4 ms·

Science thinks life begins at fertilization too. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/emb

Science thinks life begins at fertilization too. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...

mhh__ 4y ago
Who is "science"? And also bacteria are alive
- Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago
  Read the source "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology.
photochemsyn 4y ago
What science thinks is that life began a little less than 4 billion years ago, as a kind of self-organizing chemical process in the early Earth's oceans, and from that point, life has never stopped. Cells are alive and give rise to other cells. There's a continuity of cellular life from the very nerve cells in your brain that allow you to interpret symbols, going back to your parent's cells, to their parent's cells, and right on back to the dawn of life on earth in one unbroken continuum.
Beltalowda 4y ago
I agree with that point of view, but I think you need to distinguish between "life" and a "human being". "Life" in general is notoriously tricky to define precisely. It is, for example, perfectly possible to amputate someone's hand an keep it alive by feeding it some type of artificial blood; not sure if it's currently possible with the state of technology, but there is nothing stopping this in principle. I think it would be accurate to say that this hand is "alive", but is it also a human being worthy of the same protections that you or I have? I don't think many people would argue for this. You don't need to think of exotic experiments either; we shed all sort of living biological material all the time, and no one is concerned with the rights of this. So when does a "human being" begin? I don't have any clear answer; that question is even more difficult than trying to define "life". But I do think it's important to think of it in these terms.
- Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago
  The source does mention the beginning of a "human being" "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    At the risk of being overly pedantic and engaging on semantics, it does say "the beginning of a human being", rather than "human being". i.e. a piece of metal might be the beginning of a sword, but is not actually a sword. This is a very tricky discussion because definitions and semantics are so important, and not everyone agrees on them. The main point I attempted to make in my previous post is that it would advance the debate to move away from these type of semantics, and rather engage on more fundamental – and harder – questions like "when are rights conferred to a (human) being?"
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      > Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Is there a well defined reason for this or is it actually a question of limited resources? Would we keep people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan if the cost was 0? Why or why not? A pragmatic viewpoint probably gives a quick answer but a ideological viewpoint could go eitherway.
anothernewdude 4y ago
Should be a crime for you to treat athletes foot.
Ekaros 4y ago
Shouldn't we consider at least sperm to be alive? At least it can move semi-autonomously. Which to me kinda look like being alive. By at least some level of definition of life. Thus life exist before fertilization.
- sparrish 4y ago
  It is life, but not human life. At fertilization, new DNA is formed. It's not the mother's and it's not the father's. It's new human life.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  If movement is considered a criterion, do we consider a completely paralyzed person to be not-alive? Do we consider filter feeding animals like sponges to be not-alive? Do we consider plants to be not-alive unless they are carnivorous and capable of movement? What I am trying to highlight is that life is very broad and it is fuzzily defined. Both sperm (male gametes) and eggs (female gametes) are alive. Thinking one is more alive than the other due to it's ability to move may or may not reveal a bias you may or may not hold. The same bias people who use agriculture (planting seed) as an analogy or euphemism for human reproduction may hold.
thedailymail 4y ago
Looking through that collection of quotes, Ithink it would be more accurate to say "Science thinks development begins at fertilization." Which is true! Life is a polysemous concept - by many valid definitions the gametes are alive prior to fertilization. Whether the zygote represents an individual human life is a question that "Science" definitely does not hold a monolithic opinion on. From 20 years working in a field proximal to developmental biology, my impression is that most individual scientists in relevant fields have a gradualist understanding of the emergence of individual life, involving key milestones such as implantation, gastrulation, neurulation, subsequent CNS development and "viability" (ability of the fetus to live independently of the mother's body).
- alexvoda 4y ago
  To throw a curveball, taking a cue from plants (1), a zygote is only a gametes way of making more gametes. Human zygotes do reproduce asexuality resulting in twins. (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations
timbit42 4y ago
When does a distinct life begin? When the umbilical cord is cut.

