Are fetus' humans?

[Cheesy111]

Define quantitative versus qualitative. Very thin line you're walking there

The usual definitions:

Quantitative: of or related to numeric characteristics
Qualitative: of or related to non-numeric characteristics

This would be an example of a 'qualitative lack' of genetic material in any one gamete:
Genome of species is AABB.
Sperm contains AA.
Egg contains BB.

This is a 'quantitative lack':
Genome of species is AABB.
Sperm contains AB.
Egg contains AB.

Please explain how example 2 is not qualitative?

Also, what's the point of this argument? I am not following, what am I missing? Please explain.

Example one: an infinite amount of sperm cannot make a genome. 
Example two: two sperm can make a genome.

[cometbah]

Edit: Ninja'ed above =9

Define quantitative versus qualitative. Very thin line you're walking there

The usual definitions:

Quantitative: of or related to numeric characteristics
Qualitative: of or related to non-numeric characteristics

This would be an example of a 'qualitative lack' of genetic material in any one gamete:
Genome of species is AABB.
Sperm contains AA.
Egg contains BB.

This is a 'quantitative lack':
Genome of species is AABB.
Sperm contains AB.
Egg contains AB.

Please explain how example 2 is not qualitative?

Also, what's the point of this argument? I am not following, what am I missing? Please explain.

Each gamete in example 2 contain all the information necessary for the formation of a member of the species (A & B), but not enough of it.

If one were to take 2 eggs from example 2, extract the DNA from one and stick it into the other one, it becomes fertilized and will grow into a member of the species without incidence.

If one were to take 2 eggs from example 1, no amount of effort will produce a fetus.

The point:

Therefore, regarding this statement:

   

Neither ovas or ... those other things all on their own will become a living human. So you could destroy as much of them on their own as you want, but when you combine them, then you've got what could be a person one day.

If one were to make arguments based on necessity, that is untrue. Only ONE egg can be destroyed at maximum without destroying an amount of genetic information sufficient to construct a Homo Sapien.

... because humans belong to the second category (quantitative).

[northcity4]

Ok thank you very much. So are we trying to say it's not 'human' until we have a feasible genome?

[Jenkar]

Actually, this works with any two eggs (provided they're not deficient). This is beause the only thing that differs from a gamete and a human being that is not quantitative is the sexual chromoses. You *absolutely* need an X. Since in half of the spermatozoids, there is no X, half of them are unable to reproduce. There are other problems that stops two X spermatozoids (or one X and one Y) from making a successful embryo. I have not yet read any article on fusing the information then implementing it in an ennuclied ova.

[cometbah]

Actually, this works with any two eggs (provided they're not deficient). This is beause the only thing that differs from a gamete and a human being that is not quantitative is the sexual chromoses. You *absolutely* need an X. Since in half of the spermatozoids, there is no X, half of them are unable to reproduce. There are other problems that stops two X spermatozoids (or one X and one Y) from making a successful embryo. I have not yet read any article on fusing the information then implementing it in an ennuclied ova.

That is correct, which is why I used 'two eggs' as an example, as opposed to 'two sperms'.

Statistical clarification:
Assuming that a sperm has equal chances of being X / Y, there is a 75% chance for two sperms to contain sufficient genetic information for a human.
Two eggs always (100% chance) contain sufficient information.

Other restrictions:
Two eggs will never yield a male.
A proper cellular structure (e.g. that of an egg) is required. This is an additional requirement in the case of two sperms.
For both sperm+sperm and egg+egg, there is a notable lack of built-in mechanism for the introduction of genetic material into each other.

Here is a thought experiment:

Suppose we have invented a device that can hold exactly two gametes inside. The device is designed to always take the genetic material of one gamete and stick it into the other 1 minute after both gametes have been placed inside. There is no way to get the cells out after they have been put inside. Cells cannot die inside the device.

If fertilization was successful, the resulting cell is immediately transferred to a viable womb-like environment.

We have also invented a second device. When a female presses the button on this device, the (viable) egg she currently has in her body will be magically teleported into the first device.

Two questions:

1)
Suppose 50% of the females (Group A) are hypnotized from birth to always press the button whenever they have a viable egg. There is no way to break the hypnosis.
The other 50% (Group B) will never press the button, but are free to procreate normally (i.e. by having sex with a male).
Are the eggs of Group A any more 'human' than those of Group B?

2)
(this is essentially the other abortion thread, about 'abortion to save mother')
Suppose that pressing the button on the second machine will kill the female.
Is it 'right' to not press the button?

[OldTrees]

Actually, this works with any two eggs (provided they're not deficient). This is beause the only thing that differs from a gamete and a human being that is not quantitative is the sexual chromoses. You *absolutely* need an X. Since in half of the spermatozoids, there is no X, half of them are unable to reproduce. There are other problems that stops two X spermatozoids (or one X and one Y) from making a successful embryo. I have not yet read any article on fusing the information then implementing it in an ennuclied ova.

That is correct, which is why I used 'two eggs' as an example, as opposed to 'two sperms'.

Statistical clarification:
Assuming that a sperm has equal chances of being X / Y, there is a 75% chance for two sperms to contain sufficient genetic information for a human.
Two eggs always (100% chance) contain sufficient information.

Other restrictions:
Two eggs will never yield a male.
A proper cellular structure (e.g. that of an egg) is required. This is an additional requirement in the case of two sperms.
For both sperm+sperm and egg+egg, there is a notable lack of built-in mechanism for the introduction of genetic material into each other.

Advanced notes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondisjunction
Sperm from XY males can vary from 0, X, Y, XX, to YY
Eggs from XX females can vary from 0, X, to XX

Mitochondria DNA (exclusive to eggs and somatic cells) is part of the human genome.

[Jenkar]

You forget all the combinations possible from semi/complete failures into trisomic or the rarer quadrisomic individuals (don't know if those are fertile though)

[OldTrees]

You forget all the combinations possible from semi/complete failures into trisomic or the rarer quadrisomic individuals (don't know if those are fertile though)

Trisomy and Tetrasomy were stated. Pentasomic and hexsomic variations were implied. I found no evidence of heptasomy.

[Jenkar]

Apparently i cannot see them. Care to show were? :F

[OldTrees]

Apparently i cannot see them. Care to show were? :F

If a sperm can be XX and an egg can be XX then a person can be XX+XX=XXXX Tetrasomy.
Nondisjunction for a person with extra chromosomes increases the excess.

[Jenkar]

Indeed. My point was however not that XX (gamete) possibilities lead to XXXX (individual) possibilities, but that XXXX (individuals) possibilities could lead to XXXX or XXX (gametes) possibilities :F

[OldTrees]

Indeed. My point was however not that XX (gamete) possibilities lead to XXXX (individual) possibilities, but that XXXX (individuals) possibilities could lead to XXXX or XXX (gametes) possibilities :F

Which was implied by the wiki link and the existence of Tetrasomy.