Is a fertilized ovum a living member of its perticular species?

[carriew]

I am very curious to see what responses I get from everyone.

I dont want to know when the ovum becomes multi cellular(which is hours) or when it becomes self aware.(although if you have any real facts please share)

I want to know at which point is it considered to be a living card carrying member of its species.

Not just a human ovum same is true for any ovum reguardless of the species.

anyone that has thrown in abortion or human did so on thier own tho It is the reason I ask is abortion the only reason one would consider it anything other than a part of that species? leave abortion out of it and answer honestly...

[Prometheus]

That's a hard one, and I'd like to contribute, but you will not find me giving any concrete answer here. I will help to scritinize the veracity of statements made here, and see if I can offer a valuable perspective.

Firstly, I will not tough upon a theological solution because my religion has no explicit information to offer on this point. Mormons do oppose abortion, but we don't claim to know when the spirit enters the body, so religion is off the table for the question in my mind.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ammend your vocabluary here, and use the term "zygote" instead of "fertilized ovum" because it is shorter to type, and more accurate.

And for the sake of simplicity, let us use the term "person" to denote a "living member of a species" - i.e. constituting murder to destroy.



First - the argument that a zygote is a person. A zygote is just a young person. Given time and the proper envoronment, it turns into something like you or me. Since the only variable is time, then the difference is only quantitative, and not qualitative, and is therefore, indistinguishable to science and philosophy. Since the only factor is space and time, then yes, a zygote is a person.

My rebuttal to that argument. The argument I proposed above is a slippery slope argument. If the only difference is space and time, then an egg and sperm are a person before fertilization. After all, a woman wastes an egg a month, and a man wastes billions of sperm. Those cells would become a person given appropriate time and conditions (proximity of other sex cells). This slippery slope demonstration invalidates the above argument.

Critique of the rebuttal. If the argument that a zygote is a person is invalid, then where do we draw the line? Before birth? Can't do that because of C sections. It seems that fertilization is a good place..

but then we go in circles don't we?

[ibm]

why do we even care?

[Prometheus]

I thought this much would be obvious. If it is a person, then abortion is murder. So is stem cell research. If it is not a person, then happy day, we can do whatever the hell we want in this respect. Me? I just can't make up my damn mind.

[ibm]

so murder an unborn is evil, even in some cases it can save an adult’s life? how about murdering a murderer with pride and sense of justice? or murdering innocent iraqis for our export of american brand of democracy?

more broadly, how about murdering cows’ lives each and every day?

“you can’t be pro-war and pro-life at the same time.”

[Flip Jackson]

I should point out that not all stem cell research needs zygotes. I learned this in my college bio course, but can't remeber all the details. Right now they are trying to do the research with cells called blastcytes instead of zygotes.

So the main issue here is whether abortion can actually be considered murder or not.

My stand is that while the egg and sperm have the potential for life, if you leave them alone and merely give them nourishment, a human will never come about. With a zygote however, the cell is now growing on its own and only needs the nourishment to grow. The zygote grows at it gets nourishment from the mother. This seems to be how babies opperate as well. So I say, as long as a baby is considered a person, then a zygote must be one, too. They both have the same needs (nourishment) and potential (growing to be an adult). Eggs and sperm do not grow on their own.

That's what I think.

[Prometheus]

so murder an unborn is evil, even in some cases it can save an adult’s life? how about murdering a murderer with pride and sense of justice? or murdering innocent iraqis for our export of american brand of democracy? more broadly, how about murdering cows’ lives each and every day? “you can’t be pro-war and pro-life at the same time.”

Don't attack me on this one. I was mearly stating the ramifications of the answer to this question. I didn't answer it either way, so don't ask me to defend the pro life movement.

I do believe that abortion is a sin, but that has no bearing on my political view of the topic.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I should point out that not all stem cell research needs zygotes. I learned this in my college bio course, but can't remeber all the details. Right now they are trying to do the research with cells called blastcytes instead of zygotes.

That is true, but that ones that do require a blastocyst are still pretty contraversial.

My stand is that while the egg and sperm have the potential for life, if you leave them alone and merely give them nourishment, a human will never come about. With a zygote however, the cell is now growing on its own and only needs the nourishment to grow. The zygote grows at it gets nourishment from the mother. This seems to be how babies opperate as well. So I say, as long as a baby is considered a person, then a zygote must be one, too. They both have the same needs (nourishment) and potential (growing to be an adult). Eggs and sperm do not grow on their own.

I think I agree on this one, but like I said, it's a circular argument.

[carriew]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I should point out that not all stem cell research needs zygotes. I learned this in my college bio course, but can't remeber all the details. Right now they are trying to do the research with cells called blastcytes instead of zygotes. So the main issue here is whether abortion can actually be considered murder or not. My stand is that while the egg and sperm have the potential for life, if you leave them alone and merely give them nourishment, a human will never come about. With a zygote however, the cell is now growing on its own and only needs the nourishment to grow. The zygote grows at it gets nourishment from the mother. This seems to be how babies opperate as well. So I say, as long as a baby is considered a person, then a zygote must be one, too. They both have the same needs (nourishment) and potential (growing to be an adult). Eggs and sperm do not grow on their own. That's what I think.

almost my feelings exactly

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew I want to know at which point is it considered to be a living card carrying member of its species.

