When Does Life End?

[Damocles]

We have been talking about personhood. Dixie is just stuck on the red herring that you employ.

Science clearly impacts the discussion. The problem is confusing a scientific definition as science or as Dixie does a scientific fact and dropping the context.

In science, the definition is only useful to test whether various things meet what the scientist mean by life. Sometimes something fails or passes a test unexpectedly and instead of simply saying it is alive or not, the scientific community changes the definition.

Saying the zygote or brain dead are alive poses no problem in biology. It does not upset the biological definition. It does pose a problem in the legal and medical fields and upsets the definition. Our realization of the heart's insignificance upset the definition.

It is abundantly clear that the brain is the organ of concern in assigning rights and therefore in forming any legal definition of life (if none us had a brain we would hardly care who killed who). We even limit rights of certain people with diminished mental capacity or who's brain has not yet fully developed.

Note to Dixie and the dumbasses: no one says people with less mental capacity are less deserving of medical care. So, no I am not arguing we should be able to kill 5-year-olds or any of you idiots, nor should any appear in the next episode of "Man vs. Wild."

I think the problem is not focusing on the place where you want to apply the subjective measure. (Again subjective doesn't mean "bad" it just means that the word changes meaning with the subject.)

If you ever want the discussion to move past the zygote stage into the embryo stage you need to progress it yourself. You also need to talk about the definitions you want to use. It is equally scientific to talk about "brain death" being the point of death as it is to speak about conception being the beginning of life. The matter isn't suddenly "unscientific" unless you try to say that the embryo isn't "alive" without applying your more subjective point.

Just stick to the point and you will have more success actually having the conversation you want. I surmise that you are having the conversation you want, or you would have done this by now.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Weak evasion. You are saying that lack of a certain level of mental activity is sufficient to say life is not present for legal or medical purposes in one case and not the other.

I am not "evading" anything. Yes, I am saying one standard applies for living and it doesn't necessarily apply for dying. The reasoning is, life is fundamentally more important to us than death. IF they were equal, we could apply the same standard to both, but they are not equal in most people's minds.

I am far more concerned with the living than you are. I am not asking fully alive women to sacrifice themselves for something that is not sufficiently alive to keep on life support.

In this thread, you are not concerned with life, you are consumed with death. No one else is arguing that fully alive women should sacrifice themselves, and I don't know of anyone who would oppose abortion to save the life of the mother, most people who do oppose abortion, do allow that exception.

Yes, but unlike you I realize that is unavoidable.

Unavoidable? No, it's really NOT unavoidable, we once had a much different criteria for life and death, nothing is unavoidable. Inconvenient? Problematic? Perhaps... but not unavoidable at all.

Exactly. As has been stated repeatedly, the arbitrarily established biological criteria does not work in this context.

There is no arbitrary establishment in the biological criteria, it is a matter of science, which is not arbitrary. Man-made criteria are arbitrary, like saying something is "dead" when the brain or heart stops working. Life begins at conception, that is a clinical fact of biology, not an arbitrary determination.

That it does not and, more importantly, should not conform to the biological definition.

It doesn't! We've already established that it doesn't! We have a different standard for life AND death in a legal/medical sense, than biology has. The only issue at hand is, how much do you value life? How much more consideration do you want to give the human organism when in the process of living as opposed to the process of dying, and most people are willing to give a little more leeway for the process of life, because we generally value life over death. You are apparently an exception.

 

[apple0154]

obviously, because some of them make it.......if you take a look at a marathon race and you discover that some have crossed the finish line and others have dropped in exhaustion somewhere along the way would you argue that none of them were running?.....

Good point, however, if some never left the starting line I would argue they were never running and that's exactly what happens with over 50% of the fertilized cells. They never leave the starting line defined as growing/dividing.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Good point, however, if some never left the starting line I would argue they were never running and that's exactly what happens with over 50% of the fertilized cells. They never leave the starting line defined as growing/dividing.

wrong....conception is leaving the starting line....birth is the finish line....they are all running....

 

[apple0154]

If it LIVES

IT WAS ALIVE!

