When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

An organism is different from living tissue. We've been over this already. An egg that has been fertilized, becomes a living organism by every definition of the word, and no biologist disputes that. In fact, you are the only one trying to dispute that, and you are failing to do so, contradicting your own point in the same sentence... see my sig quote!

Furthermore, I think we've discovered evidence to refute Stringy's argument that legal/medical human life must rely on brain activity. Apple is obviously living, it keeps posting! It's obviously brain-dead because of WHAT it keeps posting!
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay. That does not change or answer the question. The brain dead are living, but in your argument are legally dead because they are 'dying.' How do you know the zygote is not 'dying?'

I hope you like the corner. You chose it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, all living things are not in the process of dying. First, we grow. Our bodies grow. Our internal organs grow.
 
apple0154 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I see you have a new broken record:

50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip
 
RStringfield said:
Okay. That does not change or answer the question. The brain dead are living, but in your argument are legally dead because they are 'dying.' How do you know the zygote is not 'dying?'

I hope you like the corner. You chose it.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that an organism can be in the state of dying, after all, aren't we ALL in the state of dying? ...Who's in the corner now?
 
Dixie said:
An organism is different from living tissue. We've been over this already. An egg that has been fertilized, becomes a living organism by every definition of the word, and no biologist disputes that. In fact, you are the only one trying to dispute that, and you are failing to do so, contradicting your own point in the same sentence... see my sig quote!

Furthermore, I think we've discovered evidence to refute Stringy's argument that legal/medical human life must rely on brain activity. Apple is obviously living, it keeps posting! It's obviously brain-dead because of WHAT it keeps posting!
Click to expand...

Why don't you do a Google and stop this nonsense? An organism has to meet certain criteria.

As for your sig you can take anything you want out of context and I really don't care. A fertilized cell, made from a living sperm and a living egg, may survive for a period of time. That does not mean it is an organism unless it can carry on the processes of life and considering over 50% can't carry on the processes of life the only logical conclusion one can draw is the majority of them are not organisms which means they are not human beings.
 
apple0154 said:
Why don't you do a Google and stop this nonsense? An organism has to meet certain criteria.

As for your sig you can take anything you want out of context and I really don't care. A fertilized cell, made from a living sperm and a living egg, may survive for a period of time. That does not mean it is an organism unless it can carry on the processes of life and considering over 50% can't carry on the processes of life the only logical conclusion one can draw is the majority of them are not organisms which means they are not human beings.
Click to expand...

Then that means that nothing that's alive now, is an organism (using your logic); because 100% of us aren't going to be able to carry on the process of living.
 
Why don't you READ THIS and try to comprehend what the words say....


Fertilization is the process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism. Fertilization includes the union of the cytoplasm of the gametes (called plasmogamy) followed by the union of the nuclei of the two gametes (called karyogamy).

It IS A PROCESS....

Conception (from medical definition)
is an imprecise term denoting the formation of a viable zygote.
The pertinent words being "imprecise", and "viable"....
Viable means capable of living, developing and growing, etc.
I think my logic is reasonable and sound...

A sperm penetrates an egg, starting a process (fertilization)
A viable zygote is formed (capable of living, developing, etc.)

At the moment in time that the zygote becomes viable, a human being is created and grows, develops, matures and dies....
 
apple0154 said:
Why don't you do a Google and stop this nonsense? An organism has to meet certain criteria.

As for your sig you can take anything you want out of context and I really don't care. A fertilized cell, made from a living sperm and a living egg, may survive for a period of time. That does not mean it is an organism unless it can carry on the processes of life and considering over 50% can't carry on the processes of life the only logical conclusion one can draw is the majority of them are not organisms which means they are not human beings.
Click to expand...
My guess is your number is high. Most of those that fail to implant were successful starts, other than the failure to implant. They will unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on whom they would be born to and who is talking about it) will die.

A residual body doesn't happen "more than 50%" of the time.
 
apple0154 said:
Why don't you do a Google and stop this nonsense? An organism has to meet certain criteria.

