When Does Life End?

[Timshel]

In order for something to be classified as an organism it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That is the scientific definition.

The zygote does that unless it is one of those residual bodies mott described.

In order for it to carry on the processes of life it has to implant.

In order for it to continue carrying on the processes of life past the stage of the zygote it has to implant. Yes. That does not mean it was not carrying on the processes of life before. It is dead when it is dead and not before. Just as it is a human life when it becomes human life and not before. Or as opposed to what Dixie argued, it is healthy when it is healthy and not based on some future state of unhealthiness.

You can not define things as they are now based on what they will be tomorrow or were yesterday.

Brett Fa.... uhhh, let me pick another one... Drew Brees is a football player NOW. Tomorrow he may retire and no longer be a football player. But he still WAS a football player.

 

[Damocles]

That's right. I believe birth is the defining line. Just like anything else in society unless we have a defining line we have chaos. Is a doctor a doctor before he completes his exams and internship? A week before? A month before? Where do we draw the line?

But beyond that there are so many questions that need to be resolved, if they can, before one decides to classify anything unborn as a human being. The best that can be said is if the unborn are considered human beings they will be considered second class humans or worth less than the born human as evidenced by most anti-abortionists agreeing the fetus should be sacrificed for the life of the mother. By what moral code do we kill an innocent human being so a defective one may live? It's absurd on the face of it.

As a society do we want to go down that road where some humans beings are worth less than other human beings? Have we learned nothing?

I know that your ideas are extreme and am glad that most people are not that willfully ignorant.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is not even close to true. I believe nearly half will die before implantation, much less brain function.

Lol.... if they do not implant, then they are not going to be alive and developing. They are going to die naturally, just like the person on life support would if they were removed.

So be honest, did you actually think the pro-life movement was about people aborting embryos that failed to implant?

Or do you think they are concerned with those embryo's that do implant and then are forcibly removed? Which do you think it is?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Except that at 20 weeks or less, the embryo can ONLY survive with assistance of the mother's body, not unlike a machine. I say that at the point it can survive with MAXIMUM CARE, meaning as soon as it can survive outside the womb, using all the technology man can muster and being fed, THEN, it cannot be aborted.

Yes, I understand that the embryo could not survive on its own at that point. That does not take away the definition of life.

I agree that the argument is at what point do we protect the progeny with basic human rights?

Personally I believe it should be from day one. But I am well aware that is simply my opinion on the rights issue. My contention with Rstring is that it is moronic to pretend it is 'dead' prior to brain activity being detectable.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's right. I believe birth is the defining line. Just like anything else in society unless we have a defining line we have chaos. Is a doctor a doctor before he completes his exams and internship? A week before? A month before? Where do we draw the line?

But beyond that there are so many questions that need to be resolved, if they can, before one decides to classify anything unborn as a human being. The best that can be said is if the unborn are considered human beings they will be considered second class humans or worth less than the born human as evidenced by most anti-abortionists agreeing the fetus should be sacrificed for the life of the mother. By what moral code do we kill an innocent human being so a defective one may live? It's absurd on the face of it.

As a society do we want to go down that road where some humans beings are worth less than other human beings? Have we learned nothing?

Look, you can define a 'person' with subjective terms. You can arbitrarily draw a line as to when a 'person' should be entitled to basic human rights. Those are subjective in nature.

That said, to pretend it is anything other than a human being is simply retarded. That is biological fact. It can be no other species. It must be human. The fact that it exists, the fact that is alive, the fact that it is developing shows that it is a 'being'.

I know it makes it easier for the pro-abortion crowd to pretend it isn't a human being. But that desire to make things easier on your conscience does not change the facts of the matter.

 

[Timshel]

Lol.... if they do not implant, then they are not going to be alive and developing. They are going to die naturally, just like the person on life support would if they were removed.

You said...

We do know that the vast majority of zygotes will indeed develop brain function.
...

That is simply not true and nothing in your response supports it as truth. Nowhere near the vast majority or 99% will develop brain function or the properties necessary to be considered alive as humans.

So be honest, did you actually think the pro-life movement was about people aborting embryos that failed to implant?

Or do you think they are concerned with those embryo's that do implant and then are forcibly removed? Which do you think it is?

If a human life begins at conception, then they should be concerned with the zygotes that fail to implant. I realize many don't care about what their definitions really mean. In fact, their argument on human life is basically "I can't come up with the criteria but I know it when I see it."

That's not really a definition. That's basically just what they feel and not any rational argument that any of us should acknowledge as being useful to defining what is a human life.

 

[Timshel]

Look, you can define a 'person' with subjective terms. You can arbitrarily draw a line as to when a 'person' should be entitled to basic human rights. Those are subjective in nature.

That said, to pretend it is anything other than a human being is simply retarded. That is biological fact. It can be no other species. It must be human. The fact that it exists, the fact that is alive, the fact that it is developing shows that it is a 'being'.

I know it makes it easier for the pro-abortion crowd to pretend it isn't a human being. But that desire to make things easier on your conscience does not change the facts of the matter.

It is human. It is alive. It is not a living human. It does not have the properties necessary to be a living human until it develops them. And once it loses them it is no longer a living human.

This is why I keep returning to the brain dead. Say a person loses brain function... The body that remains is human. It may still be alive in the basest sense. It is NOT a living human. It has no rights. The family of the dead human can part it out or just turn off the life support machines when they like.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, I understand that the embryo could not survive on its own at that point. That does not take away the definition of life.

