When Does Life End?

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Now you're trying to equate the Office of the Presidency and a "zygote"!!!

Son, you have totally lost it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Here must be what apple believes.
In that microsecond; when the baby is exitting the canal, but there is still contact, that is when the Person Faerie spinkles the magic dust and VIOLA, we now have a baby.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then what is viability? The organism has to attach in order to survive. How can a reasonable person say the organism is viable when it isn't able to attach or do you not want to include viability?

In any case the definition of an organism is the ability to carry on the processes of life. It can not do that without attaching.

Neither can a heart or the lungs.
Should we therefore be able to remove them, with no conseqences??

 

[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?

Ahemmm! Apple?? You plan on answering this?

 

[apple0154]

Again, the definition provided says that a zygote is viable when it begins to grow. The first cell division creates a "viable" zygote and an "organism". It's silly to deliberately "misunderstand" what an organism is so you can fit your beliefs around what you want rather than what is. The question of the thread is if that organism is at that time a "person" or a "human being" not whether it is alive, it's silly to reject the actual signs of life so you can pretend you are right.

It is logical to assume it's natural for over 50% of human beings to come into existence for seconds or hours and then expire? Why should we be overly concerned about human life when the majority die within hours?

Why is the death of a child so devastating or the death of a young man or woman? Or the death of a middle aged man or women when it's natural for human beings to die within minutes or hours or even a day or two?

When people say the death of a child is traumatic because children are supposed to outlive their parents I suppose we should set them straight and tell them that's not the case. Most women have children who do die before them if we are going to say a zygote is a human being. Perhaps we should let them know a number of their children have already died.

Let's see how far we can cheapen human life.

 

[apple0154]

It cannot advance to another stage without implantation. It is alive, it is an organism. It can continue it's life as a zygote until it dies or implants.

To define it as an organism only based on some later stage is as incorrect as Dixie's attempt to define "healthy" or "human" based on some later stage. It should be defined based on it's current state.

It's not defining it on some later stage. The only way we can know if it is an organism is to wait until we see if it can perform at a later stage. It may not have the necessary components within it at the earliest stage but we do not know that until the time comes for it to continue to carry on.

Let's use an electrician as an example. He does basic electrical work and calls himself an electrician. Later, when asked to do a job requiring more knowledge, we realize he is not an electrician. That does not mean he was an electrician up until the point he couldn't do the more knowledge, intensive job. He never was an electrician but that couldn't be determined until at a later stage.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It cannot advance to another stage without implantation. It is alive, it is an organism. It can continue it's life as a zygote until it dies or implants.

To define it as an organism only based on some later stage is as incorrect as Dixie's attempt to define "healthy" or "human" based on some later stage. It should be defined based on it's current state.

A zygote is not a human life until it takes on the properties necessary for a human life. If at any point after if it loses those properties, it still was a human life while it had those properties, though it may not any longer be a human life.

The zygote is alive, it's human, it is not a human life.

Likewise a piece of wood may be house material, it is not a house. Not even if that piece of wood could only be used in the construction of a house is it then a house. It is simply house material. If the house burns to the ground it was still a house though it may no longer be a house. If the house material burns it was still house material though it was never part of a house and may no longer be house material.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Helloooooo?? Applesauce for brains??? Are you ignoring me now?

 

[apple0154]

It does carry on the process of life when it begins to divide and grow, both of which happen long before implantation.

It carries on some of the processes but if it does not implant it's obvious it failed to carry on the processes necessary to live or the processes of life.

The logical goal of the zygote is to implant. As another poster noted the sperm and the egg are supposed to form a viable zygote. A viable zygote has to implant or it is not viable.

It has to carry on the processes of life and one of those processes is to implant. That is a very important process it has to accomplish.

 

[apple0154]

And you have to eat in order to survive...so if you can't eat, does that mean you're not viable? You never were viable ? Is that your claim ?

Do you consider a person, one who can not eat, a zygote?

 

[Damocles]

It is logical to assume it's natural for over 50% of human beings to come into existence for seconds or hours and then expire? Why should we be overly concerned about human life when the majority die within hours?

Why is the death of a child so devastating or the death of a young man or woman? Or the death of a middle aged man or women when it's natural for human beings to die within minutes or hours or even a day or two?

When people say the death of a child is traumatic because children are supposed to outlive their parents I suppose we should set them straight and tell them that's not the case. Most women have children who do die before them if we are going to say a zygote is a human being. Perhaps we should let them know a number of their children have already died.

