apple0154
MEOW
I told you different parts start at different ages. That's the answer. Do a Google and find out yourself if you don't believe me.
On that note, good night.
When Does Life End?
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
I told you different parts start at different ages. That's the answer. Do a Google and find out yourself if you don't believe me.
On that note, good night.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
What's the matter apple??
It appears that you tried to take a stance and then realized that you were standing on shaky ground.
When does a human begin dying??
Do you understand?
I answered why your point was "incorrect" in that post. A human life was lost due to natural causes, it is not morally equivalent to directed killing. Your misdirection notwithstanding it is clear how I answered and why.
1. Just stating that it is human life is not the same thing as saying it is a person. The DNA ensures it can be no other than human life, and that it is not "part of" the mother but doesn't tell us if they have yet gained that part which makes them a "person".
2. In each of your examples a human life is lost to natural causes, which is not equivalent to direct action taken to kill.
3. I am saying it may not be and working to find out where others draw that line and why. We know where you do, we know it is extreme, and we know that almost nobody agrees with you.
4. Now it is time again for you to come up with some other question about how a life is lost due to natural causes that I will answer in the same way, it is a loss of human life due to natural causes and not the same thing as humans killing progeny on purpose.
5. It is possible that in every case what you asked me can be a person that died, it is also possible that they are not "people" until they can notice that they actually exist. In either case it happens long before birth. Since we cannot be sure and killing purposefully the most innocent among us is unconscionable, we shouldn't act to kill them.
P.S. Don't get into fingers and cancers, because the DNA in those clearly show that they actually ARE part of the mother.
apple0154
MEOW
It appears the only thing shaky is your understanding of the following. I told you different parts start at different ages. That's the answer. Do a Google and find out yourself if you don't believe me.
On that note, good morning.
apple0154
MEOW
Responses in blue.
(APPLE) 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.
(BRAVO)Anti-abortionists are not scientists are they?
At conception the zygote created contains the 22 chromosomes from mommy and 22 from daddy, plus 2 sex chromosomes....they do contain DNA and those chromosomes make the zygote human...though it cannot be shown to be viable until it splits into 2 cells, it starts growing, it is viable...
I definitely agree. Anti-abortionists certainly are not scientists.
(APPLE)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.
(BRAVO)You've never shown this at all, its your own illusion of what is happening....
It is no illusion. I posted the link. Let's go through this one more time.
A conception takes place. We'll call that conception Jane. Jane has a specific, unique DNA makeup. Another conception takes place. We'll call that one Bill. Bill has a specific, unique DNA makeup.
Later, the conception called Jane absorbs the conception called Bill. The result is there is no more Bill. Also, the DNA makeup of the conception called Jane has changed incorporating some of Bill's makeup.
IF one asserts it is the specific, unique DNA makeup of a conception that determines if the conception is a human being then the conception of Jane is no more because her specific, unique DNA makeup has changed. The original Jane exists no longer IF the original DNA makeup is what qualified her as a human being.
Furthermore, IF a specific, unique DNA makeup is what determines a human being that means a new human being came into existence the moment Jane absorbed Bill because we now have a zygote with it's own specific, unique DNA makeup. A specific, unique DNA makeup that is different from anything that came into existence at the time of conception
(APPLE)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.
(BRAVO)There is not other way for a human to come into existence except by conception in nature....
I agree. A conception has to take place. Therefore, one can not say a specific, unique DNA makeup is the qualifying factor in determining if something is a human being because that specific, unique DNA makeup can change as in the case of Jane.
Do YOU understand?
apple0154
MEOW
This is what I want to clarify. I understand you to be saying the DNA, at conception, ensures it is a human life. If that is correct then in the example I gave it means Jane went out of existence the moment she absorbed Bill, as her DNA makeup changed, and that resulted in the coming into existence of another human life. If that is the case then a human life can come into existence through absorption as well as through conception. Personally, I find that explanation untenable so the only other conclusion that can be drawn is the DNA makeup of a human life can change.
