When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
There is a point in time when a human comes into existence and it is not always at conception as I showed with the example of Bill and Jane.
Click to expand...

You've shown nothing of the sort....

In the first paragraph:
"A mix of chromosomal population in a single organism" does not mean two humans were created at all.....nor does "two sets of DNA, or organs that do not match the DNA of the rest of the organism." mean two humans are involved...

The organism was created by conception...
The presents of other DNA does not mean two NEW humans were created...the foreign DNA was not the result of the first conception
-----------------
In the second paragraph:
"two non-identical twin embryos merging together instead of growing on their own."

Here, 2 embryos ARE created .... the question becomes, are they both viable and developing...
If yes then 2 different humans have been created.
If only one is viable, then only that one human has been created....

If the embryos merge at some point, into one...then the two become one and develop ....
This in essence is a birth defect and is irrelevant to the debate...
There WAS 2 at the start, 2 new humans, one embryo absorbs the other so only one is now viable and the other dies when it ceases to be a viable entity of its own.

Nice try though..
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
One cell didn't create two lives in the case of the chimera you posted about (somebody watches too much CSI). The Chimera is an oddity, but it was two human lives (two eggs fertilized by separate sperm) that created the one that you posted about, it was fraternal, not identical, twins where one superseded the other which was an unfortunate, but natural, occurence. .
Click to expand...

In any case the first conception absorbed the other conception resulting in a change in the genetic makeup of the first conception. The "person" created at conception was not the "person" that ultimately lived because we all know what folks say about the unique makeup of a "person".
 
Quote:APPLE says:
First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell? Consider the following. "There was one legal case involving a woman with chimerism, who was proven not to be the mother of her own children. Later discovery of embryonic cells with different DNA disproved the earlier DNA results." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm"Jane's body was made up of two genetically distinct types of cells.There was only one conclusion: Jane was a mixture of two different people.Kruskall thinks the most likely explanation for this is that Jane's motherconceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of thepregnancy to form a single embryo.
Click to expand...

And all this is just nonsense to muddy the waters of the debate...

A women proven not to be the mother of her own children.?
So what.... the children were born and exist....are you claiming they weren't conceived....or they aren't human....or what the hell is your point....

A quark of DNA or genetics doesn't mean a conception didn't occur...or a viable embryo didn't get created...
 
bravo said:
You've shown nothing of the sort....

In the first paragraph:
"A mix of chromosomal population in a single organism" does not mean two humans were created at all.....nor does "two sets of DNA, or organs that do not match the DNA of the rest of the organism." mean two humans are involved...

The organism was created by conception...
The presents of other DNA does not mean two NEW humans were created...the foreign DNA was not the result of the first conception
-----------------
In the second paragraph:
"two non-identical twin embryos merging together instead of growing on their own."

Here, 2 embryos ARE created .... the question becomes, are they both viable and developing...
If yes then 2 different humans have been created.
If only one is viable, then only that one human has been created....

If the embryos merge at some point, into one...then the two become one and develop ....
This in essence is a birth defect and is irrelevant to the debate...
There WAS 2 at the start, 2 new humans, one embryo absorbs the other so only one is now viable and the other dies when it ceases to be a viable entity of its own.

Nice try though..
Click to expand...

Let's see some links to your "authoritative" posting.
 
apple0154 said:
In any case the first conception absorbed the other conception resulting in a change in the genetic makeup of the first conception. The "person" created at conception was not the "person" that ultimately lived because we all know what folks say about the unique makeup of a "person".
Click to expand...
Which changes nothing, just as if a child dies of an illness after birth will not change that a human life was lost due to a natural occurrence. One twin superseded the other, it happens rarely but it happens naturally.
 
bravo said:
And all this is just nonsense to muddy the waters of the debate...

A women proven not to be the mother of her own children.?
So what.... the children were born and exist....are you claiming they weren't conceived....or they aren't human....or what the hell is your point....

A quark of DNA or genetics doesn't mean a conception didn't occur...or a viable embryo didn't get created...
Click to expand...

