When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The risks to the woman are definitely a consideration. But at some point the woman accepts the normal risks. By waiting until the fetus is viable she has subjected herself to risks that could have been removed long before and has accepted the normal risks of pregnancy. There is no good reason for an abortion after 20 weeks other than serious medical risk to the mother.

When men are able to get pregnant I promise to apply the same standard.
 
apple0154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it should get the best chance possible, not just cast aside because of an incoveniance.

Funny thing about that personal responsibility and such.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there are different senses of "life"?.......
Click to expand...

Of course. Is the meaning of life in the phrase "life of your car" the same as if I were talking about a plant's life. If your cellphone dies do you mourn? There is obviously different meanings of the word life and very different ways of being alive. A plant is not a conscious being and that is central to what we mean by life in the human sense of the word.
 
apple0154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right...with just about no care at all from outside the mother, that zygote, embryo, fetus, baby will make it....and lo and behold, its human....

but fear not ... the law says you can kill the bastard right up the last second and actually beyond birth...but not too far beyond...all for your happiness ...:clink:
 
bravo said:
Absolutely right...with just about no care at all from outside the mother, that zygote, embryo, fetus, baby will make it....and lo and behold, its human....

but fear not ... the law says you can kill the bastard right up the last second and actually beyond birth...but not too far beyond...all for your happiness ...:clink:
Click to expand...

But the level of care that comes from the mother is very significant.
 
RStringfield said:
Then why do we say a brain dead person is dead? Why is the legal and medical definition of death largely dependent on the patient no longer having or having very little capacity for consciousness?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is consciousness so much as functioning. The brain controls everything about human function. It so happens that this includes consciousness. I believe the reason we presume a person dead if they are brain dead, is because of technology. We are able to keep someone functioning on machines indefinitely... theoretically, a person could never actually die, unless we had some other criteria to go by, and that is the criteria we've established.

Now... because we have established a medical criteria to determine when someone is dead, doesn't mean that same criteria defines life. Two completely different arguments.
 
RStringfield said:
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?
Click to expand...

If we knew a brain dead patient would regain consciousness after 20 weeks, would it still be acceptable to let them die? Of course not. Likewise, it isn't acceptable to kill an infant before 20 weeks. That's the difference. Brain dead people never regain consciousness, whereas an infant in the womb will always reach the point of development when there is measurable brain activity.
 
Dixie said:
I don't think it is consciousness so much as functioning. The brain controls everything about human function. It so happens that this includes consciousness. I believe the reason we presume a person dead if they are brain dead, is because of technology. We are able to keep someone functioning on machines indefinitely... theoretically, a person could never actually die, unless we had some other criteria to go by, and that is the criteria we've established.

Now... because we have established a medical criteria to determine when someone is dead, doesn't mean that same criteria defines life. Two completely different arguments.
Click to expand...

Any definition of death implies a definition of life as does the reverse. You are just attempting to subjectively apply the definition.
 
bravo said:
Absolutely right...with just about no care at all from outside the mother, that zygote, embryo, fetus, baby will make it....and lo and behold, its human....

but fear not ... the law says you can kill the bastard right up the last second and actually beyond birth...but not too far beyond...all for your happiness ...:clink:
Click to expand...

So let's be clear here. I wrote,
Originally Posted by apple0154
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.
Click to expand...
to which you responded,
Absolutely right...with just about no care at all from outside the mother, that zygote, embryo, fetus, baby will make it....and lo and behold, its human....
Click to expand...

After going round the bush, in a manner of speaking, discussing fertilization and having been shown not all fertilizations result in a human being, some becoming a "residual body", the terms or definition of human being switched to conceptions and viable zygotes. I countered, "Is it so outlandish to say the viability of a zygote or embryo or fetus is to make it to birth?" to which you replied, "Absolutely right...with just about no care at all from outside the mother, that zygote, embryo, fetus, baby will make it....and lo and behold, its human...."

So, if the zygote does not make it to birth are you saying it was not viable or are you going to argue going from a zygote to an embryo to a fetus are fundamental changes? It seems to me the position of the anti-abortionists is that the zygote has all the necessary properties for becoming a human being.

So, to sum up, if it's reasonable to conclude the viability of a zygote is determined by whether or not it makes it to birth, which it appears you agree with, one does not know if the zygote is a human being until and unless it does make it to birth and we know that some zygotes and embryos and fetuses do not make it to birth by the known miscarriages and still births that occur.
 
RStringfield said:
Any definition of death implies a definition of life as does the reverse. You are just attempting to subjectively apply the definition.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. Society has subjectively applied the definition of death to someone without brain function. You are attempting to apply that subjective definition to something it doesn't apply to, nor was it ever intended to apply to.

Definitions of life and death are two completely different things, especially when we're talking about subjective definitions. Keep in mind, the criteria for death has only recently been established based on brain function, previously it was when the heart stopped beating. Technology gave us the ability to keep someone's heart beating indefinitely, so another criteria had to be established.
 
