@Knixon said:

@rooprect said:

@Knixon said:

You overlook the fact that it is genetically different - separate - from the mother, right from the start? A fetus is only half genetically the mother. Also, "comparing apples to oranges" is bad enough, but comparing apples to people? Or even other animals? And even if an apple were to be genetically different from the tree - which seems unlikely - it's still just an apple.

We're talking about lifeforms, so any comparison to a lifeform is logically valid, correct? (If you disagree then we have absolutely no common ground and should end discussion right here)

But if we do have common ground in the basic acceptance of what a lifeform is, then let's proceed. I'll grant you that DNA is organic matter and can thus be broadly classified as living material. But much like the inchoate organic matter they recently found on Mars, I don't class it as a living organism because it's not thriving, growing or showing any activity.

Back to the analogy which I'm sticking by, an apple tree begins as an inanimate seed. If you think a seed sitting in an Apple hanging on a tree is alive (after all it too has unique genetic material) or a seed in a feed store bin is alive that's fine, and we could have a fascinating discussion on that. But if you think a seed is inactive organic material as I do, then surely you see the rationale that a human "seed" is not yet a human. Of course if you are defending the rights of sperms and eggs, I won't argue (and I'm not being sarcastic either, sperms are in fact living organisms by my definition). So I would put the question to any anti-abortion person: is a seed, a sperm and a chicken egg a living thing? That would clear up inconsistencies.

Not all chicken eggs are fertilized. But if it is, then it is - or at least soon will be - a separate living thing.

You did know that, right?

Sperm alone do not grow into people, nor do unfertilized human (female) eggs. (Or chicken sperm, for that matter.)

You did know that too, right?

Also, a pretty common/standard definition of "organism" includes the ability to reproduce. A sperm alone, or an egg alone - human or chicken - do not reproduce, and hence are not separate organisms. Sperm are not (re)produced by other sperm, and eggs are not (re)produced by other eggs. Eggs and sperm are just the mechanism by which the larger actual organisms - people - reproduce.

But a fertilized egg - human or chicken - does become a separate and genetically distinct organism. That neither is capable of reproducing right away, does not change that.

knixon I sense by your sarcasm that you're getting angry. Not my intention. Like I said at the outset, I enjoy opinions from the other side as long as there is intelligence and common logic. But we're not getting anywhere. So, discussion over, have a nice day and I really would buy you a beer. I don't get angry at people just because they believe differently.

If anyone else wants to pick up on the discussion of what constitutes the beginning of life, I really do find it a fascinating subject with many possibilities. Would love to hear what someone thinks about the fertilized apple analogy vs. the fertilized human egg.

Not angry, but if you base your logic on claims like "a sperm is an organism" then there really isn't much to discuss. A sperm is just a reproductive cell, or gamete. I don't know if you want to claim that a sperm and a fetus are both "organisms" and since sperm don't have "rights" therefore ipso facto a fetus shouldn't either, because of some agenda or from ignorance or what. But either way, it doesn't hold up.

@Knixon said:

Not angry, but if you base your logic on claims like "a sperm is an organism" then there really isn't much to discuss. A sperm is just a reproductive cell, or gamete. I don't know if you want to claim that a sperm and a fetus are both "organisms" and since sperm don't have "rights" therefore ipso facto a fetus shouldn't either, because of some agenda or from ignorance or what. But either way, it doesn't hold up.

A sperm IS an organism, that's my point. A cell is an organism. A living thing. Biology 101 is all I was trying to establish. If you won't accept this, we're talking different languages and there's no point.

Also, dude, you're way paranoid regarding my "strategy". I wasn't trying to trick you or anyone. In fact I mapped out a clear way for you to defeat me at my own argument like I said in my very 1st post on this subject, but you didn't pick up on it.

If you were to say that a sperm is a living thing, then logically yes, I would understand your statement that a fetus is a living thing, even though it can't exist outside the womb. But by contradicting that, you closed that door. Whether or not a sperm has "rights" is irrelevant, as I thought we were just trying to agree on what constitutes life. Jesus man, I'm arguing your point for you but you're not getting it!

Most organisms are multi-cellular. An organism can consist of a single cell, if it reproduces. But a sperm cell does not reproduce itself, and hence is not a separate organism. A sperm cell is merely part of the mechanism by which the multi-cellular organism known as a person, reproduces. i.e., a gamete.

