When Does Life End?

RStringfield said:
But the level of care that comes from the mother is very significant.
Click to expand...

Come on RS....all she has to do 99% of the time is just exist and go about her business in a normal manner for most of the time...its not even that easy to kill the kid on purpose while you're knocked-up.....
thats not to say it can't be done....
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It implies that brain function must be present for life to be present. You are then dropping context and then saying that definition is not applicable in another sense where cell growth is the determining factor.

I clearly meant to name some other use of the word dead or death where it did not imply a definition of life.

Dixie said:
And yes, we can keep a heart beating as long as the machine is running.
Click to expand...

That's your only response to the point?

I did not say otherwise. In fact it really does not need a machine to beat. It only needs oxygen.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Come on RS....all she has to do 99% of the time is just exist and go about her business in a normal manner for most of the time...its not even that easy to kill the kid on purpose while you're knocked-up.....
thats not to say it can't be done....
Click to expand...

Okay. If you say so. No doctor would tell you that nonsense.

The care a mother provides a child is more intensive than any care we are able to provide technologically. If we could reproduce that machine we might not ever die.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Yes it does. It implies that brain function must be present for life to be present. You are then dropping context and then saying that definition is not applicable in another sense where cell growth is the determining factor.

I clearly meant to name some other use of the word dead or death where it did not imply a definition of life.
Click to expand...

You are getting rather convoluted here. It certainly is a fact that fingernails and hair continue to grow after the brain is dead. Life is indeed still present, if you define life by an organism continuing to carry on the processes of life. How we arbitrarily decide how to use words has nothing to do with the biological facts. When that becomes the case, you start saying stupid shit like Apple!


That's your only response to the point?

I did not say otherwise. In fact it really does not need a machine to beat. It only needs oxygen.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the only response the point needed. My point was, we can now artificially keep the heart beating... forever if we wanted to. Therefore, it can no longer be a criteria for determining death.
 
Dixie said:
You are getting rather convoluted here. It certainly is a fact that fingernails and hair continue to grow after the brain is dead. Life is indeed still present, if you define life by an organism continuing to carry on the processes of life. How we arbitrarily decide how to use words has nothing to do with the biological facts. When that becomes the case, you start saying stupid shit like Apple!
Click to expand...

You are mixing contexts. Yes the zygote and the brain dead are alive in a biological context. Neither are alive in the legal/medical context because neither fit what we mean by life in the human sense of the word.

Dixie said:
Yes, that's the only response the point needed. My point was, we can now artificially keep the heart beating... forever if we wanted to. Therefore, it can no longer be a criteria for determining death.
Click to expand...

The fact that you keep it beating is not why it is not a sufficient factor for death. Whether the heart dies or lives has shit to do with the life of the person. You can receive someone else's heart and continue to live. Your heart could go to someone and you would not continue to live. Why, because Dixie is in that little thing rattling around in your head. It was not there at conception and it is gone at brain death.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Okay. If you say so. No doctor would tell you that nonsense.

The care a mother provides a child is more intensive than any care we are able to provide technologically. If we could reproduce that machine we might not ever die.
Click to expand...

You know what I mean.....
You're being disingenuous..the "care" the mother provides to the fetus is care that the mommy isn't even aware of or conscious of ........you're making it seem like she needs a degree in rocket science to have a baby....

So sure, Mommy (or Nature, or God ) does a miracle, we get that....
 
bravo said:
You know what I mean.....
You're being disingenuous..the "care" the mother provides to the fetus is care that the mommy isn't even aware of or conscious of ........you're making it seem like she needs a degree in rocket science to have a baby....

So sure, Mommy (or Nature, or God ) does a miracle, we get that....
Click to expand...

A pregnant woman is not aware of the toll pregnancy takes? That is absurd.

She might not need be rocket scientist but I can think of no job hat is more physically demanding or with comparable health risks.

You make it sound like pregnancy and child birth are no big deal.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...



