Summations Only

I've read the paper. Her conclusions are philosophical and arbitrary, not scientific. She concludes that a zygote is a human organism/being because it "initiates" the process (all being well) of forming into an embryo. On the same basis, a likely potential pre-solar nebula would be a solar system (although it isn't one), a small growing storm would be a hurricane (although it isn't one), and the first small ridge caused by two colliding tectonic plates would be a mountain range (although it isn't one). I don't think that's what you meant to ask. Her conclusion doesn't follow from her technical description.

A biologist who insisted on calling a fertilized egg a chicken should probably be sacked.I can read English, and so can you. Read the paper again. Do you seriously consider a pre-solar nebula to be a solar system? Do you consider a caterpillar to be a butterfly? Do you consider the first European colonies established in North America to be a country called the United States of America?Only religious "biologists" could fail to understand that, in the continuum of life, if an "X" could potentially become a "Y", the "X" isn't actually a "Y" until the transformation has taken place.An acorn is not an oak tree, and most will never transform into one.

I've pointed out to you that the view she expresses in the paper is not scientific. It doesn't require a biologist to know that an acorn is not an oak tree and that a zygote is not a human being.If you don't understand the paper, why did you bring it up? By her "logic", caterpillars are butterflies, and a pre-solar nebula is a solar system. She wrote an opinion piece for a non-scientific publication in which she claims, quite literally, that a zygote is a human being. Read the article. There is nothing scientific in it that actually supports her view.A zygote is not a human being by definition, just as an acorn is not an oak tree by definition.She is far from being the only religious person with scientific qualifications who claims that her religious views are scientific. Even the young earth Christians have a number of folks with genuine PhDs. Did it occur to you to wonder why she hadn't written that piece for peer review by human embryologists in a scientific journal? That's what she does when dealing with her own field (neurology).

So I thought. It shows that with a bit of spin and equivocation that you can end up with a philosophical viewpoint and make it sound scientific. The subtitle "a scientific view" is highly dubious, and my point to shadow was that her technical description does not lead to her conclusion.Did you notice that the article asks the question "when does human life begin"? Human life, human organism, and human being end up being treated as one and the same, and (from memory) at one point she says "human organism i.e. human being" before she's even made her argument. Although any organism can certainly be a "being" in some senses of the word, so can anything that exists (including human eggs and sperm). But when the phrase "human being" is used, it's usually understood to mean a person. Religious "pro-life" groups are remarkably fond of phrasing the question "when does an individual human person begin" as "when does human life begin"? Why?To say fair, she does mention the point that the continuum of life has led many to conclude that the beginning of a human being is a point impossible to define. At that point, I think she should have stated clearly that there is no scientific consensus on exactly when an individual human being starts to exist, in order not to mislead people like shadow.

Zygote Definition and Examples - Biology Online DictionaryI'll leave you to find me a dictionary definition of "human being" or "person" that includes the phrase "a cell". It is indeed a scientific explanation of a stage in human development that can lead to the existence of a person, and, as you point out, eventually a corpse.That does not mean that a zygote is a person or a corpse.Do you still not understand my point that her scientific description does not lead to her philosophical conclusion?I explained that if an "X" can potentially become a "Y" through a process of transformation, the "X" is not a "Y" until the transformation has taken place.You don't seriously consider yourself to be a corpse, do you?

Something can't become what it already is. Presumably you mean at what stage in the human life cycle does a human being emerge. Scientifically, there's no consensus, and it's very difficult to see how there could be one. IMO, we don't have a very good definition of what we are. If we can't rigorously define a "person" and list all the attributes it should have, then how can we decide on a precise time in the cycle? Some of the most important things, like our conscious awareness of the world, don't actually seem to be there in new born babies, who act very much instinctively. But the person seems to start to emerge during the first few months.So, the closest I can say as a tentative personal suggestion is during the first few months after birth. But wherever we fix it, it's rather arbitrary.Think of it as like asking "when does a child become an adult?" How can we fix a precise point when it's really a matter of gradual transition? Actually, I'm being polite, and assuming some intelligence on your part. When I ask you questions like "do you consider an acorn to be an oak tree?" or "do you consider yourself to be a corpse?", do you understand why I ask the questions? I've been making a simple point for a number of posts, and it's hard to tell whether you've grasped it. I'm certainly not saying that you have to agree with me, but I'm genuinely interested to know the answers to these questions.So: Do you consider yourself to be a corpse right now on the basis that your biology determines that that will be the case in the future? Yes or no? ?????Unlike most zygotes that were formed this year, I have one. I'm a multi-cellular large brained primate called a human being. I'm not a zygote, which is a single celled form of life.

Sure we could call it human life. It's the human life cycle, so everything involved can be called that, including the egg and sperm. And if she wants to call the zygote a human organism, that's fine by me. So, we could look at her argument in these two ways:Firstly, the zygote (B) and a person (C) are both human organisms (A)s. So, a zygote is a person because if both B and C are an A, then B=C.Spot the fallacy!Secondly, because a (B) can potentially become a (C), then B=C.Just as bad!I may be being unfair because I haven't gone back to look at the paper, but from memory, the above seems to be a simplified version of what she wants to say.I can remember noticing that "human organism i.e. human being" bit at the beginning with suspicion.

Good. So, we can agree that because something is in the process of transforming into something else, it is not that something else until the transformation has taken place. And that applies when the transformation is inevitable.So why, when the (far from inevitable) transformation of a zygote into a newborn baby has not taken place, should we regard a mindless single cell as a person?

The person ceases to exist, but the corpse exists at the moment of death. One is not the other. The human life cycle goes through these stages, yes. But you sound as though you've now found a definition of human being that includes the phrase "single cell". I'd say very broadly speaking that we should try to avoid killing sentient people. That is persons with personalities. I don't think abortions can technically be performed on such things.

That question might trigger a long discussion on the meaning of sentient. You might be able to put forward an argument for the later stages of development by some definitions if you want to try.

Actually, it's a bit redundant there, because I couple it with people, and emphasise that these are persons with personalities. So no, I wasn't talking about a fetus in the womb.

Jon, were you too short of time to reply to this post and enlighten us as to why you think it's particularly bad? Is it the claim in the first paragraph that you disagree with? If so, do tell the world why?