• 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
Biologically a zygote is a human organism. This is scientific fact.
 
Biologically a zygote is a human organism. This is scientific fact.

An organism by scientific standards has the ability to act or function independently. A zygote by its very developmental nature does not.
 
An organism by scientific standards has the ability to act or function independently. A zygote by its very developmental nature does not.

No, it need only to be independant from its parents!! It's an important distinction.


Tim-
 
Hmmm.. I take issue with this. A ordinary human cell, like that of hair, or skin, is not unique. A Zygote is unique. It may require energy and sustenance, but it is very unique, and an individual by all meaningful ways. One might liken a zygote to a parasite in some ways.


Tim-

:prof A hair isn't a cell, it is a product of cells.
 
No, it need only to be independant from its parents!! It's an important distinction.

Tim-

That makes no sense. A zygote independent from its parent still wouldn't be able to act independently. Do you know what a zygote is? Here is a picture:

Zygote.jpg
 
That makes no sense. A zygote independent from its parent still wouldn't be able to act independently. Do you know what a zygote is? Here is a picture:

Zygote.jpg

Genetically... Independant, genetically!



Tim-
 
That makes no sense. A zygote independent from its parent still wouldn't be able to act independently. Do you know what a zygote is? Here is a picture:

Zygote.jpg

So if a zygote isn't independent, who processes it's food for it? Or does it get energy through telekinesis?
 
Genetically... Independant, genetically!

Tim-

Which means what? A chicken is genetically independent from myself. I'm still eating chicken wings.
 
So if a zygote isn't independent, who processes it's food for it? Or does it get energy through telekinesis?

.... this can't be a serious question. The nutrition a mother receives is what fuels the development of a fetus, zygote etc. You do understand what is meant by independent. Correct?
 
.... this can't be a serious question. The nutrition a mother receives is what fuels the development of a fetus, zygote etc. You do understand what is meant by independent. Correct?

Well, just so there's no confusion, could you define what you mean by independence?
 
.... this can't be a serious question. The nutrition a mother receives is what fuels the development of a fetus, zygote etc. You do understand what is meant by independent. Correct?

The mother gives it nutrition, which the zygote metabolizes into energy. It also preforms all the mitosis and protein synthesis, the mother's body does none of that. She provides the building materials, and the zygote builds with it.
 
Well, just so there's no confusion, could you define what you mean by independence?

I've made that pretty obvious. A zygote, regardless of what species it is, is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on its host for survival. It can't reproduce, feed itself or perform any of the basic independent functions expected of independent organisms. To call a 'zygote' a 'human organism' is ridiculous.
 
I've made that pretty obvious. A zygote, regardless of what species it is, is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on its host for survival. It can't reproduce, feed itself or perform any of the basic independent functions expected of independent organisms. To call a 'zygote' a 'human organism' is ridiculous.

If not human, then what is it? What else could it grow up to be? A chicken? :)


Tim-
 
If not human, then what is it? What else could it grow up to be? A chicken? :)

Tim-

What do you call eggs? Chickens? What about pinecones? Do you call them trees?
 
What do you call eggs? Chickens? What about pinecones? Do you call them trees?



ROTFLMAO.. Okay.. I surrender to your stupidity.. Have at er, sonny! What color is the sky in your world, bro? :)



Tim-
 
As usual, an abortion debate that degenerates into a semantically argument. A zygote, biologically and genetically is human. It's DNA would be consistent with the DNA of one who is a member of the human species. It would not be a chimp. It would not be a chicken. It would not be a tree. It would be a human. Denying this is just semantical gymnastics that some pro-choicers do.

Oh, and an egg is a state of development. Depending on what species that egg is of, it could be a state of development of a chicken.
 
I've made that pretty obvious. A zygote, regardless of what species it is, is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on its host for survival. It can't reproduce, feed itself or perform any of the basic independent functions expected of independent organisms. To call a 'zygote' a 'human organism' is ridiculous.

It can reproduce, how do you think it becomes a foetus? Through cell division, which is reproduction. And it does feed itself, from carbohydrates that originated as sperm. What I think you don't realise is that a zygote is not attached to the uterine wall, it is usually going surfing down the fallopian tubes, and thus is only dependant upon the mother for the right environment, nothing more.
 
holy thread necro!!! looks like it's been noticed.

anyways, have fun and what is this doing in the poll forum????

op has been banned at some point if anyone didn't notice that
 
It can reproduce, how do you think it becomes a foetus? Through cell division, which is reproduction. And it does feed itself, from carbohydrates that originated as sperm. What I think you don't realise is that a zygote is not attached to the uterine wall, it is usually going surfing down the fallopian tubes, and thus is only dependant upon the mother for the right environment, nothing more.

We're talking about controlled reproduction?
 
Last edited:
reproduction is.... the creation of a new organism, either from bacteria dividing, or animals mating and making babies, or even plants making seeds.

i bid you all good night
 
So then what is reproduction if it's not something reproducing?

A zygote is not creating a brand new organism by engaging in cell division. That's the reproduction we're talking about. Example, mama bear gets with papa bear and create baby bear. That's reproduction. Cells splitting up is NOT the reproduction we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
As usual, an abortion debate that degenerates into a semantically argument. A zygote, biologically and genetically is human. It's DNA would be consistent with the DNA of one who is a member of the human species. It would not be a chimp. It would not be a chicken. It would not be a tree. It would be a human. Denying this is just semantical gymnastics that some pro-choicers do.

Oh, and an egg is a state of development. Depending on what species that egg is of, it could be a state of development of a chicken.
Semantically speaking, Hatuey has it dead on correct.

Of course, I agree with you that 'semantically speaking' does not make a decent argument, but from my experience it's not normally the pro-choicers who start semantic arguments in the first place - we just like to finish them. I'm incredibly guilty of that particular bad habit :).

EDIT: Oh, and that same bad habit is prompting me to point something out. It's not the species of the zygote which we're contesting, nor the fact that it is alive - we're contesting the claim that a zygote should be considered as a macroscopic life-form/'entity' in it's own right. It's the distinction between the zygote being part of the woman's body, or part of it's own body. And before you say it - yes, I would say that's a subjective distinction. Semantics normally is, in the end.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom