Need a Medical Document which shows life begins at conception

[JimG]

. . .
We would never call a zygote a separate living organism if we were not aware of its potential to develop into a clearly separate being. Its potential is the only thing that distinguishes it from other random cells in the mother, such as skin cells.

Of course we would call it a separate living human organism, because that’s what it is: a new and distinct individual of the human species. It is genetically and ontologically distinct from both parents. It is a new and developing human being. Do you think that human beings have a beginning?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course we would call it a separate living human organism, because that’s what it is: a new and distinct individual of the human species. It is genetically and ontologically distinct from both parents. It is a new and developing human being. Do you think that human beings have a beginning?

I agree with what you have said. But it does not refute what I said, which was that the basis for calling a zygote a separate living human organism is the awareness that it does normally develop into a full-sized human, which is the nature of the zygote. If you look up that nice word, ontologically, you will see it also relates to the nature of the thing. If you were unaware of the nature of a zygote, you would not call it a separate human being.

 

[JimG]

I agree with what you have said. But it does not refute what I said, which was that the basis for calling a zygote a separate living human organism is the awareness that it does normally develop into a full-sized human, which is the nature of the zygote. If you look up that nice word, ontologically, you will see it also relates to the nature of the thing. If you were unaware of the nature of a zygote, you would not call it a separate human being.

Exactly so. But we are not unaware of the nature of a zygote. We know from embryology, that it is a new and distinct individual of the human species.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Exactly so. But we are not unaware of the nature of a zygote. We know from embryology, that it is a new and distinct individual of the human species.

OK, now that we are on the same page, let’s look at why I made the statement you objected to. Ender asked in post #19:

Why do future possibilities affect our understanding of what something is at any particular moment in time?

…to which I responded with the statement you objected to:

We would never call a zygote a separate living organism if we were not aware of its potential to develop into a clearly separate being. Its potential is the only thing that distinguishes it from other random cells in the mother, such as skin cells.

So you see I was never claiming that a zygote was not a separate human being. I was merely showing that our understanding of why a zygote is a separate human being is based on our awareness that it does have that future potential. And it was only to answer Ender’s specific question. So we are not in disagreement.

 

[Ender]

But an unfertilized egg becomes a person only through the outside agency of encountering the sperm.

An egg becomes a person only when it ceases to be an egg and becomes something fundamentally different. An unfertilized egg will never become anything else.

However, if you consider all the egg “does” to make itself a suitable attachment for a sperm, it seems that an egg also “develops” into a person.

If all a sodium ion “does” is make itself a suitable attachment for a chlorine ion, would you say that sodium develops into salt? The problem with this argument is that it dismisses what actually happens. A new entity is created at the point of fertilization, an entity that is totally unlike the component parts from which it was made. Neither part can develop into anything but both may react with something else to become a new substance…a new entity.

The distinction between “eating” and “grabbing for purposes of building chromosomes” is not what I would call a fundamental difference, enough to say that the resulting fertilized egg is a fundamentally different thing.

Why are you working so hard to deny the truth of what is happening? To assert that an unfertilized egg is not particularly different than a fertilized egg is to close your eyes to the observable facts. One grows into a new and distinct life form and the other never changes.

The fact that we call it something different now that it has 46 chromosomes instead of 23 chromosomes is entirely a classification invention, although not without a very good basis.

Every distinction between any two things can be dismissed as merely a classification invention. That doesn’t mean the differences aren’t real.

We would never call a zygote a separate living organism if we were not aware of its potential to develop into a clearly separate being.

This is factually incorrect. A zygote, according to the scientific definition of life, is a separate living organism. Again, potential is meaningless. If a zygote can be considered a living organism only because of its potential for life then it could just as correctly be considered a non-living organism because of its potential for death. Both potentials exist so according to your argument-from-potential, a zygote can be considered both living and dead, which would suggest there is a problem with the argument.

Its potential is the only thing that distinguishes it from other random cells in the mother, such as skin cells.

This is false; it is scientific nonsense.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

An egg becomes a person only when it ceases to be an egg and becomes something fundamentally different. An unfertilized egg will never become anything else.

I don’t know what you mean by that. An unfertilized egg can be fertilized, and then it does become something else, as you just admitted in the first sentence. So I don’t know how you can say it will never become anything else.

If all a sodium ion “does” is make itself a suitable attachment for a chlorine ion, would you say that sodium develops into salt?

