If the scientific community defines a single celled organism, such as bacteria, a living being, is it not reasonable to give the same status to a human embryo at the moment of conception?
Yes, but this is not a question of science, because science does not deny that.
There is no question or scientific denial that a fetus is a living being. So this is a societal and political question, not a scientific one. The question of abortion is very difficult and should be handle on a case to case basis. In case of rape, the woman should not be forced to carry the child. If the child cannot be reasonable cared for, wouldn't it be better not to be forced to life in misery all its life? People that oppose abortion should talk to the women who plan for them and offer to adopt the child. Both sides would be help. Again, the question was not scientific. An embryo is a living being.
Posted by: SteChiquitaA human is more commonly classified as living than a bacteria no matter the stage it is in.
I really believe that a human is living, no matter what stage it is in, and thusly should be classified as such. A bacteria, something people kind of know as living but doesn't come to mind first when thinking of living things, is classified in this category, so a human being from when they first came into being should also fall into this category.
Posted by: 5h4m4m3AntoSure, an embryo is a living thing, but the status doesn't go beyond that.
An embryo is a living thing just as much as any bacteria is, but how much does that status really mean? We do experiments on bacteria, we observe it, and we terminate single-celled organisms when needed. Giving an embryo a living status doesn't necessarily mean that experimentation (like stem cell research) or abortion is out of the question.
Posted by: 54ndDaviYes, an embryo should be entitled to the same rights as human beings, because they are no different.
Legally, with the presence of a normally-functioning mind or not, all human beings are entitled to the rights of making life or death decisions for themselves. It is not okay to murder a person with a dysfunctional brain or an inability to speak. How does that differ from an embryo?
Posted by: JamesonFYes the same status apply to a(n) embryo, fetus as a living status because it is a living thing.
All organisms in the scientific "kingdoms" of Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia are deemed alive by science when their cells are functioning, replicating, having the chemical processes, etc. Even one-celled organisms "Protists" are deemed alive and to an even greater extent, bacteria and viruses which aren't even one sustainable cell but microscopic parasites are still deemed alive.
Posted by: JKleinIt certainly makes sense to me that if a bacteria is living that a human embryo certainly is.
It only makes sense to me that a human embryo is a viable, living being upon conception. After all, that embryo grows into a complete human being during pregnancy so it is, to me, a human being from conception. If a single cell organism such as bacteria is considered viable and living, a human embryo would certainly be defined by scientists in the same way.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyWhen science and religion are of one accord it would be best to concied the point.
The only reason that the destruction of human life on such a small scale is because, as usual, relgious tenants are being used for political gain by "religious" politicians on both sides of the issue. Christianity has always proported that life is the most valuable gift given by God to humanity and therefore should always be protected and nutured. From such beliefs we have finally succeeded in elevated rights for women, children, the disabled, the poor, and the enslaved. We will eventually expand the idea of human rights because of human instrinsic value to the unborn as well. It has taken us 2,000 years to overcome other injustices, we are will to fight for the long haul. The conversation of how religion is able to help humanity in ways that other studies cannot continues here: http://www.exegeticalstruggles.com/2011/08/religion-is-better-than-science-why.html
Posted by: AnonymousSelf Sustaining?
To say the embryo is not a life since it cannot sustain itself is inane. A 14 month old child cannot sustain itself either, but we consider them alive. A person on a ventilator cannot sustain themselves, but they are considered alive. A hatched eaglet in a nest cannot sustain itself but we consider it alive.
Posted by: DingoDangoBangoCounter-argument for why embryo's can be considered living.
I see many people saying that because embryo's are not self sustaining, like bacteria, it can not be considered living. This is a fallacy because there are numerous protozoa that are single-cellular parasitic organisms. These require a 'host' to live, thus if these are considered living so are embryo's.
Posted by: anyonymous32A human embryo at the moment of conception is a living thing.
Life starts at the moment of conception, whether or not people choose to accept that is another issue, bacteria and germs are alive, and they are invisible, just like an embryo. Our society picks and chooses what truths to believe, and unfortunately, the majority will not call a human embryo a living being because the thought of "aborting" a living being is too much to bear, but every one of us was an embryo.
