• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?

Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?


  • Total voters
    54
As I see it, it doesn't matter whether a zygote is an organism or not.
It doesn't matter if a zygote, or any form of it before or afterwards is alive, dead, or somewhere in the middle.

Still, no one would know when the future human actually became...human. And I don't mean in the biological sense. I mean in the sense of "sentience", or whatever. It’s biological “aliveness” has little or no effect on that debate.

If we can't agree on the biological beginning of a being (horse, goat or any other animal including man),... how are we expected to agree on any of the other (some metaphysical) aspects?

I make not bones about my conclusions that the Constitutional applies to the biological "human being" as a "person" and not the metaphysical aspects.

Therefore,... the biology as it applies to when a new human individual is created,... matters.
 
Last edited:
Again,

After the food source of the egg is exhausted, it ends up as just a cluster of cells. It can't take in its own food. it can't metabolize, so it can't grow, ergo, it's not an organism.

Just like when your skin cells (which we have all agreed are not organisms) can't grow if they don't have energy.
 
Again,

After the food source of the egg is exhausted, it ends up as just a cluster of cells. It can't take in its own food. it can't metabolize, so it can't grow, ergo, it's not an organism.

Just like when your skin cells (which we have all agreed are not organisms) can't grow if they don't have energy.

What do your professors say when you tryto tell them that a zygote, embryo or fetus is not an organism?

Do you think you can you get one of your professors to join the forum?
 
You know I was in my bio lecture today and I almost raised my hand to ask my professor what he thought, but I decided that it really wouldn't be appropriate to ask that in a lecture of 500 people :lol:
 
You know I was in my bio lecture today and I almost raised my hand to ask my professor what he thought, but I decided that it really wouldn't be appropriate to ask that in a lecture of 500 people :lol:

Yeah right. Like the forthcoming response wouldn't have benefitted the entire class.

No balls.
 
Chuz said:
If it can't live or grow,... how does it go from a one celled zygote to a multicellular embryo? (again,... while still in the petri dish)
Cleavage is when the zygote splits into many cells without any growth; it ends up made of lots of smaller cells but being the same size. That's as far as it goes, though - it's only after implantation that actual growth occurs.

EDIT: Any comment on the dictionary stuff?
 
Yeah right. Like the forthcoming response wouldn't have benefitted the entire class.

No balls.

I don't see why that's necessary

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have to insult me
 
Cleavage is when the zygote splits into many cells without any growth; it ends up made of lots of smaller cells but being the same size. That's as far as it goes, though - it's only after implantation that actual growth occurs.

EDIT: Any comment on the dictionary stuff?

I'm letting the dicionary stuff fester,... for as long as it takes for me to scribe the post I think necessary to say what i want to say.

No hurries,... no worries.

Thought this was interesting,...

Why not Artificial Wombs?, by Christine Rosen
 
If we can't agreeon the biological beginning of a being (horse, goat or any other animal including man),... how are we expected to agree on any of the other (some metaphysical) aspects?
We aren’t. And as there is no way to prove when it actually occurs, we probably never will. Until a way of measuring those metaphysical aspects is discovered.

I think almost everyone would agree that the biological beginning of any of those would be at some point between the moment when a sperm cell and an egg meet, and whenever the future animal is born.

Arguments as to the exact point obviously abound.

But it seems to me that they are actually arguments about the definitions of words. Word definitions of this type are opinions, because no one can prove what the words “life”, “organism(s)”, or “zygote” actually mean, as they were defined by humans in the first place, not some ultimate universal constant, unchangeable by any means.

We could arbitrarily state that life begins when X biological processes start, or occur, or whatever.
But with the metaphysical aspect being thrown into the mix, perhaps you are “alive” in the metaphysical sense before you enter the body which you will grow and inhabit? Or perhaps you are only alive 0.5 seconds after being born/removed from the womb? Or when you reach the age of 10? How could one prove or disprove any of this? It is impossible, as of yet.

IMO, the metaphysical/sentient point is obviously the more important, as that is when a potential human actually becomes…human. And as it would seemingly not matter (at least the metaphysical part) when the biological systems start working, the debate over the point at which a future human becomes biologically “alive” seems moot.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
We aren’t. And as there is no way to prove when it actually occurs, we probably never will. Until a way of measuring those metaphysical aspects is discovered.

I think almost everyone would agree that the biological beginning of any of those would be at some point between the moment when a sperm cell and an egg meet, and whenever the future animal is born.

Arguments as to the exact point obviously abound.

But it seems to me that they are actually arguments about the definitions of words. Word definitions of this type are opinions, because no one can prove what the words “life”, “organism(s)”, or “zygote” actually mean, as they were defined by humans in the first place, not some ultimate universal constant, unchangeable by any means.

We could arbitrarily state that life begins when X biological processes start, or occur, or whatever.
But with the metaphysical aspect being thrown into the mix, perhaps you are “alive” in the metaphysical sense before you enter the body which you will grow and inhabit? Or perhaps you are only alive 0.5 seconds after being born/removed from the womb? Or when you reach the age of 10? How could one prove or disprove any of this? It is impossible, as of yet.