Technically it would be when it reproduced. Until that point it could be sterile like a mule. A mule is not not a member of a species since it can't reproduce.

A human being is nothing more than a large colony of human cells that have organized to protect and feed that group of cells. Reproduction is just the creation of a new colony of cells. So do human beings exist to perpetuate human cells or do human cells exist to perpetuate human beings? Which came first? The human cell or the human being?

Starboy

[carriew]

where do mules come from i forget. they are a hybird if I am not mistaken and a normal offspring would be a member of the species they belonged to.

if I never gave birth would I not be human?seings as how I am a female. If you do not impregnate a woman are you not a male human being?

Sometimes you are so silly starboy!

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew where do mules come from i forget. they are a hybird if I am not mistaken and a normal offspring would be a member of the species they belonged to.

Mules are the infertile offspring of a horse and a donkey.

if I never gave birth would I not be human?seings as how I am a female. If you do not impregnate a woman are you not a male human being?

Quote by: Wikipedia The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate species—in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.

If it could be shown that you had a genuine potential to exchange genetic material then you would qualify. But if you were sterile your membership in the species would be purely honorary. It is all about the perpetuation of the species. If it can't perpetuate then it is extinct and it is always created sterile then it can't be a species.

Sometimes you are so silly starboy!

I suppose if you had no idea of biology or science and got all your information from TV and popular culture it would appear silly. Most people are profoundly ignorant and you appear to fit right in with that crowd.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Until the baby is born, and out of the mother, it's just a peice of the mother.

[carriew]

i hear what you say
and i respectfully disagree again..

I barley ever watch tv and when I do it is not usually for informational purposes. tho I have picked up a thing or 2 on the discovery channel.

so tell me then which species is a mule an honary member of?

and last I checked we arent freaks of nature we are alot alike and most of us are capable of reproducing. and if a unsterile member is what you call honary member then if I have a hysteroctomy and my ovaries removed is my humaness gone?

[carriew]

let me present you with a hypothetical situation ...

someone has invented an artifical womb. they can take your egg and your mates sperm and mix them up and put it into this enviroment and it will be nourished with a vitiman and oxygenated blood supply to work its placenta from.

Would it be not its mother then?

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew i hear what you say and i respectfully disagree again.. I barley ever watch tv and when I do it is not usually for informational purposes. tho I have picked up a thing or 2 on the discovery channel.

Good for you, but unless you keep up with what is going on in science then you are ignorant.

so tell me then which species is a mule an honary member of?

That is the point. It is not a member of any species. If it can't reproduce then it is a biological dead end.

and last I checked we arent freaks of nature we are alot alike and most of us are capable of reproducing. and if a unsterile member is what you call honary member then if I have a hysteroctomy and my ovaries removed is my humaness gone?

The question was regarding a species. Not what it means to be a human being. The main question should be, 'What does it mean to be a being?' If you are a being who just happens to be composed of human cells then that would make you a human being. So answer the question, 'What does it mean to be a being?', and you will have to some degree answered your own question. I guarantee that a single cell of any kind no matter how special will not qualify.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy Technically it would be when it reproduced. Until that point it could be sterile like a mule. A mule is not not a member of a species since it can't reproduce. A human being is nothing more than a large colony of human cells that have organized to protect and feed that group of cells. Reproduction is just the creation of a new colony of cells. So do human beings exist to perpetuate human cells or do human cells exist to perpetuate human beings? Which came first? The human cell or the human being? Starboy

Very insightful. Next time some theist is griping about atheists in general I will remember the intersting questions that the atheist philosophy can bring up.

Now if we exist only for prepetuation of cells, what does that say about the value of human life. If you believe what you said in the "Why don't atheists murder" thread, then you can't argue that it's OK to kill people, regardless of how young they are.

[carriew]

Then maybe someone should start a thread on what makes something a being

See I gave my opinion on this before on another thread.

I believe that a fertilized cell even if only one is a being of its species and when that cell became fertilized it became a card carrying member of that species and during that instant of fertilization was created a being who never existed before.

I believe a mule is a beingas well as myself my cat my kids we are all beings belonging to our species. from the day we were concieved. though a mule is a possible dead end I would argue it infact is a subspecies I wouldn't go so far as to say that it doesnt exist or its not alive because it cannot be classed and did you see in your quote most are not fertile what about the ones who can reproduce? what do they produce? a donkey or a horse or both.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Now if we exist only for prepetuation of cells, what does that say about the value of human life. If you believe what you said in the "Why don't atheists murder" thread, then you can't argue that it's OK to kill people, regardless of how young they are.

I have stated on several occasions that human beings already kill human life. You have done so at least thousands of times. A single human cell is human life. But a human being is a complicated collection of human cells organized and working in a way that results in a human being. You can kill a great number of those cells and everyone will agree that what is left is still a human being but there are a few very special cells in the brain that if you kill those then you have killed the human being. This bit of information should be a big clue as to what is important for human beingness.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

carriew - let's not be calling people silly when they are kindly taking the time to teach you scientific fact.