Glider

The head is not particularly nutritious (it's not like they have huge brains or anything), but it's the only part of the male the female mantis can reach during mating, so she starts with that. This gives the advantage to the female because the head is where the male keeps his jaws, so it gets that risk out of the way quickly, and the body of the male will continue delivering sperm without the head. She will continue to eat the whole thing in due course. It's a convenient and substantial free meal.

If we are talking about determinism in human behaviour (rather than properties of inanimate things) then the OP is right IMO. All human behaviour has underlying drives, whether or not those drives are rational. Drives can come from inside (endogenous) like hunger, thirst and so-on, but a surprising number are exogenous, resulting from our non-conscious (preattentive) processing of the environment. For example, GutZ's habit of checking his "stove/doors/tabs/locks/fridge/ like 2-5 times each night. I do it because I don't want my apartment to catch fire/leak water/have people walking in/ruin my food. I could just do it once, but the second I let go of whatever lever I touched, I get this uneasy feeling like it was an illusion. You know like when you think you've done something and check later and you didn't, even though mentally you pictured yourself doing it..." This behaviour is driven by anxiety, although not necessarily to do with the reasons listed by GutZ. Performing the behaviour alleviates that anxiety. This actually sounds like the start of a compulsive obsessive ritual because stopping the behaviour results in your getting "this uneasy feeling like it was an illusion". Where not performing a ritulistic behaviour pattern results in anxiety means the ritual is a compulsive behaviour. Where stopping the ritual induces anxiety or disquiet, means the ritual is obsessive. This is ok as it stands, but if it starts to interfere with other asects of life it can become a big problem. In many cases, such as mantids, it provides the extra nutritional boost to start forming the (many) eggs the female will lay. It also prevents the male from making a post-coital meal of the female, which would be bad for propagation of the species.

I think there are a couple of problems with this: First, the statement "If I'm dead, I still want...". I believe these two clauses to be mutually exlusive. Or, more precicely, I see the first excluding any following, such as ...I still want, ...I still think, ...I still feel, ...I still have a motivation to... and so-on. Second, "...because no one knows what happens when we die.". We do know what happens to our physical bodies when we die. If we needed any organs for 'the next level of existence', surely they wouldn't all decompose as we know they all do? What about amputees? Those people who, through no fault of their own, lose limbs. Are they condemned to hop for eternity? Is Douglas Bader confined to a chair for eternity where he could fly in life, or does the afterlife include prosthetics? What about those who die of organ destroying pathologies, such as cirrhosis of the liver, lung cancer, progessive heart disease, renal failure (who don't recieve transplants). Are they condemned to spend eternity dying of these illnesses? Is it some arbitrary and squalid little physical pathology that decides who lives for eternity and who does not?

The possibility of rejection is not an ethical question, it's a medical problem. It would be an ethical question of the possibility of rejection was not revealed to the patient prior to transplant, or if there were a better alternative that was being withheld. A real ethical issue surrounding organ transplant is the idea of selling organs (i.e. placing monetary value on them).

There isn't anything above the motor cortex if you're talking about physical position. However, there are things below the motor cortex that, if damaged, would result in paralysis. The spine, for example.

No, he has Motor Neuron Disease.

That's spectacular. It's easy to make a machine that walks, but one that adapts its gait like that must take some significant processing power.

No. Only severe injury to the motor cortices or descending motor pathways or spinal tracts would cause paralysis. Cerebral palsy is usually the result of a failure of part(s) of the brain to develop properly. Whilst this can interfere with the control of movement, it doesn't (as far as I know) result in paralysis.

Should the Atlantic conveyor stop, we would be in the crap. If you look at a globe, the UK is on the same latitude as bloody Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not known for it's balmy seasons full of mists and mellow fruitfulness.

High explosive shells (HESH rounds) require detonators to set them off. If you take out the detonator, then even the shell hitting the ground won't set them off. This is useful in two ways. Fisrt, it means there's no risk of the shell going off in the breech (which would be bad). Second, you can decide when, and therefore where, the shell goes off. For example, you can use a barometric detonator for air-burst. You set it to certain altitude and when you fire the shell the detonator primes (goes live) as the shell achieves a certain altitude (as determined by atmospheric pressure), and goes off when it comes back down to that altitude. This is good for clearing trenches. You can also use a type of detonator that requires impact to prime it, so the shell hitting the target makes it live, then a timer sets the shell off (after a delay of a few milliseconds). This is good for doing structural damage as you can make sure the shell is buried in the target before it detonates. There are a whole bunch of cunning detonators and shells you can use. It all depends on what you're delivering; HESH, gas, fluids/liquids, grenades, chocolate, propaganda leaflets etc.