IMO, the metaphysical/sentient point is obviously the more important, as that is when a potential human actually becomes…human. And as it would seemingly not matter (at least the metaphysical part) when the biological systems start working, the debate over the point at which a future human becomes biologically “alive” seems moot.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Time is short,.. so let me see if you can get my point without me splaining it for ya,...

You just said;
IMO, the metaphysical/sentient point is obviously the more important, as that is when a potential human actually becomes… human. And as it would seemingly not matter (at least the metaphysical part) when the biological systems start working, the debate over the point at which a future human becomes biologically “alive” seems moot.

And you said it right after saying;

But it seems to me that they are actually arguments about the definitions of words. Word definitions of this type are opinions, because no one can prove what the words “life”, “organism(s)”, or “zygote” actually mean, as they were defined by humans in the first place, not some ultimate universal constant, unchangeable by any means.

Are you seeing my point, yet?
 

That is quite interesting, but you will notice that you're still needing a womb
and,

"The technique, called extrauterine fetal incubation, involved placing the goat fetus in a plastic container of warmed, amniotic-like fluid, where it was supplied with nutrients through a tube inserted in its umbilical cord"

The fetus STILL can't metabolize its own food. Biologically, it's just not alive
 
That is quite interesting, but you will notice that you're still needing a womb
and,

"The technique, called extrauterine fetal incubation, involved placing the goat fetus in a plastic container of warmed, amniotic-like fluid, where it was supplied with nutrients through a tube inserted in its umbilical cord"

The fetus STILL can't metabolize its own food. Biologically, it's just not alive

Please,... for the love of Gawd,... and the potential comedic value alone,... I'm begging you,... PLEASE invite your professor to join this conversation.

Oh my sides.
 
Time is short,.. so let me see if you can get my point without me splaining it for ya,...

...stuff...

Are you seeing my point, yet?

Nope, I think I missed it.

Are you saying that humans defined the term metaphysical and/or sentient as well, and thus it could be incorrect, and not correctly applied to the situation?

Well, obviously.
 
Nope, I think I missed it.

Are you saying that humans defined the term metaphysical and/or sentient as well, and thus it could be incorrect, and not correctly applied to the situation?

Well, obviously.

No,.. To your point that we are not going to agree on the meaning of words like "life" "zygote" "organism", etc,...

How is it that you think we are going to suddenly agree on the relevant definition of the word "human?"
 
Please,... for the love of Gawd,... and the potential comedic value alone,... I'm begging you,... PLEASE invite your professor to join this conversation.

Oh my sides.

Why so we can ask him if he agrees with my biology based opinion or your "its alive because it seems like it is" based opinion?

Unless you have anything else you want to bring to the discussion, im going to go do other things now. I'm glad we could spend hour together making no headway on this :mrgreen:
 
Please,... for the love of Gawd,... and the potential comedic value alone,... I'm begging you,... PLEASE invite your professor to join this conversation.

Oh my sides.

This post didn't in the least bit rebute the post you quoted. IE, this was you dodging the issue because you are being outmatched. You might want to work on that, because Ian and Mark are making points, while try stabbing them in the back of the leg. It's not working.
 
Why so we can ask him if he agrees with my biology based opinion or your "its alive because it seems like it is" based opinion?

Unless you have anything else you want to bring to the discussion, im going to go do other things now. I'm glad we could spend hour together making no headway on this :mrgreen:

I think we both know what his reaction and input would be.

Take care,... buh byeee
 
No,.. To your point that we are not going to agree on the meaning of words like "life" "zygote" "organism", etc,...

How is it that you think we are going to suddenly agree on the relevant definition of the word "human?"

Correction, you aren't going to agree on the definition of life, zygote, organism, human, etc.
 
This post didn't in the least bit rebute the post you quoted. IE, this was you dodging the issue because you are being outmatched. You might want to work on that, because Ian and Mark are making points, while try stabbing them in the back of the leg. It's not working.

You're probably right,...

I'm probably just mistaking the majority of opinions in the references I find,... and in the results of this poll to be of some indiciation of a consensus or something.

I'll try to contain myself.
 
You're probably right,...

I'm probably just mistaking the majority of opinions in the references I find,... and in the results of this poll to be of some indiciation of a consensus or something.

I'll try to contain myself.

There you go again, completely ignoring everything I just said. :roll:
 
Dismissed.

Not ignored.

Same difference. In either case, you look 1. incredibly arrogant, and 2. ignorant. If you want to stop it, and have an actual debate, go ahead and tell us, we're waiting.
 
Same difference. In either case, you look 1. incredibly arrogant, and 2. ignorant. If you want to stop it, and have an actual debate, go ahead and tell us, we're waiting.

This is hardly the place for (nor presently is it) a debate.

Debates have rules, moderators and an expectation of intellectual honsety.

The level of denial that abounds on this forum,.. in these threads would never be tolerated in an actual worthwhile debate.
 
Last edited:
This is hardly the place for (nor presently) as debate.

Debates have rules, moderators and an expectation of intellectual honsety.

The level of denial that abounds on this forum,.. in these threads would never be tolerated in an actual worthwhile debate.

Thats due to the direct failings of a participant. If you cannot abide by the rules without having someone babysit you, just leave. No one wants to waste anymore time on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom