When Does Life End?

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Schiave is not really a good example Damo as technically speaking, she wasn't brain dead. Certain levels of higher function in her brain, such as conscienceness, were damaged to the point where they did not function but lower levels of her brain functioned enough to allow certain autonomic functions to continue to function, such as respieration, cardiac rythem, digestion, etcetera. So she wasn't completely braind dead. If she had been a cascade affect would have occured shutting down all of her organs and then she would have been well and truely dead.

To argue that Schiavo was legally dead would be one thing. For someone to argue that she was biologically dead would be incorrect. She may not have been sentient but she was very much alive biologically and, as you've correctly pointed out, the fact that most of the rest of her body was very much alive is all the evidence you need of that.

 

[Damocles]

Schiave is not really a good example Damo as technically speaking, she wasn't brain dead. Certain levels of higher function in her brain, such as conscienceness, were damaged to the point where they did not function but lower levels of her brain functioned enough to allow certain autonomic functions to continue to function, such as respieration, cardiac rythem, digestion, etcetera. So she wasn't completely braind dead. If she had been a cascade affect would have occured shutting down all of her organs and then she would have been well and truely dead.

To argue that Schiavo was legally dead would be one thing. For someone to argue that she was biologically dead would be incorrect. She may not have been sentient but she was very much alive biologically and, as you've correctly pointed out, the fact that most of the rest of her body was very much alive is all the evidence you need of that.

Yes, but then her body would have been enough to prove she was dead. My point has been, the dichotomy of understanding is coming from opening with sloppy language that didn't define what he wanted to talk about.

Schiavo is an excellent example of the subjective nature of legally "brain-dead".

 

[Timshel]

and the politically correct Doctor would call them encepholopathically impaired.

Would they?

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42847?currentPage=2

"The utility of using dead bodies is growing, as is the tragedy of not using them," said Dr. Stuart Youngner, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Case Western University. Youngner spoke at a seminar last month for journalists on covering biotechnology held by the Foundation for American Communications.
...
Many bioethicists and doctors believe the term "brain dead" should be completely removed from medical language.

"It should, but probably won't," said bioethicist George Annas, chair of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health.

Doctors sometimes confuse families by asking their permission to turn off the ventilator. Annas said that since the person is dead, the issue of turning off the ventilator should never be brought up with the family.

In some cases brain dead patients were even sent home to their families on ventilators.

A study published in Neurology in 1998 found that a boy diagnosed as brain dead at 4 years old had been living at home for 12 years. His mother sent the researchers a picture of him wearing a bathing suit floating on a raft in their pool.

"It's a new class of dead people that's unusual," Youngner said.

 

[Timshel]

Damo, you should write the Dr. and give him your advice. Then you can update us if/when he laughs at you in response.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you should write the Dr. and give him your advice. Then you can update us if/when he laughs at you in response.

Doctors already follow my advice. You're just being silly now and creating straw men hoping to distract from the very real fact that your point was lost from the get-go because you were not careful in your language. We have all the evidence we need in the middle of this corpse of a thread where everybody was on about scientific definitions (so far you haven't produced even one that says a cell itself isn't alive, but you shouldn't have needed to even try.)

Your point was dead on delivery. We should coin that up and use it. DoD..

 

[Timshel]

Doctors already follow my advice. You're just being silly now and creating straw men hoping to distract from the very real fact that your point was lost from the get-go because you were not careful in your language.

You gotta be kidding. He called it a dead body, a corpse and even referred to the boy in the pool as a new class of dead people. There is also the suggestion that "brain dead" not be used at all and that they just refer to them as dead.

We have all the evidence we need in the middle of this corpse of a thread where everybody was on about scientific definitions (so far you haven't produced even one that says a cell itself isn't alive, but you shouldn't have needed to even try.)

I have given you a scientific definition that refers to a mass of cells without a functioning brain as dead in a way that is more relevant to the discussion. It's been pointed out to you over and over and over again. Pretending that I have not is disingenuous.

You have not provided THE scientific definition or bothered to tell us what definition you demand that we use.

 

[Damocles]

You gotta be kidding. He called it a dead body, a corpse and even referred to the boy in the pool as a new class of dead people. There is also the suggestion that "brain dead" not be used at all and that they just refer to them as dead.



