When Does Life End?

For those of you have some stupid hangup with using life in the context of legal/medical discussions in the sense of what we mean to be alive as humans, then why not argue the equally ridiculous position that death only be used to describe the complete cessation of all cellular activity.
 
RStringfield said:
There was no mention of cell growth, only viability. If that is your standard then you must apply it consistently.

As far as I understand it, we are still discussing the legal context. So what did I drop? If that is just your or others scientific definition then feel free to apply it to whatever research you care to do.
Click to expand...
Again, rubbish.

The definition they brought up made it clear.

Anyway, the term is subjective. In this particular usage we are talking about what subject? The zygote. According to the definition provided from the biology text book quoted, when the cell began to grow was when conception began, otherwise it was a "residual body" that never held life. That definition labeled this point as a "viable zygote".

Now had we been talking about fetus, viability would likely be at the point of implantation in the uterus. And if we are talking of infants we might reach what you are trying to pretend they meant earlier, after you hypocritically remove all context. And even after, in this very thread, you argued that others would remove the context of your posts.

Hypocrite.
 
Congratulations, zygote! You are a winner! Over 50% of your fellow zygotes did not make it this far. Now, to celebrate your achievement, we are going to kill you. Our justification for this is that the other 50% did not get as far as you did. Have a good day!
 
Damocles said:
Again, rubbish.

The definition they brought up made it clear.

Anyway, the term is subjective. In this particular usage we are talking about what subject? The zygote. According to the definition provided from the biology text book quoted, when the cell began to grow was when conception began, otherwise it was a "residual body" that never held life. That definition labeled this point as a "viable zygote".

Now had we been talking about fetus, viability would likely be at the point of implantation in the uterus. And if we are talking of infants we might reach what you are trying to pretend they meant earlier, after you hypocritically remove all context. And even after, in this very thread, you argued that others would remove the context of your posts.

Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I did not drop any context. The argument was viability. No one defined that. But my point has been why not the same standard as would be applied to the brain dead. So that's where I drew it.

But if that is one's definition in the legal context, then one is saying that the born must prove themselves more viable than the unborn. Why? Why the double standard?

Superfreak is responding. You claimed to want to discuss that issue (i.e., personhood, as you prefer) but instead you are going on about something else.
 
RStringfield said:
I did not drop any context. The argument was viability. No one defined that. But my point has been why not the same standard as would be applied to the brain dead. So that's where I drew it.

But if that is one's definition in the legal context, then one is saying that the born must prove themselves more viable than the unborn. Why? Why the double standard?

Superfreak is responding. You claimed to want to discuss that issue (i.e., personhood, as you prefer) but instead you are going on about something else.
Click to expand...
Liar. Viability was defined in the definition of "conception" that was brought up. You did what you accused others of, then hypocritically just continue to do it rather than arguing honestly. I was even prepared for this because you kept (in your mind slyly) asking if I knew "how subjective" it was. The subject and definition at hand dealt with the zygote and it labeled viability at the moment of growth.

I thought you would be a huge hypocrite, attempt to remove the subject and context and play this hand, and you didn't disappoint.

Now, do you want to change the topic back to your original point or are we going to continue talking about the first thirty seconds of the human life cycle?
 
Superfreak said:
A question... Is there no brain activity until 20 weeks? Or is it that we don't have the technology at this time to detect it?

Also... a person that is 'brain dead' is DEAD. They can only survive by machines. They will no longer develop on their own.

Whereas a child in the embryonic and fetal stages of development WILL continue to develop. Therein lies the difference.

Interesting question though.
Click to expand...
Except that at 20 weeks or less, the embryo can ONLY survive with assistance of the mother's body, not unlike a machine. I say that at the point it can survive with MAXIMUM CARE, meaning as soon as it can survive outside the womb, using all the technology man can muster and being fed, THEN, it cannot be aborted.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Neither can a 1 day old, or a 1 week old, or a 1 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
Click to expand...
And this is another stupid retort by the right. A child, once born with survive with very minimal effort. A 9 week old fetus will not take a breath, will not know it is outside the womb, will not know it is dying. will not know ANYTHING or be able to do anything to try and stay alive. If you take a new born, place it on its mother's stomach it will move itself to find her breasts, there is lots of good speed modified film that shows just that.
 
