The Glade 4.0

What about cases where there is no potential for life? Ie, no higher brain function, where the body will simply never develop a brain and will in essense be a husk--with a heartbeat , etc.

Clearer for you?

_________________

Actually that's not true Hopwin. Eggs, and sperm, are cells that metabolize ADP and divide via meiosis. The reason eggs and sperm aren't separate lifeforms is because they don't meet all the requirements of the biological definition of life. Those are homeostatis (the ability of an organism to regulate itself in an environment), organization (being composed of cell(s) and/or higher levels), metabolism (the ability to break down and create energy and chemicals through reactions), growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction (at some stage of develop). Eggs and sperm aren't life because they fail to reproduce on their own, adapt on their own, and respond to stimuli without an organism controlling those functions.

The problem with that definition, though, is what about viruses? Viruses don't meet those criteria, therefore we don't consider them life. They respond a lot like life, though, except they can't reproduce without a host cell, nor do they show complex organization, metabolism, growth, or homeostatic functions. But they respond to stimuli and do adapt. They're an interesting case, but I do not believe they should be considered life.

But how does this apply to zygotes? Zygotes clearly show homeostatis in the womb by regulating heart rate and such. They can metabolize like any other organism. They do grow of course and the cells differentiate over time. They can adapt to situations, such as producing more or fewer proteins and enzymes. They respond to stimuli. This can be measured by how attentive fetuses and zygotes are when music is played for instance. They cannot reproduce, but at some point in their develop they will have that ability, so the definition is still applicable. The only point is that they cannot do it on their own. The mother must protect the zygote and help it with certain processes. But what about a sterile human that cannot reproduce? Aren't they still life? Therefore, the definition cannot be applied to an individual case. It needs to be applied to a grouping. Thus, I believe we're still in a gray area for zygotes. This is why I believe we should err on the side of caution. It's nearly impossible to say when it is life and not life, so playing it safe is the best option in my mind.

They certainly can reproduce, not sexually but asexually which results in twins.

_________________

They can reproduce because people have sex and have kids. You don't judge if an organism is alive by examining one point in its lifecycle. We examine the creature over its entire lifecycle. Wow bluebird eggs don't reproduce, neither to acorns - I guess bluebirds and oak trees aren't alive.

Hell take a one plank time view and nothing, reproduces, nothing movies, nothing eats.

The lengths people are willing to go to protect their ego is simply astounding. Makes me want to be a different species.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I agree. And that is a SERIOUS injustice.

No, that's not reproduction. The production of twins is due to a few causes, none of which meet the requirements for asexual reproduction. But the zygote will be able to reproduce during it's lifecycle which makes this a moot point anyway.

Also, if that comment was directed at me Elmo, I suggest you read what I wrote again. I agree with you. It's absolutely based on the totality of organismal development, not just one point.

How so? Serious question, what do you feel is an injustice about it?

Wrong.
http://biology.about.com/od/genetics/ss ... uction.htm

See Fragmentation.

_________________

You think maybe it's the fact that the same people who think it's all about the woman and her body and the baby want the father to help support the kid as soon as it actually is born?

The fact that the female is inconvenienced for 9 months or so by biology does not in any way imply she should have exclusive say in whether the child is brought to term or not, or that only females should have a say in what legal status abortion should have. Oh, unless of course you're going to argue males should be exempt from all requirements to support their children.

"No, it's not your kid until it's born, but then you're just as responsible for it as I am. Until then, I get to decide if it lives or not, meaning I get to decide if you get to care for it, and I get to decide if you have to support it."

Yeah, that's fair.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Really Hopwin? That's not fragmentation. If you knew about how twins, triplets, and the like separated, you'd understand that fragmentation is a rare form of asexual reproduction, not exhibited amongst the more complex genuses in Kingdom Animalia. Try again. It's such a silly argument anyway. Reproductive capabilities just need to be shown at some point in the lifecycle, as Elmo eluded to. But I was trying to show the definition of life can be a tenuous one, depending on many factors.

You assume much in your first sentence. I'm sure there are those who think like that, but it's not everyone who supports a women's right to choose.

Your logic here is also counter to the argument that's been made by the pro-life crowd here that by simply engaging in sex you're signing up for being a parent and all that entails. You can't have it both ways.

Read my link and tell me where I am wrong, or are you conceding that zygotes are human life?

