Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?

The Mark said:

Ok. So, basically, what you are saying is that certain persons, who have been grouped and labeled "pro-choice" by you, are unwilling to accept the obviousity which is:

If a zygote is an organism, then:

A human zygote is a human organism.

Click to expand...

You seem to be hung up on labels. The people I am referring to for the most part call themselves 'pro-choice.' If it were up to me to be labeling them, I would likely be banned by now.

The Mark said:

What I don’t get is why anyone would try to disagree with such an obvious conclusion.

Click to expand...

I can't explain it either.

Iangb???

The Mark said:

I mean, what effect on the whole “pro-life vs. pro-choice” debate does it have?

Click to expand...

I think they (wisely and to their credit) are trying to anticipate my next line of questioning.

The Mark said:

A human heart, removed from the human body for transplantation, will live for a time, given the right conditions.

Is that not also a “human organism”?

Click to expand...

No. It is not.

The Mark said:

But it would by no reasonable person be considered a “human being”, or be granted protection from murder/death.

Click to expand...

You're right about that,... But a removed heart would be no more an "organism" than would a pulled tooth or removed tonsils.

phattonez said:

So why does it have no rights? Meaning, what makes it distinct from the baby that comes out 9 months later? What events gives us our rights?

Click to expand...

1. Level of physical development. This includes fully a working nervous system.
2. The fact that you were born. Read the constitution. It applies to natural born citizens. Not natural unborn organisms.
3. The fact that an acorn is not a tree.

Hatuey said:

1. Level of physical development. This includes fully a working nervous system.

Click to expand...

So our nervous system gives us rights? You are aware that dogs and cats and fish and many other animals have nervous systems too right? Do they have the same rights that we do?

2. The fact that you were born. Read the constitution. It applies to natural born citizens. Not natural unborn organisms.

Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Now hopefully you'll see that when discussing rights these documents are arbitrary because they contain no proof.

3. The fact that an acorn is not a tree.

Click to expand...

What species is it then?

phattonez said:

So our nervous system gives us rights? You are aware that dogs and cats and fish and many other animals have nervous systems too right? Do they have the same rights that we do?

Click to expand...

Sure. Cats and dogs have as much a right to free speech and the 2nd amendment as we do. I don't think they try to vote all that much though.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Now hopefully you'll see that when discussing rights these documents are arbitrary because they contain no proof.

Click to expand...

Meh. I find it great that you find that the constitution of the U.S. protects natural unborn organisms. But it does not. It explicitly protects natural born citizens & people naturalized in the U.S.

What species is it then?

Click to expand...

A brain cell is an organism of the human species. But merely being part of our species by way of DNA does not make it a person or grant it all the rights that come as a result of actually being born.

Hatuey said:

Sure. Cats and dogs have as much a right to free speech and the 2nd amendment as we do. I don't think they try to vote all that much though.

Click to expand...

So they have the right to life and infringing on that right to life makes the killing of cats and dogs murder?

Meh. I find it great that you find that the constitution of the U.S. protects natural unborn organisms. But it does not. It explicitly protects natural born citizens & people naturalized in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Is that what I said? Don't put words into my mouth. I was trying to say that in a discussion of rights, these documents are basically worthless because they prove nothing. Our rights are derived from God, not the constitution.

A brain cell is an organism of the human species. But merely being part of our species by way of DNA does not make it a person or grant it all the rights that come as a result of actually being born.

Click to expand...

And neither does a brain cell have the capacity to become a fully developed human organism. It is not totipotent like a zygote is. We have to remember though that the cell is human, hence a zygote is human.

phattonez said:

So they have the right to life and infringing on that right to life makes the killing of cats and dogs murder?

Click to expand...

Try killing somebody's dog and see what happens. Michael Vick went to jail for it.

Is that what I said? Don't put words into my mouth. I was trying to say that in a discussion of rights, these documents are basically worthless because they prove nothing. Our rights are derived from God, not the constitution

Click to expand...

No. My rights are derived from legal documents and my willingness to defend those rights. I do not believe in God. If science proved there was no God tomorrow, I would still have all the rights in the constitution and so would you. Stating otherwise is pure foolishness.

And neither does a brain cell have the capacity to become a fully developed human organism. It is not totipotent like a zygote is. We have to remember though that the cell is human, hence a zygote is human.

Click to expand...

No. Being human and being a human are not the same thing. My hair is human, my blood cells are human. But are they humans or people with rights? No. They are not.

Hatuey said:

Try killing somebody's dog and see what happens. Michael Vick went to jail for it.

Click to expand...

That's only because you're destroying someone else's property. Kill a dog in the wild for food and you haven't broken any laws.

