Please reread the first and second paragraph in the Wiki article. The first paragraph refers to a different definition of life than Chip used. You took your excerpt out of context. If you put the preceding sentence in where it should be, the author is saying that it is the "descent with modification" definition he is referring to, not the 7 criteria he gives later on that Chip used. It is that definition that includes viruses.
Full Wiki article quote:
"For example, the capacity for descent with modification is often taken as the only essential property of life. This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under narrower definitions as they are acellular and do not metabolise"
When you include the first sentence in the quote, it changes the entire meaning of what you are saying. However we are quibbling about the meaning of the article that does not have a direct relevance to the thrust of the OP.
Yes, when we talk about life on earth we can refer to organisms.
Yes, the article discusses whether given organisms are a form of life. And, yes, the article discusses species and organisms and how they may or may not be forms of life depending on various definitions.
But, again, I am saying that the article refers to how an organism or species might be a form of life. It says nothing about how a zygote would be considered "alive" in the sense that Chip is trying to do.
The immediate preface to the 7 criteria in the Wiki article makes that clear.
Finally, Chip says that he was not referring to the Wiki article anyway, so this whole discussion is moot. The only reason I'm going through this is to say that a scientific basis has not been presented on what particular stage of development that a complex being can be considered alive. You can argue on moral grounds if you wish, but you haven't a scientific case. I will leave it to you to decide if having an omelet for breakfast is equivalent to killing a chicken. I am arguing only from a scientific basis.
