When Does Life End?

[apple0154]

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.

There comes a point where the defects in the genetic code preclude an organism from functioning and the functioning is part of the definition of an organism; namely: the ability to carry on the processes of life. It follows if the genetic code is damaged to the degree where the fertilized cell is not an organism, not able to carry on the processes of life, then the fertilized cell can not be a human being. The only logical conclusion one can draw is not all conceptions are human beings.

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.

Quite the contrary. The core of the abortion debate revolves around human beings and the argument put forward is all conceptions are human beings. All conceptions are not human beings as all conceptions are not organisms as not all conceptions can carry on the processes of life.

So, when is something a human being? Once we remove the false premise that every conception is a human being the anti-abortionists are lost.

As to birth defects? Children born with them are still human beings.

Every child born is a human being. No argument there.

 

[Timshel]

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. What you are now you were then.

No, the cloning of something is not the same as your earlier inference that any old pice of DNA was equivalent to a human embryo. Even Dolly needed a male and female counterpart to specifically create an embryo. The fact that we can extract DNA does not due away with the need to then procreate it!

Again, you do not need specialized or specific cells to create a brain. All that is needed is genetic material containing dna.

Dolly did not need a male and female counterpart. They removed the genetic material from an egg and replaced it with genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There comes a point where the defects in the genetic code preclude an organism from functioning and the functioning is part of the definition of an organism; namely: the ability to carry on the processes of life. It follows if the genetic code is damaged to the degree where the fertilized cell is not an organism, not able to carry on the processes of life, then the fertilized cell can not be a human being. The only logical conclusion one can draw is not all conceptions are human beings.



Quite the contrary. The core of the abortion debate revolves around human beings and the argument put forward is all conceptions are human beings. All conceptions are not human beings as all conceptions are not organisms as not all conceptions can carry on the processes of life.

So, when is something a human being? Once we remove the false premise that every conception is a human being the anti-abortionists are lost.



Every child born is a human being. No argument there.

Every conception begins a human life. There is no argument there either!

You are trying to claim, because SOME conceptions do not produce an organism that continues to live, it is never alive to begin with, and that is absurd. It can't die unless it is first alive, do you just not get that? What part are you having trouble with? If it was alive and then dies, that doesn't change the fact that it was alive. If it was alive at ANY point, it was a living human organism, it can't be classified as any other type of living organism! If it dies, then it dies... ALL LIVING HUMANS WILL EVENTUALLY DO THIS! At NO point does that change what they were BEFORE they died!

 

[NOVA]

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

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.

So, fertilized eggs are not human organisms because they can not "carry on the various processes of life." ... is that it ?
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.
they can not "carry on the various processes of life." ????
So...an instant before they couldn't, could they?
At what moment in time did that change occur?

If that fertilized egg divided just one time before 'dying'...was it carrying on the process of life?


WHAT various processes of life are you referring to....?
They don't eat hotdogs?
They don't have sex?
WTF are you talking about ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, fertilized eggs are not human organisms because they can not "carry on the various processes of life." ... is that it ?
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.
they can not "carry on the various processes of life." ????
So...an instant before they couldn't, could they?
At what moment in time did that change occur?

If that fertilized egg divided just one time before 'dying'...was it carrying on the process of life?


WHAT various processes of life are you referring to....?
They don't eat hotdogs?
They don't have sex?
WTF are you talking about ?

It gets convoluted doesn't it? Basically, what he has argued is, NONE of us can technically be called a human being, because ALL of us will one day not be able to carry on the process of life!

 

[apple0154]

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.

I see you like using Hitler and the Jews in your argument. Nice dramatic touch.

As for whether the organism lives one second or 100 years does not, in and of itself, matter. The point is a fertilized cell may be alive but not living as an organism which I used the liver analogy to explain.

You posted the definition of an organism. Whether or not something living is an organism is determined by if it carries on the processes of life.