Let's see how far we can cheapen human life.

*sigh*

Which link gave you your 50% rate which you continue to repeat?

1. It doesn't matter how long it survives, it was alive until it died.
2. It was an organism as long as it was a zygote, which it wasn't until the cell began to divide. Had it not divided it would be a residual body and never have been alive.
3. There is nothing it can be except human life, the question of the thread is whether it is a human "being" or a "person" and at what magical moment that happens.
4. The reality of it is, if success is so rare it is even more precious when implantation is successful.

We already know your answer to the question of the thread, the attempt to continue with your very extreme view is worthless. You aren't going to convince anybody that the fetus at full term was incapable of thought just before it escaped the vaginal canal. Your view rejects science and is mostly worthless to us, you might say as worthless as my idea that so few people want to embrace but which respects both the embryo and the mother's rights.

 

[DamnYankee]

Helloooooo?? Applesauce for brains??? Are you ignoring me now?

That's what shit-fer-brains does when repeatably smacked down in debate.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you might say as worthless as my idea that so few people want to embrace but which respects both the embryo and the mother's rights.

For the record, I don't think your idea is worthless, and I would be glad to embrace it if we had the technological ability to implement it. The problem is, we are probably decades away from being there... maybe not, but probably. It would be a great alternative to what we're doing now, and it might one day actually be the answer to this problem. We could have "Baby Banks" where embryo's are kept and nurtured to mature fetuses, and people who wanted to adopt a child could go there. The only problem might be a 'supply/demand' issue... what do we do with all the 'extras' if we satisfy the adoption demand? It's not like a fetus will stay a fetus forever, eventually, they would have to be 'born' and be cared for by someone, and who would do that? The State? It just seems like, at some point, we have to regain some sense of personal responsibility regarding human procreation. I realize it's fun and enjoyable to have promiscuous sex, but shouldn't it come with SOME responsibility?

 

[apple0154]

In order for it to continue carrying on the processes of life past the stage of the zygote it has to implant.

It is the zygote which implants. It does not go from a zygote to something else and then implant.

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

One can define things on what they are tomorrow if there is no way of telling before then. I used an electrician as an analogy.

When the time comes for the zygote to implant and it doesn't it is only then we know it does not have the ability to carry on the processes of life. How can we possibly know before hand?

As for

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.

the point is we already determined he was a football before he retired.

If a zygote implants it doesn't have to keep implanting. Once it implants we know it can implant.

A kid in college may want to be a professional football player but we will not know if he has the ability to be a professional football player until he is a professional football player.

The same logic applies to zygotes. We do not know if it has the ability to carry on the processes of life until it implants and shows us it can carry on the processes of life.

We are not asking anything out of the ordinary. It is natural and expected the zygote will implant.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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

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]

It is the zygote which implants. It does not go from a zygote to something else and then implant.

Actually it does. During its trip through the fallopian tube, once about 16 cells have formed it becomes a morula. After the trip through the fallopian tube the morula passes into the uterus, at this point zona pellucida disappears and the morula becomes a blastocyst and is now ready for implantation.

One can define things on what they are tomorrow if there is no way of telling before then. I used an electrician as an analogy.

When the time comes for the zygote to implant and it doesn't it is only then we know it does not have the ability to carry on the processes of life. How can we possibly know before hand?

As for the point is we already determined he was a football before he retired.

If a zygote implants it doesn't have to keep implanting. Once it implants we know it can implant.

A kid in college may want to be a professional football player but we will not know if he has the ability to be a professional football player until he is a professional football player.

The same logic applies to zygotes. We do not know if it has the ability to carry on the processes of life until it implants and shows us it can carry on the processes of life.

We are not asking anything out of the ordinary. It is natural and expected the zygote will implant.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This is incorrect, we know that once the zona pellucida dissipates the blastocyst is prepared for implantation. A far better analogy would be that we don't know if the receiver will catch the pass until it is officially a complete pass...

So now that we've gone through the first few stages, let's go ahead and finish...

The next stage that it can enter is the embryonic stage which begins at implantation, after that the fetal stage which begins about 8 weeks after implantation and when all organs have been successfully created. At this stage the fetus has a brain, heart, liver, skin, muscles, etc.... We know the next stage.

 

[apple0154]

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

Willfully ignorant? Maybe you should read a history book. We've tried the concept of one group of humans being a little less human or a little less equal. The result was civil wars to holocausts and everything in between.