And the rest of us insist that whilst a biological marker is sufficient to define ‘human’, it is not enough to define human being. There are a set of characteristics that define a ‘human being’, none of which a blastocyst possesses. A brain, a functional nervous system and an integrated set of organs working in concert to maintain an internal environment compatible with life and arranged in a humanoid anatomy are the minimum requirements. On top of these, there are the psychological, cognitive, affective and behavioural characteristics that differentiate a human being from any other primate. You are talking about potential. The cells that contain the unique genetic code and initial instruction set and propagate the growth of attributes (that don’t yet exist) hold the potential to become an oak tree, but are not yet (nor may ever be) an oak tree. In the same way, a group of 58.3 +/- 8.1 cells (counted on day 5 after normal fertilisation) holds the potential to become a human being and to express the characteristics that define a human being, which are more than simply the genome. Conversely, this small group of cells cannot be said to be a human being, because the outcome has not been determined. Some may become human beings. Others may not. Some may divide and become two (or in rare cases, more) human beings (MZ twins). It may partially divide and become profoundly conjoined (e.g. a second head on a single body. Does that count as two human beings?). It may develop incorrectly and become completely nonviable. It may just spontaneously abort (this happens quite frequently). There are a large number of possible outcomes. The point is that prior to its development, there is significant room for doubt concerning the outcome. The only thing that you can be sure of, by virtue of the genome, is that, if it develops normally, it won’t become anything other than a human being (or two) and defining a thing by what it is not is no definition at all. Until you are absolutely certain of the outcome, you cannot state that a blastocyst is a human being because that is far from guaranteed, and you can never be certain of the outcome. True. It just goes to show, even squirrels can make the distinction between an acorn and an oak tree. Squirrels eat acorns, and live in oak trees. They do not eat oak trees and live in acorns. Squirrels cannot digest most of what an oak tree is made of, because it is very different from what an acorn is made of. I see no hole in the logic. We all need these things, true. But human beings have respiratory systems; they can breathe and take oxygen from the air. Human beings have digestive systems and can take nutrients from food, converting one thing (e.g. vegetable protein) into another (e.g. animal protein). True, throughout our lives we are dependent on oxygen, water and food, all of which we can attain for ourselves from birth, through the expression of hard-wired, reflexive behaviours, and later through patterns of reinforced behaviours. A blastocyst can do none of these things. It cannot seek oxygen or nutriment, nor can it take these things for itself, but must be provided with these things by a host body which, in its turn, must provide all the functioning organs necessary to produce these required elements (e.g. lungs, blood, liver…you get the idea). In this, a blastocyst has more in common with a tumour than with a human being. I think it’s based more on a comparison of defining characteristics. I challenge the logic of (in essence) taking the term ‘potential’ and substituting ‘actual’. These terms are not the same and are not interchangeable. Yes, I am a human being, and as such, I am not so dependent upon the processes of nature as a blastocyst. I can go to the shops for food (or grow it, or kill it or whatever). I can light a fire or wear extra clothes for warmth. I can operate on my environment and influence it directly in physical ways. I can survive in a comparatively large range of environmental conditions. I can adapt to them physically (through homeostatic changes), psychologically and behaviourally. I don’t. I have my own blood stream. I have my own respiratory and digestive systems. I have my own organs to perform the necessary functions for independent life. I have my own teeth (still. Yay for me!). I require nowhere near the support a blastocyst requires, i.e. a living host and all their functions. It too has it’s own respiratory and digestive systems. It too is an independent being. It requires basic care and food, sure, but it can feed and digest its food. It can breathe. It has the innate, hard-wired behavioural reflexes that allow it to feed. It also has the innate behavioural capacity to recognise its mother and to ask for and stimulate the production of that food. It is, in short, not comparable to a blastocyst in any way. The only thing comparable to a blastocyst, is another blastocyst. Well, yes. We could keep it in a beaker of Human Wringer’s solution I guess. A human being wouldn’t survive that though. I don’t need to be provided with these things. I can seek them out for myself. I am an independent being.

I think it's a very good analogy, but the credit belongs to AzurePhoenix. It's her analogy (see post # 10). Absolutely.

