Beginning of Human Life

[Polymath257]

Let's set aside for the moment that sex isn't always
voluntary, eg, rape, lack of mental capacity....
Many choices we make daily have foreseeable
potential deleterious consequences, eg, sex, riding
a bicycle on public roads. Most sex acts don't result
in pregnancy. Most bike rides don't result in injury.
So we don't perceive such choices as intending
the consequences that are merely possible.

Many would say that one made one's bed, therefore
one must lie in it. Nah. We don't commit to adverse
results simply because of such choices. We may
choose to correct consequent problems. Abortion is
one means to do that.

It certainly can be a choice...not one
you'd make, but others see it differently.

A choice to not have sex could also be seen as
a life of some valued person that was snuffed out.
I don't see that government or religion should
enforce laws to maximize population

I would also point out that at 23 years old, I tried to do the responsible thing and get a vasectomy. I was refused, being told I was too young.

Here I was specifically taking responsibility to be sure I never got a woman pregnant and was specifically kept from being responsible.

Now, of course I continued to use birth control and eventually I did get a vasectomy. But it is telling that when someone attempts to do the right thing, they are refused as a matter of course.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. Um. I'm not quoting quotes from my religion. I'm quoting from the Bible which is the Word of Yahweh. For the sake of debate, even if I was quoting from my religion, which I'm not, this is a religious forum and I think I would be entitled to. You are defending the right to kill innocent babies. So perhaps it is you that should keep your views to yourself.

Sorry, but taking the Bible as authoritative *is* a religion. You are quoting from what you, for religious reasons, believe is the word of a deity. Others disagree. Others believe Yahweh is a myth and nothing more.

We live in a secular society, where religious beliefs are free to be expressed, but where the laws should not be based on any one religion or faith.

I don't consider an embryo to be a baby. I don't consider it to be a person. But even if it was, the woman inside which it resides still has the full right to ask that the person be removed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aye, let him live by the words of his particular
book, but without imposing it upon others.
I abhor Christianity, but so long as they don't
swing their arms into my nose, I'll live & let live.
They must show the same tolerance.

Besides, I've yet to even hear a biblically based
argument that abortion is wrong. it's typically
just plucking weak snippets to confirm a bias.

And most Christians do not try to force their beliefs upon others. It is just that those noisy few that do have found a party that will cater to them because they are a large enough special interest group so that they can call the tune on this. And when debating Christians that try to use the Bible I like to use the verses of Exodus 21 22, providing that they use a translation from before Roe v Wade. It is supposed to be a major sin to change the Bible, but that is just what antichoice Christians did. I remembered that from my old Bible, which is still buried in my house somewhere, but then remembered my housemate has an old Catholic Bible (and we all know that the Catholics were very proabortion) from the 1960's. It specifically says "causes a miscarriage". Does anyone really think that the change in translation was just a coincidence?

 

[Mister Emu]

I even gave a link to the National Genome Research Institute, to an introductory biology text, etc.

The National Genome Research Institute link which defined haploid and was unnecessary as no conflict over the definition of haploid has occurred.
The Wikipedia link which supports my point that gametes are part of an organism. "an organism whose gametic cells"

Lastly, the Eukaryotic Life Cycle text, which thank you for producing a text which could support your argument. I'll acknowledge my fault that I didn't rigorously investigate it. Given the rest of the literature, especially a peer reviewed article stating in clear terms that humans do not exhibit haploidy, the state of being haploid, I do believe I already acknowledged the haploid stage of our life cycle correctly when I said ""the stage where humans produce haploid cells for sexual reproduction and not a stage where haploid cells are identified as human beings".

There is a difference between mitosis (the process that produces somatic cells) and meiosis (the process that produces sperm and egg cells--the haploid cells of our life cycle).

I never said otherwise. They are different processes that produce different parts of our biological makeup. Neither process produces a new or separate organism. Humans do not reproduce asexually.

haploid stage is reduced to single celled organisms

That is basic biology.

