What's the difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg?

[Mocca]

I've asked something similar to this before:

How is an unfertilized egg, about to be fertilized, different from a just-fertilized egg?

A just-about-to-be-fertilized egg and a just-fertilized egg are both completely dependant on the mother. Without the mother, birth cannot take place. However, it is equally likely that both a just-about-to-be-fertilized egg and a just-fertilized egg will result in a birth of a child.

Other than the physical difference of one egg having sperm inside of it, I see no signifigant difference between the two eggs. It seems to me that choosing this "special" moment where life begins is completely abitrary, based on religious beliefs.

There is a Bible verse saying that life begins at conception. But legislature should not be based on Bible verses.

Eh, whatever, respond with your thoughts.

 

[Blackguard_]

How is an unfertilized egg, about to be fertilized, different from a just-fertilized egg?

How is a person about to die different from a dead person? You see there's this thing called "time"....

and IIRC, the fertilized egg has the (potential) child's DNA, not the mother's.

Other than the physical difference of one egg having sperm inside of it, I see no signifigant difference between the two eggs.

Other than the phyiscal difference of one person having a bullet in them, I see no signifigant difference between them.

It seems to me that choosing this "special" moment where life begins is completely abitrary, based on religious beliefs.

No, it is not completely arbitrary. The moment of conception is like the ground-breaking that kicks off a building construction.

When do you say life begins?

There is a Bible verse saying that life begins at conception.

No, there is not.

But legislature should not be based on Bible verses.

How about philosphy about when life begins? What should it be based on, rock-paper-scissors?

 

[kopilo]

Other than the phyiscal difference of one person having a bullet in them, I see no signifigant difference between them.

Unequal comparison, a bullet doesn't seem to alter a person's genetics.

No, it is not completely arbitrary. The moment of conception is like the ground-breaking that kicks off a building construction.

One could argue the moment of ground breaking is when the mother decides she want's to have the child, because then she has the motivation, buildings aren't built by accident.

How about philosphy about when life begins? What should it be based on, rock-paper-scissors?

Life doesn't begin or stop, it doesn't follow our self created virtue of time, it's ever dying and ever living.

How about when does a human become a human and when does a human have a right to life over someone's will.

Should a healthy person donate their organs to a smoker? Should a drug addict commit suicide if that prevents them from being a burden on society?

Doesn't it all just come down to a subjective view point of what we consider right and wrong?
We may say that hair is living, but we may also say that a person has a right to cancer treatment over the life of the hair.

 

[Blackguard_]

Unequal comparison, a bullet doesn't seem to alter a person's genetics.

The point was something seeminly insignifigant can actually have quite large signifigance. The small addition of sperm changes the DNA of the egg while a small bullet can kill a person.

That a bullet doenst change DNA is irrelevent.

One could argue the moment of ground breaking is when the mother decides she want's to have the child,

I sure hope you're joking. Planning/wanting to do something in the future is quite different from actually doing/starting the something.

Besides, planning the building long precedes the groundbreaking.

buildings aren't built by accident.

And sperm do not accidently fertilize eggs. motivation is irrelevant anyway.

Life doesn't begin or stop, it doesn't follow our self created virtue of time, it's ever dying and ever living.

Poetic nonsense. Please explain this in the context of decapitated body after a month in the grave. If you mean 'Life' in general, it is irrelevant as indivual lives begin and end.

How about when does a human become a human and when does a human have a right to life over someone's will.

A philosophical/religious question.

Doesn't it all just come down to a subjective view point of what we consider right and wrong?

No. Subjective or relativist morality is just a fancy way of saying "amorality". If morality is subjective anything you decide is ultimately arbitrary. Sure, there are morally neutral decisions, but "possibly commitinmg murder" as is the case in abortion disputes, is not one of them.

We may say that hair is living, but we may also say that a person has a right to cancer treatment over the life of the hair.