Tabasco said:
If we knew a brain dead patient would regain consciousness after 20 weeks, would it still be acceptable to let them die? Of course not. Likewise, it isn't acceptable to kill an infant before 20 weeks. That's the difference. Brain dead people never regain consciousness, whereas an infant in the womb will always reach the point of development when there is measurable brain activity.
Click to expand...

I noted this before. I don't think it would be acceptable to unplug the patient if it were possible to regrow the brain.

But I am not sure the recovered patient would really be the same person. All their memories would be wiped along with their identity. They would have to relearn their values. They would not love the people they did before. Would we be able to hold them to prior commitments or responsibilities? In a legal sense it's quite possible we would treat this as a new life.

Further, life support machines have no rights. There is no reason to care what sort of burden we put on them. That is not true with the mother.

What if regrowing the brain required jeopardizing the life of another with brain function. Would we demand that someone make that sacrifice? I would not.
 
After going round the bush, in a manner of speaking, discussing fertilization and having been shown not all fertilizations result in a human being, some becoming a "residual body", the terms or definition of human being switched to conceptions and viable zygotes.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool. You've not shown anyone anything! You've made a bunch of boneheaded statements that don't comport with logic, and you are too ignorant to realize what a buffoon you are. Successful fertilization is CONCEPTION, and CONCEPTION begins the life process. Nothing you've interjected changes that FACT OF LIFE!
 
Dixie said:
No, I am not. Society has subjectively applied the definition of death to someone without brain function. You are attempting to apply that subjective definition to something it doesn't apply to, nor was it ever intended to apply to.

Definitions of life and death are two completely different things, especially when we're talking about subjective definitions. Keep in mind, the criteria for death has only recently been established based on brain function, previously it was when the heart stopped beating. Technology gave us the ability to keep someone's heart beating indefinitely, so another criteria had to be established.
Click to expand...

There are no non subjective definitions of life or much of anything else.

The definitions of life and death ARE necessarily linked. Name one definition of death that does not imply a definition of life.

It's not so much that we are able to keep the heart beating. We are able to restart it and it is clear that it is not crucial to identity of the human. If I take your heart and give it to someone else, you are dead. If I did that with your brain woulod you be?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Why don't you just shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool. You've not shown anyone anything! You've made a bunch of boneheaded statements that don't comport with logic, and you are too ignorant to realize what a buffoon you are. Successful fertilization is CONCEPTION, and CONCEPTION begins the life process. Nothing you've interjected changes that FACT OF LIFE!
Click to expand...

There's no reason to become upset because you don't understand. When the sperm and the egg combine that's fertilization and many of those fertilizations stop at that point. Was the cell fertilized? Yes. Was it a successful fertilization? Definitely not if one is expected offspring.

Conclusion: Not all fertilized cells are human beings unless you consider it's natural for human beings to come into existence for a split second or a few minutes and then die. Of course, it doesn't surprise me considering the respect you show for human beings generally.
 
RStringfield said:
Then why do we say a brain dead person is dead? Why is the legal and medical definition of death largely dependent on the patient no longer having or having very little capacity for consciousness?
Click to expand...

we don't....we say they are brain dead....it's part of the process of deciding whether we can terminate their life....it's what we have been discussing for pages and pages......
 
RStringfield said:
There are no non subjective definitions of life or much of anything else.

The definitions of life and death ARE necessarily linked. Name one definition of death that does not imply a definition of life.

It's not so much that we are able to keep the heart beating. We are able to restart it and it is clear that it is not crucial to identity of the human. If I take your heart and give it to someone else, you are dead. If I did that with your brain woulod you be?
Click to expand...

Well, the CURRENT definition of death, does not imply a definition of life. A person's brain can be dead, and they can be pronounced legally dead, yet their body continues to grow cells, fingernails and hair continue to grow for hours after death.

And yes, we can keep a heart beating as long as the machine is running.
 
apple0154 said:
There's no reason to become upset because you don't understand. When the sperm and the egg combine that's fertilization and many of those fertilizations stop at that point. Was the cell fertilized? Yes. Was it a successful fertilization? Definitely not if one is expected offspring.

Conclusion: Not all fertilized cells are human beings unless you consider it's natural for human beings to come into existence for a split second or a few minutes and then die. Of course, it doesn't surprise me considering the respect you show for human beings generally.
Click to expand...

I am not upset, and I certainly DO understand what constitutes a living organism and how we arrive at that determination. There is no such thing as a successful fertilization that doesn't produce life, when talking about human organisms. If it "STOPS" it had to be doing something before it STOPPED! If something "DIES" it has to first be LIVING, it is inherently impossible for it to DIE if it hasn't been LIVING first! That's where you are deviating from logic on this, and all the posting in the world will not make you correct. You would think even the most profoundly retarded person could understand when they directly contradict their own point in their explanation, but you seem oblivious to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top