I have given you a scientific definition that refers to a mass of cells without a functioning brain as dead in a way that is more relevant to the discussion. It's been pointed out to you over and over and over again. Pretending that I have not is disingenuous.

You have not provided THE scientific definition or bothered to tell us what definition you demand that we use.

I simply have pointed out that your sloppy usage has made the argument into this rather than about your point. Seriously, that is the only point I have been trying to get across to you. The attempt to turn it onto me is ridiculous. Every page of this thread is about an entirely different discussion than the one you wanted, it is because you chose poor wording at the start.

How the hell did I let you draw me back into this stupidity? If you can't see that you've been wasting your time and why then so be it.

 

[Timshel]

I simply have pointed out that your sloppy usage has made the argument into this rather than about your point. Seriously, that is the only point I have been trying to get across to you. The attempt to turn it onto me is ridiculous. Every page of this thread is about an entirely different discussion than the one you wanted, it is because you chose poor wording at the start.

How the hell did I let you draw me back into this stupidity? If you can't see that you've been wasting your time and why then so be it.

Every thread goes into tangents.

And what drug it into this one? Some dumbass dropped the context and poorly expressed their demand that we use some other standard/context. It does not work in the legal/medical realm and is not all that relevant.

Further, this dumbass implies (even though he disingenuously claims otherwise) that his mythical definition is objective while the legal definition is not.

 

[Damocles]

Every thread goes into tangents.

And what drug it into this one? Some dumbass dropped the context and poorly expressed their demand that we use some other standard/context. It does not work in the legal/medical realm and is not all that relevant.

Further, this dumbass implies (even though he disingenuously claims otherwise) that his mythical definition is objective while the legal definition is not.

Not for the entire thread like this. Seriously this isn't a "tangent" it's the whole thread.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a difference between my ability to carry on the processes of life and the deliberate prevention of my doing so. No one prevented the over 50% of fertilized cells that spontaneously aborted from carrying on the processes of life. No one even knew. The process relied completely and solely on the cells and they were unable to do so which means they were not organisms which means they were not human beings.

Again, what is so difficult to follow?

Regardless of what you think, you and I are dying. It is true! Each day that passes, we come a little closer to death. Humans, from the time they are first conceived into life, begin the process of dying. The 50% of fertilized eggs, which died before 1 hour or 1 minute or even a millisecond, were no different. They simply died earlier than most humans. If some organism is alive but in the process of dying, it is still a living organism until it stops living. If the conception (fertilization) was unsuccessful, the organism was never formed and life never occurred, and in that case, are totally irrelevant to this conversation. No one is arguing that a dead cell is a living organism, no one is opposed to a woman aborting a dead cell that failed to become a living organism. If your argument is, dead cells are not living organisms, I agree, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. If the fertilization (conception) was successful, the life process began at that moment, and it doesn't matter when the process ends, it never changes the fact that it was a living human organism, a human life.

You have not made your case, you have not presented a valid point. In fact, you are attempting to defy simple logic and claim that something that was alive and died, was never living, and that is illogically impossible. It is outright denial of the truth, it is an argument to the point of absurd dishonesty it is not even worth the time we've spent discussing it with you. Logic doesn't support this, science doesn't support this, and biology doesn't support this. No one in this thread has even attempted to defend your position, with the exception of Mott, who is an idiot like you. Even Mott will not argue that something lived and died, but was never alive!

 

[Timshel]

Not for the entire thread like this. Seriously this isn't a "tangent" it's the whole thread.

Yep, and it is due to the insistence on dropping context. Frankly, this is what "the scientific definition" argument is all about. It is an attempt to distract and mislead. There is no one scientific definition (a point that you continue to evade because it shows your inability to communicate) and it is not all that relevant to discussions on what the legal/medical definition of life should be.

 

[Damocles]

Yep, and it is due to the insistence on dropping context. Frankly, this is what "the scientific definition" argument is all about. It is an attempt to distract and mislead. There is no one scientific definition (a point that you continue to evade because it shows your inability to communicate) and it is not all that relevant to discussions on what the legal/medical definition of life should be.

I think you aim at the incorrect target. My posts on this particular issue of definitions have been to point out that your point was lost because of these semantical issues.

The idea that the point was lost because you were precise in your language is laughable.

 

[Timshel]

I think you aim at the incorrect target. My posts on this particular issue of definitions have been to point out that your point was lost because of these semantical issues.