You're right, it does. A human blastocyst lacks these attributes which is why I hold that it is not a human being. I think this is the point that's being missed in this thread. I should have been more specific and said "That still doesn't make it an oak (tree)". The cells of an acorn (equivalent to a blastocyst) are oak, as is the shelf in my kitchen (equivalent to a tissue sample). But neither are trees, by any argument. It's the same argument. Is there a difference between being 'oak' and being an 'oak tree'? Is there a difference between being 'human' and being a 'human being'? In both cases, yes. And in the same way, a blastocyst will not develop unless it embeds in the uterine lining, attached to the mother and dependent upon her for basic requirements; oxygen and nutrients. In fact, many don't. Many fail to embed and are expelled. If they are human beings, why don't they continue to develop? Or they can become more skin, or they can become embryonic stem cells. They have that potential. I don't feel uncomfortable with blastocysts and I resent the implication that my argument is based upon an emotional response. Just because I don't often invite blastocysts to dinner, or drink with them in pubs in no way attests to any form of prejudice. Some of my best friends were blastocysts. A unique genetic code is insufficient to define a human being. Every cell in your arm contains the genetic code unique to you, but as you correctly point out, it is not a human being. It is a part of one. In the same way, a blastocyst is not a human being. It has the potential to become one if allowed to develop. But potential is also insufficient to define a human being. No, it really isn't. It may be eventually (although this is not guaranteed), given the correct environment and all other basic requirements such as oxygen, nutrients and everything else it needs, for which it is entirely dependent upon another, unlike a human being.

Going by the definition, I would say when the complex adaptive system of organs are capable of, or sufficiently mature enough to influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole, independantly. The cells of a blastocyst are pluripotent (all the same, but each having more than one potential outcome). So does an acorn. That still doesn't make it an oak. Nearly, but not quite, and the difference is significant. I don't think it is trivial. I think this is the crux of the entire thread. The title of the thread is: "Is a blastocyst a human being?" The difference is not between 'a human' and 'a human being'. It is between being 'human' and 'a human (being). Any sample of tissue taken from a human being is human by definition, but these samples are not human beings. Likewise, a blastocyst taken from a human is, by definition human, by virtue of its human DNA, but it is only the DNA that differentiates it from any other (chicken, frog, fish camel etc.). It is only the genome that makes it human. Whilst it is accurate to say that any cell containing human DNA is human, it is not accurate to say any cell (or group of cells) containing human DNA is a human.

There is some evidence that 'power-napping' (< an hour) is quite good for you, not least because it simply allows you to 're-set'. I.e. relax, forget about daily hassles, reduce heart-rate, blood pressure etc. and start again. However, I've seen nothing to suggest it would compensate for sleep deprivation, so I think it assumes you are getting proper sleep at night.

Nor does an obsessive compulsive But they can avoid losing. Sorry, couldn't help it.

My own belief is that marriage is simply a state/church sanction on something that should already exist (a sound relationship). If it does exist, then marriage won't matter. If it doesn't, then marriage won't matter. I have nothing at all against marriage. Equally, I have nothing at all against cohabitation. The relationship is the important factor, not the license.

Not really. A seed is not an organism. A blastocyct is not an organism. Here's the Wiki definition "In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.The majority of an acorn is stored nutrient. The seed consists of a tiny clump of cells; no root tissue, no stem, no xylem nor phloem. Whilst it consists of plant cells, it is not a plant. In the same way, a blastocyct a small clump of undifferentiated cells, is not an organism. Yes, a comatose person is a human being (the vegetable isn't though). It has the structure and physiological functions that define the human organism. Yes, you are human, but you're no longer a human being, you are a human corpse. Not so. I can go to the butchers and see many genetically unique lumps of meat. None of which is classed as an animal, whilst all are animal. This is true. The genetic instruction encoded in the blastocyct enables the cells to differentiate into the many different organs and tissue types that form a human being. That still doesn't make a blastocyct a human being. Again, this is true. It is the starting point of your growth into a specific organism; a human being. I think it's more the use of terms that makes the difference. As I said before, there is a significant difference between 'human' and human being. Tissue (e.g. a small muscle biopsy) can be human, but is not a human being. It lacks the defining physiological and psychological characteristics of a human being (or any kind of being). A blastocyct can be human, but, for the same reasons, it is not a human being. A functional central nervous system is a defining characteristic of a human being. It doesn't really matter if you add or subtract single cells. If there is no functional CNS, then what remains is human, but not a human being.