Thats what this thread was supposed to be about from the start... When Does Life End?
Thats a much harder thing to define,...why/ because the body dies part by part....organ by organ....including the brain....there is no "moment" that separates being alive and being dead...unless its that moment when the body becomes biologically unable to recover from ongoing damage....

the brain, being but one organ, can die to a point that it only functions to keep others organs operating to sustain a breathing body, a LIVE body....but one without consciousness....a vegetative state, but alive nontheless...
 
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...
This is a very important question in what makes us who we are. IF, and it is a HUGE if, a brain could be successfully transplanted into a body, who would that resultant person be? Would they be identified as the person whose body the brain would be transplanted into, or would they be the person that inhabits the brain? This is senario hits closest to personhood, and it is the person who has rights, not the body, if there is no person then there are no rights. At some point the emergence of personhood becomes unquestioned even in a fetus, at that point, the fetus has rights, and that may actually predate the ability to survive outside the womb with maximum care.
 
RStringfield said:
You are mixing contexts. Yes the zygote and the brain dead are alive in a biological context. Neither are alive in the legal/medical context because neither fit what we mean by life in the human sense of the word.
Click to expand...

The point is, you have applied an arbitrary standard to the word "dead" and it has nothing to do with biological fact. I can make any word mean anything I want it to! That doesn't change what is factual! We could say that someone is "dead" if they don't pass a physical or an IQ test, if we wanted to make that the definition, but it has nothing to do with reality, it is our arbitrary definition and nothing more.

The fact that you keep it beating is not why it is not a sufficient factor for death. Whether the heart dies or lives has shit to do with the life of the person. You can receive someone else's heart and continue to live. Your heart could go to someone and you would not continue to live. Why, because Dixie is in that little thing rattling around in your head. It was not there at conception and it is gone at brain death.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fact that we have the technology to keep a heart beating eternally, is a determining factor in why we have to establish some other criteria. If we didn't, we could say that people can live forever with the aid of a machine. A human can't survive without a functioning heart, just as they can't survive without a functioning brain. We don't have the technology to keep a brain operating, if we did, the debate of "death" might be different.

Whether we can use technology to keep an organ functioning, has nothing to do with what is living and what is dead. A zygote doesn't need a brain to be considered a living human organism, that is a matter of biological fact, regardless of what arbitrary definition we have applied. You are trying to take an arbitrary definition we've established for death, and apply it to life, and it is a dishonest approach which denies science and biology.
 
bravo said:
the brain, being but one organ, can die to a point that it only functions to keep others organs operating to sustain a breathing body, a LIVE body....but one without consciousness....a vegetative state, but alive nontheless...
Click to expand...

The brain is not simply another organ. That is ridiculous.

There is a reason why they call it a vegetative state. Because you are living much like a vegetable or plant. We do not give rights to plants. Even animals are not afforded the same rights (if any) because they don't have the same capacities for rational thought.

It is fairly apparent that your brain is the source of your rights and even your identity.
 
Dixie said:
The point is, you have applied an arbitrary standard to the word "dead" and it has nothing to do with biological fact. I can make any word mean anything I want it to! That doesn't change what is factual! We could say that someone is "dead" if they don't pass a physical or an IQ test, if we wanted to make that the definition, but it has nothing to do with reality, it is our arbitrary definition and nothing more.



Yes, the fact that we have the technology to keep a heart beating eternally, is a determining factor in why we have to establish some other criteria. If we didn't, we could say that people can live forever with the aid of a machine. A human can't survive without a functioning heart, just as they can't survive without a functioning brain. We don't have the technology to keep a brain operating, if we did, the debate of "death" might be different.

Whether we can use technology to keep an organ functioning, has nothing to do with what is living and what is dead. A zygote doesn't need a brain to be considered a living human organism, that is a matter of biological fact, regardless of what arbitrary definition we have applied. You are trying to take an arbitrary definition we've established for death, and apply it to life, and it is a dishonest approach which denies science and biology.
Click to expand...

Dixie, you are too dumb for words.