No. My rights are derived from legal documents and my willingness to defend those rights. I do not believe in God. If science proved there was no God tomorrow, I would still have all the rights in the constitution and so would you. Stating otherwise is pure foolishness.

Click to expand...

Then call me foolish because these rights exist in the state of nature. Government is created to merely protect those rights, not to create them. Look at the Declaration.

No. Being human and being a human are not the same thing. My hair is human, my blood cells are human. But are they humans or people with rights? No. They are not.

Click to expand...

But what differentiates the fully developed human and the zygote? What is the defining moment of becoming human and getting rights?

Manc Skipper said:

Do zygotes procreate? no. Not an organism. No matter what the Oklahoma School of Math might think.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, at the proper time in the life cycle. Did you go to school in Oklahoma or something?

Hatuey said:

1. Level of physical development. This includes fully a working nervous system.
2. The fact that you were born. Read the constitution. It applies to natural born citizens. Not natural unborn organisms.
3. The fact that an acorn is not a tree.

Click to expand...

Learn context my friend, if you want to debate effectively around here.

phattonez said:

That's only because you're destroying someone else's property. Kill a dog in the wild for food and you haven't broken any laws.

Click to expand...

This is simply untrue. Michael Vick killed his own dogs and went to jail for it. This proves they are not "property" as you put it.

Then call me foolish because these rights exist in the state of nature. Government is created to merely protect those rights, not to create them. Look at the Declaration.

Click to expand...

Rights are man made and enforced. In nature there is no such thing as a right to free speech or a right to vote. If there is please ask your God to come down and show us those laws it created. The burden of proof is on you for claiming where our rights come from.

But what differentiates the fully developed human and the zygote? What is the defining moment of becoming human and getting rights?

Click to expand...

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. I do not care about what potential it has to become a person. I care about what is a person and what isn't. A zygote is by no means a person, it has zero viability outside the fetus. I can't stress this enough.

Hatuey said:

This is simply untrue. Michael Vick killed his own dogs and went to jail for it. This proves they are not "property" as you put it.

Click to expand...

So all of the people around the world who eat dog are violating dog rights?

Rights are man made and enforced. In nature there is no such thing as a right to free speech or a right to vote. If there is please ask your God to come down and show us those laws it created. The burden of proof is on you for claiming where our rights come from.

Click to expand...

Easy to prove. When your rights are violated then something is taken away from you. If your action takes something away from someone else then it is not a right. Only those things which you can do or have that do not take away from others are your rights. This is, as the Declaration says, self-evident.

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. I do not care about what potential it has to become a person. I care about what is a person and what isn't. A zygote is by no means a person, it has zero viability outside the fetus. I can't stress this enough.

Click to expand...

But what is the defining moment? By quoting the Constitution, you claim that it is basically which side of the vagina that you're on. But this argument is absurd because a baby that maybe was born 5 days ago was still viable. Even if born a few months early that are still viable with an incubator (are people on respirators necessarily dead?). So, we can see that the claim that just "being born" is absurd. This is not when we get our rights. So it must occur at some point in the womb. The onus is on you to prove when that is because it cannot be at birth.

Yes, it's a living organism. And yes it's human (in the sense that it has a full set of Human DNA). Neither of those things matter though. What matters is whether it's a person in the legal sense.

Gentlemen, please....

This thread / poll is about whether or not a single celled 'zygote' of any species is an "organism."

You are wise to anticipate how this biological fact plays into the abortion debate. But this thread is not the place for that debate. If you want to debate the point at which 'personhood begins' please take it to one of these appropriate threads.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/59994-person.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/63404-person-loaded-question.html

Or start one of your own.

As for the subject of this forum, I have started a letter writing effort to some of the science departments of some well known universities,.. including one in the U.K.

EXAMPLE; (Dear: _________)

" ,........ We are at an impasse.

It is my understanding that when conception is achieved via fertilization, that the single celled 'zygote' formed (by the union of the sperm and egg) is by definition,... an organism. The person I am debating with refuses to accept this as fact and instead tries to use other references and definitions to try to convince me that it is not.

In fact, he goes even further and tries to suggest that it doesn't become an organism until days later.

His arguments include the fact that a zygote could divide and become "two." Which (in his mind) means, it can't be considered as "one." And he also claims that a zygote can not "exist independently" as it is attached to the "mother's body." (never mind that by the time it attaches, cell division may have already began)

I (again) apologize for this intrusion,... however I really am looking forward to any information you may be willing to share."--Chuz Life

I'll be posting the responses as I get them.

Chuz Life said:

You seem to be hung up on labels. The people I am referring to for the most part call themselves 'pro-choice.' If it were up to me to be labeling them, I would likely be banned by now.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Chuz Life said:

I can't explain it either.

