When Does Life End?

[apple0154]

Uhm... yes, it is the same thing.

Point of conception is where life begins, no other point. If you want to claim that not all conceptions produce human beings that survive, that is fine, I can accept that... but at point of conception, it becomes a living unique multi-cell organism, and if it is the product human sperm and egg, it is a human organism. Nothing else has to happen, it doesn't become human somewhere down the road, it is already human at point of conception, and that is where it begins the life process. If you have evidence to show otherwise, I am sure millions of biologists would be intrigued to see it... please present some of it!

As soon as you and/or the scientists you refer to can state, unequivocally, that the over 50% of conceptions that spontaneously abort have all the necessary parts to be considered a unique multi-celled organism.

Have you ever considered why over 50% spontaneously abort? Think about it some time.

 

[apple0154]

I think it's better for us to eliminate stupid people from the world if they can't accept biological facts. Can we get started on that right away? I'll make a list!

Great idea. I can't think of anyone more qualified than you.

 

[apple0154]

Then keep your legs closed.

Oh, sure. And to stop DUIs let's close all the bars.

 

[apple0154]

once again it seems the debate has wound down to this....apple hasn't got a clue and everyone agrees he's wrong....

Not everyone. Only those who do not understand nature/biology. There are many, many mistakes in nature and that includes conceptions. To know people are born with genetic defects and to know over 50% of conceptions spontaneously abort and continue to insist every conception is a human being is to simply ignore reality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You suffer from sheer ignorance of the obvious. If everything was there from the moment of conception then everyone would be born perfect. There would be no grossly malformed fetuses. There would be no genetically defective children. There would no spontaneous abortions of grossly malformed fetuses.

Is a human with some abnormality NOT a human being? IS that what you're arguing now?

Here, let me simplify it for you...

or·gan·ism
n.

1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
---------------------------------------------

A human sperm cell and female egg cell are not organisms, they are gametes. Once the sperm enters the egg, they fuse and begin to function as an organism. It is at that point they become a living human organism, no point later, nothing else needs to happen. That IS the point in which human life begins. It doesn't matter if that human life doesn't survive or how often it survives, or if it is ultimately deformed, it is still a human life at the point it begins being a living organism, which is at conception. The term conception commonly refers to fertilization, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As soon as you and/or the scientists you refer to can state, unequivocally, that the over 50% of conceptions that spontaneously abort have all the necessary parts to be considered a unique multi-celled organism.

Have you ever considered why over 50% spontaneously abort? Think about it some time.

I would say COMMON FUCKING MONKEY SENSE tells us, if something was alive and spontaneously aborted, it WAS a living organism! Let's be clear, no one that either of us knows, is advocating that we protect dead organisms. We are only discussing the living organisms which resulted from the conception of a human male sperm and female egg.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not everyone. Only those who do not understand nature/biology. There are many, many mistakes in nature and that includes conceptions. To know people are born with genetic defects and to know over 50% of conceptions spontaneously abort and continue to insist every conception is a human being is to simply ignore reality.

You are about the only one here who doesn't understand when human life begins. Even when you are sitting there typing out, that 50% of the conceptions abort the life process, you still can't comprehend it's impossible to abort the life process without first living. This is like stupid beyond stupidity! I swear, I would be SO embarrassed if I knew you.

 

[apple0154]

Is a human with some abnormality NOT a human being? IS that what you're arguing now?

Here, let me simplify it for you...

or·gan·ism
n.

1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
---------------------------------------------

A human sperm cell and female egg cell are not organisms, they are gametes. Once the sperm enters the egg, they fuse and begin to function as an organism. It is at that point they become a living human organism, no point later, nothing else needs to happen. That IS the point in which human life begins. It doesn't matter if that human life doesn't survive or how often it survives, or if it is ultimately deformed, it is still a human life at the point it begins being a living organism, which is at conception. The term conception commonly refers to fertilization, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism.

Thanks for the info! No, I am not arguing a human with some abnormality is NOT a human being. I am arguing exactly what you posted concerning the definition of an organism which was

An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

The spontaneously aborted fertilized cells could not "carry on the various processes of life." That's the point!! To be considered an organism they have to be able to "carry on the various processes of life" and they couldn't. If they could have, they would have.

Not one. Not occasionally. Not a few. Over 50% were not able to carry on the processes of life meaning over 50% were not organisms meaning over 50% were not human beings.

Surely this isn't all that difficult to follow.

 

[Damocles]

Unfortunately, our society is far too barbaric for that to be a good thing.

Would the biological parents be responsible for that child's welfare, finance-wise? I'm sure some folks (and we all know who they will be) will scream about government taxes going towards incubating someone's child.

Then there's the neglect. We know neglected children live a life of hell, from a lack of decent food and clothing to emotional needs. Then it's the "drop out of school - becoming anti-social - prison - no job prospects" road through life. Then there's the "what do we owe the less fortunate" sentiment we see running through JPP from one end to the other.

Nice thought but society is not ready for that.

Defeatist. For you the world is an all or nothing proposition. I'm glad most people aren't like that, too bad most politicians are.