No, because there is no sense of purpose behind the sodium ion’s readiness to attach to a chlorine ion. If it never encountered a chlorine ion, you would not say that its natural purpose had been frustrated, as you might say of an egg that was never fertilized.

The problem with this argument is that it dismisses what actually happens. A new entity is created at the point of fertilization, an entity that is totally unlike the component parts from which it was made.

Totally different? To look at an egg shortly after fertilization, it looks at that time very much like the unfertilized egg. But we know it now has 46 chromosomes. And we also know that its nature going forward in time is to become a child. It is only because we know that is its nature that we know it is fundamentally different from other cells. If we did not know that was its nature, that is, if we failed to recognize it as a zygote, then we would not think it fundamentally different from other cells. I used the word “potential” to express this fact about its nature. If you would like me to use a different word, just say so.

Neither part can develop into anything but both may react with something else to become a new substance…a new entity.

Of course. If the egg is prevented from ever encountering a sperm, it will never become a person I can talk to. Similarly, if the egg is prevented from receiving any nourishment, it also will never become a person I can talk to. The sperm and the nourishment are both necessary for any further development.

A zygote, according to the scientific definition of life, is a separate living organism. Again, potential is meaningless.

I disagree. The potential is another way of saying what the nature of the zygote is. Its nature is to develop into a separate person. If it could not develop into a person - if it did not have that nature - that potential - we would not define it as a separate living organism. I am not disagreeing with you over scientific fact. I disagree only with your epistomology.

If a zygote can be considered a living organism only because of its potential for life then it could just as correctly be considered a non-living organism because of its potential for death. Both potentials exist so according to your argument-from-potential, a zygote can be considered both living and dead, which would suggest there is a problem with the argument.

We would never say something was dead just because it will die some day. Similarly, we don’t call a zygote an adult person just because it normally becomes an adult some day. But we do call it separate living thing** now** because it probably will become an adult some day.

 

[JimG]

For myself, I do not like to use the word “potential” with regard to the new human being, the zygote.

What it is, is a new and distinct individual of the human species. Philosophically, if we impute the attribute of personhood to human beings, it can be imputed to the zygote. Scientificially, it is a new and distinct individual human being. A newly conceived human is not a potential human, it is a new human being. This is how we all began as human individuals.

Human beings develop physically throughout their lifetime. We might say that an embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, and a fetus has the potential to develop into a newborn, and a newborn has the potential to develop into a toddler, and a toddler has the potential to develop into a teenager. That doesn’t matter. We are talking about a single unified individual human being who develops throughout his or her lifetime. We don’t accord human dignity based upon the state of development, but upon the fact of humanity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For myself, I do not like to use the word “potential” with regard to the new human being, the zygote.

What it is, is a new and distinct individual of the human species. Philosophically, if we impute the attribute of personhood to human beings, it can be imputed to the zygote. Scientificially, it is a new and distinct individual human being. A newly conceived human is not a potential human, it is a new human being. This is how we all began as human individuals.

Human beings develop physically throughout their lifetime. We might say that an embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, and a fetus has the potential to develop into a newborn, and a newborn has the potential to develop into a toddler, and a toddler has the potential to develop into a teenager. That doesn’t matter. We are talking about a single unified individual human being who develops throughout his or her lifetime. We don’t accord human dignity based upon the state of development, but upon the fact of humanity.

I have tried to use the word “potential” to refer to specific stages of development of a human person, as in “a potential adult”, just as you did above. If I have used the term to refer to the general state of being a human person, it is sloppiness on my part and not what I intended.

As for what a zygote is, I agree it is a human person, worthy of being accorded human dignity. But I claim that recognition of that humanity came about only through the realization that the zygote has the potential to develop into those later stages of development, where the humanity is more obvious.

 

[JimG]

I have tried to use the word “potential” to refer to specific stages of development of a human person, as in “a potential adult”, just as you did above. If I have used the term to refer to the general state of being a human person, it is sloppiness on my part and not what I intended.

As for what a zygote is, I agree it is a human person, worthy of being accorded human dignity. But I claim that recognition of that humanity came about only through the realization that the zygote has the potential to develop into those later stages of development, where the humanity is more obvious.

Well, I understand your point. But I think that the real reason we recognize the zygote as a new individual of the human species is that embryology figured out sometime ago when a new human being has its beginning. It’s not a recent discovery. Embryology textbooks from the 1950’s point out this fact.

 

[GoldenArrow]

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
– Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition

and this link has a whole lot more!

clinicquotes.com/list-of-quotes-from-medical-textbooksscientists-proving-life-begins-at-conception/