Posted by: TatumHIf an amoeba is alive, so is a fetus.
People are "defining" what constitutes a life to suit their own needs or
opinions. If abortion were not part of the issue, then of course people would just defer to science for the definition of a living thing. By
distorting this definition to suit themselves, pro-choice individuals are
able to live with their decision to kill babies.Posted by: MarsBIueThe question of the debate almost answers itself. It is common sense that, if a bacteria is a living being, then a human embryo is also a living being. The only difference is that I believe the human embryo has a soul, and the bacteria does not.
The evidence for me is found in the Bible, which I believe is true. God said that he knew us as he formed us in the womb, so we were a person, with a soul in the womb from the start. The scientific evidence in the debate of the bacteria being a living being from the start of its existence, only leaves the conclusion that the embryo is also a living being. The embryo has bacteria in its formation with the sperm and the egg.
Posted by: TremendousCornelius99Scientific reasoning to help the people on the NO side
1. Bacteria is self-sustaining and embryos are not - FALSE. Bateria is not self-sustaining. Nothing is self-sustaining. Everything that lives needs to rely on other things to continue to live. Humans cannot live without food/water/rest. Bacteria cannot live without nutrients. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
2. Humans do not have memory of themselves as a fetus - TRUE. But ameoba and flies and other small organism also do not have the ability for memory...Yet we believe that they are alive. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
3. The same people that claim human embryos are alive would also claim that insects and bacteria are not alive. FALSE. Seriously?? Do I even need to say anything else? Why do we spend so much time and energy to "kill" bacteria that you say, we dont think is alive. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
4. I believe the whole abortion issue should be handed over to the women. It is not an issue that shold involve men as there bodies are not the ones that are affected. FALSE. The men helped create the fetus. The abortion issue does not only affect the womens body, it also affects (and mostly affects) the fetus' body. If men should not have a say in abortion, then women should not be allowed to request money from the baby-daddy. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
5. Embryos depend on a human host to thrive. TRUE. But so to parasites and bacteria and these are considered alive. If you only look at it as the embryo depends on something else to survive. This is also true. But so to children until they are at the earliest, three years of age. But these are considered alive.THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
6. Humans have names, birth certificates, citizenship, opinions, viability. To assign the same rights to the unborn is wrong and offensive to the living, especially women. TRUE and FALSE. Many pregnant women name the unborn child. The child does not get a birth certificate until they are born because...Well...It is a BIRTH certificate, not a certificate of life. Citizenship does not a human make. Humans have opinions at a certain point in their lives but ask a 3 month old for there opinion and let me know how that goes. Viability is something that is defined as "living outside the womb". What about mentally/physically disabled people that cannot live on there own without help. Are we to considere them not alive? Secondly, how is this offensive especially to women? Women are gifted with the ability to create life and help grow a human being. Men will never be able to do this.I am still confused how this is offensive to women. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
I have 9 more rebuttles to non-scientific claims on the side of the NOs but have lost room to do so.Posted by: AnonymousIt is more than reasonable.
There is no unequivocal definition of life. Instead we have to resort to descriptions that appear to be common to all things that we consider to be living (Davison, 2008, 'How to Define Life'). These are currently considered to be the following seven characteristics: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction.
All embryos can be easily seen to fulfill the following characteristics: homeostasis, by using internal self-regulation common to all cells; organization, both intracellularly and after the zygote begins to divide and differentiate; metabolism, via the exchange of nutrients and excretion of waste; growth, using the aforementioned ability of cell division and response to stimuli, cell division also means apoptosis. The harder two to define are adaptation, because the uterus is controlled by the mother's physiology and reproduction. However, we have already stated that on the cellular level, growth and reproduction is interchangeable so that takes care of that. And to be able to exhibit homeostasis is indicative of cellular adaptation so when we are talking about single cells or populations of cells then these two are also synonymous.
For those that are complaining that the embryo is fully reliant on the mother for survival or cannot reproduce on its own and therefore cannot be considered alive, think on this. Take a newborn baby and place it outside by the side of the road. It will die because it will not be able to exert sufficient homeostasis or adapt appropriately to allow it to survive. And yet no one would consider calling a newborn 'not alive'. Equally it cannot reproduce because it has no mature sex organs but that does not preclude it from our definition of life.