By "when does life begin" in abortion discussions I take it to mean "when the body gets a soul". All life in the general sense is not equal. And hair is dead BTW.

 

[quatona]

I've asked something similar to this before:

How is an unfertilized egg, about to be fertilized, different from a just-fertilized egg?

A just-about-to-be-fertilized egg and a just-fertilized egg are both completely dependant on the mother. Without the mother, birth cannot take place. However, it is equally likely that both a just-about-to-be-fertilized egg and a just-fertilized egg will result in a birth of a child.

Other than the physical difference of one egg having sperm inside of it, I see no signifigant difference between the two eggs. It seems to me that choosing this "special" moment where life begins is completely abitrary, based on religious beliefs.

There is a Bible verse saying that life begins at conception. But legislature should not be based on Bible verses.

Eh, whatever, respond with your thoughts.

I think that trying to determine things like "beginning of life" is always arbitrary, and the criteria you apply are likely to be derived from the pov you want to substantiate, rather than the other way round.

 

[kopilo]

The point was something seeminly insignifigant can actually have quite large signifigance. The small addition of sperm changes the DNA of the egg while a small bullet can kill a person.

That a bullet doenst change DNA is irrelevent.

Actually when talking about creation it is very important, you can compare a bullet to abortion but when comparing a bullet to a seed, you have to remember a seed can only grow if it is planted and taken care of. Unless a bullet is lead it may do nothing to a person if it just sits in their skin.

I sure hope you're joking. Planning/wanting to do something in the future is quite different from actually doing/starting the something.

You require stratergy and tatics to be the foundation for any goal to be achieved successfully.

Besides, planning the building long precedes the groundbreaking.

And the baby shower precedes the birth. However having one's tubes tied doesn't seem to preced anything to do with birth.

And sperm do not accidently fertilize eggs. motivation is irrelevant anyway.

I gather there is no motivation for people to have sex either, they 'just do it'. (copywrite recognition to nike).

Poetic nonsense. Please explain this in the context of decapitated body after a month in the grave. If you mean 'Life' in general, it is irrelevant as indivual lives begin and end.

Well I believe in this thing called a soul, and I also believe that the concept of time which humans have coined doesn't exist between life and the afterlife. However you're free to believe whatever floats your boat

A philosophical/religious question.

nah, I thought that wasn't obiouse [/sarcasim]

No. Subjective or relativist morality is just a fancy way of saying "amorality". If morality is subjective anything you decide is ultimately arbitrary. Sure, there are morally neutral decisions, but "possibly commitinmg murder" as is the case in abortion disputes, is not one of them.

Ok name one non-subjective morality. Ohh and abortion isn't murder, if you care to look up in the dictionary 'murder' is a legal term and similar to manslaughter it requires abortion to be against the law. Better throw all those women in gaol who have had miscarrieges. See here: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=abortion

By "when does life begin" in abortion discussions I take it to mean "when the body gets a soul". All life in the general sense is not equal. And hair is dead BTW.

Well considering your statement about death..... That aside, it is a philosophical question.
Ohh and btw hair roots are alive or at least the skin around them.
Although you may disagree and I gather you would have a strong case.

 

[jayem]

The obvious biologic difference is that an unfertilized human egg is haploid, with 23 chromosomes. Once fertilized, it becomes diploid with the full 46 chromosomes of the human genome. (But every somatic cell of one's body is also diploid.)

But the more important question is what's the difference between a fertilized egg and a newborn baby? And do you think both are "persons" in the moral (and legal) sense?

 

[Mocca]

How is a person about to die different from a dead person? You see there's this thing called "time"....

and IIRC, the fertilized egg has the (potential) child's DNA, not the mother's.

Other than the phyiscal difference of one person having a bullet in them, I see no signifigant difference between them.

No, it is not completely arbitrary. The moment of conception is like the ground-breaking that kicks off a building construction.

When do you say life begins?

No, there is not.

