Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.
Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”
Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.
In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
The first half sentence of this total quote is correct, but rather contradicted later on when it is stated: "
In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive ... ." When of course the embryos being considered here are also alive, but unfortunately they are considered to be organisms from the beginning, which is not true.
The definition of "organism" given here from Merriam-Webster is a rather poor one compared with other dictionaries, but even it correctly points out than an organism consists of
organs.
This is where it shows that the early embryo is NOT an organism - there are NO ORGANS PRESENT IN THE EARLY EMBRYO
. Furthermore, any and all embryos do not have
usable organs, so they are not able to "
carry on the activities of life by means of organs," like the definition requires.
So it does NOT have the claimed: "
characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism..." since that composition and behavior requires organs.
Also it is a stretch, a stretch too far, to claim the embryo "
directs its own development." It is the genetic component in every cell that
determines how the development will be.
THERE IS NEVER IN THE WOMB ANYTHING LIKE THE REAL DIRECTION OF REAL HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL BRAINS. It is pretended that is the case, but it is not so. And there is even the claim that: "
the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process)." But is that not pretty well what is the case, that the genes do the directing and how they do it is certainly unseen and pretty much mysterious? Though nobody thinks of them as "manufacturers" as the good doctor suggests in a "STRAWMAN" fashion.
So whatever organized, coordinated growth there is in the embryo is
incorrectly called "behavior," (as though there were choices involved, and a chooser or director that is the embryo itself.)
The embryo is NOT that sort of thing, is not using organs for anything, and certainly cannot be the organism a human being is.
She, the author, speaks of "mere human cells." Well guess what, everything human is
human cells, even everything growing in a womb. The claim is that :
"
under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole."
Well, that might be true if we forgot that every cell contains the genetic blueprint that determines how everything goes. So IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL HUMAN CELLS, then what she says "mere cells" do not do, is precisely what they do do.
But it is not as though they are
agents of behavior (like she
falsely suggests about the embryo); there is nothing but human cells, "mere" human cells if one prefers to denigrate them, that constitute the entirety of whatever tissue there is. But unfortunately for her case, there is no organism activity without there being even any organs.
Just "pro-life" slight of hand - blatant and not so blatant falsity.