No, that last bit is a refutation of basic biology. Humans do not reproduce asexually.

Yes, sperm and egg are Homo sapiens. They are of the human species.

Again, you conflate the concepts. Please, in the future learn to distinguish between 'human', as in "sperm is human tissue", and 'a human', as in "a sperm is not a human".

They are short lived organisms that are of the species Homo sapiens

Just like the claim that biological sources say that human life begins at birth or some quickening, I'm going to have to ask you to show me. Show me a source that says a single sperm is a human being.

Not independently. Dependently.

Yes, independently; they don't rely on another organism to produce the cells that lead to growth and further complexity.

I notice that you didn't address the question of identical twins.

You mean the case that shows genetic uniqueness is not actually a determining factor of whether an individual exists? Sure. There was one human organism and then, because of a mitotic aberration, two human organisms developed. I'm not sure why you thought that was a challenge.

 

[Polymath257]

The National Genome Research Institute link which defined haploid and was unnecessary as no conflict over the definition of haploid has occurred.
The Wikipedia link which supports my point that gametes are part of an organism. "an organism whose gametic cells"

Lastly, the Eukaryotic Life Cycle text, which thank you for producing a text which could support your argument. I'll acknowledge my fault that I didn't rigorously investigate it. Given the rest of the literature, especially a peer reviewed article stating in clear terms that humans do not exhibit haploidy, the state of being haploid, I do believe I already acknowledged the haploid stage of our life cycle correctly when I said ""the stage where humans produce haploid cells for sexual reproduction and not a stage where haploid cells are identified as human beings".


I never said otherwise. They are different processes that produce different parts of our biological makeup. Neither process produces a new or separate organism. Humans do not reproduce asexually.


No, that last bit is a refutation of basic biology. Humans do not reproduce asexually.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed that humans reproduce asexually. The production of haploid gametes is one stage of our sexual reproduction cycle.

Again, you conflate the concepts. Please, in the future learn to distinguish between 'human', as in "sperm is human tissue", and 'a human', as in "a sperm is not a human".

In which case, a blastula is human tissue and not a human. You are, once again, essentially asking for personhood.

Just like the claim that biological sources say that human life begins at birth or some quickening, I'm going to have to ask you to show me. Show me a source that says a single sperm is a human being.

Once again, this is a philosophical and legal issue, not a scientific one.

Yes, independently; they don't rely on another organism to produce the cells that lead to growth and further complexity.

Absolutely they do rely on another organism for the basic materials for growth and to gain complexity.

You mean the case that shows genetic uniqueness is not actually a determining factor of whether an individual exists? Sure. There was one human organism and then, because of a mitotic aberration, two human organisms developed. I'm not sure why you thought that was a challenge.

So one individual becomes two? Doesn't that sort of violate the idea of an individual? Which one of the resulting individuals was the zygote? if Sarah and Amelia are identical twins, which one was the zygote? You can't legitimately say it was either one.

 

[Mister Emu]

I never claimed that humans reproduce asexually.

Yes, you said we create new human organisms from internal cell processes, that would be asexual reproduction.

In which case, a blastula is human tissue and not a human.

That is not accurate. A blastula is, biologically, a human organism.

You are, once again, essentially asking for personhood.

Once again, I am not. I am, to my best and apologies for any failures, taking pains to use value neutral language and dry biological terminology. As you have noted, human personhood is a value-laden philosophical/legal concept, or what I would call an empty term filled with whatever is convenient for one's purpose. I am merely reporting and seeking further information on the scientific record without any statements of valuation. "When during reproduction are the signs of a new organism present" is a biological question, and that question has been answered for humans, as cited, as the point at which a zygote forms. Nothing has been offered to challenge this, which makes sense because I have done some studying of the literature on this topic over the years, and I've only ever seen a consensus answer from the life sciences.

