An interesting question of biomedical ethics.

A Short Story of An Oogonium wrote:

Let's say you have an oogonium. These are the cells in the ovaries that can either go through mitosis, to produce additional oogonia, or can enter meiosis and end up as an ovum (egg (yes, singular)). So you have an oogonium. It has 46 chromosomes (because it has not yet undergone meiosis). I think at this point most people can unanimously agree that this oogonium is not a life. If you argue that it is, then every time a woman menstruates she's killing a baby, so stop reading now and go play with your toes, because your brain means nothing to me. So this oogonium is not a life. We can do what we want with it. We can kill it, poke it, jab it, abuse it, encourage it to multiply, etc. So let's say we coax this little oogonium to multiply a few times, then coax it and all it's sisters into meiosis, so we end up with some eggs, each with 23 chromosomes. Again, these eggs are not lives. Now we introduce some sperm. Oop. Our little egg sisters have all been fertilized! Now is the point when many people will argue that the resulting zygote is a life. But... what if there is no way that it can develop into a viable fetus? What status does it have? Is it a person until it reaches the stage in cell division when it will spontaniously abort? Is it never a person? In nature, those who believe a zygote is a life and a person would treat everyone zygote as a person, since there's no way of knowing that it might not survive. But what if you knew for certain? What if, say, it had been genetically modified so that it was missing a vital DNA sequence so that it was impossible for the fetus to live? 'Easy,' one might say, 'if you've modified this fetus to make it inviable, then you've taken a life and ended it.' But wait. Let's rewind. Let's step back to before our zygotes were zygotes, before our eggs were eggs. Let's go back to that first little oogonium. This is not a life. It's not even an egg. It has a full set of chromosomes and can undergo mitosis. It's a cell. It alone does not have the potential to be a life, as a zygote does. Again, if you argue that destroying an egg or an oogonium is killing a life, you're being stupid, and you need to go play with your toes. Millions of eggs are lost every day when millions of women across the world menstruate. If you're going with the God thing, He designed it this way, it's cool. If you go with the nature thing, we evolved this way, it's cool. So we have a oogonium. It is not a life. It is not a potential life, and harming it is not killing a potential life, as one might argue that killing a zygote is. So we take this oogonium, and we homogeneously (on both copies of the chromosome) delete some gene that is essential for a fetus to develop. Now we go through our steps again: the oogonium goes through mitosis, then it and its sisters go into mitosis, and now we have our eggs. These are not lives. These are not potential lives. Now we let loose with the sperm. Now. We have a zygote. This zygote will never live. It will spontaneously abort due to it's own checking system. It will self-destruct. Is this zygote a person? Does it have a soul? If we kill this zygote, are we killing a person? If we don't kill the zygote, it's going to die. It does not have the genetic structure to live. I raise this question: would it be ethically ok, in the minds of those who believe zygotes are people, to use these zygotes for embryonic stem-cell research and therapy? (Let's assume that the deletion, while preventing the zygote from forming a child, would not prevent the zygote from dividing into a blastocyst and the cells that make up this blastocyst (stem cells) from becoming heart cells, liver cells, etc. independently.) I emphasise again: This zygote never had the capability to be alive. Never. Never ever. It was ruled out from becoming another person back before it was a life. Back when it was an oogonium. In this line of cells, there was never any chance that another life would occur. There was never any chance that a live baby might be brought into the world. By deleting the gene did we kill a person?

Would that then be a sin, father?

I found this surfing blogs. I don't think we're destroying a life.

Sorry if it's in the wrong forum.

Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life.

So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder.

Prole wrote:

Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder.

And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal.

alclarkey wrote:

Prole wrote: Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder. And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal.

And you arbitrarily accept it as life before it exits the birth canal.

LostSoul3412 wrote:

alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder. And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal. And you arbitrarily accept it as life before it exits the birth canal.

And YOU arbitrarily deny?

Interesting scenario. I doubt that it can be done but I'll play along. One might say that the cell is mutated and not human at all. However, if it is meant to grow human organs than it was a conspiracy to stop life as it began for personal exploits. Murder.

Of course if it is'nt life than you've got nothing to worry about.

If that is how stem cell harvesting is to work, it seems to leave much to question. Stem cell research has had more success with adult stem cells.

Nicholas wrote:

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder. And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal. And you arbitrarily accept it as life before it exits the birth canal. And YOU arbitrarily deny?

It is not arbitrary, but I believe that an embryo is the potential to become life, not actual life.