If the latter is the case then we can not say a specific, unique DNA makeup at conception determines a human being. We can not use that as the defining factor or proof of a human being because the makeup of that conception can change. (I'm not referring to your specific beliefs but those of many anti-abortionists. They equate human life to human being.)
Stated another way anti-abortionist say a conception/zygote is a human life and because it has a specific, unique DNA makeup that proves it. They go on to say that whatever is present in that conception/zygote is everything that human life will be. In other words that zygote, with it's current DNA makeup, is the person it is or will eventually become.
I say that is incorrect and it's been proven to be incorrect. The makeup of the conception/zygote can change and according to anti-abortionist logic if that happens a new person comes into existence because they believe it is the specific, unique DNA makeup that determines the person.
This is important. Very important because if the DNA makeup of a conception can change it puts an end to their fundamental belief that once a conception occurs everything that determines what Jane or Bill will be is already present. They consider it a stage in a person's life, that the conception is a Jane or Bill and nothing fundamentally will change and we know that is not the case.
As you mentioned in answer 3, "I am saying it may not be and working to find out where others draw that line and why."
This is another reason why it's so important to discuss the conception/absorption/unique DNA issue. If one believes the moment of conception results in a person, that the cell/zygote is basically a "miniature person", there is no room to draw a line.
BTW, thanks for the response.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No chimerism doesn't mean that unless you are attempting to spin anything at all in desperation and hope that we'd all be too stupid to meet the "challenge", it means that Bill lost his life due to natural causes (probably the sixteenth time I've said this because every example of yours is the same) and essentially became an organ donor.This is what I want to clarify. I understand you to be saying the DNA, at conception, ensures it is a human life. If that is correct then in the example I gave it means Jane went out of existence the moment she absorbed Bill, as her DNA makeup changed, and that resulted in the coming into existence of another human life. If that is the case then a human life can come into existence through absorption as well as through conception. Personally, I find that explanation untenable so the only other conclusion that can be drawn is the DNA makeup of a human life can change.
If the latter is the case then we can not say a specific, unique DNA makeup at conception determines a human being. We can not use that as the defining factor or proof of a human being because the makeup of that conception can change. (I'm not referring to your specific beliefs but those of many anti-abortionists. They equate human life to human being.)
Stated another way anti-abortionist say a conception/zygote is a human life and because it has a specific, unique DNA makeup that proves it. They go on to say that whatever is present in that conception/zygote is everything that human life will be. In other words that zygote, with it's current DNA makeup, is the person it is or will eventually become.
I say that is incorrect and it's been proven to be incorrect. The makeup of the conception/zygote can change and according to anti-abortionist logic if that happens a new person comes into existence because they believe it is the specific, unique DNA makeup that determines the person.
This is important. Very important because if the DNA makeup of a conception can change it puts an end to their fundamental belief that once a conception occurs everything that determines what Jane or Bill will be is already present. They consider it a stage in a person's life, that the conception is a Jane or Bill and nothing fundamentally will change and we know that is not the case.
As you mentioned in answer 3, "I am saying it may not be and working to find out where others draw that line and why."
This is another reason why it's so important to discuss the conception/absorption/unique DNA issue. If one believes the moment of conception results in a person, that the cell/zygote is basically a "miniature person", there is no room to draw a line.
BTW, thanks for the response.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What you suggest here is like saying a liver donor recipient loses their life because they take on a liver with a different person's DNA. It's just a distraction, its inane, and doesn't do what you try to say here.
Again, the DNA simply notes that it is human life and separate from the mother, not that it is "unique", at some point it could become a twin, or it could be lost due to natural causes or directed abortion.
You are again acting the clown, "posing" easy questions about death by natural causes and attempting to say that because it happened before you could hold the progeny that the progeny somehow didn't exist or was something other than human life.
One. More. Time. I'll. Type. Slowly. So. You. Can. Keep. Up...
The reality of it is, each of your examples means only that human life is most often lost due to natural causes, not that it wasn't alive when they died, and not that it wasn't human life, it couldn't have been anything other than human life.