If you are seeing a value argument, that is a projection of some other source onto what I am saying. Others, in this very thread, have readily acknowledged they don't value the life of a human or human rights, rather the life and rights of persons. While I don't agree, that is a coherent position.

Once again, this is a philosophical and legal issue, not a scientific one.

The presence of biological life is a biological question. The classification of biological organisms is a biological question.

Absolutely they do rely on another organism for the basic materials for growth and to gain complexity.

Which is irrelevant. Every biologically living thing relies on outside sustenance, there are no perpetual motion machines or organisms.

So one individual becomes two?

Or more.

Doesn't that sort of violate the idea of an individual?

Why? Plenty of biological organisms reproduce asexually, it is a well observed phenomenon.

You can't legitimately say it was either one.

Why would I say it was "either" one? It was both of them.

Life is messy and hides all kinds of interesting oddities and deviations from the norm, isn't it awesome?

 

[DNB]

Why are you assuming the woman was irresponsible? Because she had sex?

Birth control can fail. Women can be raped. Medical problems can arise. Couples who are married may not want kids (or more kids right now). That are NOT being irresponsible.

In many cases, continuing with the pregnancy is the irresponsible thing.

Even if the embryo, fetus, is a person growing inside of her body, she has an absolute right to demand it be taken out if she so desires. Otherwise, she has no bodily autonomy and is nothing more than a slave.

She has absolutely no right to take another person's life. The fact that the female of species are able to give birth to a creature of the same life form, does not mean that they are devoid of responsibility towards the creature within them. Your only concern is the freedom of the mother? That is, if she can't be selfish, then she's a slave????

We're all slaves to the duty required of us towards others. If a person is being unjustly abused, I have an obligation to protect them within my means. That doesn't make me a slave to another's demise. Nor, do I have the right to do whatever I want with my body or behave in a certain manner, appreciating the fact that it can influence others in a negative manner.

I'm not talking about the exceptions - when people have sex they are inundated with responsibilities towards each other: don't be selfish, don't fornicate if you may have a std, don't get the other pregnant, don't be objectifying, don't be overly perverted or gluttonous, etc....

I'm sorry, your slave argument was just selfish and oblivious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She has absolutely no right to take another person's life. The fact that the female of species are able to give birth to a creature of the same life form, does not mean that they are devoid of responsibility towards the creature within them. Your only concern is the freedom of the mother? That is, if she can't be selfish, then she's a slave????

We're all slaves to the duty required of us towards others. If a person is being unjustly abused, I have an obligation to protect them within my means. That doesn't make me a slave to another's demise. Nor, do I have the right to do whatever I want with my body or behave in a certain manner, appreciating the fact that it can influence others in a negative manner.

I'm not talking about the exceptions - when people have sex they are inundated with responsibilities towards each other: don't be selfish, don't fornicate if you may have a std, don't get the other pregnant, don't be objectifying, don't be overly perverted or gluttonous, etc....

I'm sorry, your slave argument was just selfish and oblivious.

But she is not taking another person's life. That is where your argument fails. An embryo is not a human life. Most people know that. You probably know that. If you are a Christian the Bible knows that.

 

[Polymath257]

She has absolutely no right to take another person's life. The fact that the female of species are able to give birth to a creature of the same life form, does not mean that they are devoid of responsibility towards the creature within them. Your only concern is the freedom of the mother? That is, if she can't be selfish, then she's a slave????

What else is involuntary servitude (outside of the penal system) called?

You always have the right to kill in self defense or for bodily autonomy.

Even *if* you want to say that the 'creature' inside of her is a 'baby' or a 'person', she *still* has the absolute right to have it removed from her body. if that can be done without killing it, then that should be done. if not, then those are the breaks.

yes, you *would* have the right to kill someone who is trying to take over your body and put you into involuntary servitude. Having sex is NOT permission for that.