Science thinks life begins at fertilization too. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...

mhh__ 4y ago

Who is "science"? And also bacteria are alive

Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago
Read the source "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology.

photochemsyn 4y ago

What science thinks is that life began a little less than 4 billion years ago, as a kind of self-organizing chemical process in the early Earth's oceans, and from that point, life has never stopped. Cells are alive and give rise to other cells. There's a continuity of cellular life from the very nerve cells in your brain that allow you to interpret symbols, going back to your parent's cells, to their parent's cells, and right on back to the dawn of life on earth in one unbroken continuum.

Beltalowda 4y ago

I agree with that point of view, but I think you need to distinguish between "life" and a "human being". "Life" in general is notoriously tricky to define precisely. It is, for example, perfectly possible to amputate someone's hand an keep it alive by feeding it some type of artificial blood; not sure if it's currently possible with the state of technology, but there is nothing stopping this in principle. I think it would be accurate to say that this hand is "alive", but is it also a human being worthy of the same protections that you or I have? I don't think many people would argue for this. You don't need to think of exotic experiments either; we shed all sort of living biological material all the time, and no one is concerned with the rights of this. So when does a "human being" begin? I don't have any clear answer; that question is even more difficult than trying to define "life". But I do think it's important to think of it in these terms.

Nrnfkfnrn 4y ago
The source does mention the beginning of a "human being" "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  At the risk of being overly pedantic and engaging on semantics, it does say "the beginning of a human being", rather than "human being". i.e. a piece of metal might be the beginning of a sword, but is not actually a sword. This is a very tricky discussion because definitions and semantics are so important, and not everyone agrees on them. The main point I attempted to make in my previous post is that it would advance the debate to move away from these type of semantics, and rather engage on more fundamental – and harder – questions like "when are rights conferred to a (human) being?"
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    > Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan. Is there a well defined reason for this or is it actually a question of limited resources? Would we keep people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan if the cost was 0? Why or why not? A pragmatic viewpoint probably gives a quick answer but a ideological viewpoint could go eitherway.

anothernewdude 4y ago

Should be a crime for you to treat athletes foot.

Ekaros 4y ago

Shouldn't we consider at least sperm to be alive? At least it can move semi-autonomously. Which to me kinda look like being alive. By at least some level of definition of life. Thus life exist before fertilization.

sparrish 4y ago
It is life, but not human life. At fertilization, new DNA is formed. It's not the mother's and it's not the father's. It's new human life.
alexvoda 4y ago
If movement is considered a criterion, do we consider a completely paralyzed person to be not-alive? Do we consider filter feeding animals like sponges to be not-alive? Do we consider plants to be not-alive unless they are carnivorous and capable of movement? What I am trying to highlight is that life is very broad and it is fuzzily defined. Both sperm (male gametes) and eggs (female gametes) are alive. Thinking one is more alive than the other due to it's ability to move may or may not reveal a bias you may or may not hold. The same bias people who use agriculture (planting seed) as an analogy or euphemism for human reproduction may hold.

thedailymail 4y ago

Looking through that collection of quotes, Ithink it would be more accurate to say "Science thinks development begins at fertilization." Which is true! Life is a polysemous concept - by many valid definitions the gametes are alive prior to fertilization. Whether the zygote represents an individual human life is a question that "Science" definitely does not hold a monolithic opinion on. From 20 years working in a field proximal to developmental biology, my impression is that most individual scientists in relevant fields have a gradualist understanding of the emergence of individual life, involving key milestones such as implantation, gastrulation, neurulation, subsequent CNS development and "viability" (ability of the fetus to live independently of the mother's body).

alexvoda 4y ago
To throw a curveball, taking a cue from plants (1), a zygote is only a gametes way of making more gametes. Human zygotes do reproduce asexuality resulting in twins. (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations

timbit42 4y ago

When does a distinct life begin? When the umbilical cord is cut.