When Does Life End?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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

Not correct. From day one, the human body deteriorates, skin cells die and new cells are produced. Both processes are happening at the same time. Eventually, the balance tips in the favor of deterioration, but this is strictly dependent on the individual and a host of variables. You've shown a fundamental ignorance on this subject that I don't believe can be matched.

 

[Timshel]

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.

Though you have now acknowledged that brain function is required for the legal and medical definition of life, you are still fundamentally wrong.

The zygote MIGHT gain brain function. The chances, I believe, are around 50% that the zygote will gain brain function. We do not know that the zygote is progressing towards life (brain function) or not. It may be dying (not just in your dumbass sense that we are all dying, but really dying).

So, you would have us jeopardize the life and limit the actions of a living mother for the possibility of life in the zygote. To call that position pro life is absurd.

We do not demand that the doctor or anyone else risk their lives in the case of the ill when we know for sure that brain function is present. I see no reason why we should do that to a potential mother before brain function is present.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

An "organism" is a collection of parts working together to carry on the process of life. This is what you have as soon as successful conception has occurred. There is no criteria for how long the organism must carry on the process, that is where you seem to be confused.

 

[apple0154]

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....

Exactly and what does viable mean? Synonyms are: practical, feasible, usable, adaptable.

We say a person is a viable candidate for a job. What does that mean? It means the person can do the job. Not just sit in the chair.

We've been over this a hundred times. A viable zygote has to be able to do certain things and one of those things is to become a baby.

They're not talking about just a zygote. They're talking about a viable zygote. One that can fulfill the functions expected of a zygote.

Why are you having such difficulty with this? You submit a definition and then refuse to stand by it. What's the point of that?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Though you have now acknowledged that brain function is required for the legal and medical definition of life, you are still fundamentally wrong.

The zygote MIGHT gain brain function. The chances, I believe, are around 50% that the zygote will gain brain function. We do not know that the zygote is progressing towards life (brain function) or not. It may be dying (not just in your dumbass sense that we are all dying, but really dying).

So, you would have us jeopardize the life and limit the actions of a living mother for the possibility of life in the zygote. To call that position pro life is absurd.

We do not demand that the doctor or anyone else risk their lives in the case of the ill when we know for sure that brain function is present. I see no reason why we should do that to a potential mother before brain function is present.

I would say it is 100% probability that a healthy viable zygote will eventually have brain function, everything it needs to grow a brain is there already, nothing else has to be added later, it just takes time.

Again, I have never advocated we jeopardize life to prevent abortions. Stop spreading that lie and pretending that is the case, no one has made such an argument. Almost to a fault, every anti-abortion advocate makes the exception for life of the mother.

 

[apple0154]

And 100% of anything that lives, will die.
Using your logic, mankind is not viable.

Wrong! Mankind has a life cycle.

Again, refer to the definition of viable. I just explained it to Bravo.

A viable candidate for Presidency does not mean the individual will be President forever. It means the person is capable of doing the job for 4 years.

A viable zygote does not mean it is expected to become a baby and live for eternity. It is expected to become a baby.

 

[Damocles]

Wrong! Mankind has a life cycle.

Again, refer to the definition of viable. I just explained it to Bravo.

A viable candidate for Presidency does not mean the individual will be President forever. It means the person is capable of doing the job for 4 years.

A viable zygote does not mean it is expected to become a baby and live for eternity. It is expected to become a baby.

Viability for a zygote, according to the definition posted earlier, is when it begins to grow. If it attaches it becomes a viable embryo and enters the next stage.

 

[apple0154]

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.

It's not an organism by my definition or by the definition science gives it. It has to be able to implant. It has to carry on the processes of life and one of the basic processes of a zygote is to implant.

 

[Timshel]

???

Where did I ever state such a thing?

It was the result of your reasoning. They are dying.

You now finally acknowledge that brain function is the line where life is not present for medical and legal definitions. Now you are just giving us some touchy feely bs about why the zygote should not be judged by that same measure.

You now seem to be arguing what many others in this thread have, that the zygote MAY be developing. I have agreed that is an important distinction between the brain dead and a zygote. But then we get to the point of whether that is enough to jeopardize an actual life. Since I am pro life and not pro potential life over actual life, I say no.

We have no right to demand that the mother risk her life/health for the zygote in which life (medical/legal) is not yet present.

 

[Damocles]

It's not an organism by my definition or by the definition science gives it. It has to be able to implant. It has to carry on the processes of life and one of the basic processes of a zygote is to implant.

There is no requirement of attachment for any definition of "organism" that has been posted. You want it to be so badly that you effectively ignore the definitions provided.

 

[apple0154]

That honor belongs to apple, which goes to prove that he's the anti-christ and his message is intended to destroy mankind.

See how everything eventually works out??

You mean the video of Obama I submitted isn't true???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Exactly and what does viable mean? Synonyms are: practical, feasible, usable, adaptable.

We say a person is a viable candidate for a job. What does that mean? It means the person can do the job. Not just sit in the chair.

We've been over this a hundred times. A viable zygote has to be able to do certain things and one of those things is to become a baby.

They're not talking about just a zygote. They're talking about a viable zygote. One that can fulfill the functions expected of a zygote.