Iangb???

Click to expand...

/shrug

Chuz Life said:

I think they (wisely and to their credit) are trying to anticipate my next line of questioning.

Click to expand...

Probably

Chuz Life said:

No. It is not.

Click to expand...

Oh...

Bad example then…

Chuz Life said:

You're right about that,... But a removed heart would be no more an "organism" than would a pulled tooth or removed tonsils.

Click to expand...

Ok.

I used an incorrect example, but the argument I was attempting to make still (IMO) has some validity.

Basically, that while a human zygote is alive and composed of human DNA, it is impossible at this time to prove that it is “human” in the metaphysical sense of the word.

However, it is also impossible to prove it is NOT “human” in the metaphysical sense of the word.

Personally, my current opinion is opposed to abortion of any kind unless the mother’s life is endangered by not performing one.

My reason for this is simple:

Regardless of whether the zygote or any embryo stage between it and birth are actually self-aware, capable of surviving outside the womb, or whatever…At some future date, it may be.

a zygote is a parasitical symbiotic organism, comparable to a tick. Further along the biological line, it develops into its own being, but before that, its a parasite, albeit an accepted parasite.

repeter said:

a zygote is a parasitical symbiotic organism, comparable to a tick. Further along the biological line, it develops into its own being, but before that, its a parasite, albeit an accepted parasite.

Click to expand...

Just so, I hope you (and everyone else) understands that a zygote is not a parasite.

Chuz Life said:

Just so, I hope you (and everyone else) understands that a zygote is not a parasite.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that a zygote is not a parasite. It does not meet most of the biological definitions of a parasite, mostly because it's the same species as its 'host'. However, the relationship between the zygote and the mother is very similar to the relationship between a parasite and its host.

Chuz Life said:

Just so, I hope you (and everyone else) understands that a zygote is not a parasite.

Click to expand...

A zygote meets the loose definitions of "parasite" as much as it meets the loose definitions of "organism".

molten_dragon said:

I agree with you that a zygote is not a parasite. It does not meet most of the biological definitions of a parasite, mostly because it's the same species as its 'host'. However, the relationship between the zygote and the mother is very similar to the relationship between a parasite and its host.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is,... and I suspect that is the source of confusion for those who can't appreciate the facts that disqualify a zygote from being defined as a parasite.

It is also worth noting that for as similar to a 'parasitic relationship' is (that a zygote and it's mother share) there are things about the relationship which is not common to true parasitic relationships. The way in which the mother's and the child's immune systems interact to not reject one another for example. In some cases, they even boost each others immune systems.

Tsunami said:

A zygote meets the loose definitions of "parasite" as much as it meets the loose definitions of "organism".

Click to expand...

Your vote in the poll doesn't reflect this belief of yours.

Tsunami said:

A zygote meets the loose definitions of "parasite" as much as it meets the loose definitions of "organism".

Click to expand...

Then we should perhaps call a Zygote a zygote, and not refer to it by a less specific term?

Chuz Life said:

Your vote in the poll doesn't reflect this belief of yours.

Click to expand...

As I already posted (though I notice you ignore the people with actual points to make) both answers in your poll are true, it just depends upon the definition of organism you use. But I was only able to select one.

Tsunami said:

As I already posted (though I notice you ignore the people with actual points to make) both answers in your poll are true, it just depends upon the definition of organism you use. But I was only able to select one.

Click to expand...

Both poll answers cannot possibly be true.

There may be opposing opinions on which is true, but it is not possible for both to be true.

The Mark said:

Both poll answers cannot possibly be true.

There may be opposing opinions on which is true, but it is not possible for both to be true.

Click to expand...

Yes, a single celled zygote is in fact an organism when you define it as "1. living thing: a living thing, e.g. a plant, animal, virus, or bacterium"

No, a single celled zygote is not in fact an organism when you define it as anything including the words "individual", "whole", "complete", etc.

Chuz Life said:

It is also worth noting that for as similar to a 'parasitic relationship' is (that a zygote and it's mother share) there are things about the relationship which is not common to true parasitic relationships. The way in which the mother's and the child's immune systems interact to not reject one another for example. In some cases, they even boost each others immune systems.

Click to expand...

A zygote doesn't have an immune system.

Tsunami said:

Yes, a single celled zygote is in fact an organism when you define it as "1. living thing: a living thing, e.g. a plant, animal, virus, or bacterium"

No, a single celled zygote is not in fact an organism when you define it as anything including the words "individual", "whole", "complete", etc.

Click to expand...

Those are opinions as too what defines the word "organism".

As opinions, they neither prove nor disprove whether a zygote is or is not an organism.