Ireland legalizes the killing of the unborn

[Zymologist]

Ironically, there are pro-abortion advocates who liken an unborn baby to an invasive tumor or cancer. It's idiocy like that which leads to folks asking Is a fetus technically a tumor? and articles like . And of course there's the often linked claim about an unborn baby being a parasite: Is it wrong to call a fetus a parasite? (60% in the poll said "no" it is not wrong ), Can a fetus be scientifically and biologically categorized as a parasite?, and Is the human fetus a parasite according to science? -- which is prevalent enough that it required a rebuttal: .

I think we've seen how prevalent this kind of thinking is, even around here (where everybody's a scientist and, like, super-duper educated and stuff).

[Mountain Man]

Oh god, the stupid. Make it stop.

Look, here is a link to the "X...for dummies" website section on cell biology: Please go read all of it. Snippet:

An organism contains parts that are smaller than a cell, but the cell is the smallest part of the organism that retains characteristics of the entire organism. For example, a cell can take in fuel, convert it to energy, and eliminate wastes, just like the organism as a whole can. But, the structures inside the cell cannot perform these functions on their own, so the cell is considered the lowest level.

Each cell is capable of converting fuel to useable energy. Therefore, cells not only make up living things; they are

You just defeated your own argument. They can not perform those functions on their own because they are not organisms. They are living things but they are not life-forms. Have you been taking tips from shunydragon on how to find sources that undermine your position?







Look, I found a copy of Dimbulb's science degree!

clown.jpg

[Roy]

You just defeated your own argument. They can not perform those functions on their own because they are not organisms. They are living things but they are not life-forms.

Apart from the total miscomprehension, MM now appears to be saying that cells are living things that don't meet the scientific definition of life.

[carpedm9587]

Really, carpe?

And as I've noted elsewhere, the terms "life", "life-form", and "organism" are often used interchangeably even in scientific literature, and I explicitly referenced the "scientific definition of life" which is not an ambiguous concept.

Fair enough. I was focused on the three sentences in the argument and completely missed the use of "organism" in the leading sentence. As "organism" is being used synonymously with individual being (which is the first definition of the term), I withdraw my observation. I did not read completely. My bad.

You know how I know my argument is solid and devastating to the pro-abortion position? Because you guys keep building straw men to attack.

There's nothing to respond to here, except to note there is a difference between an error and a straw man.

I would be very interested to know where you are obtaining your "scientific definition of life?"

[Charles]

You know how I know my argument is solid and devastating to the pro-abortion position? Because you guys keep building straw men to attack.

I will give you a chance to explain why this is a fallacy and if you are unable to do so I will be happy to show you why it is one.

[Mountain Man]

So you're back to deliver a couple more haymakers to your own noggin, huh?

MM now appears to be saying that cells are living things that don't meet the scientific definition of life.

As Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." As I've repeatedly pointed out, "the scientific definition of life" is neither vague nor ambiguous and certainly can not be applied to every single cell in existence.

A couple more random quotes, just for fun:

Source: biology.stackexchange.com

While cells extracted from a multicellular organism like a plant or a person may be able to be cultured in vitro for a time, they cannot survive independently - they require the intervention of humans (or very well-trained monkeys) to obtain nutrients and oxygen, and process/remove waste. A unicellular organism like a bacterium, for example, can handle these functions on its own - it can either synthesize or find a source for its own nutrients, and can reproduce on its own to create more organisms.

The key difference is being self-sustaining. An organism needs to be able to feed itself, take care of its waste, reproduce a full version of itself, respond to stimuli, etc. (see the "properties of life" link above). A single cell from a multicellular organism cannot do all that without assistance (kind of like a virus, actually), while a true unicellular organism can.

----------

This answer is saying that certain cells are alive and not organisms. The criteria specified in this answer are "stable" and "alive"; those cells meet the second criteria but not the first. Based on your comment, you appear to be assuming all cells have the same capabilities - but they do not.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/qu...ells-organisms

© Copyright Original Source

[Yttrium]

Frankly, I think all the debate over the semantics of things like "organism" and "life form" is pretty pointless. The idea is that the human embryo/fetus is an innocent human life that will, barring abortion or miscarriage, eventually be born as a human baby. Seems simple enough to me.