Let me state it this way. A fertilized cell may be alive but is slowly dying because it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life and it must be able to carry on the processes of life in order to be classified as an organism.

We are not talking about an organism that has already carried on the processes of life and then stopped. We are talking about a fertilized cell that never carried on the processes of life. The living sperm and the living egg unite and either no processes occur or the processes that do occur are not sufficient to carry on the processes of life.

Unless you want to argue the over 50% of conceptions that spontaneously aborted all carried on the processes of life and then caught some sort of illness and died. Is that your argument?

 

[NOVA]

I see you like using Hitler and the Jews in your argument. Nice dramatic touch.

As for whether the organism lives one second or 100 years does not, in and of itself, matter. The point is a fertilized cell may be alive but not living as an organism which I used the liver analogy to explain.

No one claimed a liver was a human being, fool...your analogy fails
But every cell in that liver is alive before it ceases to be alive....

You posted the definition of an organism. Whether or not something living is an organism is determined by if it carries on the processes of life.

Let me state it this way. A fertilized cell may be alive but is slowly dying because it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life and it must be able to carry on the processes of life in order to be classified as an organism.

So it is alive....but dying...so what

We are not talking about an organism that has already carried on the processes of life and then stopped. We are talking about a fertilized cell that never carried on the processes of life. The living sperm and the living egg unite and either no processes occur or the processes that do occur are not sufficient to carry on the processes of life.

WHAT processes of life

Unless you want to argue the over 50% of conceptions that spontaneously aborted all carried on the processes of life and then caught some sort of illness and died. Is that your argument?

.

 

[apple0154]

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!

You really do have difficulty with comprehension if that's what you think I'm arguing.

 

[Timshel]

This is nonsense, not even one of the definitions you provide says that a cell is not alive. Your point is lost because you are not careful enough with language.

It's been pointed out several times that medical and legal definitions do not define some human cells as living if the brain is dead. Those are the fields we are talking about. Context!

Why must I use the unknown scientist's (you still have not told us which one we are suppose to use) definition of life? I am not going to demand that a biophysicist use a biologists definition or vice versa. I am sure they have their reasons for the differences. So why would I demand that we use one of those definitions in the legal and/or medical fields.

 

[apple0154]

Every conception begins a human life. There is no argument there either!

You are trying to claim, because SOME conceptions do not produce an organism that continues to live, it is never alive to begin with, and that is absurd. It can't die unless it is first alive, do you just not get that? What part are you having trouble with? If it was alive and then dies, that doesn't change the fact that it was alive. If it was alive at ANY point, it was a living human organism, it can't be classified as any other type of living organism! If it dies, then it dies... ALL LIVING HUMANS WILL EVENTUALLY DO THIS! At NO point does that change what they were BEFORE they died!

My goodness you're a slow individual. Let's try a series of questions.
1. Is your finger alive?
2. Is it an organism?
3. If you chopped the end of your finger off would it immediately die?
4. If you went to a hospital soon enough could they reattach it?
5. If they did reattach it would you say your finger was brought back to life or would you say it never died?

 

[NOVA]

My goodness you're a slow individual. Let's try a series of questions.
1. Is your finger alive?
2. Is it an organism?
3. If you chopped the end of your finger off would it immediately die?
4. If you went to a hospital soon enough could they reattach it?
5. If they did reattach it would you say your finger was brought back to life or would you say it never died?

A finger is neither alive nor dead....the cells that make up the finger are....
again whats your point ?
A finger is not a human being....

 

[NOVA]

Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.

Fertilisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NOVA]

Well apple, if you ever feel the need for more schooling don't hesitate to rejoin the debate when I'm around........

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My goodness you're a slow individual. Let's try a series of questions.
1. Is your finger alive?
2. Is it an organism?
3. If you chopped the end of your finger off would it immediately die?
4. If you went to a hospital soon enough could they reattach it?
5. If they did reattach it would you say your finger was brought back to life or would you say it never died?