LostSoul3412 wrote:

Nicholas wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder. And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal. And you arbitrarily accept it as life before it exits the birth canal. And YOU arbitrarily deny? It is not arbitrary, but I believe that an embryo is the potential to become life, not actual life.

an embryo is animal a zygote is human. and a zygote is life in its most rudamentry form that is like saying a germinated tree seed is not alive, but it grows and becomes a tree so yes a zygote is a life form that has the potitial to become a human, but it is life and that is proven.

War Lord wrote:

an embryo is animal a zygote is human. and a zygote is life in its most rudamentry form that is like saying a germinated tree seed is not alive, but it grows and becomes a tree so yes a zygote is a life form that has the potitial to become a human, but it is life and that is proven.

Life is determined by independent, and individualism. A seed is not life, it is the potential to become a tree. An egg is not life, it is the potential to become a chicken. An embryo is not life, it is the potential to become a human. You yourself agreed that a zygote has the potential to become human, which also says that it is not human already. Emotion, thought, physical independence are all things that are part of the definition of life. An embryo has none of those, and its "life" cannot be proven.

LostSoul3412 wrote:

Nicholas wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: Well, the fact is that people arbitrarily say that from a zygote onwards something is a human life (with the possibility to be more due to twinning), while there is pretty much no one saying that an egg/sperm cell is a human life. So no, I don't think that the prevention of life is the destruction of life, and doubt that you will find many who do. There are people who believe that contraception is wrong, but I don't think anyone believe that it is the same as murder. And you arbitrarily deny it as life until it exits the birth canal. And you arbitrarily accept it as life before it exits the birth canal. And YOU arbitrarily deny? It is not arbitrary, but I believe that an embryo is the potential to become life, not actual life.

You can believe what you like, but it is no different to deny the earth revolves around the sun than to deny that an embryo is a human life.

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote." Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses)

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook)


"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed” O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.

"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." Moore and Persaud, p. 2;

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life". J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23.

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.

"Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12.

"Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life." Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981.

"A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell." J.H. Otto and A. Towle. Modern Biology. New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969.

"It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote." Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant. 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

"Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a "theory," as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off." D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.D., "Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life." Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward, 1974.

"From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly-growing individual. At fertilization, a new and unique individual is created which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent, is really unlike either." B. Heffernan, "The Early Biography of Every Man," Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.

"Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning the moment of its conception." Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Fundamental Genetics, Paris Medical University, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981.

Nicely done, Gilbert.

There is nothing arbitrary about designating zygotes as life. What is arbitrary, on the other hand, are the attempts to state that life begins at x months of pregnancy. Or, there are those who claim that it begins once the baby is out of the womb. That, of course, is simply hilarious.

Kumar wrote:

Nicely done, Gilbert. There is nothing arbitrary about designating zygotes as life. What is arbitrary, on the other hand, are the attempts to state that life begins at x months of pregnancy. Or, there are those who claim that it begins once the baby is out of the womb. That, of course, is simply hilarious.

Indeed, just ludicrous more alike. What is so obvious though is, those who say life starts after birth and not beforehand, but they also fail to construct the differences between the minute before birth and the minute after. There's no bloody difference, except the umbilical cord is uncut. Even when the cord is cut, it's still the baby it was in the womb, just moments before delivery.

It becomes a human when it stops being a parasite. Life is not the point, most of you wouldn't think twice about chopping down a tree you wanted removed. Humanity is the point and unless you think ivy is human a parasite cannot be human.

The Underground wrote:

It becomes a human when it stops being a parasite. Life is not the point, most of you wouldn't think twice about chopping down a tree you wanted removed. Humanity is the point and unless you think ivy is human a parasite cannot be human.

That is absurd. A human with the quality of life is incomparable to a living plant, precisely because we place far greater importance on members of our own species. Humanity and how we treat others is based on life.

And as Nicolas pointed out, a baby is nothing two seconds prior to birth, but is everything afterwards? No significant changes in neural development, tissue specialization, circulatory development, etc., but instead the mere location of a baby determines its worth?

Kumar wrote:

The Underground wrote: It becomes a human when it stops being a parasite. Life is not the point, most of you wouldn't think twice about chopping down a tree you wanted removed. Humanity is the point and unless you think ivy is human a parasite cannot be human. That is absurd. A human with the quality of life is incomparable to a living plant, precisely because we place far greater importance on members of our own species. Humanity and how we treat others is based on life. And as Nicolas pointed out, a baby is nothing two seconds prior to birth, but is everything afterwards? No significant changes in neural development, tissue specialization, circulatory development, etc., but instead the mere location of a baby determines its worth?