However, I don't see how this is "devastating" to the pro-choice position, or even relevant. I'm sure there are some on the left who mistakenly think that the embryo/fetus is not a human life, but that doesn't matter as far as the pro-choice position goes.

[Zymologist]

Frankly, I think all the debate over the semantics of things like "organism" and "life form" is pretty pointless. The idea is that the human embryo/fetus is an innocent human life that will, barring abortion or miscarriage, eventually be born as a human baby. Seems simple enough to me.

However, I don't see how this is "devastating" to the pro-choice position, or even relevant. I'm sure there are some on the left who mistakenly think that the embryo/fetus is not a human life, but that doesn't matter as far as the pro-choice position goes.

In this case, then, would you say the pro-choice position is one based on bodily autonomy?

[rogue06]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, "the scientific definition of life" is neither vague nor ambiguous and certainly can not be applied to every single cell in existence.

Gotta disagree with you a bit here.

Unless things have changed radically in the past couple of years there is no precise scientific definition for what separates the living from the non-living. And no better example of the problem facing those who wish to make such a distinction can be found than viruses.

As Luis P. Villarreal, the Director, Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine wrote a little over a decade ago decade ago:

A precise scientific definition of life is an elusive thing, but most observers would agree that life includes certain qualities in addition to an ability to replicate. For example, a living entity is in a state bounded by birth and death. Living organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism. This level of autonomy is essential to most definitions.

Viruses, however, parasitize essentially all biomolecular aspects of life. That is, they depend on the host cell for the raw materials and energy necessary for nucleic acid synthesis, protein synthesis, processing and transport, and all other biochemical activities that allow the virus to multiply and spread. One might then conclude that even though these processes come under viral direction, viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems. But a spectrum may exist between what is certainly alive and what is not.

Essentially, viruses straddle the definition of life. They don't respire. They don't excrete. They don't grow. They don't display irritability. They lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize life, including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction.

But while viruses cannot replicate on their own they can do so in truly living cells by using their host's metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles known as virions, which allows it to transfer it to other cells.

For some the ability to replicate at all is the most essential attribute of a living thing yet others point out that this can be said to be true of fire which nobody is seriously suggesting is a living organism.

This seems to place them somewhere between supra-molecular complexes and very simple biological entities -- in a gray area between living and nonliving.

As virologists Brian W. J. Mahy (the Senior Scientific Adviser in the Office of the Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Marc H. V. van Regenmortel Emeritus Director at ESBS/CNRS -- French National Center for Scientific Research -- at the Biotechnology School of the University of Strasbourg)^[1]

Source: Are Viruses Alive?

Viruses are infectious, tiny and nasty. But are they alive?

Not really, although it depends on what your definition of "alive" is, two infectious disease doctors told Live Science.

Living beings, such as plants and animals, contain cellular machinery that allows them to self-replicate. In contrast, viruses are free forms of DNA or RNA that can't replicate on their own.

Rather, viruses need to invade a living organism to replicate, said Dr. Otto Yang, a professor of medicine and microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"[Viruses are] packaged RNA or DNA," Yang told Live Science. "They make more copies of themselves by hijacking the machinery of cells to replicate themselves."

Is it alive?Source

© Copyright Original Source

1. Both are also the Senior Editors-in-Chief of the Third Edition of the Encyclopedia of Virology.

[carpedm9587]

Frankly, I think all the debate over the semantics of things like "organism" and "life form" is pretty pointless.

Agreed.

The idea is that the human embryo/fetus is an innocent human life that will, barring abortion or miscarriage, eventually be born as a human baby. Seems simple enough to me.

Also agree with this - after implantation.

However, I don't see how this is "devastating" to the pro-choice position, or even relevant. I'm sure there are some on the left who mistakenly think that the embryo/fetus is not a human life, but that doesn't matter as far as the pro-choice position goes.