Your finger is not a living human organism. It is part of a living human organism, as is a liver, a kidney, a fingernail. None of these have the capacity to carry on the process of life, they are dependent upon the organism they belong to.

You can call me names if it makes you feel better, I don't blame you, if I were failing miserably and making a complete and total fool of myself, I might resort to the same thing. The only person in this debate who has an unprecedented ignorance of science is you. That's not calling you names, that is the truth of the matter when it comes to this. You are wrong, and just about everyone is in consensus on that, in fact, not one poster has agreed with you on it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You really do have difficulty with comprehension if that's what you think I'm arguing.

That is EXACTLY what you are arguing. You keep saying that 50% of conceptions result in the organism dying, therefore, we can't say the organism is a living human organism. No one has ever argued that women shouldn't be allowed to abort dead organisms, it is only the other 50% that live, which are in debate here. However, your argument is, since some of the organisms died, then none of them are considered living, and that is absurd. You base this on the fact that the living organisms that died, were not able to "carry on the process of life", but this is the case with all 100% of the human organisms, unless you are aware of some immortality I am not privy to. So what you are basically saying is, none of us are humans, we are all just a meaningless clump of cells with no designation as to what kind of living organisms we are, because one day, we will no longer be able to carry on the process of life!

 

[Canceled2]

Again, you do not need specialized or specific cells to create a brain. All that is needed is genetic material containing dna.

Dolly did not need a male and female counterpart. They removed the genetic material from an egg and replaced it with genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell.

So make a brain. Go on you can do it.

Note to rs~~~why the male ram; why the egg; why the female host ram? Hint...you're an idiot.

 

[Canceled2]

There comes a point where the defects in the genetic code preclude an organism from functioning and the functioning is part of the definition of an organism; namely: the ability to carry on the processes of life. It follows if the genetic code is damaged to the degree where the fertilized cell is not an organism, not able to carry on the processes of life, then the fertilized cell can not be a human being. The only logical conclusion one can draw is not all conceptions are human beings.



Quite the contrary. The core of the abortion debate revolves around human beings and the argument put forward is all conceptions are human beings. All conceptions are not human beings as all conceptions are not organisms as not all conceptions can carry on the processes of life.

So, when is something a human being? Once we remove the false premise that every conception is a human being the anti-abortionists are lost.



Every child born is a human being. No argument there.

Death of the fetus at any stage does not take away from its humanity, its time of being a living human being. Not all conceptions can carry on life? At at any given stage human being can die; the infant can die; as can the toddler; the young child; the teenager; the adult. At any stage the being can die. This does not take from its humanity. Of course I am talking to you, who have in the past, stated that it should be allowed that in the first year after the birth of a disabled defective child, a parent should be allowed to kill it...who was that guy you promoted??? I can't recall his name.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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...

How would you explain Dixie then?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Again, you do not need specialized or specific cells to create a brain. All that is needed is genetic material containing dna.

Dolly did not need a male and female counterpart. They removed the genetic material from an egg and replaced it with genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell.

Well you fed me a good straight line RS but I'll be serious. Uhhmm Actually you do need specialized cells to create a brain. The information to do so is stored in the DNA of the cells.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's been pointed out several times that medical and legal definitions do not define some human cells as living if the brain is dead. Those are the fields we are talking about. Context!

Why must I use the unknown scientist's (you still have not told us which one we are suppose to use) definition of life? I am not going to demand that a biophysicist use a biologists definition or vice versa. I am sure they have their reasons for the differences. So why would I demand that we use one of those definitions in the legal and/or medical fields.

again, I think you need to phrase your sentences more carefully RS. Cells in "A Body" can continue to live regardless of brain function for a period of time.

"A body", cannot continue to live with out a brain and eventually the cells and tissues dependent on that brain will die also......well except for certain right wing conservatives.....having no brain doesn't seem to affect them.