IDIOT!

My goodness. You have a thick skull. Let's try another approach.

What is "IT"? The zygote? If you're talking about the zygote living then you are wrong because the zygote has to be able to carry on the processes of life and it's been proven over 50% do not carry on the processes of life. Some don't even divide once.

 

[Timshel]

I think the problem is not focusing on the place where you want to apply the subjective measure. (Again subjective doesn't mean "bad" it just means that the word changes meaning with the subject.)

Which brings us to my previous point that it is no more subjective than the biological or any other definition. Your use of subjective is the same as saying it is contextual. I prefer contextual or relative.

Subjective is how I would describe Dixie's use, applying the definition
differently within a context or field. Dixie's definition is wholly dependent on the subject (i.e., brain dead or zygote). The definition I am arguing for is not truly based on the subject but the wider context or field. It does not change from the zygote to the brain dead, but it would not work in the context or field of biology either.

You can certainly say it is subjective, but only if you are willing to agree that all definitions are subjective.

I have stuck to the point, I simply do not choose to give up the word "life" simply because the biological definition does not work in this context. That would imply the biological definition is special or superior. It is not.

 

[apple0154]

The "process" begins immediately after successful fertilization. If the fertilization was not successful, no living organism was ever formed, it is two dead inorganic cells, and no one is concerned or discussing dead inorganic cells here. If the fertilization WAS successful, regardless of how long it carried on the process of life, it WAS LIVING! You simply can't make a logical argument to the contrary. We can go on and on for another 10 pages or 100 pages, and the FACT will remain the same.

It has to be able to carry on the processes of life. Do you know what "carry on" means? It's similar to what you've been doing here. Not just one nonsensical post but day after day of nonsensical posts. That's an example of what "carry on" means. A continuation.

If the zygote can not carry on the processes of life it is not considered an organism and it has to be considered an organism before it can be considered a human being.

Experts in the field say over 50% of fertilized cells abort which means they were not able to carry on the processes of life which means they were not organisms which means they were not human beings. What is so difficult to follow?

Let's start with a simple question? Why would over 50% spontaneously abort if they were capable of carrying on the processes of life? Spend a few minutes thinking about that and let's take a look at your answer. OK?

 

[Timshel]

I am not "evading" anything. Yes, I am saying one standard applies for living and it doesn't necessarily apply for dying. The reasoning is, life is fundamentally more important to us than death. IF they were equal, we could apply the same standard to both, but they are not equal in most people's minds.

This is just a convenient rationalization.

In a test of whether an existent is alive or dead, that is, whether life is present the zygote and brain dead are fairly equivalent. If life is not present or no longer sufficiently present in the brain dead the it can not be said to be present/sufficiently present in the zygote.

It is as if you are saying a battery that can no longer power a device is dead. But one that is charging but not yet able to power a device is not dead. That's just incoherent nonsense which makes for a bad definition.

In this thread, you are not concerned with life, you are consumed with death. No one else is arguing that fully alive women should sacrifice themselves, and I don't know of anyone who would oppose abortion to save the life of the mother, most people who do oppose abortion, do allow that exception.

There are significant risks other than death. Further, I think the risk of death probably rises for some period after conception if not through out. You are demanding that fully alive (alive in practically any sense of the word) women accept risk for something that is not sufficiently alive to burden a life support machine or to stop us from salvaging its useful parts.

Unavoidable? No, it's really NOT unavoidable, we once had a much different criteria for life and death, nothing is unavoidable. Inconvenient? Problematic? Perhaps... but not unavoidable at all.

It certainly appears unavoidable. There are few words that have one single definition that fits any and all of things we mean and none of the things we do not mean in every context.

We draw a line, based on our knowledge, to form definitions. That line is rather arbitrary.

There is no arbitrary establishment in the biological criteria, it is a matter of science, which is not arbitrary. Man-made criteria are arbitrary, like saying something is "dead" when the brain or heart stops working. Life begins at conception, that is a clinical fact of biology, not an arbitrary determination.