It takes away the definition of human life in the medical and legal contexts.

I agree that the argument is at what point do we protect the progeny with basic human rights?

Personally I believe it should be from day one. But I am well aware that is simply my opinion on the rights issue. My contention with Rstring is that it is moronic to pretend it is 'dead' prior to brain activity being detectable.

It cannot be said to possess human life. Your definition is subjective as it changes based on whether the life is born or not. In the born life is present so long as brain function is present. You are not using that same criteria on the zygote.

Your definition is TOTALLY subjective. Mine is contextual.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nope, it does not yet have the capacity to live as a human. It is less of a living human than the brain dead. It is not yet a HUMAN life. It is no more a living human than your heart is a living human. We can take your living human heart and put it another body. It is not a human life and will not have the capacity to live as a human.

Stringy, your heart is not a living organism. It is an organ which is a part of a living organism. A zygote is a living human organism...end of debate.

Now you can argue that the human organism is not capable of living outside the womb... acceptable argument! You can argue that the human organism is not legally or medically a functional "human being"... acceptable argument! You can argue that the human organism doesn't deserve the same rights and protections as citizens... acceptable argument! But you can't make it something that it's not! You can't make it NOT a living human organism!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apple? Let me approach this from another perspective. I want you to provide me with evidence to prove YOU are a human life! Please explain to us, what makes YOU a human?

 

[apple0154]

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

I'm not attacking your education. Anyone who asks the question you did which was, "So since I don't carry food and water within my body I'm not an organism?" doesn't have an education.

 

[apple0154]

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.

Then some fertilized cells do not become a zygote. In order to be a zygote it has to be an organism and an organism has to be able to do certain things. That's my point.

 

[apple0154]

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.

It is not an untenable standard. Zygotes are supposed to grow into babies. You're talking nonsense.

 

[apple0154]

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.

We don't know if they were capable of carrying on the processes of life and the logical conclusion is those which don't most likely were not zygotes or organisms.

Let's say an electrician is supposed to know how to change an outlet and how to change a switch. The person may change a dozen outlets but when it comes time to change a switch we discover the person does not know how. At that point we know the person is not an electrician.

The same logic applies to what people claim to be zygotes. Just because "it" lives one day does not mean it is capable of carrying on the processes of life. There are other processes that are necessary to carry on such as implantation. We do not know if it is a zygote unless and until it carries on all the necessary processes of life.

Surely it's absurd for one to say every fertilized cell or zygote is a human being considering over 50% spontaneously abort. Are we to accept the bizarre idea it's natural for the majority of human beings to come into existence for a minute or hour or day?

What value are we placing on human life?

 

[apple0154]

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.

It's obvious you know little or nothing about biology. The human life cycle involves a period of growth followed by a slow deterioration.

Please, please educate yourself.

That is why it takes longer for an elderly person to heal than it does for a child/adolescent. Two people sustain identical injuries in a car accident. The young person will heal quicker than the elderly person because the young person is growing and the elderly person is not. Their metabolisms are different.

Do a Google. Please try to learn the basics.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm not attacking your education. Anyone who asks the question you did which was, "So since I don't carry food and water within my body I'm not an organism?" doesn't have an education.

My question was rhetorical, to show the stupidity of your position. So according to your standard, it is you who are lacking an education.

 

[Crashk]

For a lot of people life ends when they say I Do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You said...

We do know that the vast majority of zygotes will indeed develop brain function.
...

That is simply not true and nothing in your response supports it as truth. Nowhere near the vast majority or 99% will develop brain function or the properties necessary to be considered alive as humans.



If a human life begins at conception, then they should be concerned with the zygotes that fail to implant. I realize many don't care about what their definitions really mean. In fact, their argument on human life is basically "I can't come up with the criteria but I know it when I see it."

That's not really a definition. That's basically just what they feel and not any rational argument that any of us should acknowledge as being useful to defining what is a human life.

1) They can be nothing other than humans

2) If they are growing and developing, they are alive

The fact that you continue to cling to your idiocy on this topic is amusing.

We should no more be concerned with the zygote that fails to implant than we should the adult who dies in their sleep. Both are NATURAL causes.

There is NO question that a unique life is formed upon fertilization. NONE. That is the point in time the chromosomes from the mother and father combine to create a unique life. Period. There is no confusion on the issue. It is SCIENTIFICALLY proven. We have the ability to map the human genome. It is not rocket science. This is basic biology.

Your ridiculous attempt to try to equate 'life' to 'brain activity' is simply a subjective move on your part. Period.

Also, yes, the vast majority that implant are most certainly going to develop brain activity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is human. It is alive. It is not a living human. It does not have the properties necessary to be a living human until it develops them. And once it loses them it is no longer a living human.

This is why I keep returning to the brain dead. Say a person loses brain function... The body that remains is human. It may still be alive in the basest sense. It is NOT a living human. It has no rights. The family of the dead human can part it out or just turn off the life support machines when they like.

That is simply absurd. If it is human and alive it HAS to be a human life.

Again you are attempting to assign your subjective opinion as to what is a 'living human' rather than simply admitting you are wrong.

You can argue all day about when human rights should be assigned, but to continue arguing that it is not a human life is simply retarded.

edit.... in addition... you again fail to grasp the difference between a brain dead person (who has ZERO percent chance of recovery) and a developing child whose brain has not reached the level at which we can detect activity. Note the key words.... AT WHICH WE CAN DETECT activity.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Then when is that certain point??