When Does Life End?

[apple0154]

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.

Your logic is non-existent. Old cells die so new cells can replace them. It's called growing. As you said yourself, "Eventually, the balance tips in the favor of deterioration," and that's what I said. We grow and at a certain point we start to deteriorate. We do not deteriorate from day one.

First you say from day one and then you say "eventually". If both processes are happening at the same time one takes precedence. You have no conception of logic.

 

[apple0154]

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.

But not every conception can carry on the processes of life. That's where you're confused.

 

[Timshel]

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.

Person faerie? So when does that person faerie come to claim the person? That was the point of the op. You pretend it must be some magical thing but it is simply part of the biological process. The brain dead are not capable of life as a human. Why would anyone argue that a zygote is?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But not every conception can carry on the processes of life. That's where you're confused.

No living organism can carry on the process indefinitely. That's where YOU are confused. You are trying to establish an untenable standard. If it EVER carried on the process, it WAS living. There is no minimum time limit it must do this, in order to be considered what it is. You're being willfully stupid.

 

[Damocles]

Person faerie? So when does that person faerie come to claim the person? That was the point of the op. You pretend it must be some magical thing but it is simply part of the biological process. The brain dead are not capable of life as a human. Why would anyone argue that a zygote is?

Nah, I was just going for a depiction on what the actual thread is about. The moment the embryo or zygote becomes more than just alive and progresses into "person" or "human being"...

When does the "person" dust get applied?

You and I say when the embryo begins to think is when they become a "person"... others have different subjective measures. Now where we disagree is the effective permission to kill the progeny simply because it has yet to reach that status. I say we should remove it without an intent to kill it.

 

[Timshel]

But not every conception can carry on the processes of life. That's where you're confused.

If it carries on the processes of life as a zygote then it is alive as a zygote. When it is no longer capable of carrying on those processes it's a dead zygote. But most were alive as zygotes. They were not alive as humans.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your logic is non-existent. Old cells die so new cells can replace them. It's called growing. As you said yourself, "Eventually, the balance tips in the favor of deterioration," and that's what I said. We grow and at a certain point we start to deteriorate. We do not deteriorate from day one.

First you say from day one and then you say "eventually". If both processes are happening at the same time one takes precedence. You have no conception of logic.

Cells do not die so others can replace them, cells have no ability to make a determination on whether they need to die or live! Old cells die and new cells are produced, and this means the organism is living. We do not "grow to a certain point" and then begin to deteriorate! We are constantly growing and deteriorating at the same time, from the zygote phase to the geriatric phase, or whenever the organism stops the life process in between.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If it carries on the processes of life as a zygote then it is alive as a zygote. When it is no longer capable of carrying on those processes it's a dead zygote. But most were alive as zygotes. They were not alive as humans.

If they were alive at any point, they can only be defined as human life.

 

[Timshel]

Cells do not die so others can replace them, cells have no ability to make a determination on whether they need to die or live! Old cells die and new cells are produced, and this means the organism is living. We do not "grow to a certain point" and then begin to deteriorate! We are constantly growing and deteriorating at the same time, from the zygote phase to the geriatric phase, or whenever the organism stops the life process in between.

See this is stupid. Instead of trying to you are trying to twist and distort.

Clearly, what was meant is that at some point the death of cells overtakes the growth of new cells crucial to life. At that point we could be said to be dying. Your notion that we are dying from conception is stupid.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

See this is stupid. Instead of trying to you are trying to twist and distort.

Clearly, what was meant is that at some point the death of cells overtakes the growth of new cells crucial to life. At that point we could be said to be dying. Your notion that we are dying from conception is stupid.

I think I stated that pretty clearly. At some point, the deterioration overtakes the regeneration, and we eventually succumb to death.

It's not a "notion" that we are dying from conception, it is a biological fact that as soon as some organism begins living, it also begins the process of dying. Both are happening simultaneously, and we don't die because regeneration is happening faster.

 

[Timshel]

If they were alive at any point, they can only be defined as human life.

Nope. Not until they have the capacity to carry on the processes of life as a human. Until that point they live as zygotes (or whatever you want to use to describe their state). Human zygotes yes, but not simply humans.

Again, this also applies to the brain dead. They may continue to live as a human body (at least for a few days), but they are no longer alive as simply humans.

 

[apple0154]

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.

What about the not so healthy, viable zygote? Can you or anyone else tell which ones are healthy and which ones are not? Or which ones are actual organisms containing all the necessary parts/information to become an organism?

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.

And possible medical complications, as well, such as blindness.

Like I wrote in msg 630 you don't give a damn about zygotes or embryos or fetuses or anything else. You believe it's proper to murder those so-called human beings, innocent human beings, as a precaution against a woman with a defective body suffering damage. Or is it you just have a perversion when it comes to women and sex?

Or is the real goal to get zygotes and other unborn questionable organisms to be declared human beings and then start using logic because, logically, it's absurd to murder a healthy, innocent human being so a defective human may live. No one could logically, morally or ethically argue a woman's kidney is worth more than the life of her child. Is the goal to eventually watch pregnant women die or suffer irreparable damage?

As I stated in msg 630 be a man and answer the questions.