Here's an excerpt."Chimerism tends to occur very early in the embryonic development. It is often the result of two non-identical twin embryos merging together instead of growing on their own."

Let's take this slow. A conception occurs. This is what anti-abortionists claim is a human being by virtue of it having unique DNA. Then another conception takes place at approximately the same time and another human being comes into existence, according to the anti-abortionists.

Then conception number one absorbs conception number two thereby resulting in conception number one, the "person", having two sets of DNA. That means the DNA makeup of "person" number one has changed.

If unique DNA denotes a person then it has to follow that if the DNA changes the person who was there before the change is not the same person after the change which means the person that came into being after the change was not there at conception. The only conclusion one can draw is conception was not the start of that person's life.
 
Damocles said:
Which changes nothing, just as if a child dies of an illness after birth will not change that a human life was lost due to a natural occurrence. One twin superseded the other, it happens rarely but it happens naturally.
Click to expand...

My point is the final "person" was not created at conception which disproves the false claim everyone is created at conception. That's my point and I happen to believe it's a very important point.
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see some links to your "authoritative" posting.
Click to expand...

Links to what....Its quotes from your links....its comprehending what the words says and what they don't say....
your applying data from one issue to prove an entirely different issue....its like describing an orange to explain what a banana looks like....
 
bravo said:
Links to what....Its quotes from your links....its comprehending what the words says and what they don't say....
your applying data from one issue to prove an entirely different issue....its like describing an orange to explain what a banana looks like....
Click to expand...

I posted an excerpt in my last post and it's clear not all "persons" start life at the moment of conception if unique DNA makeup is the qualifying criteria for a "person". Obviously you feel it is, otherwise, you wouldn't have one of my comments in your sig.

So, which side of the fence do you want to sit on now? Do you want to claim the unique DNA makeup determines a person meaning if the people's DNA makeup changes a new person is created and that's not at conception OR do you want to agree with what is in your sig line namely: "It makes me feel better to know the idea of unique DNA determining a human being is nothing but nonsense."

Your choice. Your fence.
 
apple0154 said:
My point is the final "person" was not created at conception which disproves the false claim everyone is created at conception. That's my point and I happen to believe it's a very important point.
Click to expand...
Your point would be incorrect. Again. Because of natural causes one human life was lost. This changes nothing at all about my position, nor does it give me any cause to change it. Although it does bring up the question of whether it was a person when it lost its life.

Each of your "questions" are the same. In each a human life is lost due to a natural cause. None of them do anything to answer the question in the thread or even to cause me to pause before answering. I have answered them repeatedly and sometimes loquaciously, other times mockingly, and now finally seriously, and for the last time.

Any human life lost due to natural causes is not morally equivalent to directed killing without cause. Thus the question, is it a "person" and when do you think it becomes one? We know your answer. We know its extreme nature, not one person here agrees with it and these inane questions are not causing anybody to change their mind. It's time to move on. Unless you want to bring up some other "quandary" where a human life is lost due to natural causes to which you can refer back to this thread.
 
apple0154 said:
Here's an excerpt."Chimerism tends to occur very early in the embryonic development. It is often the result of two non-identical twin embryos merging together instead of growing on their own."

Let's take this slow. A conception occurs. This is what anti-abortionists claim is a human being by virtue of it having unique DNA. Then another conception takes place at approximately the same time and another human being comes into existence, according to the anti-abortionists.

I don't give a shit what anti-abortionists claim one way or the other. Their claims are irrelevant...
What is relevant is what science says...conception occurs, a new human being is created by virtue of it forming a viable zygote...meaning capable of growing and developing into a finished product.
If a second viable zygote is created at conception and is absorbed, or merge into a single embryo naturally...so what....the second human created no longer exists and will not develop into a finished product, even though his or her DNA exists within the dominant developing embryo...

Then conception number one absorbs conception number two thereby resulting in conception number one, the "person", having two sets of DNA. That means the DNA makeup of "person" number one has changed.

