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?

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?
  • Bacteria are living things - but they have no rights.

    Bacteria are living things - but they have no rights. Industry sells dish washing soaps and other products that intentionally kill 99.9% of bacteria they come in contact with. If a bacterium-rights advocate was to take any of these companies to court, he would almost certainly lose because of the potential danger posed by these tiny organisms. A human embryo is a living thing but as some have already explained, they are not self-sustaining and require a uterine wall to attach to, in order to begin developing an umbilical cord to obtain sustenance from the mother during the fetal stage. You should understand that an embryo therefore cannot survive independent from the mother.

  • 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: SteChiquita
  • A 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: 5h4m4m3Anto
  • There is a valid, scientific argument for life beginning at Fertilization

    All living beings need food, shelter and nutrients to survive. If/when we come up with technology to provide artificial wombs, embryos will most likely be able to survive there too. Parasites are considered living beings and they need a "host" to survive as well. Needing a host to survive does not negate your title of being a living being. Embryos are by every logical and scientific standard "living beings". Human embryos are developing homo sapiens, therefore, embryos are living, developing human beings. I know a lot of people won't like that explanation, but it's true.

  • Gooooooooooooooooooooooooood for us

    F rt h t h t h ft h ft h ft h tfg h t f tf h f th tf hf t f f h tf t h f th ft h ft h ft h ft h ft h ft f h t h f th t

  • Is a single cell alive? Well, sort of.

    I believe that a single cell in a multicellular organism is alive, but it depends on how you look at it and what organism you are looking at. If the organism was a human, then no, except maybe the brain cells. Each individual cell is just doing something, and they all work together to create and sustain life. Or, you could say that yes, the cells are individually alive, but with no consciousness. They simply do what they do, but they work together, like an ant colony.

  • What I believe

    Listen to yourselves...
    "I believe" "I think" "I feel"
    You are arguing your opinions as fact

    Lice eggs turn into lice
    You can get something to kill the eggs, oh and we do because we know if we dont , there will be unwanted lice everywhere.
    An embryo or fetus we all know, if we don't intervene, will eventually become a baby.
    All fact based logic.
    This debate is really about "what do I have to tell myself to convince myself that I am not a piece of shit?"

  • Dcsz ds cfddddghj

    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

  • A unique, developing, organism

    Considering what we know due to the wonders of modern science, it is perfectly logical to consider an embryo a human being, and protect it as such. From the moment of conception there is development that is ordered. Others simply dismiss it as "a clump of cell" even though every living, complex organism is a clump of cells. There is not only order, but it has unique genetic code, it takes in food, produces waste, grows and develops, etc. It fits the definition of life and resistance to protecting it as a life is strictly political.

  • Well why wouldn't it be

    It is still a human weather it be in a womb or in a classroom. It is still moving, breathing, eating, reproducing (it's cells reproduce. If you try to say that it doesn't count because it can't reproduce tell that to a ten year old girl whom can't reproduce. Or a 20 year old woman), and it has cells so....

  • 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: EmmeAnguris
  • Bacteria 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.

  • A 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: SpikyWesley
  • I 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: SlayrKalle
  • They 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.

  • An embryo may be "life," but it is not "alive."

    A clump of human cells does not make a human being. A blood stain, a fingernail clipping, or more to the point, a sperm cell, is not a human being. No organs, no organism. A gamete, a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, these are stages of development that precede a human being, but none of them are human beings. Cut a lock of hair from my head, it will have my DNA, but there is no connection between that and my rights. Furthermore, a bacteria has no rights, simply because it is alive - human status requires at the very least a brain and nervous system, before or after that exists, you have human tissue, human cells, human DNA, but not a human being.

  • Does not meet the criteria

    Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. - http://www.Biology-online.Org/dictionary/Organism
    A fetus fails 3 of the 4 criteria to be described as an organism .. Especially in early term.

    1. It does and cannot react to stimuli
    2. It cannot reproduce
    3. It cannot maintain homeostasis

    The fetus only meets the growth criteria, but so do your fingernails.

  • Technically, 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 religiousĖ. 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.

  • Life 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?

  • No because its just a cell

    Ffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffff ff f ff f ff ff f gygygy y g g gygy gy gy g gyy gggy g gy gy gy g gyy gy g ygyg gygyyg yg ygg gyyg yg gy gy gyy gg g gygy gy gy gyy g gyyy g ygg g gygy yg

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Quan says2013-06-20T15:29:22.927
Bacteria does not have rights. We sell products that proudly advertise killing 99.9% of them. Also, it's self-sustaining. When a fetus can be separated from the mother and grow independently, this argument against abortion may make a little more sense. Also, I don't think when a fetus was alive was ever in question; it was always about when it should be considered an individual person and awarded human rights, and to what extent those rights should limit the rights of the mother.