We're all slaves to the duty required of us towards others. If a person is being unjustly abused, I have an obligation to protect them within my means. That doesn't make me a slave to another's demise. Nor, do I have the right to do whatever I want with my body or behave in a certain manner, appreciating the fact that it can influence others in a negative manner.

Nope, that is voluntary and not an obligation. Otherwise you would be doing nothing other than helping the abused in the world. It is a morally good thing to do, but not a legal or moral necessity.

I'm not talking about the exceptions - when people have sex they are inundated with responsibilities towards each other: don't be selfish, don't fornicate if you may have a std, don't get the other pregnant, don't be objectifying, don't be overly perverted or gluttonous, etc....

I'm sorry, your slave argument was just selfish and oblivious.

All those responsibilities are morally good things to do but not moral or legal obligations (other than the spreading of STDs being assault. Perversion is allowed if all parties involved agree, for example. Objectification is allowed if all parties agree. Selfishness is allowed if all parties agree.

Let's also face it: a fetus inside of a person is, by definition, committing assault and battery: they are taking over the body of another for their own uses.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, you said we create new human organisms from internal cell processes, that would be asexual reproduction.

Nope. That is precisely the difference between mitosis and meiosis. The first is asexual. The second is characteristic of sexual species. From meiosis to fertilization is the sexual part of the life cycle, which happens to be haploid.

That is not accurate. A blastula is, biologically, a human organism.

Let's do a popular definition.

Organism:
An individual animal, plant, or single celled life form.

Now, a blastula would be an organism under this definition. But exactly how does an unfertilized egg cell NOT satisfy this definition?

Now, this is a popular definition, not a biological/scientific one.

Biologically, the organism concept is complex and not at all universal. You might be interested in this:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00057.x

Or:
University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

where 'one genome in one body' is one definition used. An egg or sperm cell qualify.

Or you might be interested in this (admittedly older):
University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

which states
'The concept that cells are organisms in the strictest sense is borne out by studies of tissue cultures. The familiar organisms are thus recognized to be also colonies of organisms'.

Or yet another:
What is An Organism? An Immunological Answer on JSTOR

which says
"An individual is a particular which, in addition, is separable, countable, and has clear-cut spatial boundaries, and exhibits transtemporal identity, that is, the ability to remain the same while changing through time".

Once again, sperm and egg cells qualify, as do all somatic cells.

My point is that the term 'organism' is one that has no settled definition in biology. And by many common biological definitions, the sperm and egg cells qualify.

Once again, I am not. I am, to my best and apologies for any failures, taking pains to use value neutral language and dry biological terminology. As you have noted, human personhood is a value-laden philosophical/legal concept, or what I would call an empty term filled with whatever is convenient for one's purpose. I am merely reporting and seeking further information on the scientific record without any statements of valuation. "When during reproduction are the signs of a new organism present" is a biological question, and that question has been answered for humans, as cited, as the point at which a zygote forms. Nothing has been offered to challenge this, which makes sense because I have done some studying of the literature on this topic over the years, and I've only ever seen a consensus answer from the life sciences.

Then I would recommend not using the term 'human being', which is also value laden. Instead use 'human individual' or 'human organism'. But be aware that those terms include all somatic cells as well as gametes.

As I have pointed out above, the definition of the term 'organism' is problematic, so saying when a new one exists is also very problematic. It depends on the specific definition used.

If you are seeing a value argument, that is a projection of some other source onto what I am saying. Others, in this very thread, have readily acknowledged they don't value the life of a human or human rights, rather the life and rights of persons. While I don't agree, that is a coherent position.

Values are not scientific questions and are usually incoherent.

The presence of biological life is a biological question. The classification of biological organisms is a biological question.

Yes, it is. And gametes, somatic cells, and developing embryos and fetuses are ALL of the species Homo sapiens. Biologically, they are ALL organisms and the multicellular ones are colonies of cellular organisms.

Which is irrelevant. Every biologically living thing relies on outside sustenance, there are no perpetual motion machines or organisms.