How about philosphy about when life begins? What should it be based on, rock-paper-scissors?

First, I will apologize for using the term life. Of course, both a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg are living. Instead, I meant life that is morally okay to end and life that isn't morally okay to end.

My point is, the only difference betwen an unfertilized egg that is about to be fertilized and an egg that was just fertilized is that one is fertilized and one isn't.

Your analogy involves a person about to die and a person just dead. The difference, of course, is that one is dead and that one is living.

I would say being dead is a signifigant thing. However, I would not say an egg being fertilized is a signifigant thing.

I'm not going to attempt to make a negative proof. Tell me why conception is a signifigant moment, enough so that the fertilized egg cannot be killed while the unfertilized egg can.

Edit: Sorry for the late reply. I had to go before. And to answer your question on when I thought life began, or rather, when it is no longer okay to end a life. I would say that this moment is when conscious thought begins. In most cases, this occurs shortly after birth. However, this is just wishful thinking. It would be extremely difficult to determine whether an organism is conscious, so being more realistic we should limit this to birth. Just my opinion, since you so asked.

 

[Blackguard_]

Actually when talking about creation it is very important, you can compare a bullet to abortion but when comparing a bullet to a seed, you have to remember a seed can only grow if it is planted and taken care of. Unless a bullet is lead it may do nothing to a person if it just sits in their skin.

Its an analogy, its not supposed to be a general comparison. If a seemingly small change like the addition of a small thing like a sperm or bullet can brign about a signifigant change the analogy is valid.

You require stratergy and tatics to be the foundation for any goal to be achieved successfully.

Which doesn't change that planning is seperate from doing. If you mean strategy and tactics for a project in progress, the building/baby analogy breaks down as the formation of a baby is an automatic process and there is no change of plans midway.

And the baby shower precedes the birth.

And groundbreaking isn't held mid-construction.

However having one's tubes tied doesn't seem to preced anything to do with birth.

I don't see your point.

I gather there is no motivation for people to have sex either, they 'just do it'. (copywrite recognition to nike).

I didn't say people had no motivation I said it didn't matter what the motivation was. An egg can still be fertilized whether the sex was from love, rape, or drunkeness right? The motive for sex has no baring on the sperm and egg.

Well I believe in this thing called a soul,

As do I, and fail to se what this has to do with time.

and I also believe that the concept of time which humans have coined doesn't exist between life and the afterlife. However you're free to believe whatever floats your boat

How is this so?

nah, I thought that wasn't obiouse [/sarcasim]

Oh sorry, thought you were the OP for a minute.

Well to answer your question we first of all need a definition of what a "human" is. I'll go with the classic "featherless biped with a soul". The biped part rules out the zygote stage as it does not under normal circumstances have 2 legs and it can be demostrated there is no soul then either, which is the more important criteria of humanity anyway.

The question of when the embryo gets a soul can be resolved by the answer to the question of personal identity;"where am I?". To get to the point, if your brain is alive in a jar in Paris and the rest of your body is on life support in Hong Kong, where are you? I would say the brain since that it the part of the body tied to perception and the mind. And the standard Philosophy 101 question of "are we just brains in a jar?" shows that the brain is tied to personal idenity and the mind. You wouldn't ask "are we just <any part beside the brain> in a jar?" becasue the brain is the only part associated with the mind and perception. You can strip away every body part except the brain and still have a mind. Also, I define the soul as that which percieves.

So the soul resides in the brain, so an embryo gets a soul when the brain develops to a certain point, althoug I do not know exactly when that point is. At the earliest, its when the brain can percieve.

Ok name one non-subjective morality.

How about the 1st commandment? The greatest commandment?

Ohh and abortion isn't murder, if you care to look up in the dictionary 'murder' is a legal term and similar to manslaughter it requires abortion to be against the law.

This is only true if human law were the highest. Murder is an unlawful killing right? And all those moral precepts in the OT are called the Law right? So if abortion is a sin against God's law its an unlawful killing and so is murder.