As for your sig you can take anything you want out of context and I really don't care. A fertilized cell, made from a living sperm and a living egg, may survive for a period of time. That does not mean it is an organism unless it can carry on the processes of life and considering over 50% can't carry on the processes of life the only logical conclusion one can draw is the majority of them are not organisms which means they are not human beings.
Click to expand...

Organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In biology, an organism is any living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

The term "organism" (Greek ὀργανισμός - organismos, from Ancient Greek ὄργανον - organon "organ, instrument, tool") first appeared in the English language in 1701 and took on its current definition by 1834 (Oxford English Dictionary).

Scientific classification in biology considers organisms synonymous with life on Earth. Based on cell type, organisms may be divided into the prokaryotic and eukaryotic groups. The prokaryotes represent two separate domains, the Bacteria and Archaea. Eukaryotic organisms, with a membrane-bounded cell nucleus, also contain organelles, namely mitochondria and (in plants) plastids, generally considered to be derived from endosymbiotic bacteria.[1] Fungi, animals and plants are examples of species that are eukaryotes.

More recently a clade, Neomura, has been proposed, which groups together the Archaea and Eukarya. Neomura is thought to have evolved from Bacteria, more specifically from Actinobacteria.[2]

The word "organism" may broadly be defined as an assembly of molecules that function as a more or less stable whole and has the properties of life. However, many sources propose definitions that exclude viruses and theoretically-possible man-made non-organic life forms.[3] Viruses are dependent on the biochemical machinery of a host cell for reproduction.

Chambers Online Reference provides a broad definition: "any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction".
--------------------------------------------------------

I am not finding anything that says something must be immortal to be considered life. That IS your argument, and Google doesn't seem to have anything regarding it. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
I don't dispute that an organism can be in the state of dying, after all, aren't we ALL in the state of dying? ...Who's in the corner now?
Click to expand...

No.

Let's try to put it a little more pointedly since you insist on evading. How do you know the zygote is not 'dying' to the degree that is sufficient for you to say the brain dead are dead?

You might be 'dying' to that degree but not all of us are.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I see you have a new broken record:

50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip, 50% of them spontaneously abo.....skip
Click to expand...

I do understand your point. I wish I didn't have to repeat but Dixie has great difficulty understanding logic.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, we are ALL in the state of dying, every day we come a little closer to the day we die. Are you claiming that humans are immortal now?
Click to expand...

Your inability to comprehend is astonishing. Just because we come closer to the day we die does not mean we are dying from day one. Obviously, you are unaware of what a life cycle is.
 
apple0154 said:
Your inability to comprehend is astonishing. Just because we come closer to the day we die does not mean we are dying from day one. Obviously, you are unaware of what a life cycle is.
Click to expand...

But we do start dying, from day one.
Unless you have something to show when that day is.
 
RStringfield said:
No.

Let's try to put it a little more pointedly since you insist on evading. How do you know the zygote is not 'dying' to the degree that is sufficient for you to say the brain dead are dead?

You might be 'dying' to that degree but not all of us are.
Click to expand...

We are all dying, from zygote stage to geriatric stage, there is no exception. In fact, anything that is in a state of living, is in a state of dying, it is part of the cycle.

As for the sufficiency of saying the brain dead are dead, I didn't make that determination, I wasn't in favor of starving Terri Schiavo to death, that was what YOUR side argued. I think I correctly explained why man makes that arbitrary judgment in the case of death and the process of dying as opposed to cases of life and the process of living, and you never refuted it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then that means that nothing that's alive now, is an organism (using your logic); because 100% of us aren't going to be able to carry on the process of living.
Click to expand...

I see you have the same inability at comprehension as Dixie. Do you not understand what a life cycle is?
 
apple0154 said:
Your inability to comprehend is astonishing. Just because we come closer to the day we die does not mean we are dying from day one. Obviously, you are unaware of what a life cycle is.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with my ability to comprehend. Something that dies has to first be living, it is YOU who doesn't seem to comprehend that. Something that is alive is not going to live forever, it is in the process of dying from the moment it starts living... again, something you seem to not be comprehending.

You are providing pretty convincing evidence to refute Stringy's point about the brain dead not being considered alive. Obviously you are alive, you keep posting and dead people can't post... Obviously brain dead, because thinking people wouldn't be taking the positions of insane absurdity you've taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top