Yes, back to mocking again. Because I've answered this one at least 10 times now each time saying the same thing in a different way. I guess I should throw some numbers in because it seemed to get you to read the last one, too bad without comprehension.
1.
2.
3.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It appears the only thing shaky is your understanding of the following. I told you different parts start at different ages. That's the answer. Do a Google and find out yourself if you don't believe me.
On that note, good morning.
Since it starts at different stages, then my offering is correct and humans begin dying from the moment they are created.
Just wanted to nail you down on that small detail.
Thanks
apple0154
MEOW
The absorption of Bill is not like receiving an organ transplant. That has to be one of the more insane comparisons I've heard. Do you think Bill was a willing donor?
You'll say anything regardless of how foolish it may be. And please try to grasp this once and for all; for something to be a human life it has to be an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life. Obviously Bill wasn't able to carry on the processes of life considering Jane absorbed him.
I suggest you spend less time making a fool of yourself and more time learning about what you're discussing.
And one more thing. Yes, fertilized cells and conceptions and zygotes can be something other than a human life because many self-abort due to severe genetic mutations. Do you understand what genetic mutations are?
If something is determined by it's genetic makeup that makeup has to fit within certain parameters. When mutations occur they do not fit within those parameters. That's why they're called mutations.
Mutation: 1.a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
2.a change or alteration, as in form or nature.
AS IN FORM OR NATURE
Take a moment and try to grasp what that means.
You know, Damocles, it's truly saddening. I thought you were progressing. I really believed you were beginning to see the logic even if only slightly but, alas, such is not the case.
Like most anti-abortionists you grasp on to science with one hand while holding on to some superstitious, antiquated belief with the other. That's not going to work.
Mutations happen and there is no limit to their severity and if logic escapes you then surely common sense should tell you the mutations can pass a point where the product of a human conception is not a human life.
There are all kinds of mutations and if you do a little research you will find some of them quite disturbing, however, those mutations do progress to a birth. The more severe, the ones where the mutations are of such gross proportion even nature disowns them, spontaneously abort.
I really expected more from you. Truly disappointing.
apple0154
MEOW
Since it starts at different stages, then my offering is correct and humans begin dying from the moment they are created.
Just wanted to nail you down on that small detail.
Thanks
Different stages is the same as all at the same moment. Right. Got it.
apple0154
MEOW
Chimerism does show that the idea a living human being is determined by having a specific, unique genetic makeup is nonsense and that's what I've been saying. I have never said it was not a human. I said having a specific, unique genetic makeup does not, in itself, prove something is human and that's what some folks on here have advocated.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
What is "insane" is suggesting that "Bill" didn't exist because one twin superseded the other at some point in the pregnancy. Pretending that "Bill" was never alive because of this chimerism is really a sad pretense. The chimera wouldn't be possible if "Bill" was not alive at some point.The absorption of Bill is not like receiving an organ transplant. That has to be one of the more insane comparisons I've heard. Do you think Bill was a willing donor?
And your straw man here (Pretty much every argument of yours in this thread is a straw man because not even one of them have asserted what you say you are "arguing" against. Not one.) is obvious. An analogy isn't exact, it was simply something to show you where we can create the same effect through surgical procedure when DNA from two people are in another.
And again, a zygote is carrying on the processes of life. This is where your disconnect with reality lies.
This statement is rich with irony.
*sigh*
A human mutation is still human, something that is mutated so far that the DNA no longer would consider it human does not exist the DNA is still recognizably human even in a cancer cell, if it did happen, the DNA would be what told the story whether it was human or not, but it doesn't. There is a reason that science calls it "human mutation", it is because it is human.
Suggesting that because lives are sometimes lost due to natural causes like mutation that it was not "alive" is again not consistent with current scientific knowledge.
See above.
LOL. I have. Clearly you haven't.
LOL. Seriously, this is what you give me? Which "antiquated" belief am I holding. I simply point out what science says, and you deny it and bring up another natural death cause to "question" me about.
But they are still human life. The suggestion here is that, because of DNA errors that it somehow becomes other than human is in error. It is a mutation, but it is a "human mutation" because the DNA remains recognizably human.