Socrtease said:
And this is another stupid retort by the right. A child, once born with survive with very minimal effort. A 9 week old fetus will not take a breath, will not know it is outside the womb, will not know it is dying. will not know ANYTHING or be able to do anything to try and stay alive. If you take a new born, place it on its mother's stomach it will move itself to find her breasts, there is lots of good speed modified film that shows just that.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing the Liberals view of viabliity and nothing eles.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Congratulations, zygote! You are a winner! Over 50% of your fellow zygotes did not make it this far. Now, to celebrate your achievement, we are going to kill you. Our justification for this is that the other 50% did not get as far as you did. Have a good day!
Click to expand...

You might as well talk to your plant. They might at least respond to your breath.
 
There have been a few children born at 20 or 21 weeks that survive with maximum care, lots more at 24-25, which is were I think the line should be drawn, As technology advances, then viablity becomes sooner. At some point we will be able to remove the embryo from the mother than does not want it and bring it to term in a tank. That will be a whole new can of worms, but then all you righties can step up to the plate and take one of those kids under your wing to raise.
 
Socrtease said:
Except that at 20 weeks or less, the embryo can ONLY survive with assistance of the mother's body, not unlike a machine. I say that at the point it can survive with MAXIMUM CARE, meaning as soon as it can survive outside the womb, using all the technology man can muster and being fed, THEN, it cannot be aborted.
Click to expand...

To me, that is what seems to be the best possible answer and is most consistently applicable.
 
Damocles said:
Again, your position is extreme today, there is no rational differences in "personhood" between 1 hour before and 1 hour after birth. It's just irrational, selfish, and stupid to suggest that there is.
Click to expand...

Rational differences? What would you call going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one? I suppose you wouldn’t find it unusual to take a fish out of water and have it breath naturally. If such was possible would it be considered a fish? Or have something dependent on the organs and metabolism of another human being to becoming solely dependent on it’s own organs and metabolism is no big deal? Maybe the next time someone is dying from liver failure we can just hook them up to their partner via some sort of tubing. Apparently there’s nothing special about that.

Damocles said:
(Msg 493) Yes, with that exception. If the mother would die without an abortion, or be crippled, etc.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. What about kidney damage from hypertension? Is the certainty of one kidney loss sufficient reason to kill the innocent human being or is the loss of both kidneys necessary? What about uncontrolled diabetes and eye damage? Is the possibility of having to wear glasses sufficient reason to kill or is the woman obliged to risk total blindness?

Then we get into things like let’s suppose the woman is a commercial pilot and requires a certain degree of visual acuity. Do we force her to carry the pregnancy resulting in diminished eyesight, losing her job, not being able to make the mortgage payment, losing her home and going on welfare? Gee, that will make for a loving, caring mom, won’t it. Every time it’s Kraft dinner and hot dot dogs for supper I’m sure she’ll hold loving thoughts for the baby that’s crying in the next room.

Damocles said:
Please. The only person "rejecting" this is Apple and he's for abortions up to the second of birth.
Click to expand...

Maybe if I received some answers to the foregoing questions I might find some logic in your position but, hey, why think this through. Let’s just call something a human being and we’ll deal with the situations as they arise and if a woman dies here and another is permanently disabled there and some lose their job…oh, well. At least it’s not happening to a man, huh? And if a guy’s wife is blinded and the biological father wants nothing to do with her who would make the more capable parent? I suppose we can just let her rot on welfare after taking her child. Sounds like the Conservative thing to do anyway.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And you're still trying to justify your narrow view of life and the living.

We all die and at different times.
Not everyone born in 1980 is going to die the same year.

Same question as posed to another:
Since you seem to be stuck on the idea of viabliity; then does that mean you are in favor of exposing new borns to the elements, for 24 hours, to determine the new borns viability??
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of pregnancy? Is it not to bear a child? Is it so outlandish to say the viability of a zygote or embryo or fetus is to make it to birth? There is little anyone can do. It's pretty much left up to the zygote or embryo or fetus to get there, if you will.
 
Socrtease said:
There have been a few children born at 20 or 21 weeks that survive with maximum care, lots more at 24-25, which is were I think the line should be drawn, As technology advances, then viablity becomes sooner. At some point we will be able to remove the embryo from the mother than does not want it and bring it to term in a tank. That will be a whole new can of worms, but then all you righties can step up to the plate and take one of those kids under your wing to raise.
Click to expand...

"then all you righties can step up to the plate and take one of those kids under your wing to raise."

AHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, yea. That will happen.

They'll be taking to the streets wanting laws to enforce the women who had them removed to pay for the tanks. :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top