The idea that the point was lost because you were precise in your language is laughable.

Nope, your point has been lost and I have laid waste to your red herring. There is no one scientific definition and they do not satisfy for a legal/medical definition.

Further, your imprecise language has been misleading. You failed to express what you meant in explaining what "the scientific definition" (that does not exist and has not been provided) says about life. You then use words like "subjective" which are either intended to demean or are poorly chosen since the effect on the audience is to demean. You continue to avoid your errors and demand that I use the word "life" out of context. That is laughable.

 

[Damocles]

Nope, your point has been lost and I have laid waste to your red herring. There is no one scientific definition and they do not satisfy for a legal/medical definition.

Further, your imprecise language has been misleading. You failed to express what you meant in explaining what "the scientific definition" (that does not exist and has not been provided) says about life. You then use words like "subjective" which are either intended to demean or are poorly chosen since the effect on the audience is to demean. You continue to avoid your errors and demand that I use the word "life" out of context. That is laughable.

LOL You continue on with this and are lending still more evidence that the point of your opening post was lost immediately and completely due to your imprecise use of the language.

Saying, "You too" doesn't change that we are currently speaking of my point, while yours is in the ethernet lost and all alone.

My point is alive and kicking, you lost yours because you were imprecise.

 

[Timshel]

And I am not aiming at the incorrect target. I am aiming at a different one and have nailed it. Your red herring is my target, in this tangent. You encourage retards with your poorly expressed ideas. If you stop using "the scientific definition" says this and that, then I will have had some success in this. Even if you don't correct yourself and repeat this piece of bullshit, I am going to rub your nose in it and drag your discussions off topic. Target reached successfully.

 

[Damocles]

And I am not aiming at the incorrect target. I am aiming at a different one and have nailed it. Your red herring is my target, in this tangent. You encourage retards with your poorly expressed ideas. If you stop using "the scientific definition" says this and that, then I will have had some success in this. Even if you don't correct yourself and repeat this piece of bullshit, I am going to rub your nose in it and drag your discussions off topic. Target reached successfully.

If you had simply been precise, as I advised, it would have never gone where it has. And it was long into semantic diversion before I entered the topic making this point.

As a tool to discuss what you wanted this thread is full only of fail. It failed long before I mentioned that this is divergent because of semantics, and you totally disregard any mention as to why it failed. That's fine, but attempting to blame it on me rather than being clear on what topic you actually wanted to discuss is just a sad, obvious, and desperate attempt to scapegoat.

 

[Timshel]

Your point is...

If we drop the context then your definition does not work. Use this mythical definition that I cannot cite and does not work in the context of your discussion.
...

It's a very very stupid point. I chose to chase it down and beat it into the ground because it is so often repeated.

We can always return to my point whenever you stop stubbornly dropping the context.

 

[DamnYankee]

 

[Timshel]

If you had simply been precise, as I advised, it would have never gone where it has. And it was long into semantic diversion before I entered the topic making this point.

As a tool to discuss what you wanted this thread is full only of fail. It failed long before I mentioned that this is divergent because of semantics, and you totally disregard any mention as to why it failed. That's fine, but attempting to blame it on me rather than being clear on what topic you actually wanted to discuss is just a sad, obvious, and desperate attempt to scapegoat.

I was precise. I repeated my context numerous times. It would not have gone where it has if you would stop insisting on dropping the context.

But, like I said I am fine with where it has gone since it has served to abuse your nonsense. I am guessing you won't be talking about "the scientific definition" anymore and will choose your words more carefully.

 

[Timshel]

Here is the OP...

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?

My context is clear. I am not talking about whatever scientific definition Damo cowardly fails to cite. I am not talking about whether the cells are alive according to whatever scientific definition Damo cowardly fails to cite.

Out of this where I was sloppy has nothing to do with any of your nonsense, Damo. I probably could have been a little clearer on what was meant by "measurable brain activity." But, I don't need to cite whatever scientific definition you cowardly fail to cite.

But if it makes you happy Damo, I will quit making a fool of you and agree to start explaining that there will invariably be some dumbass response that drops the context and refers to some scientific definition that does not exist and can not be named. It would be better if I did not have to repeat myself since my context was already clear, but you have proven that there are people that need the context pounded and repeated at every turn. WTG! Advice taken.