Yes, so all biological entities are dependent on other things. Plants the least since they often only rely on sunlight and minerals.

Or more.


Why? Plenty of biological organisms reproduce asexually, it is a well observed phenomenon.

I see, you consider the transition of a fertilized zygote to identical twins as being asexual reproduction? Could you give a peer reviewed reference for this?

Why would I say it was "either" one? It was both of them.

Then it wasn't an individual, it was two individuals?

Life is messy and hides all kinds of interesting oddities and deviations from the norm, isn't it awesome?

Precisely. Life is messy and doesn't always correspond to our nice little categories, like 'individual' or 'organism'.

Here's an example that may clarify things. Suppose that we have a fertilized dog zygote. Do you consider it to be a dog? Not just of the dog species (which all dog cells are), but an actual new dog?

Or do you consider it to be one stage that *leads* to a new dog?

I think you would not find many people who would consider the zygote a dog.

You would find biologists that would identify it as a canine (dog) zygote. Later, it would be a dog embryo, or a dog fetus. But very few would identify the embryo as a dog without other (sometimes implied) designation. They would use the word 'dog' as a modifier labeling the species and then include 'embryo or fetus or blastula' for the specific stage of development.

Biologists would also be *very* wary of designating when a 'new individual' comes into being (in professional literature) because that is a very fraught aspect in biology. there is a *process* that, at the beginning, has sperm and egg cells, then a zygote, then a blastula, then an embryo, then a fetus, and then a dog (maybe with a puppy stage thrown in).

You are asking for a definite line to be drawn and that isn't the nature of biology. As you said, biology is messy and definite lines are usually impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

But she is not taking another person's life. That is where your argument fails. An embryo is not a human life. Most people know that. You probably know that. If you are a Christian the Bible knows that.

The embryo is human life, like all human cells are. The issue of personhood is a very different matter.

 

[Mister Emu]

Nope. That is precisely the difference between mitosis and meiosis. The first is asexual. The second is characteristic of sexual species.

Given what you posted about the controversy over the term organism, I'm retracting my claim that the introduction of a new organism is necessarily reproduction. Also retracting my assumption and possible statements to the effect that "a human organism" and "human being"/"a homo sapiens" are necessarily synonymous terms.

Biologically, the organism concept is complex and not at all universal. You might be interested in this:

Thank you, I do appreciate this. It looks like I'll need to read and reflect on my understanding of organism as a term.

Then I would recommend not using the term 'human being', which is also value laden.

Not under the definition that has been offered, and which I believe is being used in the texts I have referenced. I don't have the understanding that the authors of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology are presupposing value when they wrote that the "zygote is the beginning of a new human being".

If "human being" is too value laden for you, can we find a term that encompasses that this is a human entity that is identifiable throughout the human lifespan? What word best describes, in dry language, that me as a zygote and me as an adult human are the same thing at different developmental stages, the singular or corporate reality that I can consider and say this is my biological existence? Human creature?

Values are not scientific questions

I've agreed with this multiple times.

are usually incoherent.

Only unconsidered values. Maybe that's usual, maybe I'm an optimist.

I see, you consider the transition of a fertilized zygote to identical twins as being asexual reproduction? Could you give a peer reviewed reference for this?

[Human clone or a delayed twin?] - PubMed
"Cloning is a natural mode of asexual reproduction for many organisms, which results in nearly identical copies of cells or organisms. In animals, including humans, identical twins are an example of natural cloning."

Then it wasn't an individual, it was two individuals?

No, it was one individual that became two. I don't have or see any inherent problems or concerns with that as a concept.

Here's an example that may clarify things. Suppose that we have a fertilized dog zygote. Do you consider it to be a dog? Not just of the dog species (which all dog cells are), but an actual new dog?

Yes. It's the same biological entity growing and developing through time. I wouldn't call it a puppy or an adult dog, because those are developmental stages.

