Random Thoughts, strictly Text

M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
I think you are missing the context of what we are discussing: we are talking about abortion and its moral implications, and in the current page the issue about IVF treatment and embryo harvesting.

As a matter of fact the start of life can be defined. When the zygot is formed it has its own type of genome (a combination of the DNA of the father and mother), which makes it a living organism on its own.

The question would be whether we can presume a zygot is to be considered a viable organism worthy of humans rights before it gets implanted into the uterine wall, and thus harvested and discarded for the process of in vitro fertilization.

- Petosiris stance that it does not, because it may yet not be viable because it can fail implantation (he never actually said so in those words, I'm just speculating what I believe his point is)
- Mine is that it is, because it is already in the first stage of human gestation (the zygot)
Click to expand...

I actually didn't miss the context. Perhaps I just think very differently from you. I apologize that I wasn't able to convey my thoughts adequately enough for your understanding. My point is that I don't think everything falls squarely in a box, especially when arguing over a concept like 'when does life begin?'

I had read that the basis of your argument was your belief that everyone can agree on a concrete start date for life and that everyone can agree that the start of life comes with certain rights. I was curious and sought further examination of the key element of your argument, which I took to be the definitive understanding of life.
 
Last edited:
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
So, you define an organism as something that has a distinct genome. Nothing more?

I was more philosophizing in this sort of way:

https://www.livescience.com/58018-are-viruses-alive.html

If you don't want to read it, here is a quote:

"According to the seven characteristics of life, all living beings must be able to respond to stimuli; grow over time; produce offspring; maintain a stable body temperature; metabolize energy; consist of one or more cells; and adapt to their environment.

However, some life-forms don't fit every single characteristic. Most hybrid animals, such as mules (a cross between a donkey and a horse), can't reproduce because they are sterile. Moreover, rocks can grow, albeit in a passive way, with new material flowing over them. But this classification problem goes away when a simpler definition of "life" is used."
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
I actually didn't miss the context. Perhaps I just think very differently from you. I apologize that I wasn't able to convey my thoughts adequately enough for your understanding. My point is that I don't think everything falls squarely in a box, especially when arguing over a concept like 'when does life begin?'
Click to expand...

How so? Science literally tells us life begins within the first 5 minutes of conception. What would be the counter argument?

We are talking about the cycle of living organisms though, not "life as a journey of experience". So if your point is more metaphorical its fine, but its not within the context of the discussion :tongue:
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Dirius said:
I think you are missing the context of what we are discussing: we are talking about abortion and its moral implications, and in the current page the issue about IVF treatment and embryo harvesting.

As a matter of fact the start of life can be defined. When the zygot is formed it has its own type of genome (a combination of the DNA of the father and mother), which makes it a living organism on its own. The question would be whether we can presume a zygot is to be considered a viable organism worthy of humans rights before it gets implanted into the uterine wall, and thus harvested and discarded for the process of in vitro fertilization.

- Petosiris stance that it does not, because it may yet not be viable because it can fail implantation into the uterine wall (he never actually said so in those words, I'm just speculating what I believe his point is)

- Mine is that it is, because it is already in the first stage of human gestation, and because in a natural conception with a woman of fertile age, the rate and uterine implantation is much higher. (I never actually got to this part)

The impass occurs when we realise that IVF tries to force implantation with little succes rate (around 10%-15% average or lower) while in natural pregnancies, a fertilised egg has much higher percentage (50%-60% average or higher). Thus you end up creating zygots for the purpose of failing, while in the natural process the odds would incline to a succesful implantation once fertilised. But it reverts to the question on whether the zygot is to be considered a human in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is a women's issue. Men should stay neutral about it, and let women argue it out.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
So, you define an organism as something that has a distinct genome. Nothing more?

I was more philosophizing in this sort of way:

https://www.livescience.com/58018-are-viruses-alive.html

If you don't want to read it, here is a quote:

"According to the seven characteristics of life, all living beings must be able to respond to stimuli; grow over time; produce offspring; maintain a stable body temperature; metabolize energy; consist of one or more cells; and adapt to their environment.

However, some life-forms don't fit every single characteristic. Most hybrid animals, such as mules (a cross between a donkey and a horse), can't reproduce because they are sterile. Moreover, rocks can grow, albeit in a passive way, with new material flowing over them. But this classification problem goes away when a simpler definition of "life" is used."
Click to expand...


