But the real difference between the two is in regard to their existence and status as sentient living creatures is that in the future one of them will be sentient living being capable of thoughts and emotions. At the time, they are just masses of living human matter, not human beings.
Spit take*
Really? A cite… that a zygote cell isn’t capable of thinking and feeling?
Embryogenesis
A **zygote **is a cell immediately after fertilization- the sperm’s DNA has entered the oocyte, and now the DNA will merge, and mitosis will continue. The cell is still a single cell currently, and does not have even the major tissues that are used in the development of humans yet, it only has primitive versions of the 3 major tissues.
The cell will eventually have to divide multiple times, and implant into the uterus (it’s still in the ovarian tubes during zygote formation).
Once the blastocyst implants, then it will undergo cell differentiation, which will allow the primitive tissues to develop into the major tissues. It will develop the pre-cursor to the placenta early on, before it even starts to develop anything that could resemble neural tissue (a process called neurulation) via the folding of the notochord.
So to say the zygote is capable of thinking or even emotion? That’s impossible- because I would say step one of even TRYING to make that argument is that an organism must first have a working brain/neurons to be capable of those sorts of emotions/thoughts.
However, I’ll go one further to help out the naysayers- it doesn’t have to be a working brain, we can simply say that perhaps simply “HAVING neural tissue” should be a prerequisite for be able to think/feel/or even sense anything. We could even say that "having the tissue that would develop into neural tissue precursor could be the minimum requirement for being capable of those things (this would be the notochord).
A Zygote has NONE of those things yet. It doesn’t even have 2 identical cells yet. It’s not even finished combining it’s DNA. So to claim that a Zygote is capable of any higher thought is simply foolish and against all forms of science. If you remove a piece of living skin cell from you- is it capable of thought? Most people would say no, but that skin cell has more receptors and sensory abilities than the Zygote have at that stage.
So the argument that placenta would be capable of equal thought as a Zygote?
-That is most likely true. The placenta would have chemoreceptors in it to detect changes in blood pressure and flow output though- so it would have MORE sensory capabilities than the Zygote actually, but that’s not really pertinent and it’s nit picky.
Hope that helps you out though on understanding what a Zygote is.
What is the reason for the difference in treatment?
Societal norms. Tradition. Moral codes. Philosophy and religion. Stuff like that.
BTW, a zygote would not even have a placenta, because it will still be enveloped in the capsule that surrounds the oocyte pre-fertilization. It is not until it hatches from that, and becomes a blastocyst, that the organism (human, dog, cat, horse, etc.) starts to develop a placenta.
And again, this whole freaking argument is ridiculous because it is drawing a comparison between an organ (the placenta in this case) and the organism that developed said organ (blastocyst and above).
Even assuming that a placenta is just an organ and the other unborn mass is not, why draw a distnction between the human rights given to the unborn mass that cannot survive on its own and is incapable thoghts and feeling and an organ?
But the capacity to develop is what makes the difference to a pro-lifer…the stage of development is not relevant.
I keep expecting JHC to respond with “does…not…compute…”
I’ve been wondering where you were hiding, Darkseid.
Those aren’t reasons, they’re sources of reasons. It’s like saying that a fetus and placenta are different because of science, when in fact it’s through science that we can know that.
I, too, would like to know what the reasons are for treating embryos one way on this point but people the other. And i’d point out that using that as a rebuttal actually doesn’t work, since embryos too will be dead some day.
Not pro-life here but the answer seems fairly obvious. A placenta is not supposed to become an infant, a fetus is.
-FrL-
I think that’s a distinction without a difference. They’re perfectly good reasons. We treat an embryo differently because society has agreed to treat it differently. Why do we eat cows but not people? Why can you marry a stranger but not your sister? Because that’s how society wants to manage itself.
You guys are looking for biological answers to sociological questions.
But *why *does it want to manage itself that way? What purpose is there? What is the reasoning? Do we not eat people because human flesh is poisonous? Perhaps there’s a deep-seated emotional taboo? Maybe we just find beef more tasty? “Society has decided it, therefore it is so” is a not a reason; it’s the aftermath of reasons. It’s the decision, not the process. Plus, your rebuttal doesn’t account for your including moral codes, philosophy and religion as being in and of themselves answers.
Not so. I’d be happy to get a sociological answer to the question. What you’re providing is not answers, but where the answers might come from.
I think I see where you’re going with this, RT. You’re looking for something in humanity’s past, where a sense of the worth of an embryo evolved, for some objective reason. Something analogous to eating pigs = trichinosis, therefore pigs are not kosher.
I’m not a sociologist or an anthropologist, so I can’t answer that.
And I think JHC really *is *looking for a biological answer. The reasons are much fuzzier and definitely not biological.
That’s along the lines I mean. But presumably there are people today who don’t consider treating an embryo one way and a person the other without being sociologists or anthropologists either. I can’t tell for certain from your posts whether you’re in agreement or not, but if you are, presumably there is some reason you don’t think the two should be treated alike in this way. I’m not looking for just hidden, ancient reasons buried in the human psyche, but also the reasons people have today, if I stopped someone on the street and asked.
Quite possibly, but while I too would disagree with that idea, I do think the overall argument has merit. Fuzziness of answers is ok, as long as there actually is an answer that we can look at and judge. It’s not enough, at least to me, to simply say that society believes one way and thus the matter is dealt with.
I see what he’s getting at, though…it’s certainly an argument that has been made before (ok, not the placenta comparison, exactly, but I’ve heard the zygote compared to a tumor, for instance). And I’ve been asked many times why we can kill a sperm cell without a second thought, and not a zygote…what’s the difference there?
I’m always kind of confused by these questions and left a little stymied as to how to explain it. It seems so obvious to me, on a biological level. A placenta is an organ…it either has a fetus to help keep alive, or it dies (much like if I die, my kidneys die, too). If a sperm cell doesn’t find an egg, its only destiny is to be a dead sperm cell. None of these things has any biological destiny except to do one very specific job and then die. A zygote is, biologically, something completely different.
Now, you might say, “so what if it is?” and I will consider that a fair question, but biologically speaking, there’s no argument to make.
Sorry, I lost track of the actual question from the OP, specifically, that big honkin’ “if” at the beginning of the question.
I’m seeing several questions here:
(1) Why don’t we argue about whether or not a placenta gets aborted?
(2) Is the placenta a separate life from the fetus?
(3) What is the biological difference between a fetus and the placenta it creates?
My answers:
(1) It is part of a human life, just like the upper half of the embryo (not going into specific body parts, because according to the OP, we’re assuming human life starts at conception).
(2) It is not a separate life because it is part of the fetus.
(3) Please consult a medical textbook for the answer to your general question.
You seem to be confusing two issues or two different areas, or mixing them up, as others have explained. Ethilrist has explained your points decently, it seems.
And it is the same distinction that is given between an embryo’s kidney (or brain, or heart) and the embryo itself. The distinction is made because one is the organism which is developing the tissues and organs, and the other IS the product of such a development.
I can say that the answer to the (3) posted by Ethilrist has also been explained before in this thread. And I agree with sarahfeena’s last post.
BTW, I’m pro-choice. But I also work with biology, veterinary medicine and life sciences… and your argument is making me want to bang my head on the computer monitor.
Personally, I’m pro-choice. But I always like to argue both sides of a question.
I don’t think you need to go back very far in human history to find the answers; and keep in mind that societal proscriptions on abortion pre-date our knowledge of reproductive biology. IMHO, it stems from the biological imperative to reproduce; therefore, babies = good. Embryos become babies; therefore, embryos = good.
Where philosophy & religion come into play, is in the larger question of “why do we value life?” If you assume a fetus is alive (and beyond a certain point, any primitive expectant mother would be able to tell you that), I could see where it would fall under any society’s umbrella of living things worth protecting.
It is my understanding that the placenta can maintain its biological functions (be alive) even after the fetus has died. This suggests to me that the placenta is not an organ of the fetus, but a seperate (but connected) entity.