- #1
checkbox
- 7
- 0
What does science say?
Do you agree or disagree that a fertilized egg is a human life? If not human, then what species?Neither of your options is correct. Life is a long chain reaching back to its origin. Consider: a zygote is formed from gametes, gametes are living cells that in turn arise from the living cells of an organism, all the living cells in that organism have a lineage that can be traced back to a zygote, a zygote is formed from gametes...
I think this was meant as a more philosophical one. Let's separate the biological issue and the philosophical/legal/social/women-rights one.If you are trying to ask the broader question of when does a developing human become a conscious person (i.e. attain "personhood") then depending on how you wanted to define person the answer could range from 5 weeks after conception to years after birth for healthy individuals.
It is a human cell and it is alive but that is also true of the gametes that make it.Do you agree or disagree that a fertilized egg is a human life? If not human, then what species?
As I stated all life can trace an unbroken lineage back to abiogenic beginnings.If not alive, then how to explain the biological processes that going on inside that we have always believed makes anyone or anything alive.
That's not possible because the definition of life, human and personhood are not objective concepts. At best we can construct a sliding scale (e.g. animals are very alive, viruses are a little alive, chemical reactions in mycells are barely alive, a rock is not alive) but this is all to do with our subjective (albiet pragmatic) definitions.I think this was meant as a more philosophical one. Let's separate the biological issue and the philosophical/legal/social/women-rights one.
The problem IMO is that statements like this are ripe for equivication fallacies. Sure the formation of the zygote is the point in which a genetically distinct organism is formed but is that really an "individual" in the social sense of the word? If so then all cells are individuals, if not we're back to the concept of personhood and when it comes into place, and IMO personhood is not something that rapidly arrives in an human but slowly develops with the span of that development crossing birth.Ambiguous question huh? As written I would have answered what, 3.5 billion years ago and even that can't be pinpointed to anything near a definite time. I think rather you mean when does the individual come into existence? In that case, I would argue at the moment of fertilization; as soon as the chromosomes meet, you're born.
Definitely chicken. Or dinosaur. It's definitely one of those two species.Do you agree or disagree that a fertilized egg is a human life? If not human, then what species?
Sure the formation of the zygote is the point in which a genetically distinct organism is formed but is that really an "individual" in the social sense of the word? If so then all cells are individuals.
Agreed however I'd like to reiterate that as scientists we should be careful in using language that will mislead laymen by setting up an easy equivocation fallacy e.g. "scientists determine that fertilised eggs are individuals!" or to use another recent example "scientists find God particle (vatican yet to comment)"Maybe not "social" sense, but just rather a genetially distinct organism.
True, but to explore the issue further would that not make IPSCs individuals (ignoring totipotency for a moment)?Also, I don't think you can equate the fertilized zygote to other cells in the body. For example, a liver cell can't (normally) change into a heart cell. The fertalized zygote is I think distinctly different than all the other cells in the body.
I need to narrow down my question to "human life."Definitely chicken. Or dinosaur. It's definitely one of those two species.
Here is the only scientific answer to your question:I need to narrow down my question to "human life."
I frequently heard comment that the "fetus is not human." It cannot be anything but human! Elephants have elephants, lilies have lillies, humans have humans!" If the child is born a human, it must have been a human the entire time in the womb.
True, but to explore the issue further would that not make IPSCs individuals (ignoring totipotency for a moment)?
I need to narrow down my question to "human life."
I frequently heard comment that the "fetus is not human." It cannot be anything but human! Elephants have elephants, lilies have lillies, humans have humans!" If the child is born a human, it must have been a human the entire time in the womb.
Yes totipotency. Pluripotent cells can differentiate into any cell type with the exception of extraembryotic tissues. So for the sake of argument again, let's say we made a ITSC (inducible totipotent stem cell), would that be an individual?I don't think they can invoke the entire ontogenisis of an organism but rather are capable of expressing only a subset of the process. Something is missing in IPSCs that is present in the feterlized egg.
Yes totipotency. Pluripotent cells can differentiate into any cell type with the exception of extraembryotic tissues. So for the sake of argument again, let's say we made a ITSC (inducible totipotent stem cell), would that be an individual?
If we say at birth, then what is the difference between a child 5 minutes before birth versus one 5 minutes after? None, other than environment that child is in. "Personhood" should never be based solely on how you wanted to define it.If you are trying to ask the broader question of when does a developing human become a conscious person (i.e. attain "personhood") then depending on how you wanted to define person the answer could range from 5 weeks after conception to years after birth for healthy individuals.
There is no clear link between animals and humans, is there?Here is the only scientific answer to your question:
- Human life didn't begin at a specific point but homo sapiens emerged as a separate species about 200,000 years ago. Any human alive now can trace life back to that point (and beyond)
- Genetically distinct homo sapiens form at conception
- The term "human" can mean homo sapien or personhood. Biology can comment on the former and can weakly contribute to the discussion/debate on the latter but as it isn't an objective quality there is no way science can point and say "here it starts"
Lastly when a person says a fetus isn't human they aren't using the term in a taxonomy sense (i.e. they aren't denying it is biologically homo sapien) they are using it in a personhood sense.
Is there any place for subjectivity in the beginning of life of an individual?
There is no clear link between animals and humans, is there?
Is there any place for subjectivity in the beginning of life of an individual?![]()
There is no clear link between animals and humans, is there?
Maybe not "social" sense, but just rather a genetially distinct organism. Also, I don't think you can equate the fertilized zygote to other cells in the body. For example, a liver cell can't (normally) change into a heart cell. The fertalized zygote is I think distinctly different than all the other cells in the body.
Okay, let's. The biological issue is completely separate from the ethical issue, at least at first. However, there is more than one type of biologist. A paleontologist might look at the issue of humanity different from a psychologist. A geneticist may look at the problem differently from both.Do you agree or disagree that a fertilized egg is a human life? If not human, then what species?
If not alive, then how to explain the biological processes that going on inside that we have always believed makes anyone or anything alive.
I think this was meant as a more philosophical one. Let's separate the biological issue and the philosophical/legal/social/women-rights one.
Is there any place for subjectivity in the beginning of life of an individual?![]()
Do you agree or disagree that a fertilized egg is a human life? If not human, then what species?
If not alive, then how to explain the biological processes that going on inside that we have always believed makes anyone or anything alive.
I think this was meant as a more philosophical one. Let's separate the biological issue and the philosophical/legal/social/women-rights one.
I understand the classification categories refer to common ancestors (and traits) we have with other animals - Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Hominini, Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens. There's yet more subdivisions, eg sub-phylum Vertebrata. The"missing link" that I was talking about can be asked something like "Can animal organs be transplanted into humans 100% successfully?" Look up Hyperacute Rejection, Acute Vascular Rejection, http://www.revespcardiol.org/sites/default/files/elsevier/pdf/255/255v63n09a13155685pdf001.pdf, etc...Seriously? Are you about to argue that humans did not evolve from prior non-human ancestors and that we share these ancestors with other extant species?
If that is the case, a science forum probably isn't the place for you.
This has nothing to do with the topic, which has been answered.I understand the classification categories refer to common ancestors (and traits) we have with other animals - Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Hominini, Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens. There's yet more subdivisions, eg sub-phylum Vertebrata. The"missing link" that I was talking about can be asked something like "Can animal organs be transplanted into humans 100% successfully?" Look up Hyperacute Rejection, Acute Vascular Rejection, http://www.revespcardiol.org/sites/default/files/elsevier/pdf/255/255v63n09a13155685pdf001.pdf, etc