Additionally, for those who support the woman's unequivocal right to make decisions over her own body, that's great, that is admirable. But the baby growing inside, whether it is one cell or a million does not have the same DNA as its mother so cannot be considered her body.
We don't need to look at religion to answer this one. The science is sufficient.Posted by: AnonymousYes, because an embryo is a living thing by all scientific reasoning.
An embryo, like single-celled bacteria, is certainly considering a living entity by all scientists. In terms of the debate over abortion and contraception, however, this is not the relevant argument. A few cells in an embryo are a living thing, as were the sperm and egg cells that created the embryo, and as a bacterium is as well. The more important debate is whether the embryo is a human person deserving of protection, not whether it is merely alive like a bacterium or a sperm cell, which are not merited any protection.
Posted by: tacomoonIt's fair to say
Yes, it is fair to say that this is true considering an embryo the moment of conception really isn't much. Not to say a child isn't much, but after all an embryo is not yet exactly a child. You can call a baby in the womb many things, it can even be argued that a baby could be considered a parisite. Now this may seem like a bit of a stretch, but the baby benifits of the mother while the mother has no bennifets to this transaction at all.
Posted by: alexismhampIt is reasonable
The only reason for not acknowledging the embryo as a living being is because of the abortion issue. If the embryo fits the scientific definition of life isn't it life? Not acknowledging an embryo as life only makes abortion more palatable at the expense of our acceptance of science as the final arbitrator. Why should acknowledging an embryo as life make abortion less palatable. We have decided that legalized killing of life, human life is acceptable, capital punishment and war, and at times are a source of national identity and pride. We are big on promoting scientific objectivity in comparison to religion in the "creation evolution debate" yet we are willing to forgo the same objectivity when it comes to abortion. So what if abortion is described as killing a human life. It is our right to decide what we can choose.
Posted by: scientific
Fetuses and embryos do not meet the scientific definition of "alive"
To meet the scientific definition of "alive," an organism must do all of the following: be made of cells, obtain and use energy, grow and develop, respond and adapt to their environment, and reproduce. Fetuses/embryos do not reproduce, so they are not alive.
Posted by: EmmeAngurisBacteria are self-sustaining; Embryos are not.
Since a human embryo cannot survive on its own, I would not consider it a living being. In addition, does anyone here have memories of themselves at this stage? The biggest problem with the whole abortion debate is that it hinges on the idea that the embryo is alive. It isn't. The same people that claim human embryos are alive would also claim that insects and bacteria ate not alive. In addition, the idea of making laws telling a person what they can and can't do with their own body is ludicrous. In my opinion, I think the whole abortion issue should be completely handed over to women. Make it where only women enable politicians can come up with policies on the issue and where only female Americans can vote on it. It's not an issue that should involve men; they are not the ones whose bodies this is affecting.
Posted by: AnonymousA living being must be able to survive on its own to be considered "alive".
I believe a living thing must be able to survive on its own. A single cell of bacteria sustains its own existence. However, the embryo, at the moment of conception, cannot survive without the housing of the mother's womb. At a certain point, the fetus can be removed and can survive outside. But, before that, it cannot be considered a living independent creature.
Posted by: SpikyWesleyI do not believe the status of a living being should be given to a human embryo at the moment of conception.
I do not believe that the human embryo should be given the status of a living being at the moment of conception. While this moment is the beginning of growth I do not believe that until there is a heart beat and brain development that a human embryo can be considered a living being.
Posted by: SlayrKalleLife and personhood starts at birth
Embryos depend on a human host to thrive. Although developing, they cannot and should not have the same rights as actual human beings. Humans have names, birth certificates, citizenship, opinions, viability. To assign the same rights to the unborn is wrong and offensive to the living, especially women. Conception is a moot issue for me. Plenty of eggs go on to spontaneously abort and die after conception. Rights should only be afforded to those living outside the womb. I suppose dangerous bacteria should be permitted to multiply and vote now also?