No, the genome issue has to be mentioned because it is important. It reveals that it is an organism distinct from the mother or father, and thus the first requirement to be considered an organism on its own.
 
Last edited:
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
How so? Science literally tells us life begins within the first 5 minutes of conception. What would be the counter argument?

We are talking about the cycle of living organisms though, not "life as a journey of experience". So if your point is more metaphorical its fine, but its not within the context of the discussion :tongue:
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain whether you're able and willing to take my perspective on this, which is fine. Let me know if you'd prefer I step out of the conversation.

I wasn't arguing 'life as a journey of experience' actually, although my point leans more philosophical. Perhaps I need further clarity on your argument. What do you define as life? I'm not trying to be stubborn or obtuse on purpose. Above, I listed the 7 criteria for life as stated by biologists, but certain organisms actually don't fit all 7, but we still consider them alive. What are your thoughts on this scientific criteria?
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
No, the genome issue has to be mentioned because it is important. It reveals that it is an organism distinct from the mother or father, and thus the first requirement to be considered an organism on its own.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see how you view that as a first requirement, but generally the 7 criteria taken as a whole, constitute the scientific label of 'life' as espoused by many biologists. So you consider the separation and distinction of the organism from its parents as meeting the first requirement, so is your argument that meeting one requirement actually constitutes 'life'? Do you mean that the potentiality to meet all 7 qualifies for specifically human rights? Just trying to clarify here.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
I'm uncertain whether you're able and willing to take my perspective on this, which is fine. Let me know if you'd prefer I step out of the conversation.

I wasn't arguing 'life as a journey of experience' actually, although my point leans more philosophical. Perhaps I need further clarity on your argument. What do you define as life? I'm not trying to be stubborn or obtuse on purpose. Above, I listed the 7 criteria for life as stated by biologists, but certain organisms actually don't fit all 7, but we still consider them alive. What are your thoughts on this scientific criteria?
Click to expand...

Since you're a biological female, it's not you who should step out of the conversation, it's the biological males.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
I'm uncertain whether you're able and willing to take my perspective on this, which is fine. Let me know if you'd prefer I step out of the conversation.

I wasn't arguing 'life as a journey of experience' actually, although my point leans more philosophical. Perhaps I need further clarity on your argument. What do you define as life? I'm not trying to be stubborn or obtuse on purpose. Above, I listed the 7 criteria for life as stated by biologists, but certain organisms actually don't fit all 7, but we still consider them alive. What are your thoughts on this scientific criteria?
Click to expand...

You are more than welcome to stay, its just that your original topic didn't seem to have much to do with what we were discussing (at first glance at least), thats all. I didn't know if you were trying to make a point relevant to the topic, or one derived from it into other area of discussion about the general issues of "life" itself.

The problem with the link you posted is that we are discussing the original point in life. Thus obviously the first cell in what will eventually become a person may not fit the criteria, at least not without the help of its gestator (the mother), but it will eventually fit them all. The genetic material that will develop into all those things is already there.


Lets say you want to make a drawing, and you take a blank page.

You draw a small dot in the middle of the page with ink.

Its not yet a drawing (cause it doesn't represent much more than a speck of ink), it doesn't fit the criteria.

But its already not a blank page (cause there is a dot of ink).

What is it then?

Its the first step towards a drawing in my opinion. What is it to you?
 
Last edited:
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
You are more than welcome to stay, its just that your original topic didn't seem to have much to do with what we were discussing (at first glance at least), thats all. I didn't know if you were trying to make a point relevant to the topic, or one derived from it into other area of discussion about the general issues of "life" itself.

The problem with the link you posted is that we are discussing the original point in life. Thus obviously the first cell in what will eventually become a person may not fit the criteria, at least not with the help of its gestator (the mother), but it will eventually fit them all. The genetic material that will develop into all those things is alreay there.


Lets say you want to make a drawing, and you take a blank page.

You draw a small dot in the middle of the page with ink.

Its not yet a drawing (cause it doesn't represent much more than a speck of ink), it doesn't fit the criteria.

But its already not a blank page (cause there is a dot of ink).

What is it then?

