
we do not necessarily need to define the organism to do most of our work as biologists”
~ David C. Queller and Joan E. Strassmann (Beyond society: the evolution of organismality) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 November 2009 vol. 364 no. 1533 3143-3155
Beyond society: the evolution of organismality​

Notice that, in order to address the point I am raising in this post, simply posting more reasons why you or others consider a zygote to be an organism is pointless. The problem I am raising in this post is not "a zygote is not an organism", but "the concept of an 'organism' is a subjective one".

Part two coming very shortly - a list of sources which do not consider a zygote to be an organism.

to be continued...

All that talk means nothing. The SCIENTIFIC facts remain the same:

Humans produce humans.

Life of a human begins at conception.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

From a scientific standpoint. The fertilization of the male and female gametes begins the process of ontogenesis.

DEF: Ontogenesis is the development of an individual organism or anatomical or behavioral feature from the earliest stage to maturity. This happens in all life forms.

A human life form is only seen to be superior to all other life forms because human intelligences has managed to declare itself superior to all other life forms. But the reality is - the human life form is just one among millions that have ever existed on the planet. Each life form bears its own brand of uniqueness.

So for all of you that believe humans deserve to play god over all other life forms...because you believe that god created humans to rule over all other life forms. Your religion has taught you that. Great, you choose to believe that. But not all religions have the same tenets. None-the-less, humans are also extremely destructive to humans and all other life forms. Humans are probably the deadliest life form ever...

In the end, all life forms are subject to die from every known possible means. This includes zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, teens, adults...of all ages. No stage of human development is exempt. None!

In the real world, within the United States, a nation ruled by law. According to the laws of the land, whether or one likes the laws of land or not, women may kill a non-viable embryo, early stage fetus "at will". No questions asked, The state has no interests. Just ordinary reality.

I support women's right to terminate (or if you prefer - kill), at will, a non-viable embryo or early stage fetus.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

…here!

Partly supporting the argument from my previous post, and partly because it echoes my own views, there is a whole bunch of evidence that a zygote should not be considered an organism/human being. Obviously unless this evidence can be countered, it stands as proof that ‘organism’ is at best a subjective term, at worst something which excludes a zygote.

There are, it must be said, some embryological textbooks which state that the newly-fertilised zygote is the start of a human being. However, the vast majority of such textbooks were published in the early 1990's or (often decades) earlier, before IVF was commonplace or much was known about stem cells. If you look at the most recent versions of many of these textbooks, these statements (which tended in the first place to be lines mentioned in passing in an introduction to the book) have been removed. At least one book has gone one step further to clarify:

”The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of conception, the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution”
Before We are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects - with STUDENT CONSULT Online Access Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology & Birth Defects: Amazon.co.uk: Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud: Books.​

...and other embryological textbooks offer views opposed to the pro-life claim:

” The zygote formed undergoes mitosis repeatedly to form the embryo which later develops into an organism”
Textbook of Human Oral Embryology, Anatomy, Physiology, Histology & Tooth Morphology: Amazon.co.uk: K.M.K. Masthan: Books​

...as do journal articles:

”each embryo, having the ability to develop into an individual, is valuable”
Morphological appearance of the cryopreserved mouse blastocyst as a tool to identify the type of cryoinjury
​

...and other biology textbooks:

Completion of mitosis then gives rise to two embryonic cells, each containing a new diploid genome. These cells then commence the series of embryonic cell divisions that eventually lead to the development of a new organism.
~The Cell: A Molecular Approach. 2nd edition. Geoffrey M Cooper.
Meiosis and Fertilization - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.​

...and even the medical dictionary:

Reproduction: the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
~Merriam-Webbster Medical dictionary (online).​

...which indicates if nothing else that the question is a subjective one, since multiple scientific sources give multiple conflicting answers. Note that the first source, Moore and Persuad, is from the updated edition of an older textbook that pro-lifers love to quote (Tosca has done it very recently). It’s an unequivocal statement from the mouth of a source which pro-lifers have already declared to be trustworthy, which puts them in the awkward position of conceding that what it says is true, or trashing a source which they originally held up as being the gold standard in such debates and, in doing so, displaying a not inconsiderable level of hypocrisy.

