When Does Life End?

[Kamala Trump]

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?

Because at that stage of life there is not sufficient brain development, but growth is ongoing until brain functioning achieved. How can something dead grow? You must look at the reality of the full context of the situation.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

I don't care what you think. I'm telling you the facts. In some species up to 35% of the eggs fertilized result in residual bodies. That is, the spern penetrates the egg, the DNA is transfered, the female and male DNA fuse together, both cell membranes and nuclear membrans form and a single cell zygote is produced. It is not uncommon for this zygote to show no signs of life, that at this point metabolic proccesses do not begin nor does the zygote divide to produce daughter cells, it has become a residual body. It cannot be considered dead because it was never really alive in the first place. But the process of fertiliation (conception) has occured.

 

[Timshel]

Because at that stage of life there is not sufficient brain development, but growth is ongoing until brain functioning achieved. How can something dead grow? You must look at the reality of the full context of the situation.

Some people can maintain the context. SM did and already made the point about developing. However, the brain is not developing at conception. That does not begin until later.

As to the point how can something dead grow? A person on life support can continue to grow though they are legally dead. Therefore, growth is not a fundamental part of the legal definition of life.

We've been over this and it would be easier to find except we had to deal with the red herring employed by the disingenuous and/or stupid.

 

[Timshel]

Also, we don't know that they are growing and not even close to the majority of them will achieve brain function.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Because at that stage of life there is not sufficient brain development, but growth is ongoing until brain functioning achieved. How can something dead grow? You must look at the reality of the full context of the situation.

That depends on what you are defining as being dead? An ogranism or all the tissue that an organism is composed of? Some cells and tissues can continue to survive and replicate for a significant amount of time after the organism is dead.

 

[DamnYankee]

That depends on what you are defining as being dead? An ogranism or all the tissue that an organism is composed of? Some cells and tissues can continue to survive and replicate for a significant amount of time after the organism is dead.

Just like the last few pages of posts on this thread.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Just like the last few pages of posts on this thread.

LOL could be. I don't have to big a bone in the abortion debate. I'm decidedly moderate. I don't beleive in abortion as birth control but, then again, I'll never get pregnant (at least not with my looks!). Having said that, there are circumstances when abortion is appropriate and I think that it should be up to an individual to decide in those circumstances and not some authority figure.

I personally find abortion on demand for the most part abhorant.

I've also noticed that some of the posters on this thread must have taken some naps in high school biology class. LOL

 

[DamnYankee]

LOL could be. I don't have to big a bone in the abortion debate. I'm decidedly moderate. I don't beleive in abortion as birth control but, then again, I'll never get pregnant (at least not with my looks!). Having said that, there are circumstances when abortion is appropriate and I think that it should be up to an individual to decide in those circumstances and not some authority figure.

I personally find abortion on demand for the most part abhorant.

I've also noticed that some of the posters on this thread must have taken some naps in high school biology class. LOL

In my opinion if the US stuck to the original Roe decision then there wouldn't be such a big argument about abortion. But the Left pushed beyond that, and some, including Obama, support killing a baby out of the womb after a botched abortion. Its disgusting.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

In my opinion if the US stuck to the original Roe decision then there wouldn't be such a big argument about abortion. But the Left pushed beyond that, and some, including Obama, support killing a baby out of the womb after a botched abortion. Its disgusting.

Well that's a strawman. I could just as easilty said that if the US had struck to the original Roe decision and the right hadn't of pushed beyond that, including Bush, because they would rather see women die rather then permit late term abortions on uviable fetuses that threaten a womans life. It's disgusting.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But we can probably agree about one thing on the abortion debate.

Watermark makes a good argument for the validity of retroactive abortions!!

 

[Damocles]

I don't care what you think. I'm telling you the facts. In some species up to 35% of the eggs fertilized result in residual bodies. That is, the spern penetrates the egg, the DNA is transfered, the female and male DNA fuse together, both cell membranes and nuclear membrans form and a single cell zygote is produced. It is not uncommon for this zygote to show no signs of life, that at this point metabolic proccesses do not begin nor does the zygote divide to produce daughter cells, it has become a residual body. It cannot be considered dead because it was never really alive in the first place. But the process of fertiliation (conception) has occured.