If unique DNA denotes a person then it has to follow that if the DNA changes the person who was there before the change is not the same person after the change which means the person that came into being after the change was not there at conception. The only conclusion one can draw is conception was not the start of that person's life.
Click to expand...
..

Take it slow, read it again until you understand what it says....


All the necessary ingredients for developing, growing and maturing into an embryo, fetus, baby, etc. are present in a viable zygote....
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Your point would be incorrect. Again. Because of natural causes one human life was lost. This changes nothing at all about my position, nor does it give me any cause to change it. Although it does bring up the question of whether it was a person when it lost its life.

Each of your "questions" are the same. In each a human life is lost due to a natural cause. None of them do anything to answer the question in the thread or even to cause me to pause before answering. I have answered them repeatedly and sometimes loquaciously, other times mockingly, and now finally, and for the last time seriously.

Any human life lost due to natural causes is not morally equivalent to directed killing without cause. Thus the question, is it a "person" and when. We know your answer. It's time to move on.
Click to expand...

If you wish to move on without answering why my point is incorrect that is your choice but I would appreciate if you made yourself clear. Are you saying a unique DNA makeup is not proof of a person because if it is then when one cell/zygote absorbs another the DNA makeup of that cell/zygote changes? In that case a person does not come into existence at conception but after absorbing the other cell/zygote.

That is very important to determine because how can one possibly say when life ends (meaning the death of a person) when we have not determined when it begins unless, of course, it ends after birth.

In any case no response to this query will result in no further questions from me directed to you.
 
Apple says...
This is what anti-abortionists claim is a human being by virtue of it having unique DNA.
Click to expand...

You realize Mr. Apple...plants and animals have DNA also...it is not unique to humans...
 
apple0154 said:
That was the point, different ages. Not starting the moment something comes alive as you suggested.
Click to expand...

But that was the gist of the argument.
I offered that we start dying, from the moment we begin.
You countered that thid didn't occur; but started later.
When I asked you to pin down when it started, you offered up nothing but a bunch of different ages.

C'mon Apple. When does the human body starrt dying??
 
apple0154 said:
If you wish to move on without answering why my point is incorrect that is your choice but I would appreciate if you made yourself clear. Are you saying a unique DNA makeup is not proof of a person because if it is then when one cell/zygote absorbs another the DNA makeup of that cell/zygote changes? In that case a person does not come into existence at conception but after absorbing the other cell/zygote.

That is very important to determine because how can one possibly say when life ends (meaning the death of a person) when we have not determined when it begins unless, of course, it ends after birth.

In any case no response to this query will result in no further questions from me directed to you.
Click to expand...

"when one cell/zygote absorbs another the DNA makeup of that cell/zygote changes"

When did you get this / that the make up of "that cell/zygote changes"???

What changes?


Scientists can still determine 2 distinctly different DNA's in the person...who says one of them changes.???
 
bravo said:
..

Take it slow, read it again until you understand what it says....
Click to expand...

I understand very well.

"viable zygote...meaning capable of growing and developing into a finished product."

What is the finished product? What is the purpose of a zygote? Take a guess.
 
apple0154 said:
I understand very well.

"viable zygote...meaning capable of growing and developing into a finished product."

What is the finished product? What is the purpose of a zygote? Take a guess.
Click to expand...

The zygotes "purpose" is to grow into a embryo, then a fetus, and finally emerge the womb as a fully developed body....
It is ALIVE at all stages of this growth and development.....it is human at all stages of development.....
 
bravo said:
You realize Mr. Apple...plants and animals have DNA also...it is not unique to humans...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Again, the point is anti-abortionists and some here have said "something" is a human being by virtue of it's unique DNA makeup which, according to them, is determined at the time of conception and I say BS. I have shown that the DNA makeup of the "something" can change and does so not due to conception so there are only two conclusions to draw. Either some human beings come into existence not through conception OR the unique DNA of a "something" does not prove it's a human being.

There is no other conclusions possible. It has to be one of the two. Personally, I believe it's the latter but you find that amusing so, again, using logic and common sense the only conclusion I can draw is you believe some human beings come into existence not through conception.

Do you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top