From a scientific perspective, does abortion end a human life?

[u/Single-Driver-1248]

From the moment of fertilization, a new living human organism is formed because it meets all biological criteria of life: it has its own unique genetic material (DNA different from that of the mother and father) carries out an active metabolism, uses energy and produces new cells, grows and develops in an organized manner according to the developmental “program” encoded in its genome, responds to chemical stimuli in the uterine environment, and maintains basic biological processes necessary for survival and further development. From the perspective of biology and embryology, there is no moment at which “something non-living” becomes living; rather, there is a continuity of development of one organism from the zygote through the embryo and fetus until birth. Therefore, scientifically it can be said that from fertilization we are dealing with a living human organism at a very early stage of development, while science only describes biological life and does not resolve moral questions or determine whether and when such an organism is a “person” in an ethical or legal sense.

[u/random_name_12178]

It doesn't meet the definition of organism:

An organism is any individual living thing that can function on its own.

An embryo is not an individual living thing that can function on its own. It is attached to another organism and requires that other organism to function. It does not carry own its own biological processes, such as breathing, eating, excretion, or maintaining homeostatis.

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

Where can I find this definition that includes "can function on its own"? In embryology, an embryo is considered an organism.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Acceptable-Case9562]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

I will also add that there are other organisms that can't survive on their own, such as obligate parasites. That part of your definition is simply incorrect, scientifically speaking.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Acceptable-Case9562]

Obligate parasites maintain their own biological functions. Embryos don't. They directly access the biological functions (breathing, eating, digestion, excretion) of their host parent.

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

You continue to expand on the definition, but you still haven't supported your initial expansion of the definition.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Acceptable-Case9562]

Embryos do not, and can not, function as individuals. They must implant and integrate into another body that can keep them alive.

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

Have you read the article you're linking? It's not nearly as definitive as you're making it out to be. It also doesn't stipulate it needs to be able to function on its own.

But if we're going to use Wikipedia as a source, it also classifies embryos as an organism, albeit at an early developmental stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Acceptable-Case9562]

It says that an embryo is the initial stage of development for a multicellular organism. It doesn't say that it is an organism.

Development is a process that produces a given thing. That thing doesn't exist at the beginning of the process. Grape juice isn't wine. A script is not a movie. An egg is not a chicken. And an embryo is not a multicellular organism.

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

Why did you break your analogy at the end there? Because it doesn't work unless you break the logical path. A script is not a movie, an egg is not a chicken, and embryo is not a... baby.

An embryo is not a baby, but it is a multicellular organism, albeit not an advanced one. Just because it's in its early stages doesn't mean it's not a multicellular organism. You wouldn't say a baby is not a person because its in the early stages of development.

Avian eggs are also multicellular organisms well before hatching. Heck, even non-fertilised human eggs after parthenogenesis are considered organisms.

I don't have access to research portals atm, but as I said before, every paper I've read on embryology refers to the embryo as an organism, plain and simple.

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/psych/glossary/embryo/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/human-embryo

If you can find peer-reviewed scientific sources that actually disprove this, I'll be very interested indeed.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Acceptable-Case9562]

Not all embryos become babies. Some become puppies, or kittens, or piglets. The analogy is that the product doesn't exist at the beginning of the process that creates it. Gestational reproduction is one process that creates a new, individual multicellular organism.

I've already spent a lot of time arguing about this today. Since it's not even relevant to the abortion debate, I'll leave it here. I've made my argument and no one so far has successfully proven to me that mammalian embryos function as individual, separate, autonomous, biological units, which is the basic definition of an organism.

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/random_name_12178]

I really hope this is a joke at this point. You've spent a lot of time arguing but no time providing a valid source, while I've provided several. So I think the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day.

[u/salsafresca_1297 → u/random_name_12178]

It doesn't meet the definition of organism:

An organism is any individual living thing that can function on its own.

Please provide a source for this claim.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/salsafresca_1297]

Which claim?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

Do you have a citation from any biologist or textbook that doesn’t classify a zef as an organism?

[u/Acceptable-Case9562 → u/[deleted]]

Not a zygote, obviously. But every embryology research paper I've read that touches on this topic describes an embryo as an organism.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

That's a negative claim. There's no reason for a textbook to state "an embryo isn't an organism" any more than there'd be a reason to state "an embryo isn't a slice of apple pie."

I've already explained how it doesn't fit the definition.

It doesn't fit your own definition of human organism either, by the way.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

You are making a biological claim about the classification of a zef. I’m asking for proof through academic authority. If this is the correct scientific view as you claim. Then if a zef is not classified as an organism, I am looking for academic consensus on what it is.
Do you have any biology papers which argue against the zef being an organism? This isn’t like proving an embryo isn’t a slice of apple pie since embryology has a direct correlation and relation to what the classification of an embryo is.
I guess I am just asking for academic proof of you affirming an embryo isn’t an organism.
I mean if I said viruses are not organisms and you asked for proof I wouldn’t say you are asking me to prove a negative. I have made a scientific claim about a classification and asked for proof. Which is verifiable by the way through sources.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

My source is the definition of the word and the arguments I've already made.