I think many on the pro-choice side go out of their way to deny that a fetus/embryo is an innocent human life. I suspect it makes it easier to take a position that it can be destroyed without consequence. To accept it as human life creates a cognitive dissonance with the pro-choice position.

I think a similar thing happens in reverse on the pro-life side.

[Charles]

[...] As I've repeatedly pointed out, "the scientific definition of life" is neither vague nor ambiguous and certainly can not be applied to every single cell in existence.

I read the scientific definition of life you provided and started to wonder whether you agree with it when it says:

[carpedm9587]

Gotta disagree with you a bit here.

Unless things have changed radically in the past couple of years there is no precise scientific definition for what separates the living from the non-living. And no better example of the problem facing those who wish to make such a distinction can be found than viruses.

As Luis P. Villarreal, the Director, Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine wrote a little over a decade ago decade ago:

A precise scientific definition of life is an elusive thing, but most observers would agree that life includes certain qualities in addition to an ability to replicate. For example, a living entity is in a state bounded by birth and death. Living organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism. This level of autonomy is essential to most definitions.

Viruses, however, parasitize essentially all biomolecular aspects of life. That is, they depend on the host cell for the raw materials and energy necessary for nucleic acid synthesis, protein synthesis, processing and transport, and all other biochemical activities that allow the virus to multiply and spread. One might then conclude that even though these processes come under viral direction, viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems. But a spectrum may exist between what is certainly alive and what is not.

Essentially, viruses straddle the definition of life. They don't respire. They don't excrete. They don't grow. They don't display irritability. They lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize life, including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction.

But while viruses cannot replicate on their own they can do so in truly living cells by using their host's metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles known as virions, which allows it to transfer it to other cells.

For some the ability to replicate at all is the most essential attribute of a living thing yet others point out that this can be said to be true of fire which nobody is seriously suggesting is a living organism.

This seems to place them somewhere between supra-molecular complexes and very simple biological entities -- in a gray area between living and nonliving.

As virologists Brian W. J. Mahy (the Senior Scientific Adviser in the Office of the Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Marc H. V. van Regenmortel Emeritus Director at ESBS/CNRS -- French National Center for Scientific Research -- at the Biotechnology School of the University of Strasbourg)^[1]

Source: Are Viruses Alive?

Viruses are infectious, tiny and nasty. But are they alive?

Not really, although it depends on what your definition of "alive" is, two infectious disease doctors told Live Science.

Living beings, such as plants and animals, contain cellular machinery that allows them to self-replicate. In contrast, viruses are free forms of DNA or RNA that can't replicate on their own.

Rather, viruses need to invade a living organism to replicate, said Dr. Otto Yang, a professor of medicine and microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"[Viruses are] packaged RNA or DNA," Yang told Live Science. "They make more copies of themselves by hijacking the machinery of cells to replicate themselves."

Is it alive?Source

© Copyright Original Source

1. Both are also the Senior Editors-in-Chief of the Third Edition of the Encyclopedia of Virology.

I'm glad someone else said this. I'm pretty sure it would have been rejected if I had. "Life" is one of those things science has long struggled to define. It's easy to craft a definition that applies to all things that are living - but it is pretty hard (impossible?) to craft one that excludes all things that are not (e.g., crystals, etc.). And there are some things that seem to hover on that border between life and non-life. It's not as black/white as is being portrayed - and is almost as much a philosophical issue as a scientific one.

[rogue06]

I'm glad someone else said this. I'm pretty sure it would have been rejected if I had. "Life" is one of those things science has long struggled to define. It's easy to craft a definition that applies to all things that are living - but it is pretty hard (impossible?) to craft one that excludes all things that are not (e.g., crystals, etc.). And there are some things that seem to hover on that border between life and non-life. It's not as black/white as is being portrayed - and is almost as much a philosophical issue as a scientific one.

Biology by its very nature is extremely messy with lots of gray areas and very few sharp borders.

[rogue06]

I read the scientific definition of life you provided and started to wonder whether you agree with it when it says:

I for one have no problem with that

[Bill the Cat]

I don't think discussing parasites or crystals has very much to do with recognizing what makes a member of our species a member.