The problem is with the use of language. There is a big difference between being 'human' and being 'a human'. Indeed, the whole thread revolves around that point. A blastocyst may be human, that does not make it a human being. It is not a being. That a human blastocyst will become a human being is a given, but that does not make the blastocyst a human being any more than, as AzurePhoenix pointed out, an acorn is an oak.

Yeah, but feminists shop too, as do men, it's just that they're less likely to conceive whilst doing so. Men that is, not feminists. Well... no, forget it.

Not really. There are two basic types of twins: Monozygotic (MZ) twins come from a single egg fertilized by one sperm. The resulting blastocyst separates to form two separeate embryos sharing 100% of their DNA. This results in identical twins. Dizigotic (DZ) twins come from two eggs fertilized by two different sperm (usually at the same time and by the same man). If these twins come from the same father then they will share 50% of their DNA. However, as DZ twins form from two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm, ther is nothing to say that two separate eggs can't be fertilized by two separate sperm from two separate men as long as the woman has intercourse with the second man before the first blatocyst embeds in the uterine lining. As soon as this happens, hormones are released that induce changes in the lining to prevent further blastocysts embedding. This is the principle by which many prophylactic pills work. They convince the body it's pregnant which stops any fetilised egg embedding in the uterine deciduum. The time window is actually fairly generous. Conception hardly ever takes place at the time of intercourse. It can take up to a day or so for the sperm to reach and fertilize an egg. Most women actually conceive whilst shopping.

Only one sperm can fertilize any egg. Once a sperm has penetrated the ootyte membrane, the properties change making it impenetrable to any other sperm.

Disordered eating is not strictly an addiction. Whilst compulsive eating disorders are similar to addictions in that they are compulsive behaviours that are carried out in spite of the knowledge of subsequent harm, they do not fulfil the physiological criteria for addiction. However, having said that, compulsive eating disorders are behavioural disorders, not anatomical ones. Therefore, surgery altering one's anatomy does not address the underlying problem, they only alleviate the symptom (obesity). So, to have bariatric surgery (which in itself is not without risk) might deal with the immediate problem of weight, but it ignores the underlying causal problem completely. In short, it is an example of the 'quick answer' that people have come to expect; an immediate solution that doesn't involve effort and doesn't really solve anything apart from the immediate physical symptom. If the underlying compulsive behavioural issues are not addressed then these issues are likely to manifest in some other way. People do underestimate the severity and long-term implications of bariatric surgery. A common form is some degree of gastric bypass, limiting the amount of food that can be absorbed. This allows the person to continue to indulge in their compulsive eating without gaining weight. However, should that person manage to deal with their compusive behaviour and return to a more moderate eating regime, they are faced with the problem of not being able to absorb sufficient nutrient from a moderate diet. Basically, the person has to remain a compulsive eater. There are other problems that can arise from such surgery, and all forms of surgery carry a degree of risk. In my opinion, it is better in the long term to address the behavioural problem (i.e. the causal problem) and avoid 'quick-fix' surgery if possible. I think surgery should be considerd an absolute last resort to be considered only should all (more valid) interventions have failed (which is unlikely).

That sounds honest to me. I don't think so. What point would he be making if he showed himself pumped full of levadopa? His tremor would be supressed, his motor function would improve, the facial rigor would be alleviated, his speech would improve and people who know no better might think "Oh, so that's Parkinson's? It don't look so bad to me!". What he can't show on a single advert is that Parkinsosn't is progressive, and sooner or later it won't matter whether he takes the medication or not. I think it's probably more honest to show Parkinson's for what it really is, than to show some supressed and medicated version, especially as that doesn't last. European trials of embryonic cell transplants into the substantia nigra showed significant reversal of symptoms in a few Parkinsonian syndrome patients from the USA (their DA producing cells in the substantia nigra had been destroyed through drug abuse). Stem cell research really is the way to go with Parkinson's. I believe Fox is entirely justified in doing what he's doing in an attempt to achieve that end. It's not like he's being dishonest or pretending to have Parkinsosn's.

No they don't. At least, not legally. This is compensation, not what somebody would get for selling the injured party a new hand or eye from another human being. Saying a person will get $25,000 for the loss of a hand or an eye is not saying a hand or an eye is worth $25,000. This is how much dialysis costs, not what somebody would get for selling a new kidney from another human being. Saying that dialysis costs $44,000 per year is not saying a kidney is worth $44,000.