Biologists would also be *very* wary of designating when a 'new individual' comes into being

Then why are precisely those designations, in specific terms of "human being", so readily available?

You have offered resources which have made me reconsider how to use the term organism, I can and will reevaluate based on evidence. The OP wasn't an empty question, it's an honest inquiry. If you have resources that offer debate on when an individual human's life begins. If you have embryology or cell biology, or whatever life science, texts that say "Wait, conception may not be the beginning of each human's life. Let's look here ->", please, that's literally what I've asked for.

 

[Polymath257]

Given what you posted about the controversy over the term organism, I'm retracting my claim that the introduction of a new organism is necessarily reproduction. Also retracting my assumption and possible statements to the effect that "a human organism" and "human being"/"a homo sapiens" are necessarily synonymous terms.


Thank you, I do appreciate this. It looks like I'll need to read and reflect on my understanding of organism as a term.


Not under the definition that has been offered, and which I believe is being used in the texts I have referenced. I don't have the understanding that the authors of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology are presupposing value when they wrote that the "zygote is the beginning of a new human being".

If "human being" is too value laden for you, can we find a term that encompasses that this is a human entity that is identifiable throughout the human lifespan? What word best describes, in dry language, that me as a zygote and me as an adult human are the same thing at different developmental stages, the singular or corporate reality that I can consider and say this is my biological existence? Human creature?

The only thing that comes to mind that is that inclusive is 'diploid stage'.

Part of the difficulty is that you see the fertilization as being the crucial point of departure as opposed to some other stage, like birth or the development of the brain. But that is precisely the point at issue: is that fertilization the most relevant point? And, again, that is a philosophical point, not a scientific one.

[Human clone or a delayed twin?] - PubMed
"Cloning is a natural mode of asexual reproduction for many organisms, which results in nearly identical copies of cells or organisms. In animals, including humans, identical twins are an example of natural cloning."

Thanks for this. I can see how it fits the definition. So there is asexual reproduction in humans! Interesting.

No, it was one individual that became two. I don't have or see any inherent problems or concerns with that as a concept.

That is counter to my intuition about individuality.

Yes. It's the same biological entity growing and developing through time. I wouldn't call it a puppy or an adult dog, because those are developmental stages.

OK, but I still would not say it is 'a dog' until late in development. I don't say a 'developing human' is 'a human' until later in development.

Then why are precisely those designations, in specific terms of "human being", so readily available?

You have offered resources which have made me reconsider how to use the term organism, I can and will reevaluate based on evidence. The OP wasn't an empty question, it's an honest inquiry. If you have resources that offer debate on when an individual human's life begins. If you have embryology or cell biology, or whatever life science, texts that say "Wait, conception may not be the beginning of each human's life. Let's look here ->", please, that's literally what I've asked for.

Once again, life continues through fertilization. Both the sperm and egg cells are alive. Even after fertilization, most of the events until the first couple of divisions are dependent on the previously existing materials in the egg and not on the new DNA from the sperm.

One difficulty is that there are many related ideas: organism, individual, species, genetics, etc and most of these have multiple definitions to deal with the subtleties of how life actually works.

Again, this is why much of this discussion depends on *philosophical* issues and not scientific ones. How you define your basic terms will determine what your conclusions will be. For example, there are literally over a hundred distinct definitions of the term 'species'. I don't know how many different definitions there are for 'organism' or 'individual', but I suspect there are at least dozens for both, even in the scientific literature.

Because of that, whether you consider the fertilized zygote to be 'the same individual' as the person at 20 years old depends heavily on your definitions. And, whether that is relevant for the legal and moral issues is yet another realm of discussion.

Also, why is it 'individual human life' as opposed to 'individual human consciousness' the relevant marker? For me, the second is far more relevant since I consider sperm and egg to be 'individual human life'. So I don't see 'individuality' as the relevant aspect here.