Why are you having such difficulty with this? You submit a definition and then refuse to stand by it. What's the point of that?

No one has ever argued that any woman carry a non-viable dead cell to term. Stop being silly!

 

[apple0154]

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.....

Awww. Don't be so hard on yourself, PP. You're OK even if a bit uninformed and misled.

 

[Timshel]

It's not an organism by my definition or by the definition science gives it. It has to be able to implant. It has to carry on the processes of life and one of the basic processes of a zygote is to implant.

I don't know where you are going with this but that seems absurd. It may not be alive in the legal or human sense, but it is definitely an organism and alive (so long as it continues it's activity) in the biological/zygote sense.

Unless you are arguing that we do not yet know that it will have the necessary equipment to carry on the processes as a human and therefore is not yet alive in the human sense. But, it is an organism.

A tadpole is not a frog and may never develop the capacity to live as a frog, but is an organism and is alive so long as it is able to carry on the processes of life as a tadpole.

The life of a zygote is not the life of a human and cannot truly be said to be a human until it develops the ability to continue the processes of life as a human. That brings us to about 20 weeks.

 

[apple0154]

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.

Survive, yes. The point is you're talking about something that is already an organism. We do not know if the cell that is unable to implant is an organism. Maybe if/when we can go in, remove the cell, fix what's wrong, then replace it so it can implant, fine. However, considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude they are not human beings.

An organism has to meet certain criteria first. That's the scientific requirement. Once it has met those requirements then there's certainly no problem helping it. It's a different story to say we can/should help a fertilized cell to become an organism. I suppose, at some later date, we may have the ability but we don't at this time nor know if it's possible.

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?

Ahhh. It's nice to see someone thinking this through. There are myriad questions that arise if a fertilized cell or zygote is classified as a human being. I occasionally pose a few but the anti-abortionists never respond.

The first question is when can we say, with certainty, something is an organism. How can we prove a fertilized cell/zygote has the necessary ability or viability to carry on the processes of life? We do know that over 50% don't.

 

[Damocles]

Survive, yes. The point is you're talking about something that is already an organism. We do not know if the cell that is unable to implant is an organism. Maybe if/when we can go in, remove the cell, fix what's wrong, then replace it so it can implant, fine. However, considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude they are not human beings.

An organism has to meet certain criteria first. That's the scientific requirement. Once it has met those requirements then there's certainly no problem helping it. It's a different story to say we can/should help a fertilized cell to become an organism. I suppose, at some later date, we may have the ability but we don't at this time nor know if it's possible.



Ahhh. It's nice to see someone thinking this through. There are myriad questions that arise if a fertilized cell or zygote is classified as a human being. I occasionally pose a few but the anti-abortionists never respond.

The first question is when can we say, with certainty, something is an organism. How can we prove a fertilized cell/zygote has the necessary ability or viability to carry on the processes of life? We do know that over 50% don't.

So far I have made no argument that it is a "human being" in fact I have tried to direct the conversation to that point. A zygote is human life at its earliest stages, as yet incapable of any thought. But the real question is.. When do you believe the "Person Faerie" shows up to endow it with "personhood"? Many people use the subjective idea of the capacity for thought, basically the ability to think, "Wow, what is that?" when they come upon something interesting like feet while still in the mother's body. You however don't believe that the Person Faerie shows up until they are just exiting the vaginal canal.

 

[apple0154]

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.

Now don't go giving Dixie any ideas!!!

 

[apple0154]

So since I don't carry food and water within my body I'm not an organism?

Google, lad, Google. It's all there waiting for you. Obviously you don't even understand the basics.

 

[DamnYankee]

Google, lad, Google. It's all there waiting for you. Obviously you don't even understand the basics.

Actually I understand them quite well, having taken biology related courses in grad school. Care to answer my question instead of attacking my education?

 

[Timshel]

Survive, yes. The point is you're talking about something that is already an organism. We do not know if the cell that is unable to implant is an organism. Maybe if/when we can go in, remove the cell, fix what's wrong, then replace it so it can implant, fine. However, considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude they are not human beings.

An organism has to meet certain criteria first. That's the scientific requirement. Once it has met those requirements then there's certainly no problem helping it. It's a different story to say we can/should help a fertilized cell to become an organism. I suppose, at some later date, we may have the ability but we don't at this time nor know if it's possible.



Ahhh. It's nice to see someone thinking this through. There are myriad questions that arise if a fertilized cell or zygote is classified as a human being. I occasionally pose a few but the anti-abortionists never respond.

The first question is when can we say, with certainty, something is an organism. How can we prove a fertilized cell/zygote has the necessary ability or viability to carry on the processes of life? We do know that over 50% don't.

A zygote is an organism. There is no question that it is an organism. Is it a human organism? I say no, not until it develops the ability to live as a human rather than a zygote or whatever other stage it might be in.

Conversely, once we lose the capacity to live as humans, i.e., brain death, we are no longer a human organism. The human organism is then dead and whatever may survive is just a body. That body may by outward appearances seem to be human but is no longer alive as a human in any legal or medical sense of the word. In fact, I don't think it is even alive, as a human, in a biological sense.