It's also worth pointing out that something being the 'beginning of' a human being is not the same as being a human being. There are plenty of examples of this: cake mix is the beginning of a cake (but is not a cake yet), the bride's entrance is the beginning of a wedding (but is not the wedding itself), the '.' character is the beginning of this post (but the post was not a post until I hit 'send'), and so on. Many of the sources that are claimed to be pro-life are worded this way, and as such do not actually support the pro-life POV.

Finally, there are plenty of other problems with a zygote being an organism which I will not go into in detail here. Things like the identity problem (when chimeras/monozygotic twins are made), the dependence problem (a zygote can only perform life functions through the direct biological intervention of the woman) and more (if my skin cells could be made totipotent, does that mean that all of my skin cells are human beings too?). I think I’ll save those for another day, though.

The semantics involved can get quite irritating, quite frequently! Thanks for the thread. :mrgreen:

I agree with much of what you've said here. The abortion debate is highly subjective. IMHO, a lot of it is due to the fact that other branches of science can apply. It isn't only about biology. Philosophy, sociology, psychology, and others can be equally important to the debate. Some folks consider religion. Others consider the law.

Personally, terms like "organism" matter very little to me, because they don't factor into my decision. The main biological factor I consider is viability. I would never consider the needs or well-being of a first trimester fetus over those of a grown woman.

There are many other factors involved, and I place more value on those. That's a big reason I'm pro-choice. It's not only about "life."

I know many people that would consider life without liberty no life at all.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Note that the first source, Moore and Persuad, is from the updated edition of an older textbook that pro-lifers love to quote (Tosca has done it very recently). It’s an unequivocal statement from the mouth of a source which pro-lifers have already declared to be trustworthy, which puts them in the awkward position of conceding that what it says is true, or trashing a source which they originally held up as being the gold standard in such debates and, in doing so, displaying a not inconsiderable level of hypocrisy.

I've shown you the complete quote by Moore - and it is consistent with his previous quotes (which I'd given).

I don't think it put me or anyone who'd used his quote for pro-life arguments in any awkward position at all.

But I know it did put you in the awkward position now, since you've given his incomplete quote, and also so far....none of your sources had said anything to contradict the scientific facts, namely:

Life begins at conception. Humans beget humans.


I'm still waiting for you to show your scientific evidence(s) that you claim will contradict those facts. Instead, all you're giving is a song-and-dance of your opinion. Like your claim about objective science fact. :roll:

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

…here!

Partly supporting the argument from my previous post, and partly because it echoes my own views, there is a whole bunch of evidence that a zygote should not be considered an organism/human being. Obviously unless this evidence can be countered, it stands as proof that ‘organism’ is at best a subjective term, at worst something which excludes a zygote.

ETC...,

For all two pages of writings, I'm still waiting for the evidences you said you'd provide on this new thread!
Let me remind you what you'd claimed from the other thread:

Originally Posted by iangb View Post

And as for 'conception' - like Jay and nota before you, to claim that "life starts at conception is a scientific fact" requires you to ignore a whole lot of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by tosca1

It is a scientific fact!

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html
Life begins at conception, science teaches | Live Action News


Where are these so-called "whole lot of scientific evidences to the contrary?" It's your turn to provide something credible to support your claim.

Cite your scientific evidences.

iangb

Going to have to save that for another thread, since it probably deserves it's own OP. To be made today, if I get the time.

I'm glad of your choice of sources, though (not the obviously biased pages, but the sources the pages themselves cite). We may share some.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/209495-dysfunctional-minds-prop-pro-choice-25.html


Do you have these evidences or not?

 

[nota bene]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

1) Do you consider your claim (that a zygote is an organism) to be a matter of objective fact, or of subjective opinion? If the former, post #1 (and #2) poses you something of a problem; if the latter, you are faced with the problem I've just outlined in this post.

2) Subjective or objective, on what do you base your claim that a zygote is an organism? What about this basis makes it superior to the scientific sources I cited in post #2 which state the opposite?

1. A zygote being an organism is a matter of scientific fact, irrespective of whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.

2. I am confortable relying on dictionaries:

From the OED: "An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. Also: the material structure of such an individual; an instance of this."

From the American Heritage Science Dictionary: "An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures."

From Merriam-Webster: "an individual living thing."

You may find this article, which calls for "framing a robust...operational definition," provocative: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/mherron/publications/BR_08.pdf

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

1. A zygote being an organism is a matter of scientific fact, irrespective of whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.