 

[Mister Emu]

The only thing that comes to mind that is that inclusive is 'diploid stage'.

Awesome, I don't care what you call it, call it glorpblorp as long as it is a container that holds the concept. The diploid stage is the continuity of biological existence I can describe as my own.

Thanks for this. I can see how it fits the definition. So there is asexual reproduction in humans! Interesting.

Of course. Life is amazing.

That is counter to my intuition about individuality.

This may indicate we have deeper philosophical divides than biological terminology.

OK, but I still would not say it is 'a dog' until late in development. I don't say a 'developing human' is 'a human' until later in development.

Ok. Let us take that late developmental stage biological entity. We both call it a dog at this point. Would you say that the biological entity which is now a dog did not exist prior to the formation of the zygote?

Once again, life continues through fertilization.

Each human's life. Not human life in general. Are you arguing that the biological entity that is the developing homo sapiens that I identify with is billions of years old?

One difficulty is that there are many related ideas: organism, individual, species, genetics, etc and most of these have multiple definitions to deal with the subtleties of how life actually works.

The semantics don't matter. They are only a difficulty if you become attached to or place value on certain terms. Or try to shift meanings instead of sticking to one operational definition. The concept I'm looking for can be called glorpblorp, or human being, or diploid stage. If it confers the meaning of "the biologically continuous entity that develops through the homo sapiens lifespan, such that a sentient human (whenever you want to place that quickening) can refer to it as its own biological existence". My only problem this way of speaking is that it is ponderous.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. Let us take that late developmental stage biological entity. We both call it a dog at this point. Would you say that the biological entity which is now a dog did not exist prior to the formation of the zygote?

I would say that it developed over time and did not fully exist until long after the zygote stage.

Each human's life. Not human life in general. Are you arguing that the biological entity that is the developing homo sapiens that I identify with is billions of years old?

I see the biological entity as gradually developing and not fully existing until late in pregnancy. As it develops, it gradually acquires the characteristics that identify it as a member of the species Homo sapiens, as opposed to just being some Homo sapiens cells and tissues.

The semantics don't matter. They are only a difficulty if you become attached to or place value on certain terms. Or try to shift meanings instead of sticking to one operational definition. The concept I'm looking for can be called glorpblorp, or human being, or diploid stage. If it confers the meaning of "the biologically continuous entity that develops through the homo sapiens lifespan, such that a sentient human (whenever you want to place that quickening) can refer to it as its own biological existence". My only problem this way of speaking is that it is ponderous.

The diploid stage seems to be what you want. But then, you also want to ignore the hapoild stage even though it is also a genetically distinct individual (although very short lived in the case of sperm).

 

[Mister Emu]

But then, you also want to ignore the hapoild stage

Again, you have the precedence out of order. I don't want to ignore gametes, I want to find the observed biological reality that corresponds to the biological entity, or collective if you value "entity" too much to use it, that develops, via internal processes of growth and added complexity, through its lifespan with continuity from its origination until death as an elderly human.

 

[DNB]

What else is involuntary servitude (outside of the penal system) called?

You always have the right to kill in self defense or for bodily autonomy.

Even *if* you want to say that the 'creature' inside of her is a 'baby' or a 'person', she *still* has the absolute right to have it removed from her body. if that can be done without killing it, then that should be done. if not, then those are the breaks.

yes, you *would* have the right to kill someone who is trying to take over your body and put you into involuntary servitude. Having sex is NOT permission for that.



Nope, that is voluntary and not an obligation. Otherwise you would be doing nothing other than helping the abused in the world. It is a morally good thing to do, but not a legal or moral necessity.



All those responsibilities are morally good things to do but not moral or legal obligations (other than the spreading of STDs being assault. Perversion is allowed if all parties involved agree, for example. Objectification is allowed if all parties agree. Selfishness is allowed if all parties agree.

Let's also face it: a fetus inside of a person is, by definition, committing assault and battery: they are taking over the body of another for their own uses.