Why is a humans life more important than a plants? the earth could survive without humans, it couldn't without plants. So which one is more important again?

What about the fact that it is no longer attached to a mother's body without her having an option in the matter? Sucking food and energy from here, all the "baby" is at this point is a parasite.

The Underground wrote:

Why is a humans life more important than a plants? the earth could survive without humans, it couldn't without plants. So which one is more important again?

From an objective standpoint, it isn't. From a realistic perspective, it is.

Quote:

What about the fact that it is no longer attached to a mother's body without her having an option in the matter? Sucking food and energy from here, all the "baby" is at this point is a parasite.

The mother does have an option. The baby is not like a guinea worm, lurking in the water and infecting the mother host when she comes in contact with it. If a woman engages in an activity that she knows will naturally result in impregnation, and thus there is most always a risk of it occurring, it is her decision. And I for one do not feel an ounce of compassion if they are unable to recognize this risk and accept it if it comes.

In the vast majority of cases, pregnancies are intentional and give the mother something: offspring with benefits such as happiness/joy, and from a more tangible view, a contribution of her genes to the next generation's gene pool. Pregnancy is vital to the evolutionary fitness of the parent organisms. Therefore, it's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

The Underground wrote:

Kumar wrote: The Underground wrote: It becomes a human when it stops being a parasite. Life is not the point, most of you wouldn't think twice about chopping down a tree you wanted removed. Humanity is the point and unless you think ivy is human a parasite cannot be human. That is absurd. A human with the quality of life is incomparable to a living plant, precisely because we place far greater importance on members of our own species. Humanity and how we treat others is based on life. And as Nicolas pointed out, a baby is nothing two seconds prior to birth, but is everything afterwards? No significant changes in neural development, tissue specialization, circulatory development, etc., but instead the mere location of a baby determines its worth? Why is a humans life more important than a plants? the earth could survive without humans, it couldn't without plants. So which one is more important again? What about the fact that it is no longer attached to a mother's body without her having an option in the matter? Sucking food and energy from here, all the "baby" is at this point is a parasite.

The more important life is that one which can decide logically and rationally what is and is not important.

Gilbert1908 wrote:

The Underground wrote: Kumar wrote: The Underground wrote: It becomes a human when it stops being a parasite. Life is not the point, most of you wouldn't think twice about chopping down a tree you wanted removed. Humanity is the point and unless you think ivy is human a parasite cannot be human. That is absurd. A human with the quality of life is incomparable to a living plant, precisely because we place far greater importance on members of our own species. Humanity and how we treat others is based on life. And as Nicolas pointed out, a baby is nothing two seconds prior to birth, but is everything afterwards? No significant changes in neural development, tissue specialization, circulatory development, etc., but instead the mere location of a baby determines its worth? Why is a humans life more important than a plants? the earth could survive without humans, it couldn't without plants. So which one is more important again? What about the fact that it is no longer attached to a mother's body without her having an option in the matter? Sucking food and energy from here, all the "baby" is at this point is a parasite. The more important life is that one which can decide logically and rationally what is and is not important.

The more important life is the one that the planet cannot live without. To say anything else is absurd, admittedly I would save a human before a tree but not if it was the last tree on earth.

The Underground wrote:

The more important life is the one that the planet cannot live without. To say anything else is absurd, admittedly I would save a human before a tree but not if it was the last tree on earth.

Hypothetical situations get you nowhere and you've conceded that human life is the only one that counts as whole. In reality and our current existence, the termination of a human life is WRONG.

Kumar wrote:

The mother does have an option. The baby is not like a guinea worm, lurking in the water and infecting the mother host when she comes in contact with it. If a woman engages in an activity that she knows will naturally result in impregnation, and thus there is most always a risk of it occurring, it is her decision. And I for one do not feel an ounce of compassion if they are unable to recognize this risk and accept it if it comes.

It's exactly like the guinea worm that's infected a tourist (in Africa? ) Do you have to drink the water there? no you know full well the possiblity you will be infected but you drink the water anyway.

Quote:

In the vast majority of cases, pregnancies are intentional and give the mother something: offspring with benefits such as happiness/joy, and from a more tangible view, a contribution of her genes to the next generation's gene pool. Pregnancy is vital to the evolutionary fitness of the parent organisms. Therefore, it's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

Only in a vast majority of cases, what about the others?