Good to know - we'll go from there.

2. I am confortable relying on dictionaries:

From the OED: "An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. Also: the material structure of such an individual; an instance of this."

From the American Heritage Science Dictionary: "An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures."

From Merriam-Webster: "an individual living thing."

All three of these definitions rely on the term 'indivudal', which has yet to be defined by either of us, and cuts to the heart of the matter. I would propose the definition, still with dictionary use:

Individual: "5.Biology. a. a single organism capable of independent existence."

As such, a pre-viable foetus, embry or zygote is not biologically capable of independent existence, is hence not an individual, and is hence not an organism. Note that many of the other definitions on the linked dictionary page clearly put the matter as being subjective ("anything considered as a unit")

You may find this article, which calls for "framing a robust...operational definition," provocative: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/mherron/publications/BR_08.pdf

Indeed. You'll note I linked to this article in my first post in the thread - it was the second source I cited, though I'm struggling to see how you feel it supports your claim that this argument is a matter of objective facts.

But, that's simply your opinion!

Whether it's semantic or not - the SCIENTIFIC FACT still remains that life begins at conception.



:roll:

Doesn't make sense.

How can a scientific FACT not be objective? :lol:

If it's a scientific fact - it becomes the truth!

If it's scientific, and it's a fact - it IS objective!


Objectivity means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Based on that argument you're trying to use - I can say that you're not being objective about this.

You make the claim here that it's a 'matter of FACT', but all you are doing is making that assertion and then bashing my argument based on that assertion. Given my argument is that your assertion is false, it's entirely circular reasoning to criticise my argument based on the unjustified premise that the argument is flawed.

Your quote is incomplete. Here is Keith Moore's actual quote:


Keith Moore, in his textbook Before We Are Born responds to the question "When does the embryo become human"," as follows:12


lifeissues.net | In Defense of Human Development

That quote is consistent with his other statements from his various books.


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


Even the title of his book!

The Developing Human: clinically oriented embryology

Already dealt with, if you'd read the post again.

The quote from Moore is not 'incomplete' - you are taking a quote from the 3rd edition of the textbook, published 1989. I was quoting from the 7th edition, published 2007. To quote myself from post #2:

"There are, it must be said, some embryological textbooks which state that the newly-fertilised zygote is the start of a human being. However, the vast majority of such textbooks were published in the early 1990's or (often decades) earlier, before IVF was commonplace or much was known about stem cells. If you look at the most recent versions of many of these textbooks, these statements (which tended in the first place to be lines mentioned in passing in an introduction to the book) have been removed."​

and...

"It's also worth pointing out that something being the 'beginning of' a human being is not the same as being a human being. There are plenty of examples of this: cake mix is the beginning of a cake (but is not a cake yet), the bride's entrance is the beginning of a wedding (but is not the wedding itself), the '.' character is the beginning of this post (but the post was not a post until I hit 'send'), and so on. Many of the sources that are claimed to be pro-life are worded this way, and as such do not actually support the pro-life POV."​

.

That a zygote is the beginning of human development does not mean that a zygote is a human being.

There is a controversy with stem cell - specifically EMBRYONIC stem cell - because of the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. Therefore, you get biased opinion when you talk to someone who supports stem cell research. And of course you'd get various "starting points," because they keep trying to shift the parameters!

So you claim that an entire branch of science is not scientific? The lengths you must go to to maintain your position...

Who would've thought that some would equate a 5 year old child to a fetus? Just shows you how they can easily shift things around once there's been a precedence!

A 5 year old boy is like a fetus - Iangb, do you buy that?

You should maintain that a a 5 year old boy is like a foetus - you place an equal value on both, do you not?

The fact that life begins at fertilization is not debatable!

It's already a scientific fact! Proven.

All that talk means nothing. The SCIENTIFIC facts remain the same:

Humans produce humans.

Life of a human begins at conception.

Again, assertions and ignoring the evidence without any reasoning or evidence of your own.

For all two pages of writings, I'm still waiting for the evidences you said you'd provide on this new thread!
Let me remind you what you'd claimed from the other thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/209495-dysfunctional-minds-prop-pro-choice-25.html

Do you have these evidences or not?

I'm impressed at your willfull ignorance. Not only have you posted in this thread quoting at least some of the evidence I cited (post #13) and saying "All that talk means nothing" - in other words, that you are ignoring the sources with no justification given - but you've even ommitted a whole bunch of sources I quoted from the second post, all of which say that a zygote develops into an organism instead of being an organism, and include dictionaries, textbooks, and scientific journals.

Either you have a reading comprehension issue or you're flat-out lying.

 

[nota bene]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Good to know - we'll go from there.

All three of these definitions rely on the term 'indivudal', which has yet to be defined by either of us, and cuts to the heart of the matter. I would propose the definition, still with dictionary use:

Individual: "5.Biology. a. a single organism capable of independent existence."

As such, a pre-viable foetus, embry or zygote is not biologically capable of independent existence, is hence not an individual, and is hence not an organism. Note that many of the other definitions on the linked dictionary page clearly put the matter as being subjective ("anything considered as a unit")

Indeed. You'll note I linked to this article in my first post in the thread - it was the second source I cited, though I'm struggling to see how you feel it supports your claim that this argument is a matter of objective facts.

I have not said that I think the article supports anything I've said. My only comment was that I thought you might find it "provocative." We will not be able to have a civil discourse if you are going to invent what you want to hear/read. When you read my posts, please don't try to interpret plain English; just go with what I have said.

I have not claimed that “this argument is a matter of objective facts.” I have stated that a zygote is an organism and that this is an objective fact. For a few days it will be a one-celled organism, but it is an organism nevertheless which is complete within itself and uniquely individual at every stage of development.

Nowhere in the expansive definition provided by the OED is there mention of “independent.” When you insert “independent” into the definition of “individual,” you exclude human beings in a persistent vegetative state and other dependent conditions, and I do reject the idea that an individual is no longer an individual if not “independent.”

From the OED:

Etymology: < post-classical Latin individualis relating to or existing as a separate entity (from 12th cent. in British sources) < classical Latin indīviduus

I linked the article because it calls for coming up with a robust working definition. I thought the notion of continuous variability was provocative. Its point is that there isn’t one definition on which all agree. Here is the article’s abstract:

ABSTRACT
Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept. We argue that the organism concept is central to biology and should not be abandoned. Both organism concepts and operational definitions are useful. We review criteria used for recognizing organisms and conclude that they are not categorical but rather continuously variable. Different organism concepts are useful for addressing different questions, and it is important to be explicit about which is being used. Finally, we examine the origins of the derived state of organismality, and suggest that it may result from positive feedback between natural selection and functional integration in biological entities.

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

I have not said that I think the article supports anything I've said. My only comment was that I thought you might find it "provocative." We will not be able to have a civil discourse if you are going to invent what you want to hear/read. When you read my posts, please don't try to interpret plain English; just go with what I have said.

Massive apologies - I think I've spent too long on a forum which is somewhat combative! Will bear that in mind.

I have not claimed that “this argument is a matter of objective facts.” I have stated that a zygote is an organism and that this is an objective fact. For a few days it will be a one-celled organism, but it is an organism nevertheless which is complete within itself and uniquely individual at every stage of development.

...


I linked the article because it calls for coming up with a robust working definition. I thought the notion of continuous variability was provocative. Its point is that there isn’t one definition on which all agree. Here is the article’s abstract:

ABSTRACT
Among biologists, there is no general agreement on exactly what entities qualify as ‘organisms’. Instead, there are multiple competing organism concepts and definitions. While some authors think this is a problem that should be corrected, others have suggested that biology does not actually need an organism concept. We argue that the organism concept is central to biology and should not be abandoned. Both organism concepts and operational definitions are useful. We review criteria used for recognizing organisms and conclude that they are not categorical but rather continuously variable. Different organism concepts are useful for addressing different questions, and it is important to be explicit about which is being used. Finally, we examine the origins of the derived state of organismality, and suggest that it may result from positive feedback between natural selection and functional integration in biological entities.

...that was my meaning, that the "is a zygote an organism?" question is one which can be answered objectively. My argument would be that it is a subjective question, not an objective one - as well as disagreeing with you on the actual answer to the question. Given that the source you cited states that there isn't one definition on which everyone agrees, I see this as firm evidence that the definition is not an objective one within the realm of science, since many different scientists will use many different definitions. Either way - yes, it is certainly provocative, and an interesting read (as are the other papers I referenced in post #2, incidentally!)