Its the first step towards a drawing in my opinion. What is it to you?
Click to expand...

I don't have a concrete answer on the definition of life. I just like to postulate and consider many opinions in my exploration of what I believe and what I value is all.

I think your question on whether it's the first step towards a drawing or a blank page goes back to another post I just wrote:

As I'm thinking about it, people tend to think in dualistic terms, or at least that seems to be my natural tendency. In defining the term 'life', I'm trying to think of a word for its opposite, which I always thought was 'death', but there's also inanimate matter, which doesn't qualify for either category, 'life' or 'death'. It's all very confusing in my head, all these thoughts just swirling around now.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure thinking of it in such restricted terms as 'is it this or is it that' can really be answered and certainly it would be quite miraculous if everyone agreed. Some people would actually consider the dot a drawing in and of itself. I'm rather ambivalent on it all and uncertain whether I would like to box myself into one definition.

I have a personal stance on abortion actually, irrespective of the morality of whether a fetus is alive or not.

I wouldn't get one myself, but I understand that there are circumstances out in the world that would perpetuate a woman's belief that it is the best option for her. I understand that even if it's illegal, many many women will seek back alley abortions and lose their lives or destroy their bodies irreparably.

I don't see a point in all that, so I figure even if the fetus is 'alive' by some people's standards and 'not alive' by others, it doesn't matter. On a practical level, women will continue to get abortions, losing the fetus as well as their own lives if a relatively safe means of abortion is not an option.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Okay, I see how you view that as a first requirement, but generally the 7 criteria taken as a whole, constitute the scientific label of 'life' as espoused by many biologists. So you consider the separation and distinction of the organism from its parents as meeting the first requirement, so is your argument that meeting one requirement actually constitutes 'life'? Do you mean that the potentiality to meet all 7 qualifies for specifically human rights? Just trying to clarify here.
Click to expand...

Ok let me put it this way. Lets say that a disease ends with you being sterilized and unable to reproduce (unless you are counting celular division which a zygot is able to do). You stop fitting one of the 7 criteria in your article. Are you no longer a living being?
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
I don't have a concrete answer on the definition of life. I just like to postulate and consider many opinions in my exploration of what I believe and what I value is all.

I think your question on whether it's the first step towards a drawing or a blank page goes back to another post I just wrote:



I'm not sure thinking of it in such restricted terms as 'is it this or is it that' can really be answered and certainly it would be quite miraculous if everyone agreed. Some people would actually consider the dot a drawing in and of itself. I'm rather ambivalent on it all and uncertain whether I would like to box myself into one definition.

I have a personal stance on abortion actually, irrespective of the morality of whether a fetus is alive or not.

I wouldn't get one myself, but I understand that there are circumstances out in the world that would perpetuate a woman's belief that it is the best option for her. I understand that even if it's illegal, many many women will seek back alley abortions and lose their lives or destroy their bodies irreparably.

I don't see a point in all that, so I figure even if the fetus is 'alive' by some people's standards and 'not alive' by others, it doesn't matter. On a practical level, women will continue to get abortions, losing the fetus as well as their own lives if a relatively safe means of abortion is not an option.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you get one yourself?
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
david starling said:
No, it initially takes a sperm and an egg. Then, it takes someone with a womb. Biological men don't qualify in that regard.
Click to expand...

Well, as a woman, I'd appreciate men's input, and I'd rather we, as a species, develop valuable discourse and open communication regarding hot topic issues like this.

In some way, I can almost see how men washing their hands of the issue creates an opportunity for the argument that men are able to walk away from their children and baby mamas because the men didn't have much to do with the conception of their offspring.

That might be a step too far, but I think it's a step too far to say men should have no saying on the potential lives of their offspring.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Well, as a woman, I'd appreciate men's input, and I'd rather we, as a species, develop valuable discourse and open communication regarding hot topic issues like this.

In some way, I can almost see how men washing their hands of the issue creates an opportunity for the argument that men are able to walk away from their children and baby mamas because the men didn't have much to do with the conception of their offspring.

That might be a step too far, but I think it's a step too far to say men should have no saying on the potential lives of their offspring.
Click to expand...

Men want heirs. Is it a woman's obligation to supply that narcissistic need?
 
Last edited:
Top