It has nothing with being able to keep the heart alive. Whether the heart lives or dies has no bearing on whether the person does. That's not to say you don't need a heart, but you do not need YOUR heart.

Damo, look above and see the damage you are doing with the red herring of what "the scientific definition of life" says.

Dixie, the biological definition is no more a FACT then is the definition of life one gives to a battery. Definitions are not facts. They are always arbitrary. They only need be subjective if you apply them subjectively. Which is exactly what you are doing if you say legally/medically we should see the brainless zygote as alive but not the brain dead.
 
RStringfield said:
Dixie, you are too dumb for words.

It has nothing with being able to keep the heart alive. Whether the heart lives or dies has no bearing on whether the person does. That's not to say you don't need a heart, but you do not need YOUR heart.

Damo, look above and see the damage you are doing with the red herring of what "the scientific definition of life" says.

Dixie, the biological definition is no more a FACT then is the definition of life one gives to a battery. Definitions are not facts. They are always arbitrary. They only need be subjective if you apply them subjectively. Which is exactly what you are doing if you say legally/medically we should see the brainless zygote as alive but not the brain dead.
Click to expand...

Well, philosophically, words and definitions themselves are arbitrary and subjective! We can say anything means anything! "Wet" could mean "bone dry" if we wanted to make it that! Biological definitions are facts as we've determined the meaning of "fact" to be, you can apply a different definition to the word "fact" and make it mean something else if you like, but that is an arbitrary and subjective definition.

A Zygote is a living human organism, that is biological fact. A brain-dead person who has not expired, is still living, although we have established a criteria for "death" to mean the absence of brain activity. They aren't REALLY dead until the organism which comprises their body, has stopped doing what organisms do and has become inorganic. The fact that you have established some criteria for "death" other than the biological fact, is irrelevant.
 
Dixie said:
Well, philosophically, words and definitions themselves are arbitrary and subjective! We can say anything means anything! "Wet" could mean "bone dry" if we wanted to make it that! Biological definitions are facts as we've determined the meaning of "fact" to be, you can apply a different definition to the word "fact" and make it mean something else if you like, but that is an arbitrary and subjective definition.

A Zygote is a living human organism, that is biological fact. A brain-dead person who has not expired, is still living, although we have established a criteria for "death" to mean the absence of brain activity. They aren't REALLY dead until the organism which comprises their body, has stopped doing what organisms do and has become inorganic. The fact that you have established some criteria for "death" other than the biological fact, is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

:palm:

Thanks Damo, Grind, SF, et.al..
 
Dixie said:
It has nothing to do with Damo or anyone else. Biology defines "living" through a specific set of standards, namely, that something IS organic and NOT inorganic. We can debate viability, quality of the living state, or whatever, it doesn't change the biological fact.
Click to expand...

The biological definition is not a FACT, dumbass. If it were it would not change as much as it has. Biological definitions are out of context as has been demonstrated repeatedly. The biological definition is fine for biology. But it is not fine for other sciences so why should it be applied in either the legal or medical contexts. And it is not, e.g., brain dead.

I call out Damo and gang because that is the only point in responding to you. You are far too dumb or pigheaded to ever get it. They might. You are lucky that the necessary brain function that is required for human life is extremely low.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point and I've explained it numerous times. The living sperm and the living egg unite. At that moment whatever comes into existence begins to die meaning an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life did not materialize. Therefore, no human being came into existence.

Rather than split hairs we can say any fertilization that occurs and dies means whatever may have formed did not have the ability to carry on the processes of life which is a requirement for something to be classified an organism. That's the science, my ignorant friend.
 
Dixie said:
It has nothing to do with Damo or anyone else. Biology defines "living" through a specific set of standards, namely, that something IS organic and NOT inorganic. We can debate viability, quality of the living state, or whatever, it doesn't change the biological fact.
Click to expand...

Biology also defines an organism and that includes having the ability to carry on the processes of life and it is necessary to have an organism in order to have a human being.

Why do you continue to deny that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top