Nowhere in the expansive definition provided by the OED is there mention of “independent.” When you insert “independent” into the definition of “individual,” you exclude human beings in a persistent vegetative state and other dependent conditions, and I do reject the idea that an individual is no longer an individual if not “independent.”

From the OED:

Etymology: < post-classical Latin individualis relating to or existing as a separate entity (from 12th cent. in British sources) < classical Latin indīviduus

While it's true that your definitions did not mention 'independent', they did all mention 'individual', which then in turn references 'independent'. A second-hand reference, if you will.

On the definition itself; I would agree that, if you expand the word 'dependent' to it's widest possible meaning, then the definition would be nonsensical. However, I would be very suprised indeed if the original authors intended the word to be used in that way, given the fact that the definition has made it into the dictionary. Because the definition describes itself as a biological one, my argument would be that the 'dependence' is also biological - that is, the biological dependence of the foetus upon the woman, as opposed to the psychological/mechanical/social dependence of those on ventilators, needing breastfeeding, etc. This version is the only one I can think of which allows the definition to make sense - if you have a better one, feel free to give it.

With regards to your definition; it's not all that different to mine, when you get down to the details I would argue that it too does not include a zygote; since a zygote cannot exist as a separate entity from the woman. The pregnant woman is indivisible; she cannot be separated from the zygote without it's death following. And while it's true that a zygote can be considered as an entity, so can skin cells etc, which also does not help your case.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

You should maintain that a a 5 year old boy is like a foetus - you place an equal value on both, do you not?

Though they may not be similar as far as development goes - since obviously, the 5 year old is more developed than the fetus, they are however, equal in VALUE!

 

[iangb]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Though they may not be similar as far as development goes - since obviously, the 5 year old is more developed than the fetus, they are however, equal in VALUE!

Thankyou for confirming my point about your personal opinions.

 

[soot]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

...which indicates if nothing else that the question is a subjective one, since multiple scientific sources give multiple conflicting answers. Note that the first source, Moore and Persuad, is from the updated edition of an older textbook that pro-lifers love to quote (Tosca has done it very recently). It’s an unequivocal statement from the mouth of a source which pro-lifers have already declared to be trustworthy, which puts them in the awkward position of conceding that what it says is true, or trashing a source which they originally held up as being the gold standard in such debates and, in doing so, displaying a not inconsiderable level of hypocrisy.

That's something of a specious argument.

Moore and Persuad have changed their position from "human development is a continuum that begins at fertilization" to an argument that the matter is "affected by religious and personal views".

Okay.

So they've changed their position not on the basis of some new objective scientific fact but rather as a result of "religious and personal views".

The science hasn't changed, only the scientists opinion (for sociological, not scientific, reasons).

I fail to see how abandoning a reliance on their work is "hypocrisy".

When they staked out their opinion based on science it was one thing, when they decided to cave in to prevailing public opinion (almost certainly in an effort to continue selling textbooks) their opinion became something else.

How is there an obligation there to stick with these guys as some "gold standard"?

It's also worth pointing out that something being the 'beginning of' a human being is not the same as being a human being. There are plenty of examples of this: cake mix is the beginning of a cake (but is not a cake yet) & cet.

That's an even more ridiculous argument. From the moment of conception a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state.

The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death.

In your example the "cake mix" better describes the sperm and egg cells than it does the fertilized egg.

If you pour a box of cake mix into a bowl with some milk and a few eggs it'll all sit there until it rots.

If you take a sperm and have it fertilize and egg, to go back to your example, the cake bakes itself.

 

[tosca1]

Re: "Organism", semantics, and objectivity

Originally Posted by iangb View Post

You should maintain that a a 5 year old boy is like a foetus - you place an equal value on both, do you not?

tosca1
Though they may not be similar as far as development goes - since obviously, the 5 year old is more developed than the fetus, they are however, equal in VALUE!

Thankyou for confirming my point about your personal opinions.

What personal opinion?

Are you saying the value of a human depends on his level of development?


Are you saying that a 5 year old and a 17 year old shouldn't be equal in value for the simple reason that the 5 year old isn't similarly developed as the 17 year old?

A mentally-retarded individual has lesser value than someone who's not?

Please answer that.