When Does Life End?

RStringfield said:
Let's test it. We will have damo hang out at hospitals for someone to become brain dead. We'll dress him in doctor's gear so he looks all official. Then he can point to a body while saying to the family, "still alive." I will do the same with any group of scientist, except I will say "dead." Let's then find out who was confused. Who do you think it will be?
Click to expand...
Again, deliberately disingenuous.

Again, you conveniently "forget" the difference between living person and alive. Everybody can see the body still breathes, the job of the doctor is to inform whether the person still is, not just that the organism still lives.

Scientists are careful in their language, they would say "brain-dead".
 
RStringfield said:
What do I need to rephrase. The body is not considered to be a living individual for medical or legal purposes. It is the body of a dead person. Saying the body is dead would be well understood in legal and medical fields.

To call it alive, in that case, would require anyone using that term to explain themselves more fully. If you told family members of a potential organ donor "it is alive" you might create a mess with your poor choice of words and out of context usage of the word.
Click to expand...

Let's test it. We will have damo hang out at hospitals for someone to become brain dead. We'll dress him in doctor's gear so he looks all official. Then he can point to a body while saying to the family, "still alive." I will do the same with any group of scientist. Let's then find out who was confused. Who do you think it will be?

In fact, if one of the family members is a scientist they might be confused by Damo's out of context use of the word.
 
RStringfield said:
Let's test it. We will have damo hang out at hospitals for someone to become brain dead. We'll dress him in doctor's gear so he looks all official. Then he can point to a body while saying to the family, "still alive." I will do the same with any group of scientist. Let's then find out who was confused. Who do you think it will be?

In fact, if one of the family members is a scientist they might be confused by Damo's out of context use of the word.
Click to expand...

Let's repeat because you can't stop posting the same thing.

Damocles said:
Again, deliberately disingenuous.

Again, you conveniently "forget" the difference between living person and alive. Everybody can see the body still breathes, the job of the doctor is to inform whether the person still is, not just that the organism still lives.

Scientists are careful in their language, they would say "brain-dead".
Click to expand...

The reality is the family may indeed become "confused" and try to sue to care for somebody (Terry Schiavo) if you are not careful in your wording.

I support the family's choice, as I did with Schiavo.

Where you make the biggest mistake is in assuming that I disagree with your point. I don't. I simply give you advice on how to express it without all this nonsense of pages filled with the difference between the scientific and subjective legal definitions.
 
Damocles said:
Again, deliberately disingenuous.

Again, you conveniently "forget" the difference between living person and alive. Everybody can see the body still breathes, the job of the doctor is to inform whether the person still is, not just that the organism still lives.

Scientists are careful in their language, they would say "brain-dead".
Click to expand...

In the context of a science paper, probably. But if they used the word alive in the context that we are discussing they would only confuse their audience by describing the body as "alive." They probably would be confused by that use of the word themselves without more explanation.

It's absurd that I have to explain the importance of context over and over to you.
 
RStringfield said:
In the context of a science paper, probably. But if they used the word alive in the context that we are discussing they would only confuse their audience by describing the body as "alive." They probably would be confused by that use of the word themselves without more explanation.

It's absurd that I have to explain the importance of context over and over to you.
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

The confusion comes when it is obvious that there is life. Again I'll bring up Schiavo.

The reality is that even a child could see that the body still lives, it is important to be clear in your language at those times to avoid the confusion you are saying comes from doing the right thing.

Again you mistake my advice for disagreement. What caused all these pages of "argument" was a semantic issue that detracted from the point you were trying to make.
 
AssHatZombie said:
"The organism lives!" im cracking up over here. that's great bedside manner.
Click to expand...
Crack away. Again, even a child could see that the body was still "alive", the doctor needs to make it clear that the person is not though the body continues to function.
 
Damocles said:
Where you make the biggest mistake is in assuming that I disagree with your point. I don't. I simply give you advice on how to express it without all this nonsense of pages filled with the difference between the scientific and subjective legal definitions.
Click to expand...

I have not been arguing about "THE scientific definition of life" (that does not exist). I have repeated that several times because you and others deliberately try to misrepresent and create confusion. YOU and others repeat this red herring are the source of the nonsense.

And this is how you do it...

the scientific and subjective legal definitions.
Click to expand...

You pretend that "the scientific definition" is superior. It is not.

