When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
I see you have the same inability at comprehension as Dixie. Do you not understand what a life cycle is?
Click to expand...

I think most everyone is taking this position. Even Stringy, as stupid as he is, hasn't tried to argue that something can be alive but never live! You have NO support for your ignorant viewpoint! Believe me, there are dozens of people here who would LOVE to contradict me if I were wrong, and where are they?
 
bravo said:
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....
Click to expand...

Exactly! That's precisely what I've been trying to get across. A viable zygote grows, develops, matures and dies. Grows and develops into a baby. That is what it's supposed to do but many don't. The fact is over 50% don't. Over 50% are not viable. Thus, over 50% are not human beings.
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly! That's precisely what I've been trying to get across. A viable zygote grows, develops, matures and dies. Grows and develops into a baby. That is what it's supposed to do but many don't. The fact is over 50% don't. Over 50% are not viable. Thus, over 50% are not human beings.
Click to expand...

Notice this line...???

Conception (from medical definition)
is an imprecise term denoting the formation of a viable zygote.

If a viable zygote is not created, there has been no conception.....understand that....???
There has been no human created....
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly! That's precisely what I've been trying to get across. A viable zygote grows, develops, matures and dies. Grows and develops into a baby. That is what it's supposed to do but many don't. The fact is over 50% don't. Over 50% are not viable. Thus, over 50% are not human beings.
Click to expand...

And 100% of anything that lives, will die.
Using your logic, mankind is not viable.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Considering neither the woman nor anyone else knows the fertilized cell or zygote is there it is entirely up to it to implant. That is part of a cell or zygote meeting certain criteria.

The "official" definition is "the ability to carry on the processes of life". That's just another way of saying it has to be able to survive. It may be living tissue and it may live an hour or a day or maybe longer but the point is it's dying, not growing.

When I say "it's dying" I'm not talking about an organism because it is not an organism which is evident by it's inability to carry on the processes of life or, in simple terms, survive. It has to implant. If it can not implant it can not survive. It has to be able to implant on its own. It has to have the ability to implant.

A successful start is not the same as "carrying on".
 
apple0154 said:
Considering neither the woman nor anyone else knows the fertilized cell or zygote is there it is entirely up to it to implant. That is part of a cell or zygote meeting certain criteria.

The "official" definition is "the ability to carry on the processes of life". That's just another way of saying it has to be able to survive. It may be living tissue and it may live an hour or a day or maybe longer but the point is it's dying, not growing.

When I say "it's dying" I'm not talking about an organism because it is not an organism which is evident by it's inability to carry on the processes of life or, in simple terms, survive. It has to implant. If it can not implant it can not survive. It has to be able to implant on its own. It has to have the ability to implant.

A successful start is not the same as "carrying on".
Click to expand...
However, the criteria you mention was whether an organism forms. That it didn't successfully implant doesn't change that once it starts to successfully grow, as the vast majority will, it does indeed become an organism. Even by your definition.

The post I quoted tried to say that an organism didn't form "more than 50% of the time", that was false.
 
after listening to 44 pages of your repetitive lame arguments I'm prepared to sanction the taking of at least one human being's life just so we won't have to hear the same drivel one more time.....
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

:palm:

Here is what you said, dumbfuck.

Stringy, if you hold no distinctive differentiation between the process of LIVING and the process of DYING... if one is no more important than the other, you may have a valid point. The thing is, most humans regard LIVING as fundamentally more important than DYING. If you simply do not have any real value for life, and it is no more fundamentally important than death, then both can be compared in the same way, which is what you are trying to do. Fortunately, most of us do regard LIFE as slightly more important than DEATH!
Click to expand...

Now you are saying the zygote is dying too.

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.
Click to expand...

What? You just said that zygotes are dying, we are all dying. All are cases of dying. You have not explained what is the "distinctive differentiation" in YOUR nonsensical legal definition of life between the zygote and the brain dead?

I refuted your nonsense, but much like trying to explain how one thing can be equally divided into thirds, it is wasted on you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But we do start dying, from day one.
Unless you have something to show when that day is.
Click to expand...

Good grief. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever about the human life cycle? Put down the propaganda pamphlets and pick up a legitimate medical book or if you have difficulty with books do a Google.

The human body grows to a certain point and then slowly deteriorates. It does not start deteriorating from day one.

I don't usually give up on slow people. In fact, during my career I enjoyed showing others how I did my job. In more than a few instances they'd comment that most supervisors didn't want to show others as they were worried someone would take their job. My reply was if there wasn't anyone capable of doing my job it would hold up my promotion so I tried to educate those whom I supervised. Then we all moved up.

I'm trying, USFreedom, but you aren't putting your heart into this.
 
apple0154 said:
Considering neither the woman nor anyone else knows the fertilized cell or zygote is there it is entirely up to it to implant. That is part of a cell or zygote meeting certain criteria.

The "official" definition is "the ability to carry on the processes of life". That's just another way of saying it has to be able to survive. It may be living tissue and it may live an hour or a day or maybe longer but the point is it's dying, not growing.

When I say "it's dying" I'm not talking about an organism because it is not an organism which is evident by it's inability to carry on the processes of life or, in simple terms, survive. It has to implant. If it can not implant it can not survive. It has to be able to implant on its own. It has to have the ability to implant.

A successful start is not the same as "carrying on".
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Having the ability to survive, without external help, is not necessary for biological life or any legal/medical definition of life. In fact that would mean we should eliminate all but self administered medical care. There would be no point in a medical definition at all.

Life does not begin at implantation. However, that would be a lot better measurement since protecting life at conception would allow/require us to regulate every thing a woman does. How could we ban a so called "abortion pill" and not anything that makes uterus less hospitable to the zygote?
 
apple0154 said:
The human body grows to a certain point and then slowly deteriorates. It does not start deteriorating from day one.
Click to expand...

And according to Dixie, we can remove legal and medical protections once that deterioration has begun. "Don't trust anyone over 30" can be changed to "shoot anyone over 30" and made into a law.
 
And Schiavo wasn't removed from care because she was brain dead. She was not brain dead she was in a PVS. She was removed from care because the court found that that would have been what she wanted.
 
RStringfield said:
:palm:

Here is what you said, dumbfuck.

Now you are saying the zygote is dying too.

What? You just said that zygotes are dying, we are all dying. All are cases of dying. You have not explained what is the "distinctive differentiation" in YOUR nonsensical legal definition of life between the zygote and the brain dead?
Click to expand...

I understand how you can be confused. Things that are living, are in the process of dying, and things that are dying, are in the process of living. Even though this is always the case, a zygote and the brain dead are different, because the zygote is in the beginning phase of living and the brain dead is in the ending phase of dying. The zygote will eventually gain brain function, the brain dead will never regain brain function. Both organisms will ultimately die and have no brain function, as all organisms will ultimately die. The question becomes, which is fundamentally more important, or are they of equal importance, and I think most people give more weight to the living.
 
Dixie said:
I think most everyone is taking this position. Even Stringy, as stupid as he is, hasn't tried to argue that something can be alive but never live! You have NO support for your ignorant viewpoint! Believe me, there are dozens of people here who would LOVE to contradict me if I were wrong, and where are they?
Click to expand...

Something that is living is not necessarily an organism. For example, a living piece if skin is not an organism. In order to be classified as an organism it has to carry on the processes of life. It has to be self-contained, if you will.
 
apple0154 said:
Something that is living is not necessarily an organism. For example, a living piece if skin is not an organism. In order to be classified as an organism it has to carry on the processes of life. It has to be self-contained, if you will.
Click to expand...
So since I don't carry food and water within my body I'm not an organism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top