>>The definition of an organism (from biology online) is “An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.”.<<

If I were you I'd find a better source than biology online: viruses do not have metabolism and are incapable of growth. They can't maintain homeostasis either. There is considerable debate as to whether or not they can be considered a form of life.

>>Sperm can’t do the things on that list and so they are not an organism.<<

They can do more of the things on that list than viruses: they can react to stimuli, grow and maintain homeostasis. So they're not as much of an organism as an orangutan but they are more of an organism than a virus.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear runner.

My flawed nature? I think seeing that women who feel an abortion is necessary have access to the procedure done by competent practitioners rather than going the old coat hanger route which so often caused great suffering in the past is a most moral position. I also think having sex education and availability of contraceptives so that unwanted pregnancies are minimised and fewer abortions will be necessary is also a most moral position. In other areas my flawed nature might be exhibited, but in those areas my morality is of the highest quality, and my nature is not the least bit flawed.

I really don’t think you’re qualified to judge whether my nature is flawed or not. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge whether your nature is flawed or not.

All we can do is to have our own opinions and try to do our best. I think you’re acting from what you believe is the best course. I know I am. We differ on what is the best course, and we won’t agree.

Yuyutsu wrote: Generally, those animals being butchered are more evolved - physically, mentally and emotionally than the fetuses under discussion, their pain and loss being significantly greater than the pain and loss of fetuses who have not experienced the world yet, who are yet to have any investment in it.

My wife and I agree with the above, and we eat very little meat. There is a great variety of meat substitutes made of soy and other vegetable materials available, and we eat them together with other vegetables for most of our diet.

Using the criteria of sentience and suffering an adult women has a much greater capacity for suffering than the embryo inside her, and her needs should take almost complete precedence over that of an embryo

Thanks for correcting my sloppy error: I'm aware meiosis involves some genetic recombination, and distribution of X and Y chromosomes. However, a sperm is still not an organism. And what species would it belong to again? It is not a human being or an organism by any logical definition.

Where’s the exact line between a human brain and a human potential brain for you? And why? This is not scientific language, Yabby, using "potential" in this context. We’ll have to disagree on this subjective interpretation.

If you took out my brain, I’d be dead. I would not be able to function as an organism without it, at this stage of my life. When a human brain stops receiving oxygen, and hence stops functioning, you cease to be an organism, that’s why being brain dead is one legal definition of being dead: you are not a human organism anymore. Once you develop a brain, even the thing that you call “potential brain”, you can’t function without it. An embryo/fetus will die if you remove its "potential brain" too. The remarkable thing about humans is that before we had this (“potential”) brain, we could function as an organism and not only did we not need it at that stage, but we proceeded to build our own brain! We are amazing creatures aren’t we? This issue, that it is our ability to function as an organism, not just our brain function, that determines whether we are living or dead as a human being, is well discussed by A/Professor Maureen Condic in this article http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24

Who would I be if you removed my brain and put it in another person's body? This is a hypothetical question I believe. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Is this the sort of de-humanizing stuff you are into? If you hang around with the sort of elitists that push this stuff, I recommend that you get away from them while you can. Who knows, you might look like a pretty good body to transplant Stephen Hawking's brain into, for that sort of crowd, so beware.

The transplanted brain question is not as far fetched as it might seem, Rich. There have already been heads transplanted between individuals of other species. There is just the little problem of
the spinal cord and the ethics involved. But thinking about it
might make you click that a person is all about the brain. All
the rest, even the face, can be replaced.

But only part of an undeveloped brain which is still under
construction, is not yet a brain, it will be when constructed.
So it has potential, but without the bits that make it a person,
its not yet a person.

*However, a sperm is still not an organism*

Well that is just your claim and nothing more. Its a being, its
human, its independant, its alive, it moves about all by itself,
it has its own combination of dna, its dna will be replicated
in the next generation. It can live for days and days. It dies
eventually. Yes it is an organism.

*We are amazing creatures aren’t we?*

Well, we are just another creature, there is no shortage of species

>>Who would I be if you removed my brain and put it in another person's body? This is a hypothetical question I believe. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Is this the sort of de-humanizing stuff you are into? If you hang around with the sort of elitists that push this stuff, I recommend that you get away from them while you can. Who knows, you might look like a pretty good body to transplant Stephen Hawking's brain into, for that sort of crowd, so beware.<<

It's called a thought experiment RichG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

They crop up a lot in physics and philosophy. Here are some examples you might be more familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma

And here is one that involves brain removal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat

The brain in a vat and changing brains thought experiments are not intended as suggestions that attempted cerebral transplants would actually be a good idea. The sort of elitists that push this stuff are not - as you seem to think - neurosurgeons trying to think of proposals to upset ethics committees: they are generally philosophy professors. In my experience this means mild-mannered middle-aged men who spend a lot of time thinking and reading books. I can see how you'd want to be wary of that crowd.

Cheers,

Tony

Human organisms have alternate forms in successive life sycles. In one form we are multicelled organisms some female some male. That form has 100% mortality. During the multicelled life cycle each of the two forms produce one celled organisms. The females produce egg cells, and the males produce sperm cells. The one celled organisms have almost 100% mortality but not quite. A very small fraction of the individuals in the form of sperm unite with a very small fraction of the individuals in the form of eggs. From this union the multicelled individuals proceed by cell division. Sperm and egg are human as are male and female. Humans alternate generations in single and multicelled forms.

It is as logical to try to preserve all the one celled forms as to preserve all the multicelled forms and as pointless. The single celled forms consume very few resources. However, the multicelled forms are increasing in menacing numbers and putting a strain on the resources of the planet.