Ireland legalizes the killing of the unborn

[Charles]

How does it weaken anything when the two statements are independent of each other?

So I'm curious, are you suggesting that you dispute the second claim you cited and therefore do not accept the source in questions as authoritative? Or are you just playing rhetorical games because you can't attack my argument directly?

I note that once again you are unwilling to give an answer to the question. If the two statements were that independent of each other it should be easy for you to say you disagree with this part:

https://www.britannica.com/science/life

But of course you were the one who pointed to this as being the scientific definition of life. And it seems the science contradicts your worldview, and your many efforts to avoid a rather obvious question seems to confirm this. If the two statements are independent of each other please explain to me how the statement quoted above does not relate to the question of what life is.

[Rushing Jaws]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...gelical-agenda

95559DAA-745B-4937-97C8-8BC376B9EFBD.jpg 4CABD5F1-DB2D-40F1-83EF-1CC1EC1925F7.jpg 7652E015-5D3F-4C76-944F-2A325E662109.jpg 237D4D4B-510B-4123-B0FE-DC01524130A0.jpg

[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 hope you realise this is a fallacy in and of itself? I can build as many straw men as I like to attack any given argument but the validity of those arguments are not changed due to the fact that I create straw men. If someone says something wrong and i build a straw man, it is still wrong. If someone says something right and I build a straw man it is still right. So when you say you know that your argument is solid and devasting based on your impression that people build straw men your are simply basing your "knowledge" on something that has got nothing to do with the validity of the argument. A rather simple fallacy, MM.

[Roy]

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

What makes you think he has one?

[rogue06]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...gelical-agenda

IIRC the debate centered around prohibiting all abortions or allowing some in extreme cases. It was never about allowing abortion on demand.

[Tassman]

IIRC the debate centered around prohibiting all abortions or allowing some in extreme cases. It was never about allowing abortion on demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/03/a...ain-cases.html

[Roy]

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources or something, because I keep finding stuff like this from Princeton University which state without equivocation that human life begins at fertilization.

That's not actually from Princeton University per se, it's from a Princeton student organisation. It's also a bunch of mined quotes most of which do not support the page's main contention. It is in no way a scientific source.

[Roy]

You will be hard pressed to find any scientific paper taking as hard a stance on "organism" as you are taking, one way or the other. This paper, however might help you understand the point that is being made in this discussion: science is not as "unified" on what comprises an "organism" as you would suggest.

Quite so:

"Amongst biologists, there has been a lack of agreement on exactly what is required to make something an organism."

[Roy]

But, the structures inside the cell cannot perform these functions on their own,

... not all cells are life-forms because some can not carry out the described functions on their own, ... which is exactly what your source says.

Sorry, did you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension?

The source says 'structures inside the cell'; MM reads that as 'cells'; two people point out he's misread it; MM can't accept that he might have made a mistake, and blunders on regardless.

Blithering idiocy personified.

[carpedm9587]

Only in the sense that all persons are treated equally under the law.

"Since the abolition of slavery, all human beings count as persons."

So question is, is an embryo a human being? Well, it really can't be anything else.

Source: Is an embryo human?

First, if we don't know when the life becomes human, why take a chance in killing it? If it is not known when the life in the womb "becomes human," then it is better to be safe than sorry. Second, the thing in the womb is undoubtedly alive whether it be a single-celled zygote or a fully developed baby. Its nature, then, is human. It has human DNA and is alive. By necessity, it is human by nature. Is the life in the womb that of a dog, cat, ape, fish, or bird, etc.? Obviously not. Obviously, it is a human embryo.

https://carm.org/is-an-embryo-human

© Copyright Original Source

There is no question it is human. And you are preaching to the choir, since I also believe it is a human life/human being/human person from the time of implantation. But I believe that on the basis of both science and philosophy. I also recognize that it lacks attributes we require for an adult to maintain "personhood." That was discussed in a separate exchange (perhaps other thread) when we talked about the end of life and brain death. A zygote has no brain function whatsoever. Likewise, someone on life support with no cortex or brain stem function is considered brain-dead and the hospital is not obligated to maintain life function.

I believe the implanted zygote differs from the brain-dead adult in potentiality - but that is a philosophical position informed by science. I recognize that a different philosophical position could be reasonably taken, without making the person taking it evil or immoral.

There might be scientific "gray areas" regarding some borderline cases (such as viruses), but there is nothing in that article to challenge the claim that a human embryo is clearly an organism while skin cells and spermatozoa clearly are not. On the contrary, those boundaries are reasonably well-established in current scientific understanding.

I agree that the human zygote is an organism. However, your insistence that skin cells and spermatozoa are not is simply not as solid and absolute as you make it out to be. The same is true of individual cells. They are capable of executing all of the functions of a higher-order organism, but must be within the context of that higher-order organism to do so. But how is that different than the higher-order organism itself? Take the living cell out of the body and it will die because it is deprived of its power sources. Provide the power sources and skin cells can stay alive in a culture for a long time - and divide and grow. Take a human out of the biosphere and it will die because it is deprived of its power sources. Provide the power sources, and they can stay alive and grow.

I think you are painting hard lines where such hard lines simply do not exist, and rejecting as "organisms" things that clearly are. There is no need to reject other things as organisms in order to acknowledge the zygote as one.

[carpedm9587]

I can see where you would have taken that from the cancer analogy. I agree that the analogy is flawed because I do not think humanity can "kill" the host. The most powerful bombs we've ever created have a fraction of the power of a single large asteroid impact. I do think humanity can render the planet unsuitable for our own existence (worse case) or make short-sighted decisions for personal gain that our children and grand children will have to clean up - unless they leave the mess to their children and grand children of course.

Oh I have no question about nature's resiliency and ability to adjust, Pix. That was never part of my thought process. I do question if we will be around to see it. As I noted earlier, cognition is a recent evolutionary development. Initial indications are that it provides us with short-term benefits, but we appear to lack the ability to look at the long-term implications.

May have? I find that kind of speculation next to useless. It seems to me the evidence is fairly clear that global shipping and travel technology have made international incidences of invasive species escalate at a rate unprecedented in the fossil or biological record, and the implications are not even all that well known, though we continue to do so with abandon. I consider that a problem we should be addressing. Indeed, I find myself wondering if humanity is not itself a type of invasive species.

[Mountain Man]

I note that once again you are unwilling to give an answer to the question.

Yes.

What's funny is that you apparently have no idea why.

[Mountain Man]

I agree that the human zygote is an organism. However, your insistence that skin cells and spermatozoa are not is simply not as solid and absolute as you make it out to be. The same is true of individual cells. They are capable of executing all of the functions of a higher-order organism, but must be within the context of that higher-order organism to do so. But how is that different than the higher-order organism itself? Take the living cell out of the body and it will die because it is deprived of its power sources. Provide the power sources and skin cells can stay alive in a culture for a long time - and divide and grow. Take a human out of the biosphere and it will die because it is deprived of its power sources. Provide the power sources, and they can stay alive and grow.

This has already been addressed:

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

[carpedm9587]

This has already been addressed:

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

I saw that and read it the first time. Unfortunately, picking and choosing scientific papers, and claiming it represents all of science just does not get you there. As has been noted multiple times now, you are (unnecessarily) locking "organism" into one definition when science is not as clear on it as you are making it out to be. There is even discussion within the scientific community as to whether the entire concept of "organism" is useful to biology. It is also not necessary to your argument. I can easily accept cells of all types as biological organisms without abandoning my position that an implanted zygote is a human person worthy of protection.

[Mountain Man]

I saw that and read it the first time. Unfortunately, picking and choosing scientific papers, and claiming it represents all of science just does not get you there. As has been noted multiple times now, you are (unnecessarily) locking "organism" into one definition when science is not as clear on it as you are making it out to be. There is even discussion within the scientific community as to whether the entire concept of "organism" is useful to biology. It is also not necessary to your argument. I can easily accept cells of all types as biological organisms without abandoning my position that an implanted zygote is a human person worthy of protection.

Regardless of any debate, you are still not going to find a source that declares every single cell in the human body is an organism in and of itself. So the argument that there is no biological difference between a zygote and a skin cell is scientifically ignorant and self-evidently absurd.