Yea, sure it can. Just drop an egg in a pile of sperm and “Bingo” you’ll have a fertilized cell. Do you think all the excitement that occurred when scientists first fertilized a cell outside a woman’s body was just a bunch of hype or did it take time to discover EXACTLY what was required in the way of a life-sustaining culture?
Do women produce sperm cells? Does the egg cell produce the sperm cell? Does the woman or egg have to add anything to the sperm? When scientists first performed this outside the woman's womb, they already knew what would happen, they already knew what constituted a living organism, it was not a surprise. When you use the term "life-sustaining culture" does it just not occur to your simpleton brain that you are using the word "LIFE" in your description? Is that failing to compute in your retarded mind as something LIVING? If it is alive, how can it not be living yet? If it's not inorganic, and it's not reproducing as the result of the female organism it resides in, what hell do you define it as? Because it simply can't be matter producing matter, that doesn't happen in science. It's not a bacterial life form, it's not a virus, it's not a fungus, it can only be one thing, by process of elimination.
The woman’s body supplies all the necessary life support for the fertilized cell to reproduce. The culture/environment in which it will grow, the temperature, etc.
I'm not arguing that a woman's womb is a suitable place for the living organism to grow, but that has nothing to do with it being a living organism. If you grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, does that make them NOT REALLY tomatoes? What if it's extremely cold and inhospitable to tomato plants outside? Does that change what a tomato plant is? Since it can't continue to live if we take it outside, does that mean it was never alive? Do you simply not see the utter stupidity of your argument here? The "fertilized egg" or fused egg/sperm cell, do not need anything from the host, if they reproduce anything, they become a living human organism, independent of the host. That means, they don't rely on the host to reproduce.
And a fertilized cell does not reproduce without the assistance of the woman or a technician and a zygote and embryo do not continue growing without the constant assistance of the woman. If they did one could remove the zygote/embryo. Can it be any more obvious? If the participation of the woman/her body is not necessary, fine. Remove it and let it continue on its own.
The sperm penetrates the egg cell, and the fused cells begin to reproduce more cells. This is not dependent on anything the woman does, or any additional part the woman adds, and there is nothing else added to make them reproduce, they either do or don't, that's it. If they DO, they become a living human organism, if they don't, the "fertilization" was unsuccessful and conception did not happen.
I explained that. It is alive as much as a liver is alive or a kidney is alive. It is living human material. If it is an organism, a self-contained “unit” capable of carrying on the processes of life then it can be removed and placed in another suitable environment.
Again, you are just plain wrong about this. A liver or kidney cell is incapable of reproduction. The human body (organism) can reproduce cells for the kidney or liver, but the human body reproduces billions of various cells everyday, that is not in question. Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't. With a sperm/egg cell fusion, they either create another cell or they don't. If they don't, they were never a living organism, if they DO, they become at that precise moment, a living human organism. If you want to claim they are not yet "enough" of an organism, that's fine... I have no problem with you making that argument, I disagree with it, but at least it's honestly accepting the facts. You can't make an embryo be anything other than what it is, because you must defy all scientific knowledge and understanding to do so.
What’s disgusting about this whole thing is some folks consider the ability of something to produce a cell, any cell, qualifies it as a human being with a value on par with the life of a woman. I wonder how a woman an even look upon anyone holding such beliefs.
No, what's disgusting is ignorant people such as yourself, who can't bother to educate themselves to the point of understanding, regardless of how many times they are schooled on the subject up one side and down the other. I have not made the argument that a zygote has right on par with a woman, just that a zygote is a living human organism, and can be nothing else. You are simply refusing to acknowledge it is a living human organism, even though you stupidly continue to admit it's living and then dies, in virtually every explanation you give us. You've phrased it every way you can think of, and every single time, you admit that the process of life was being carried on before it stopped. Well, something can not stop living if it wasn't alive to begin with, and something that is living and dies, had to be alive before it could die.
