When Does Life End?

T

Timshel

New member
I think it may be more illuminating to the abortion debate to consider when life ends than begins.

A person lacking brain activity is considered dead. There is no measurable brain activity until 20 weeks. How can human life have begun when it is legally dead?
 
RStringfield said:
I think it may be more illuminating to the abortion debate to consider when life ends than begins.

A person lacking brain activity is considered dead. There is no measurable brain activity until 20 weeks. How can human life have begun when it is legally dead?
Click to expand...

Now this one has the potential to get good...I think that is an excellent point, but the people who argued that Terry Schiavo should be kept alive will undoubtedly have some prepared response ready to go..
 
RStringfield said:
I agree it does not argue for abortion after brain activity has been detected. But, it also does not lend support to the idea that life begins at conception.
Click to expand...
Life does begin then; but then a tree is alive as well.

The Roe decision ruled that first trimester abortions should be legal. In other words, 12 weeks, or about half of your 20-week argument, which is a logical decision giving a "factor of safety" or "benefit of doubt" to the unborn. Yet the abortion lobby has bastardized Roe, judges have approved and babies are being aborted up until natural birth.

So the question remains: why do folks insist on late term abortions, even up to the point of letting a baby die from a botched abortion?
 
Southern Man said:
Life does begin then; but then a tree is alive as well.

The Roe decision ruled that first trimester abortions should be legal. In other words, 12 weeks, or about half of your 20-week argument, which is a logical decision giving a "factor of safety" or "benefit of doubt" to the unborn. Yet the abortion lobby has bastardized Roe, judges have approved and babies are being aborted up until natural birth.

So the question remains: why do folks insist on late term abortions, even up to the point of letting a baby die from a botched abortion?
Click to expand...

The question does not remain since I am not arguing for abortion after brain activity begins. The question remains why should we protect the unborn at conception if they are dead?
 
RStringfield said:
The question does not remain since I am not arguing for abortion after brain activity begins. The question remains why should we protect the unborn at conception if they are dead?
Click to expand...
Dude did you seriously write that? If they were dead at conception then how could they get to 20 weeks? :palm:
 
RStringfield said:
I think it may be more illuminating to the abortion debate to consider when life ends than begins.

A person lacking brain activity is considered dead. There is no measurable brain activity until 20 weeks. How can human life have begun when it is legally dead?
Click to expand...

are you defining "activity" as anything measureable?........sounds good to me.....
 
RStringfield said:
I agree it does not argue for abortion after brain activity has been detected. But, it also does not lend support to the idea that life begins at conception.
Click to expand...

well tell you what....if we amend the law that says abortions are legal before there is measurable brain activity that will leave us with approximately zero abortions.....because most women don't even know they are pregnant before there is measurable brain activity.....
 
RStringfield said:
I agree it does not argue for abortion after brain activity has been detected. But, it also does not lend support to the idea that life begins at conception.
Click to expand...

perhaps.....but just as the adult with no brain activity is being kept alive by artificial support yet remains something that has human rights which must be considered (since obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), a zygote which is being kept alive by artificial support is something which has human rights which must be considered.....perhaps the better way of understanding it is that if something alive is no longer a human being after brain activity starts, then it IS a human being once it begins.....
 
It depends on what you define as "life". Scientifically it would be when the heart stopped beating, however you wouldn't be a "person" (philosophically) once your brain stopped...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps.....but just as the adult with no brain activity is being kept alive by artificial support yet remains something that has human rights which must be considered (since obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), a zygote which is being kept alive by artificial support is something which has human rights which must be considered.....
Click to expand...

A brain dead adult has no right to life support. Why would the zygote have such a right?
 
RStringfield said:
Is it? When does that usually start?

I understand your point and think it has merit but in some babies the brain will not develop at all. And if it is dead until that begins it is not alive at conception.
Click to expand...

Again, of course it is alive. For something to be dead it must first be alive.
 
RStringfield said:
Not necessarily. You have heard the expression dead as a doornail. Dead can describe the absence of life.
Click to expand...
That's nice, but since we're using the English language, perhaps we should use agreed-upon definitions of its words, from a main-stream dictionary. From your definition, an unborn would have to be brought back to life at 20 weeks, which is of course impossible.
 
Southern Man said:
That's nice, but since we're using the English language, perhaps we should use agreed-upon definitions of its words, from a main-stream dictionary. From your definition, an unborn would have to be brought back to life at 20 weeks, which is of course impossible.
Click to expand...

Which one do you want to use?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dead

Main Entry: 1dead
Pronunciation: \ˈded\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English deed, from Old English dēad; akin to Old Norse dauthr dead, deyja to die, Old High German tōt dead — more at die
Date: before 12th century

1 : deprived of life : no longer alive
2 a (1) : having the appearance of death : deathly <in a dead faint> (2) : lacking power to move, feel, or respond : numb b : very tired c (1) : incapable of being stirred emotionally or intellectually : unresponsive <dead to pity> (2) : grown cold : extinguished <dead coals>
3 a : inanimate, inert <dead matter> b : barren, infertile <dead soil> c : no longer producing or functioning : exhausted <a dead battery>
4 a (1) : lacking power or effect <a dead law> (2) : no longer having interest, relevance, or significance <a dead issue> b : no longer in use : obsolete <a dead language> c : no longer active : extinct <a dead volcano> d : lacking in gaiety or animation <a dead party> e (1) : lacking in commercial activity : quiet (2) : commercially idle or unproductive <dead capital> f : lacking elasticity <a dead tennis ball> g : being out of action or out of use <the phone went dead>; specifically : free from any connection to a source of voltage and free from electric charges h (1) : being out of play <a dead ball> (2) : temporarily forbidden to play or to make a certain play in croquet
5 a : not running or circulating : stagnant <dead water> b : not turning <the dead center of a lathe> c : not imparting motion or power although otherwise functioning <a dead rear axle> d : lacking warmth, vigor, or taste
6 a : absolutely uniform <a dead level> b (1) : unerring (2) : exact <dead center of the target> (3) : certain to be doomed <he's dead if he's late for curfew> (4) : irrevocable <a dead loss> c : abrupt <brought to a dead stop> d (1) : complete, absolute <a dead silence> (2) : all-out <caught it on the dead run>
7 : devoid of former occupants <dead villages>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top