How often does this happen in humans, and more importantly to the actual discussion, how many of these actually attach to the uterus and become capable of human directed abortion? By definition, this is just extemporaneous knowledge filling up pages. It is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Timshel]

I don't care what you think. I'm telling you the facts. In some species up to 35% of the eggs fertilized result in residual bodies. That is, the spern penetrates the egg, the DNA is transfered, the female and male DNA fuse together, both cell membranes and nuclear membrans form and a single cell zygote is produced. It is not uncommon for this zygote to show no signs of life, that at this point metabolic proccesses do not begin nor does the zygote divide to produce daughter cells, it has become a residual body. It cannot be considered dead because it was never really alive in the first place. But the process of fertiliation (conception) has occured.

So, if I understand the above, damo's red herring would be updated to....

If at conception or some point very shortly thereafter the fertilized egg shows signs of life then most scientist would say that life has begun.
...

That's gonna be a winner.

 

[Damocles]

So, if I understand the above, damo's red herring would be updated to....

If at conception or some point very shortly thereafter the fertilized egg shows signs of life then most scientist would say that life has begun.
...

That's gonna be a winner.

You are again with this inanity?

I wasn't arguing the beginning or ending of life, I was simply pointing out the divergence in the thread and why it was happening. You can keep putting up this silly straw man and I can keep knocking it down or you can remain on topic. It's up to you. This will make the thread again diverge into the topic of semantic differences between scientific definitions of life and the legal definition of human life if you want it to. Nobody suggests that an embryo capable of human directed abortion isn't alive except you. Being clear and maintaining "legally dead" rather than just saying it "isn't alive" would have stopped the thread from diverging. I gave advice and you took it to mean disagreement.

 

[Timshel]

You are again with this inanity?

I wasn't arguing the beginning or ending of life, I was simply pointing out the divergence in the thread and why it was happening. You can keep putting up this silly straw man and I can keep knocking it down or you can remain on topic. It's up to you. This will make the thread again diverge into the topic of semantic differences between scientific definitions of life and the legal definition of human life if you want it to. Nobody suggests that an embryo capable of human directed abortion isn't alive except you. Being clear and maintaining "legally dead" rather than just saying it "isn't alive" would have stopped the thread from diverging. I gave advice and you took it to mean disagreement.

Just trying to give you advice on how to better express what you mean.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How often does this happen in humans, and more importantly to the actual discussion, how many of these actually attach to the uterus and become capable of human directed abortion? By definition, this is just extemporaneous knowledge filling up pages. It is irrelevant to the topic.

I have to agree with that. I was just correcting some of the misconceptions about biology I was reading. My comments really don't affect the discussion at large. I really don't know what the actual figure is in humans. It does occur with some frequency. I know that.

Higher organisms that produce large masses of eggs, for example spawning fish, upwards to 25 to 35% of the fertilized eggs can be residual bodies.

I wouldn't say my comments are completely extraneous to the topic at hand. I figure that if people are going to make ethical claims using biology as evidence to support their view, they should at least know the biology.

 

[Damocles]

I have to agree with that. I was just correcting some of the misconceptions about biology I was reading. My comments really don't affect the discussion at large. I really don't know what the actual figure is in humans. It does occur with some frequency. I know that.

Higher organisms that produce large masses of eggs, for example spawning fish, upwards to 25 to 35% of the fertilized eggs can be residual bodies.

I wouldn't say my comments are completely extraneous to the topic at hand. I figure that if people are going to make ethical claims using biology as evidence to support their view, they should at least know the biology.

I just can't see how residual bodies would ever become something that is part of a human directed abortion, and I actually want to discuss the topic... Although that may not be readily apparent.



It is interesting, at least. Most zygotes are destined for spontaneous abortion anyway, are they not?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I just can't see how residual bodies would ever become something that is part of a human directed abortion, and I actually want to discuss the topic... Although that may not be readily apparent.



It is interesting, at least. Most zygotes are destined for spontaneous abortion anyway, are they not?

I wouldn't say most but many do, yes.

 

[Damocles]

I wouldn't say most but many do, yes.

And I have read biology texts that define conception at the moment of implantation rather than the moment of fertilization.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And I have read biology texts that define conception at the moment of implantation rather than the moment of fertilization.

I've was taught that was the moment pregnancy begins. Not conception/fertilization

 

[Damocles]

I've was taught that was the moment pregnancy begins. Not conception/fertilization

I think the problem is defining conception as fertilization. I was always taught that conception is the time that it implants, not fertilization and that fertilization began pregnancy, else there would be no such thing as a tubal pregnancy. But heck, maybe I'm remembering wrong, it's been a zillion years.