 

[Timshel]

I think I stated that pretty clearly. At some point, the deterioration overtakes the regeneration, and we eventually succumb to death.

You might be saying that NOW.

It's not a "notion" that we are dying from conception, it is a biological fact that as soon as some organism begins living, it also begins the process of dying. Both are happening simultaneously, and we don't die because regeneration is happening faster.

Well, I guess not. You insist on being incoherent.

The only way the zygote is going to continue 'living' is because of it's mother. If removed or blocked from that life support it will immediately start dying and will not be able to develop to another stage nor will it develop the capacity to live as a human. At that stage, it has the capacity to live as a zygote and that is all.

It has the same rights as any other collection of human cells that do not have the capacity to live as humans, i.e., none.

 

[NOVA]

But not every conception can carry on the processes of life. That's where you're confused.

Every conception CAN carry on the processes of life....thats the definition of the word viable...viable means it can and is carrying on the processes of life...
At conception, life begins...

That may last a week, a few months, 9 months till birth, etc.....
Yeah, something may go wrong along the way, so what...thats irrelevant to this discussion....

We keep repeating this over and over and you ignore us or simply don't get it...
you certainly don't have a logically sound argument against it...

 

[Timshel]

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.

And you would be wrong. It may be perfectly healthy and fail to implant because the uterine wall is not even present or lacks the qualities necessary for the zygote to implant.

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.

You certainly are. Again the risk, to the mother rises dramatically after conception. You are only saying that the mother may abort when that risk becomes imminent to some degree. She is still taking that risk prior to that point and until the imminent threat is removed.

In your view, the mother can protect herself once the probability of her death rises to some point. Yet the smallest probability that the zygote will ever develop the capacity to live as a human is enough for you to demand that she continue the risk. You have absolutely no right to require her to take that risk.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you would be wrong. It may be perfectly healthy and fail to implant because the uterine wall is not even present or lacks the qualities necessary for the zygote to implant.

What happens to a healthy and viable zygote AFTER it is living, doesn't change or alter the FACT that it IS living! You are trying to pull an Apple here, and claim that something is NOT what it is, retroactively! It doesn't wash with logic. Sorry!

You certainly are. Again the risk, to the mother rises dramatically after conception. You are only saying that the mother may abort when that risk becomes imminent to some degree. She is still taking that risk prior to that point and until the imminent threat is removed.

In your view, the mother can protect herself once the probability of her death rises to some point. Yet the smallest probability that the zygote will ever develop the capacity to live as a human is enough for you to demand that she continue the risk. You have absolutely no right to require her to take that risk.

The zygote begins life as a human at the point of conception, I continue to reject an argument to the contrary, because you have no basis in logic to prove that it is NOT human life. The debate over when a woman can ethically terminate another human's life, is something we can debate legitimately, but we must first be on the same page about what we're talking about. As long as you want to deny the biological facts, further debate is pointless.

 

[Timshel]

Dixie's stupidity brings up another point. IF life begins at conception then should women be allowed to have partial hysterectomies? There bodies are virtual death traps at that point as the zygote, which is still possible, has virtually no ability to implant or develop beyond the zygote stage.

If they are permitted to have the procedure how would one then argue against allowing a so called abortion pill? In both cases the woman has taken steps to make their body extremely hostile towards the zygote.

 

[Timshel]

If they were alive at any point, they can only be defined as human life.

Nope, human life is not present in the brain dead. Not for the purposes of legal or medical definitions and one could argue not for the purposes of a biological definition. They no longer have the capacity to continue the process of life as a human.

 

[Timshel]

What happens to a healthy and viable zygote AFTER it is living, doesn't change or alter the FACT that it IS living! You are trying to pull an Apple here, and claim that something is NOT what it is, retroactively! It doesn't wash with logic. Sorry!

I DID NOT ARGUE THAT. You said that 100% of healthy zygotes will develop brain function. That is not true. You are the one applying the definition retroactively as you are defining health in the zygote as developing brain function at a later stage.

The zygote begins life as a human at the point of conception, I continue to reject an argument to the contrary, because you have no basis in logic to prove that it is NOT human life. The debate over when a woman can ethically terminate another human's life, is something we can debate legitimately, but we must first be on the same page about what we're talking about. As long as you want to deny the biological facts, further debate is pointless.

I have given you the logic. Without brain function HUMAN life is not present. That is true in the brain dead it is true in the zygote.

I have not denied any biological facts. You are the one doing that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie's stupidity brings up another point. IF life begins at conception then should women be allowed to have partial hysterectomies? There bodies are virtual death traps at that point as the zygote, which is still possible, has virtually no ability to implant or develop beyond the zygote stage.

If they are permitted to have the procedure how would one then argue against allowing a so called abortion pill? In both cases the woman has taken steps to make their body extremely hostile towards the zygote.

Now you are going from sublime to ridiculous. I have a 16ga. shotgun waiting to terminate your life if you enter my domain, and it would be perfectly legal in Alabama to do so. It doesn't change the fact that a would-be intruder is human! Maybe you don't like that, maybe it's not something that should be the case, but that is the facts of life and the law, and thus, a thing we call "REALITY!"