Better throw all those women in gaol who have had miscarrieges.

Eqivocation. The human induced abortion under discussion fits in with the part of the definition preceding "a". Do you have a better term in mind? That's serious quest BTW, as you are technically correct, but people saying 'abortion' in discussions like this don''t mean it as a synonym for "miscarriage".

 

[Blackguard_]

First, I will apologize for using the term life. Of course, both a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg are living. Instead, I meant life that is morally okay to end and life that isn't morally okay to end.

Its ok, I know what you meant. So then the question is "what makes a life that is not morally ok to end?" I would say a human soul.

I'm not going to attempt to make a negative proof. Tell me why conception is a signifigant moment, enough so that the fertilized egg cannot be killed while the unfertilized egg can.

The most commonly said reason is along the lines of what Jayem pointed out, the fertilized egg has the 46 chromosones of the genome. Meaning, the fertilized egg has a different DNA from the unfertilized egg and the mother. It is the first cell of any future humans that come from it and has their DNA. The different DNA is used to argue that that means the fertilized egg is not part of the mother's body and is a seperate person becasue it has a different DNA, and so the "keep your laws off my body!" crowd are wrong as cells of a different DNA is not thier body. The cells, such as the fertilized egg or zygote, embyo etc., are considered to belong to the person the cells will at least potentially, grow into, and you do not have the right to destroy another's body without just cause.

In short, they tie personal identity to DNA. Different DNA is a different person, at least for abortion purposes as I doubt they'd agree maternal twins are the same person.

BTW, I do not agree life begins at conception. I was merely pointing out earlier its not arbitrary to think so.

Edit: Sorry for the late reply. I had to go before. And to answer your question on when I thought life began, or rather, when it is no longer okay to end a life. I would say that this moment is when conscious thought begins. In most cases, this occurs shortly after birth. However, this is just wishful thinking. It would be extremely difficult to determine whether an organism is conscious, so being more realistic we should limit this to birth. Just my opinion, since you so asked.

A perfectly reasonable position. Unless you mean "awake" by concious, as I would consider the baby alive if it was unconcious before birth in the way someone in dreamless sleep was but the brain is still capable of conciousess. If someone goes to sleep at 4 and dies in a dreamless sleep at 8, did their life end at 4 or 8?

 

[kopilo]

Its an analogy, its not supposed to be a general comparison. If a seemingly small change like the addition of a small thing like a sperm or bullet can brign about a signifigant change the analogy is valid.

ahh, ok fair enough.

Which doesn't change that planning is seperate from doing. If you mean strategy and tactics for a project in progress, the building/baby analogy breaks down as the formation of a baby is an automatic process and there is no change of plans midway.

And groundbreaking isn't held mid-construction.

I don't see your point.

I didn't say people had no motivation I said it didn't matter what the motivation was. An egg can still be fertilized whether the sex was from love, rape, or drunkeness right? The motive for sex has no baring on the sperm and egg.

In order for conception to occur, at least one person has to want a means (ie sex) or for pregnancy (artifical insemination) to occure.

No it doesn't matter what the motivation is, but isn't it at least needed?

As do I, and fail to see what this has to do with time.
How is this so?

If the afterlife doesn't follow time as we know it, then when our soul enters the afterlife, it possibly stops following our concept of time.

Oh sorry, thought you were the OP for a minute.

Well to answer your question we first of all need a definition of what a "human" is. I'll go with the classic "featherless biped with a soul". The biped part rules out the zygote stage as it does not under normal circumstances have 2 legs and it can be demostrated there is no soul then either, which is the more important criteria of humanity anyway.