_________________

You are 100 percent wrong Hopwin because that definition is incomplete. It's fine as a basic definition, but it's more complex than about.com will give you. And have you read one thing I wrote? I'm saying I'm not entirely sure if a zygote is human life at the stage, so let's err on the safe side and assume it is. Sometimes I wonder if any of you actually read what other posters write and just like to go on your own rants.

*scrolls up* I don't see a rant on my part, I called you out on a fallacy you presented.

Since the argument is "when" a zygote becomes human life and the ability to reproduce is a characteristic of life it seems highly-relevant to point out that a zygote is capable of reproducing from its first division.

_________________

Which means you didn't at all read what I wrote Hopwin. Honestly, this is tiresome. I was going through a point of logic to explain how the definition applies, since some may have questioned that part of the biological definition of life (since zygotes cannot reproduce). Therefore, I explained why it applies to not just an individual stage of development, but the entire developmental process.

And I'm going to say this, and it's going to sound nasty. It's not the way I mean it though. You have no clue what you're talking about and I can clearly see you've never taken advanced level courses in biology. That's not reproduction. According to your definition, mitosis and meiosis are always reproduction. It is not. Reproduction has a very limited, specific definition as does fragmentation. The zygote isn't reproducing, it's splitting via mitosis into two separate, distinct zygotes that share a common placenta due to a fairly rare anomaly. The twins aren't even perfectly identical either, believe it or not, which is part of the definition of fragmentation.

I keep reading and re-reading your statement and every time it appears to me that you are couching your position. You define life as requiring the ability to reproduce and while you acknowledge a zygote will eventually be able to reproduce (and saying you prefer to err on the side of caution) it skirts the issue of whether or a not a zygote is life while it is a zygote. Maybe I am reading too much into your statements.

As to your other statement: where did I say mitosis and meiosis are reproduction? In normal mitosis the new cell cannot split off to form an entire human being it will form another muscle-cell or skin-cell, etc. To your other statement, I don't even know why you raise meiosis as it results in an incomplete cell that is utterly incapable of any type of independant life. As opposed to when a zygote splits completely a whole separate human being results. Finally, on the genetics side: budding, fragementation, etc., also result in genetic variations. Most times the result is a genetic clone of the parent but mutations occur just as they can during mitosis else there would be no such thing as evolution and we'd all still be unflagellated prokaryotes floating around in primordial ooze.

_________________

Ok, last statement from me because we're going in circles. I'm not saying that reproduction is the only criterion for life according to the biological definition. It's one of a few criteria. But what I'm saying is that no one definition of life is all-encompassing. As a result, zygotes could or could not be considered life according to definitions, but by the biological definition you could make a case it is life. Regardless, better to be cautious and assume it is if we aren't sure.

Of course there can be genetic variations, but fragmentation is also referred to as clonal fragmentation. In other words, barring no mutations, it's an exact replica of the parent. A prime example of this would be starfish. When a starfish arm is cut off, the arm produces an perfect DNA-matching clone of the parent starfish. Not so when you have "identical" twins. Due to crossing over and other meiotic patterns, the twins rarely, if ever, are exact clones of each other. Incredibly similar, but not clones. I'm not denying evolution. Mutations are part of the equation, but by it's definition and name, fragmentation allows for very little genetic variation, as does most forms of asexual reproduction. Mutations can also occur outside reproduction cycles, though. It's not the only time organisms mutate. As long as cells divide, there's always the possibility of mutations.

I have yet to meet a single person who thinks it's solely the woman's right to choose who does not also want the man to be on the hook for child support as soon as the child is born "because he made the decision to have sex"/



Since I'm not trying to have it both ways, that shouldn't be a problem. It's the pro-choice crowd trying to have it both ways; when it's the woman it's her right to choose because choosing to have sex somehow isn't an obligation to the child, but when we're talking about a man all of a sudden it's the other way around.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well now you have.

Disgusting.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Wait, it's disgusting that I support a woman's right to her own body, but also don't think that the man should be automatically on the hook for child support regardless of his opinion on the birth?

And again, its not her body. Holy **** **** you're dense.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I understand your position Elmo, I just don't agree with it. But I'm not talking to you, go take a nap and come back when you can be sociable. I'm trying to understand Nitefox's one word retort and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just being an *******.

The only thing you're disagreeing with is biology. If you want to look like someone with their head stuck in the sand repeating the same dis-proven mantra because it is comfortable for you to say then by all means continue to advertise your foolishness.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville