Biology 101: a kidney is not an organism

But apparently Dr. Robert Blake, and many other people nowadays, do not understand the difference.  Blake recently wrote an opinion letter insisting that science does not know when human life begins.  The fact that a new genetically distinct organism identifiable by his or her own unique DNA is created at fertilization is not important.  Blake argues that same DNA is in every cell in our body and so the cell created at fertilization, the zygote, is no different than say a skin cell.  They totally ignore the fact that a skin cell is just a cell and a zygote is an organism that self directs toward more mature stages like embryo, fetus, baby, child and so on.  A skin cell will never do that on its own.  I have heard the argument more and more that fertilization is not the beginning of a new human being because an embryo is no different than any cell or group of cells in our body.  I marvel at the rationalization required to come that conclusion.  For example, Blake writes that a transplanted kidney that lives on past the donor does not mean that a person is still alive:

A kidney harvested from an accident victim and transplanted into a renal failure patient contains millions of cells with the donor’s DNA, which will hopefully live for many more years. Yet no one considers the donor to be alive as a person.

Of course not.  A kidney is not an organism.  But an embryo is.  An embryo, even though it is only a small group of cells, can and will self direct into a fetus, then a crying infant.  A kidney will not.  In other words, when you place an embryo in a womb, you will likely get out, 9 months later, a red-faced, pointy-head newborn.  If you implant a kidney in a womb, 9 months later all you will have a misplaced kidney.  It seems like such an easy distinction to make, but unfortunately when people go to such great lengths to rationalize away the humanity of the embryo, logic is difficult to come by.

Hat Tip: Jivin J