The question of when the embryo gets a soul can be resolved by the answer to the question of personal identity;"where am I?". To get to the point, if your brain is alive in a jar in Paris and the rest of your body is on life support in Hong Kong, where are you? I would say the brain since that it the part of the body tied to perception and the mind. And the standard Philosophy 101 question of "are we just brains in a jar?" shows that the brain is tied to personal idenity and the mind. You wouldn't ask "are we just <any part beside the brain> in a jar?" becasue the brain is the only part associated with the mind and perception. You can strip away every body part except the brain and still have a mind. Also, I define the soul as that which percieves.

So the soul resides in the brain, so an embryo gets a soul when the brain develops to a certain point, althoug I do not know exactly when that point is. At the earliest, its when the brain can percieve.

Thankyou.

How about the 1st commandment? The greatest commandment?

Isn't that subjective to your belief. Such as I doubt the OP would agree with it being correct.

This is only true if human law were the highest. Murder is an unlawful killing right? And all those moral precepts in the OT are called the Law right? So if abortion is a sin against God's law its an unlawful killing and so is murder.

If abortion is a sin. Forgive my ignorance but apart from 'Thou shall not kill", the bible doesn't seem to contain much on abortion.

Eqivocation. The human induced abortion under discussion fits in with the part of the definition preceding "a". Do you have a better term in mind? That's serious quest BTW, as you are technically correct, but people saying 'abortion' in discussions like this don''t mean it as a synonym for "miscarriage".

Thankyou for taking your time to look up the definition. Honestly I was just trying to have a bit of fun with the word but in all seriouseness, to my knowledge there proberly isn't a better word (in english anyway).

 

[UberLutheran]

If you remove a fertilized egg, you're in defiance of the will of God; but if you prevent an unfertilized egg from becoming fertilized, you're in defiance of the will of God.

 

[Mocca]

The most commonly said reason is along the lines of what Jayem pointed out, the fertilized egg has the 46 chromosones of the genome. Meaning, the fertilized egg has a different DNA from the unfertilized egg and the mother. It is the first cell of any future humans that come from it and has their DNA. The different DNA is used to argue that that means the fertilized egg is not part of the mother's body and is a seperate person becasue it has a different DNA, and so the "keep your laws off my body!" crowd are wrong as cells of a different DNA is not thier body. The cells, such as the fertilized egg or zygote, embyo etc., are considered to belong to the person the cells will at least potentially, grow into, and you do not have the right to destroy another's body without just cause.

In short, they tie personal identity to DNA. Different DNA is a different person, at least for abortion purposes as I doubt they'd agree maternal twins are the same person.

Would you not agree that tying DNA to personal identity for abortion purposes but not for practical purposes is arbitrary?

Personally, I would tie personal identity to one's mind. This is arbitrary, just as arbitrary as tying personal identity to DNA (which is rather stupid, in my opinion, as identical twins can be different people and have different personal identities.)

Of course, if you disagree with my statement that tying personal identity with DNA is arbitrary, all you'd have to do is to provide reasoning why personal identity should be defined by one's DNA.

 

[Jasminrose]

There is a big difference. The fertilized egg has a soul, the unfertilized egg is just that, an unfertilized egg. And its not likely that both will end in births. Sure the fertilized egg might, but do have any idea what goes into getting pregnant, its certainly not that easy. A female starts with one to two million eggs, and by the time she wants to have a baby she has about 300,000. So there is a big difference.

 

[JohnR7]

How is an unfertilized egg, about to be fertilized, different from a just-fertilized egg?

You do not have to have a Phd in DNA to figure this one out. The fertilized egg has all of the genetic information to create a unique human being. The egg does not have all of the needed genetic information. Actually, men have the genetic information needed for women, but women can not create men. Imagine that, once again science has shown that the Bible is true, that Eve could have come from Adam's "rib"

1 Cor. 11:12
For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

 

[JohnR7]

do have any idea what goes into getting pregnant, its certainly not that easy.

I think that I might have missed that class, can you tell me where I could sign up for it

 

[Jasminrose]

I think that I might have missed that class, can you tell me where I could sign up for it

I wasn't directing it at you.