 

[apple0154]

I would say COMMON FUCKING MONKEY SENSE tells us, if something was alive and spontaneously aborted, it WAS a living organism! Let's be clear, no one that either of us knows, is advocating that we protect dead organisms. We are only discussing the living organisms which resulted from the conception of a human male sperm and female egg.

No, common sense does not tell us that. Common sense tells us it has to be able to "carry on" the processes. Not simply be alive for a few hours.

Read the definition of organism you posted. An organism has to "carry on" the processes of life.

You post something supposedly to support your argument then argue against it. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[NOVA]

Apple brings some entertainment to the thread anyway...I didn't know a person could be so damn dumb until she started posting....:lol:

 

[apple0154]

You are about the only one here who doesn't understand when human life begins. Even when you are sitting there typing out, that 50% of the conceptions abort the life process, you still can't comprehend it's impossible to abort the life process without first living. This is like stupid beyond stupidity! I swear, I would be SO embarrassed if I knew you.

You really do have a comprehension problem. Let me try an analogy. Let's say a liver is removed for transplant. While it's being transported it is living but it is not a functioning liver. The reality is it's slowly dying. It is not functioning as a liver but it's still alive.

When a sperm and egg combine they are both living but over 50% of them start dying because they are not functioning as an organism. Something that makes them an organism is missing.

I'm sorry but I really don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.

 

[apple0154]

Defeatist. For you the world is an all or nothing proposition. I'm glad most people aren't like that, too bad most politicians are.

That's the reality. Before we implement your suggestion we need to make changes first. Unless society looks after the neglected children we already have we certainly don't want to bring more in to that situation. If anything it will make it even more difficult to implement.

 

[apple0154]

Apple brings some entertainment to the thread anyway...I didn't know a person could be so damn dumb until she started posting....:lol:

It appears, in your case, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Damocles]

That's the reality. Before we implement your suggestion we need to make changes first. Unless society looks after the neglected children we already have we certainly don't want to bring more in to that situation. If anything it will make it even more difficult to implement.

Make the changes. I'm for that. And given the choice between dead and what stands for "neglected" for most in the US, I'll take neglected any day. (There are extremes, kid in closet type of stuff, but that will happen regardless).

Ease adoption restrictions, make it cheaper and easier. I'm for change. I like it, especially if it advances knowledge and saves lives.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, common sense does not tell us that. Common sense tells us it has to be able to "carry on" the processes. Not simply be alive for a few hours.

Read the definition of organism you posted. An organism has to "carry on" the processes of life.

You post something supposedly to support your argument then argue against it. What the hell is wrong with you?

Again, for the mentally stupid... I am not opposed to aborting non-living (dead) human organisms. I don't think anyone is in objection to that.

 

[Canceled2]

Talking about grown up debates let's take a look at this.

Msg 211. "The fact is that ALL the material that is specific for the brain and only to the brain is all there at the moment of conception, not just "some". So too are all the genectic material for each and every neccesary part of each human being PRESENT at conception."

That's demonstrably not true. If it was every baby would be born perfect but there are many born with genetic defects. For example, heart valve problems which require immediate surgery. If ALL the necessary material was available those things would not occur.

From Down's syndrome to spina bifida something is wrong. Depending on the seriousness some grossly malformed fetuses spontaneously abort. It's reasonable to conclude that the over 50% of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort do not have ALL the necessary material at the moment of conception.

BS! Nobody is born perfect. Imperfections vary by degree, but they are present in every human. Defective DNA code is not equal to everything not being present.

For the sake of argument apple, we are talking about those fetuses that do not spontaneously abort. Whether they are defective and thus spontaneously aborted is not a part of the medical abortion debate. As to birth defects? Children born with them are still human beings.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When a sperm and egg combine they are both living but over 50% of them start dying because they are not functioning as an organism. Something that makes them an organism is missing.

If conception happened and they are living, it doesn't matter what happens after that. Regardless of whether they live 1 second or 100 years, they are still living human organisms until they die. Once they are dead, we don't care what happens to them, they are not part of this discussion, they are irrelevant because they are no longer living human organisms.

If we take your argument to the logical conclusion....

We should not allow people to draw Social Security because a certain percentage of people will not live to age 65.... We shouldn't allow people to vote, because a certain percentage of people will not live to age 18! And there were no Jews living in Germany during WWII because Hitler killed 7 million of them in the ovens! That is the stupidity of what you are arguing here.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Not everyone. Only those who do not understand nature/biology. There are many, many mistakes in nature and that includes conceptions. To know people are born with genetic defects and to know over 50% of conceptions spontaneously abort and continue to insist every conception is a human being is to simply ignore reality.

I'm not sure I can identify anyone on this thread who agrees with you....can you?.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not sure I can identify anyone on this thread who agrees with you....can you?.....

Not on this thread, not on this site, not on this planet.

Only an absolute moron would be arguing that something was never living because it died! It doesn't get much more ignorant than this. I've seen a lot of ignorant people in my life, but this one takes the cake! ...and to think, people like this are allowed to cast votes!