Sorry polymath, i find your sentiments to be egregiously callous and misguided. Morality is synonymous with practicality - morals are not pretentious or superfluous ideals enacted in order to make one appear righteous, they have long lasting and pervasive implications throughout one's lifetimes.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry polymath, i find your sentiments to be egregiously callous and misguided. Morality is synonymous with practicality - morals are not pretentious or superfluous ideals enacted in order to make one appear righteous, they have long lasting and pervasive implications throughout one's lifetimes.

And I would agree. They reflect our values and our goals. They are crucially important to us.

I am saying that people have the right to bodily autonomy. That is a central value. From that, it follows that slavery is wrong, for example.

Another value is that love is a good thing. From that, it follows that gay or interracial marriage is a goal and is good.

Another basic value is that we should think and care about those around us and our actions. Many religions say that they have this value, but in practice they don't show it. All too often, they claim morality to be pretentious and self-righteous.

 

[Valjean]

...for cryin' out loud, are you not repulsed by rape, kidnapping, torture, genocide, racism, abuse, etc...?
...no, you say, that's just indoctrination or a cultural imposition.

Where are you getting this? I'm citing psychological, sociological, anthropological and political facts. Compassion and altruism are tribal artifacts, very strong within the tribe, but useless -- and therefore rare -- without.

Compassion really is a thin veneer. Though we go to great lengths to instill it, a few weeks of military basic training can completely strip away the parental, social and religious conditioning that ensured "civilized" behavior.
I cited historical examples of the rape, kidnapping, torture, genocide, &c you mentioned above. These really did happen, and such vicious behavior, unfortunately, very common in intertribal/inter-national conflicts.
Do you really dispute this?

In re the ad hom, my citing facts does not indicate my personal opinions. I'm a lifetime human rights, animal rights and anti-war activist. I'm vegan, and don't even wear leather.
I daresay I'm probably more repulsed by the atrocities you cited than you are -- and all without a deontological, religious rule book.

Man perceives the spiritual, and acts accordingly

I question this. Human behavior and attitudes are enculturated, not the result of 'spiritual perception', if they were, I'd expect them to be more culturally homogenous.

In other words, if you don't believe that there's a God, you are obligated to believe that there's a devil, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm not seeing it. Explain, please.
I don't believe in either a god or a devil -- or unicorns, leprechauns or jinn, for that matter. My morality is personal, and personally acquired, therefore, stronger than a non-internalized morality based on a rule book.

Therefore, the spiritual realm exists, and this was not created neither by man's imagination, nor stardust or protoplasm.

No! You have not demonstrated or justified this conclusion.

Killing an innocent human is immoral

You have not made a case for this. Why is it immoral to kill a human?

...a zygote is a human, but in an extremely early stage of development. For, it is neither a rock, a fish, a tree, or anything other than a human zygote.

OK...but what's your point?

 

[DNB]

And I would agree. They reflect our values and our goals. They are crucially important to us.

I am saying that people have the right to bodily autonomy. That is a central value. From that, it follows that slavery is wrong, for example.

Another value is that love is a good thing. From that, it follows that gay or interracial marriage is a goal and is good.

Another basic value is that we should think and care about those around us and our actions. Many religions say that they have this value, but in practice they don't show it. All too often, they claim morality to be pretentious and self-righteous.

All mothers, within any species of living creatures, are obligated to sacrifice certain freedoms for the sake of their progeny. All parents owe it to their children to care for them first, and to do all that is in the child's best interest - fetus or teenager.
If two people, who think that they are mature and capable, want to engage in adult activities, then they better be prepared to maintain the responsibilities, compassion, and superintendence that comes within such territories.
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime - i.e. you want to behave like an adult, but act like a selfish baby when you mess-up.

...homosexuality, and all forms of gender dysphoria and transgender behaviour, is a mental disorder. It needs to be denounced and corrected, or abstained from.