It is not necessary that any of the definitions be subjective if applied rigorously and consistently, which is what I am arguing for in the legal definition. They are all relative to their fields and one is no more subjective than the other. The scientific definitions (there is not one as you imply over and over and over again) are all relative to their fields.

If you can give me one definition of living that's works without error across all fields, then we can use that one. Otherwise, quit demanding that I use the word out of context.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not entirely correct Dixie. A more correct statement would be "Successful fertilization begins a human life." Even after fertilization (conception) life does not always begin. Life would not begin until metabolic processes begin in that cell and the cell divides. This does not always occur at conception. Sometimes metabolic processes do not occur and the cell does not divide. Biologist call these "Residual Bodies". This residual body is not alive. Would we say that this new cell with it's unique DNA died? No, it would be more correct to state, that in this circumstance, it was not alive to begin with. So indeed, all human life does begin at fertilization but not all conceptions result in human life.

This goes without saying.
Click to expand...

You post is convoluted and contradictory...

there is no successful conception or unsuccessful conception....
An unsuccessful conception means there is no conception to begin with...

Conception is by its very definition a formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum.
 
RStringfield said:
I have not been arguing about "THE scientific definition of life" (that does not exist). I have repeated that several times because you and others deliberately try to misrepresent and create confusion. YOU and others repeat this red herring are the source of the nonsense.

And this is how you do it...



You pretend that "the scientific definition" is superior. It is not.

It is not necessary that any of the definitions be subjective if applied rigorously and consistently, which is what I am arguing for in the legal definition. They are all relative to their fields and one is no more subjective than the other. The scientific definitions (there is not one as you imply over and over and over again) are all relative to their fields.

If you can give me one definition of living that's works without error across all fields, then we can use that one. Otherwise, quit demanding that I use the word out of context.
Click to expand...
I don't "pretend" that. I point out that it is different and that the argument in this thread is based on your carefree use of the language. A more careful consideration of your words could have gotten the point across, instead your point is lost and we have page after page of worthless argument.
 
The scientific definition of life.

That is misuse of the language and a poor expression. There is no scientific definition of life. There are scientific definitions of life. What you mean to say is all scientific definitions of life agree that life begins at conception. But, is that even true? Does that agree with medical definitions?

It would still be an irrelevant point but at least you would be stating it correctly.
 
RStringfield said:
The scientific definition of life.

That is misuse of the language and a poor expression. There is no scientific definition of life. There are scientific definitions of life. What you mean to say is all scientific definitions of life agree that life begins at conception. But, is that even true? Does that agree with medical definitions?

It would still be an irrelevant point but at least you would be stating it correctly.
Click to expand...
And had you been that careful with language at the beginning you might have had a conversation on your actual point rather than pages of nonsense and a point lost to the interwebs ether.
 
Damocles said:
I don't "pretend" that. I point out that it is different and that the argument in this thread is based on your carefree use of the language. A more careful consideration of your words could have gotten the point across, instead your point is lost and we have page after page of worthless argument.
Click to expand...

You do pretend it. Every mention of legal definition or whatever definition disagrees is described as subjective. You do not point out that the scientific definition (that does not exist) is subjective.

As I have pointed out, you are the one being sloppy with the language.
 
RStringfield said:
You do pretend it. Every mention of legal definition or whatever definition disagrees is described as subjective. You do not point out that the scientific definition (that does not exist) is subjective.

As I have pointed out, you are the one being sloppy with the language.
Click to expand...
Again, you equate subjective with "bad" and then pretend that means I disagree with your point. I don't. I simply point out a more careful consideration of words could have made your point rather than lost it in argument.

I am not "sloppy" I have simply given advice, you would have been better served and had an actual conversation had you been more careful with your words.
 
I'm done pointing it out, if you want to constantly lose your point to semantics then you can. It's stupid to continue if you can't understand even the simplest of agreement with a bit of advice.
 
Damocles said:
And had you been that careful with language at the beginning you might have had a conversation on your actual point rather than pages of nonsense and a point lost to the interwebs ether.
Click to expand...

What? Your misuse of the language is now my fault? I understood what you meant even if you were not able to express it properly. It's not my problem that you have poor communication skills. And anyone that would confuse family members of the brain dead by telling them that, "some scientific definitions would say that mass over there is alive" has poor communication skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top