Every scientific definition is arbitrary. It is not a proven fact, it is not science. It changes as result of science as we test hard cases and are forced to reevaluate the arbitrary criteria.

If the scientific definitions of life are not arbitrary then please explain to me why they do not agree. I am going to tell you why. Because different fields of science have different, arbitrarily, chosen criteria.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It has to be able to carry on the processes of life. Do you know what "carry on" means? It's similar to what you've been doing here. Not just one nonsensical post but day after day of nonsensical posts. That's an example of what "carry on" means. A continuation.

If the zygote can not carry on the processes of life it is not considered an organism and it has to be considered an organism before it can be considered a human being.

Experts in the field say over 50% of fertilized cells abort which means they were not able to carry on the processes of life which means they were not organisms which means they were not human beings. What is so difficult to follow?

Let's start with a simple question? Why would over 50% spontaneously abort if they were capable of carrying on the processes of life? Spend a few minutes thinking about that and let's take a look at your answer. OK?

Experts in the field say that 100% of people born, will die.
I guess thy're not able to carry on the process of life, which means they are not organism; which would imply that they aren't human beings.

 

[apple0154]

In this thread, you are not concerned with life, you are consumed with death. No one else is arguing that fully alive women should sacrifice themselves, and I don't know of anyone who would oppose abortion to save the life of the mother, most people who do oppose abortion, do allow that exception.

It doesn't! We've already established that it doesn't! We have a different standard for life AND death in a legal/medical sense, than biology has. The only issue at hand is, how much do you value life? How much more consideration do you want to give the human organism when in the process of living as opposed to the process of dying, and most people are willing to give a little more leeway for the process of life, because we generally value life over death. You are apparently an exception.

All your hypocritical blathering about how you value life is repugnant. You don't give a damn about the unborn. You have no objection to a woman with a faulty body deliberately murdering an innocent, defenseless human being in order to save her own life.

What about a serious medical problem? Should she be allowed to murder an innocent human being if she may partially lose her eye sight? Or is the only thing you're interested in is the perverse intrusion into woman's sex lives?

Be a man for once in your life and answer the questions. Let's see exactly where you stand or, more appropriately, where you crawl. Do you sanction the murdering of an innocent human being in order to save the life of a human being with a defective body? Do you sanction the murdering of an innocent human being in order to prevent possible severe but not deadly medical damage to a human being with a defective body?

If you possess the slightest morals and values let's see them. Let's get to the root of why you insist something that isn't a human being be classified as one and then treat it like garbage to the extent you condone murdering that so-called human being as a precaution against the possible damage to a defective human being. And precaution is all it is because few, if any, doctors can unequivocally state a pregnant woman with a defective body will die. Maybe there's a high possibility but, again, it appears you have no problem killing that innocent human being you pretend to care about.

You are, at best, a hypocrite and, at worst, a pervert and a liar.

Take your hands out of your pants, place them on your keyboard and answer the questions, you disgusting specimen of a man.

(Well, I feel better I got that off my chest.)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It has to be able to carry on the processes of life. Do you know what "carry on" means? It's similar to what you've been doing here. Not just one nonsensical post but day after day of nonsensical posts. That's an example of what "carry on" means. A continuation.

If the zygote can not carry on the processes of life it is not considered an organism and it has to be considered an organism before it can be considered a human being.

Experts in the field say over 50% of fertilized cells abort which means they were not able to carry on the processes of life which means they were not organisms which means they were not human beings. What is so difficult to follow?

Let's start with a simple question? Why would over 50% spontaneously abort if they were capable of carrying on the processes of life? Spend a few minutes thinking about that and let's take a look at your answer. OK?

Somehow you are getting confused by the term "carry on the process of life" and you think it means something has to carry on the process forever, and it doesn't say that. If it did, nothing could be considered human life! Sorry to disappoint you, but your point defies logic and is untenable.

I agreed with you weeks ago, that something which has died is no longer a living organism. You seem to be stuck on that point, and wanting to make that mean nothing that can't live forever is actually life.

 

[apple0154]

Experts in the field say that 100% of people born, will die.
I guess thy're not able to carry on the process of life, which means they are not organism; which would imply that they aren't human beings.