Posted by: AnonymousSetting emotions and the pretext of religion aside, no I do not think so.
Unlike many single-selled organisms, bactiria, etc. etc. an embryo is not self sustaining. It requires something else to survive, so in my opinion it is not technically alive. It would be like saying "is a man who is in a vegetable state/a coma and on life-support truely alive?"
If you are a christian, catholic, or any other bible follower then yes, by all means an embryo is a living organism. I studied religion, primarily the christian religion for many years, and there are a plethora of biblican verses that support that God thinks that a baby in a womb is alive.
Exodus 21: (i think) 22-23 talks about how if a man causes a woman to miscarry through abuse, and the baby dies, the man will be charged as though he murdered a real person. On that verse alone, you can deduce that christ followers and even christ himself feels that anything after conception in the womb is alive...biblically speaking.Posted by: ispaceoutThey do not.
Fetuses/embryos do not constitute life at the moment of conception nor for some time afterward, no more so that your blood, or your arm, or a tumor, or your heart.
Posted by: AnonymousIn a banal sense, the embryo is alive; but this observation hardly ends the argument about its status or that of abortion rights.
While an embryo is alive, whether it deserves to be considered an organism is open to legitimate question, since at least early on in pregnancy--apparently unlike bacteria--it is incapable of surviving independently; more broadly, to provide a legal definition of the embryo seems to be a pretext for interfering with the most fundamental autonomy of an unquestionably living person, the woman inside of whose body the fetus is living. Furthermore, even if it were agreed that an embryo is an organism, it would not follow that it had the right to use a woman's body without her consent. So it seems unwise to seek to establish a legal status for the fetus, because the underlying abortion controversy, and the case for a woman's full personhood and autonomy, would remain.
Posted by: M4I4cFeIineIs a single cell really living? I don't think so.
There are simply too many variables that go into the development of anything beginning at the first cell to consider it living at that moment.
Just like the theory of natural selection, survival depends on more than simply being the strongest. There always seems to be a bit of luck involved in whether or not a bird's first attempt at flight allows it to launch successfully from the nest or crash into the ground. The same with the journey of turtles, penguins and numerous other animals. Impact from an animal's own species is a common barrier to survival.
How we as humans determine life is a tricky question, but because technology and science allows us to increase the odds of survival, does that mean we have caused life to exist sooner?Posted by: OmeroAnnonNo, because bacteria is an independent organism, whereas an embryo is not.
The scientific community may define a single-celled organism, like bacteria, as a living being, but I do not believe that chain of logic can be extended to a human embryo. Bacteria is self-contained and an independent life form. An embryo is not. By the time a baby has matured to the point that it could potentially exist and live outside the womb, it would be a different story. But, by then, the child is recognized as being past the embryonic stage.
Posted by: FlakyHerb64Technically, embryos do not fit the scientific criteria for life.
First of all, they have not developed any reproductive organs. Second, they do not respond to stimuli. The individual cells do not yet even have a specific function. The individual cells might respond to some stimuli, but the embryo as a whole does not. It is more like a colony of unspecified cells just hanging there, and cells are not quite considered living organisms. There are single celled organisms, but they are almost always prokaryotes (bacteria). Plus, most people don't care about single celled life. Otherwise, people would be considered to be committing mass genocide every time they washed their hands. Even multicellular organisms, such as flies, bees, and mosquitoes, all of which are far more advanced than the embryo and are all considered living beings, are killed off en masse without so much as a second thought. What makes the embryo better than a mosquito? Hell, what about rats and mice, people kill them all the time without a second thought, and they are mammals with complex brains, and they can think! If you can tell me that an EMBRYO, a collection of perhaps 100 to maybe a few hundred or a thousand unspecified cells, is somehow better than that rat or mouse, then I pity you for having an iq below 50. No offense, but if you consider an embryo as being better than a mouse or rat, which can actually FEEL and even THINK, then you must be insanely stupid. You might say, "no, just religious˝. My reply to you would be, "what's the difference?". You still believe the embryo to be somehow superior to the mosquito, or even the mouse or rat, with NO supporting evidence, so you are STILL insanely stupid and irrational.
Posted by: Anonymous