apple0154
MEOW
And do tell us how you know they attempt to carry on the processes of life, oh-not-so-wise one.
When Does Life End?
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
And do tell us how you know they attempt to carry on the processes of life, oh-not-so-wise one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)
Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation
The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.
Usually mammals rely on internal fertilisation through copulation. After a male ejaculates, a large number of sperm cells move to the upper vagina (via contractions from the vagina) through the cervix and across the length of the uterus toward the ovum. The capacitated spermatozoon and the oocyte meet and interact in the ampulla of the fallopian tube. It is probable that chemotaxis is involved in directing the sperm to the egg, but the mechanism has yet to be worked out. However, demonstration of formyl peptide receptors (60.000 receptor/cell; higher binding capacity in the tail region) in the surface membrane of human sperms strongly supports, that - besides specific chemoattractant substances i.e. resact - professional chemoattractant ligands like formyl Met-Leu-Phe (fMLF) have also the ability to induce migration of sperm.[6]
The sperm binds to the zona pellucida of the egg. In contrast to sea urchins, the sperm binds to the egg before the acrosmal reaction. The zona pellucida is a thick layer of extracellular matrix that surrounds the egg and is similar to the role of the vitelline membrane in sea urchins. A glycoprotein in the zona pellucida, ZP3 was discovered to be responsible for egg/sperm adhesion in mice. The receptor galactosyltransferase (GalT) binds to the N-acetylglucosamine residues on the ZP3 and is important for binding to sperm and activating the acrosome reaction. ZP3 is sufficient for sperm/egg binding but not necessary. There are two additional sperm receptors: a 250kD protein that binds to an oviduct secreted protein and SED1 which binds independently to the zona. After the acrosome reaction, it is believed that the sperm remains bound to the zona pellucida through exposed ZP2 receptors. These receptors are unknown in mice but have been identified in guinea pigs.
In mammals, binding of the spermatozoon to the GalT initiates the acrosome reaction. This process releases the enzyme hyaluronidase, which digests the matrix of hyaluronic acid in the vestments surrounding the oocyte. Fusion between the sperm and oocyte plasma membranes follows, allowing the entry of the sperm nucleus, centriole and flagellum, but not the mitochondria, into the oocyte. The fusion is likely mediated by the protein CD9 in mice (the binding homolog). The egg "activates" once it fuses with a single sperm cell, i.e., its cell membrane changes to preventing fusion with other sperm.
This process ultimately leads to the formation of a diploid cell called a zygote. The zygote begins to divide and form a blastocyst and when it reaches the uterus, it performs implantation in the endometrium.
The term conception commonly refers to fertilisation, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Read it carefully moron, if the conception (fertilization) is successful, a "new organism" is formed. At that point, it is a "living organism" and it doesn't matter if it only lives a millisecond, it doesn't change that fact.
Thanks Damo, Grind, SF, et.al..
welcome.
Yeah it's called being a mother. A child is dependent on care until at least age 5 or it will suffer from neglect and die...so why not just legalize the killing of your child up until it can be determined it does not require the care of an adult? In fact why the fuck not kill it because it is defective and can't care for itself EVER? I mean if the need of care is the determining factor.
There is no indication that it was ever alive (in any sense) not even for a millisecond.
Again, you are using different standards for identifying the presence of life. For the zygote you use a biological definition, for the born you use some definition that requires a certain level of brain activity.
We've been over this stupid argument. No is arguing that the standard by which we identify the presence of life is being able to fend for yourself. We are not arguing for that standard in the zygote, brain dead or even someone with a bad flu, so why would that be the standard for a 5 year old?
apple0154
MEOW
Let's take this step by step. The key word here is "process". One sperm enters the egg, the egg changes to block other sperm from entering, then a process begins. What is that "thing" between the time the cell is fertilized and before a zygote is formed bearing in mind if it isn't a zygote then it isn't an organism meaning it isn't a human being.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
apple0154
MEOW
Of course it changes the fact because if the cell lives a millisecond the fertilization wasn't successful. The point of fertilization is to produce offspring, as in the birth of a child. Unless the mother directly interferes the "living organism", if able to carry on the processes of life which is necessary for it to be classified as an organism, would survive and become a child.
The tissue is living because it's composed of a living sperm and a living egg, however,the uniting of them does not always form an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life. This is known by the fact over 50% of those cells spontaneously abort and a cell can not abort and carry on the processes of life at the same time.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
obviously, because some of them make it.......if you take a look at a marathon race and you discover that some have crossed the finish line and others have dropped in exhaustion somewhere along the way would you argue that none of them were running?.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Having a brain has nothing to do with being alive! If it did, you would certainly be dead! Seriously, many things that are "living" don't have a brain! You have falsely applied this standard which biology simply doesn't require.