A gamete (from Ancient Greek γαμετή gamete from gamein "to marry") is a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell during fertilization (conception) in organisms that sexually reproduce.

or·gan·ism ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/ noun noun: organism; plural noun: organisms

an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.

Seriously man. I'm just trying to agree on what language we're talking. But if you disagree with Webster & the biology textbooks, I declare this a mistrial. Everyone go home.

Do yourself a favor - ignore sematical discussion with Knixon. His circular 'logic' will have you spinning in your grave.
I swear - I think many times his goal is to see how far off topic he can steer a discussion.

@rooprect said:

or·gan·ism ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/ noun noun: organism; plural noun: organisms

an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.

Seriously man. I'm just trying to agree on what language we're talking. But if you disagree with Webster & the biology textbooks, I declare this a mistrial. Everyone go home.

It's just basic logic. All Ford Pintos are cars. But not all cars are Ford Pintos. Similarly, All organisms are one or more cells. But not all cells are organisms. It depends on how it behaves. For a single cell to be considered a separate organism - or life form - it has to have all of the attributes of an organism. Including reproduction. Sperm cells do not reproduce themselves, and are hence not a separate organism or life form. A person is a life form/organism, but no separate part of a person is a separate life form or organism.

All types of organisms are capable of reproduction, growth and development, maintenance, and some degree of response to stimuli. Humans are multicellular animals composed of many trillions of cells which differentiate during development into specialized tissues and organs.

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

@znexyish said:

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

Thanks.

Loved the article and this quote...

“Pork tastes different, depending on what you do with it, but chicken always tastes like chicken.”

Don't know why that made me but it did.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@znexyish said:

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

Thanks.

Loved the article and this quote...

“Pork tastes different, depending on what you do with it, but chicken always tastes like chicken.”

Don't know why that made me but it did.

Maybe because of the "tastes like chicken" thing?

There's probably some chemical-related reason for it, but it's still an interesting observation.

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@znexyish said:

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

Thanks.

Loved the article and this quote...

“Pork tastes different, depending on what you do with it, but chicken always tastes like chicken.”

Don't know why that made me but it did.

Maybe because of the "tastes like chicken" thing?

There's probably some chemical-related reason for it, but it's still an interesting observation.

"Maybe the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like, so that's why chicken tastes like everything."- Mouse (The Matrix).

Also, I remember on that other Board someone's signature was: "I love Trolls, they taste just like chicken."

I guess with repetition some things just stick...

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@znexyish said:

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

Thanks.

Loved the article and this quote...

“Pork tastes different, depending on what you do with it, but chicken always tastes like chicken.”

Don't know why that made me but it did.

Maybe because of the "tastes like chicken" thing?

There's probably some chemical-related reason for it, but it's still an interesting observation.

"Maybe the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like, so that's why chicken tastes like everything."- Mouse (The Matrix).

Also, I remember on that other Board someone's signature was: "I love Trolls, they taste just like chicken."

I guess with repetition some things just stick...

Chicken is a small animal with a few parts, basically breast, thigh, legs. A pig has lots of different parts to work with. Also the texture of chicken is a give away as to what the animal is. It takes a chef who works with all kinds of food to know. Now "tastes like chicken" has a whole different deeper meaning to me.

@znexyish said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@znexyish said:

Getting back on topic here is the original 1999 New Yorker piece by Anthony Bourdain that started him on the road to public notice

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/04/19/dont-eat-before-reading-this

Thanks.

Loved the article and this quote...

“Pork tastes different, depending on what you do with it, but chicken always tastes like chicken.”

Don't know why that made me but it did.

Maybe because of the "tastes like chicken" thing?

There's probably some chemical-related reason for it, but it's still an interesting observation.

"Maybe the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like, so that's why chicken tastes like everything."- Mouse (The Matrix).

Also, I remember on that other Board someone's signature was: "I love Trolls, they taste just like chicken."

I guess with repetition some things just stick...

Chicken is a small animal with a few parts, basically breast, thigh, legs. A pig has lots of different parts to work with. Also the texture of chicken is a give away as to what the animal is. It takes a chef who works with all kinds of food to know. Now "tastes like chicken" has a whole different deeper meaning to me.

I guess for these folks too...

"Tastes Like Chicken Band": Midnight Train to Georgia