I didn't make up the definition of organism. If we're going to talk science, which seems to be the panacea of anti-abortionists, something has to reach the level of organism. Once reached it does not alternate between being an organism and not being an organism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't make up the definition of organism. If we're going to talk science, which seems to be the panacea of anti-abortionists, something has to reach the level of organism. Once reached it does not alternate between being an organism and not being an organism.

No, you're just misconstruing the definition to mean something totally illogical. An organism does not have to "reach a level" to be considered a living organism, if it is living, it is an organism, that is what "organism" implies.

 

[apple0154]

Somehow you are getting confused by the term "carry on the process of life" and you think it means something has to carry on the process forever, and it doesn't say that. If it did, nothing could be considered human life! Sorry to disappoint you, but your point defies logic and is untenable.

I agreed with you weeks ago, that something which has died is no longer a living organism. You seem to be stuck on that point, and wanting to make that mean nothing that can't live forever is actually life.

As I mentioned before if the mother does not deliberately interfere the fertilized cell is expected to result in a birth. I'm not saying the baby has to live to a good, old age or any age for that matter.

To use the Olympics as an example (Canadian hockey won the gold) the team is not expected to continue winning games in order to say they won the gold. They met the threshold.

When a person studies to become a doctor once they pass their exams and internship they are a doctor. The threshold has been met. They are a doctor whether they live one day or 50 years more.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As I mentioned before if the mother does not deliberately interfere the fertilized cell is expected to result in a birth. I'm not saying the baby has to live to a good, old age or any age for that matter.

To use the Olympics as an example (Canadian hockey won the gold) the team is not expected to continue winning games in order to say they won the gold. They met the threshold.

When a person studies to become a doctor once they pass their exams and internship they are a doctor. The threshold has been met. They are a doctor whether they live one day or 50 years more.

In human reproduction, there is no such thing as a "fertilized cell" and you continue to show your ignorance in using the improper terminology. At the point of fertilization, the egg cell stops being a single cell, it is a living organism.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I didn't make up the definition of organism. If we're going to talk science, which seems to be the panacea of anti-abortionists, something has to reach the level of organism. Once reached it does not alternate between being an organism and not being an organism.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that 100% of all living things are in the process of dying.
Using your narrow definition, it means that they are not able to carry on the process of lfe and are therefore are not organisms.

After all, it is your method of reasoning.

 

[apple0154]

No, you're just misconstruing the definition to mean something totally illogical. An organism does not have to "reach a level" to be considered a living organism, if it is living, it is an organism, that is what "organism" implies.

That's not correct. Check the definition of organism. It has to be able to do certain things, otherwise, any living tissue would be considered an organism.

Do a Google. I don't want to misstate the exact requirements because I know some folks just wait to jump on each and every word so you're best to check yourself.

 

[Timshel]

No, you're just misconstruing the definition to mean something totally illogical. An organism does not have to "reach a level" to be considered a living organism, if it is living, it is an organism, that is what "organism" implies.

How do you know it is not 'dying' Dixie. You want us to jeopardize the health of someone we know is living, for something that might be 'living' or might be 'dying' as you define those terms. That's not a rational position nor is it the pro life position.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How do you know it is not 'dying' Dixie. You want us to jeopardize the health of someone we know is living, for something that might be 'living' or might be 'dying' as you define those terms. That's not a rational position nor is it the pro life position.

It is illogical to believe something can be dying if it is not living. Dying is the process of not living, so things that are said to "die" must first be in a state of life. Otherwise, it is illogical to say they are dying.

 

[apple0154]

In human reproduction, there is no such thing as a "fertilized cell" and you continue to show your ignorance in using the improper terminology. At the point of fertilization, the egg cell stops being a single cell, it is a living organism.

You just don't get it. A cell can be fertilized and not be an organism and that's most likely why over 50% of them spontaneously abort. The fertilized cell has to meet certain criteria in order to be be classified an organism.

Why do you continue to argue the point when a simple Google would show you are wrong?