No, I do not want to go there over the insane idea something not born is a human being.

If you feel you have the answers why not try answering the questions in msg 630? Let's see what morals and values you bring to bear. I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing your clear insights.

 

[Damocles]

Willfully ignorant? Maybe you should read a history book. We've tried the concept of one group of humans being a little less human or a little less equal. The result was civil wars to holocausts and everything in between.

No, I do not want to go there over the insane idea something not born is a human being.

If you feel you have the answers why not try answering the questions in msg 630? Let's see what morals and values you bring to bear. I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing your clear insights.

Maybe you should. Read Roe v. Wade even there they give (other than life of the mother) 100% capability for states to make abortion illegal, your idea is extreme, even then people knew that the moment before birth is not significantly different than the moment after. Your idea is extreme and willfully ignorant, based in wish not reality.

And if you don't want to argue it, make your point and leave. Otherwise you are just bloviating to watch yourself type.

 

[apple0154]

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.

Then why don't you avail yourself to the questions in msg 630? Let's see how you thought this through. Show us the logic you used and how you reconcile the value of one human life (mother) to another human life (zygote/embryo/fetus).

Enlighten us.

 

[Damocles]

Willfully ignorant? Maybe you should read a history book. We've tried the concept of one group of humans being a little less human or a little less equal. The result was civil wars to holocausts and everything in between.

No, I do not want to go there over the insane idea something not born is a human being.

If you feel you have the answers why not try answering the questions in msg 630? Let's see what morals and values you bring to bear. I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing your clear insights.

All your hypocritical blathering about how you value life is repugnant. You don't give a damn about the unborn. You have no objection to a woman with a faulty body deliberately murdering an innocent, defenseless human being in order to save her own life.

What about a serious medical problem? Should she be allowed to murder an innocent human being if she may partially lose her eye sight? Or is the only thing you're interested in is the perverse intrusion into woman's sex lives?

Be a man for once in your life and answer the questions. Let's see exactly where you stand or, more appropriately, where you crawl. Do you sanction the murdering of an innocent human being in order to save the life of a human being with a defective body? Do you sanction the murdering of an innocent human being in order to prevent possible severe but not deadly medical damage to a human being with a defective body?

If you possess the slightest morals and values let's see them. Let's get to the root of why you insist something that isn't a human being be classified as one and then treat it like garbage to the extent you condone murdering that so-called human being as a precaution against the possible damage to a defective human being. And precaution is all it is because few, if any, doctors can unequivocally state a pregnant woman with a defective body will die. Maybe there's a high possibility but, again, it appears you have no problem killing that innocent human being you pretend to care about.

You are, at best, a hypocrite and, at worst, a pervert and a liar.

Take your hands out of your pants, place them on your keyboard and answer the questions, you disgusting specimen of a man.

(Well, I feel better I got that off my chest.)

Since Apple asked me to "answer the questions" in "message" 630, posted to Dixie, quoted in whole above. Here it is:

All living creatures have a right to protect themselves, when one is sure to die if they give birth or if they are sure to be crippled for life, then they have every right to protect themselves. It is my position that they should be able to remove the embryo or fetus, it has been throughout the thread. It is my opinion that we should remove the embryo or fetus and attempt to save its life rather than end it.

The "questions" in post 630 were not all that difficult, and if you had read my previous posts rather than just juxtaposing whatever you wanted to believe about me you would have long had those answers without attempting to make such a huge deal about it...

Your argument is weak, and it is unjustifiable murder to kill a fetus at full term, or even in the third trimester, except to save the life of the mother.

 

[apple0154]

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?

The only "proof" I can offer is the way the rest of society treats me. The way I am similar to other entities that are considered human beings. The way I fit in as a human being would.

How about you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apple is a good example of why we can't get anywhere in the abortion debate. Some people have willfully brainwashed themselves into believing something contradictory to science and logic, and they refuse to accept rationality. This is why he refuses to answer my question, and totally avoids it. He know that whatever he articulates as criteria to prove he is a human, can also be applied to the unborn. Damo is absolutely correct, his argument is weak... it is beyond weak, it is devoid of logic. At least Stringy attempted to make a somewhat rational point about brain function, Apple just continues on for weeks on end, trying to defend the ignorance he has spewed. It's tantamount to saying... I'm just going to make up some shit to define when life begins, and to hell with science and biology!