According to SCIENCE and BIOLOGY... Life begins at the point of conception. Nothing you have presented has contradicted that fact.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The "process" begins immediately after successful fertilization. If the fertilization was not successful, no living organism was ever formed, it is two dead inorganic cells, and no one is concerned or discussing dead inorganic cells here. If the fertilization WAS successful, regardless of how long it carried on the process of life, it WAS LIVING! You simply can't make a logical argument to the contrary. We can go on and on for another 10 pages or 100 pages, and the FACT will remain the same.
BUT LAW AND MEDICAL standards do. I am not concerned with a proper biological definition of life. That is not being debated. Feel free to use that definition whenever you pretend to be a biologist. But it is not an acceptable definition for legal and medical purposes.
According to SOME sciences, namely biology, the brain dead are alive. And yes the zygote is alive in the same way. I am not arguing otherwise. But neither fit the requirements for the legal and medical definitions. That is the point you continue to ignore.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And it is legal and medical defined why? It's been explained to your dumb ass for a week now, maybe it has sunk in by now? Because, until the 1970s, we were medically unable to tell when your brain stopped functioning! Before that, medically (and legally) they went by your heartbeat! Many a morticians can attest to the frequency of people who were pronounced legally and medically DEAD, coming back to life on the embalming table! We likely buried a hell of a lot of people who were still alive, because we lacked the technologies of today!
Technically speaking, the life process continues for hours after death, your body continues to produce new cells, and it does take a while for it to stop the process of living. The collective organism of your body, has ceased to be a living organism, it is in the process of dying. This is quite different than being in the process of living, in fact, it is the OPPOSITE!
So? What is your point? In the same way our biological and other scientific definitions of life have changed with new knowledge.
So then you are not employing the biological definition of life and death. Any sign of life is sufficient for you to demand legal and medical protections for the zygote but not the brain dead. Once the individual has sufficiently passed some point in the process of 'dying' (but is not completely dead) you are willing to remove legal and medical protections. Why wouldn't we require that the zygote pass that same point in the process of 'living' before they gain legal and medical protections?
Socrtease
Verified User
I don't argue with the fact that it is a living organism at the point of conception. But you want to give it the same rights as every born person. If so then EVER death of one is an unattended death that requires an investigation. If not, then you are NOT treating it equally to every born person because if you or I die unattended then we get an investigation by, at the very least a coroner. The fact that does not happen means the law does not treat them the same. If a woman miscarries at 6 months there is no investigation unless there is some indication that the woman was harmed in a way that created the miscarriage or that she did something herself to cause it. If a borm child dies while in the care of an adult there is an investigation. Again equal protection is not being observed for the in utero being. Another indication that the law does not view the death of a born child on par with the death of the in utero. States do not want this either. Once a fetus is given the same rights and protections as the born then we are going to have to treat every miscarriage as a possible homocide. Just as we do with every death of a child in the care of an adult.
We have been talking about personhood. Dixie is just stuck on the red herring that you employ.
Science clearly impacts the discussion. The problem is confusing a scientific definition as science or as Dixie does a scientific fact and dropping the context.
In science, the definition is only useful to test whether various things meet what the scientist mean by life. Sometimes something fails or passes a test unexpectedly and instead of simply saying it is alive or not, the scientific community changes the definition.
Saying the zygote or brain dead are alive poses no problem in biology. It does not upset the biological definition. It does pose a problem in the legal and medical fields and upsets the definition. Our realization of the heart's insignificance upset the definition.
It is abundantly clear that the brain is the organ of concern in assigning rights and therefore in forming any legal definition of life (if none us had a brain we would hardly care who killed who). We even limit rights of certain people with diminished mental capacity or who's brain has not yet fully developed.
Note to Dixie and the dumbasses: no one says people with less mental capacity are less deserving of medical care. So, no I am not arguing we should be able to kill 5-year-olds or any of you idiots, nor should any appear in the next episode of "Man vs. Wild."
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Stringy, if you hold no distinctive differentiation between the process of LIVING and the process of DYING... if one is no more important than the other, you may have a valid point. The thing is, most humans regard LIVING as fundamentally more important than DYING. If you simply do not have any real value for life, and it is no more fundamentally important than death, then both can be compared in the same way, which is what you are trying to do. Fortunately, most of us do regard LIFE as slightly more important than DEATH!
The criteria for death has been arbitrarily established, it doesn't fit the biological criteria. With legalized abortion, the same can be said for life as well. In neither case does the legal and medical definition conform to the biological definition. What is YOUR point?
Weak evasion. You are saying that lack of a certain level of mental activity is sufficient to say life is not present for legal or medical purposes in one case and not the other.
I am far more concerned with the living than you are. I am not asking fully alive women to sacrifice themselves for something that is not sufficiently alive to keep on life support.
Yes, but unlike you I realize that is unavoidable.
Exactly. As has been stated repeatedly, the arbitrarily established biological criteria does not work in this context.
That it does not and, more importantly, should not conform to the biological definition.