There are all kinds of mutations and if you do a little research you will find some of them quite disturbing, however, those mutations do progress to a birth. The more severe, the ones where the mutations are of such gross proportion even nature disowns them, spontaneously abort.
I really expected more from you. Truly disappointing.
Interstingly enough, I do not actually expect "more" from you. I expect you to continue with deliberate ignorance and never actually progress in knowledge beyond what "doctors" had back in the day when "leeching" was the standard answer to bubonic plague. Nowadays we have video of the life within the womb, it is rather enlightening when you stop fighting science and learn things.In all of those mutations that survive the DNA is still recognizably human, we can find the errors, duplicated strands, extra chromosomes, etc., but they are still recognizably human DNA and they lose their life to unfortunate natural causes. Were they ever a "person"? We may never know, but one thing we do know is that they were alive, and that they were human lives.
And again we return to the exact same answer that has been throughout the thread.
Human life is often lost due to natural causes, but it does not change the morality of the question, "Are we killing people when we abort, and if we are at what point do they become people so we can avoid this?"
Again. We know your extreme position on this, but it isn't based in science. You continue to give example after example where human life is lost due to natural causes (sometimes not even lost, not all mutations are lethal and you would be hard-pressed to suggest that a little person isn't a "person" because of the dwarfism mutation for example). And I continue to point out that human life is often lost due to natural causes (in fact most times), and not even one of those instances change the reality that natural death is not the same thing as directed killing for convenience.
apple0154
MEOW
HEY; dying is dying, right??
Well, that depends. The other day I was at a restaurant and one of the patrons walked by...I mean she was to die for!
Of course, I don't mean I'd literally die for her. On the other hand I probably would have sacrificed a limb.
Does anyone notice a certain characteristic woven into Apples posts that remind you of a certain TC Liberal....????
Do you notice how he'll take off on some long irrelevant rant about something completely foreign to the topic of debate and then claim hes proven you wrong about something...
Of course, zygotes self abort...so what...because they could not sustain life due to genetic mutations....so what .... that means they were never VIABLE to start with....
If the mutated zygotes does become viable and then dies..so what again...what does that prove besides nothing.....all it means is that a human has died in the womb due to some physical malfunction ...
If the mutated zygotes develops to full term and is born we have many results...Siamese Twins?..babies with 3 limbs, 5 limbs, or maybe no limbs, autistic, retarded, etc....are they any less human because they are less than perfect?
Apple and TCLib....two pinheads, with similar methods of misunderstanding reality...
Do you notice how he'll take off on some long irrelevant rant about something completely foreign to the topic of debate and then claim hes proven you wrong about something...
Of course, zygotes self abort...so what...because they could not sustain life due to genetic mutations....so what .... that means they were never VIABLE to start with....
If the mutated zygotes does become viable and then dies..so what again...what does that prove besides nothing.....all it means is that a human has died in the womb due to some physical malfunction ...
If the mutated zygotes develops to full term and is born we have many results...Siamese Twins?..babies with 3 limbs, 5 limbs, or maybe no limbs, autistic, retarded, etc....are they any less human because they are less than perfect?
Apple and TCLib....two pinheads, with similar methods of misunderstanding reality...
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
It's not just the point of something being alive. We've been over this before. It is necessary for it to carry on the processes of life. Something with the ability to carry on the processes of life would not self-abort. It would carry on the processes of life. Again, what is the purpose of a zygote?
Exactly! So this nonsense from folks on here saying unique DNA proves something is a human being is just that, nonsense. We agree.
If it was carrying on the processes of life a baby would have resulted. Just because human tissue is living does not mean the zygote is carrying on the processes of life. It could very well be carrying on partial processes, just enough to keep the tissue alive for a short period on time.
As I've said before there is no logical reason to discount the possibility the mutations are of such a degree it is unable to carry on the processes of life. In fact, that is the reason the majority of cells/conceptions/zygotes do spontaneously abort, genetic mutation. That is stated in the links I provided.
Once again, it is not a point of whether it's human tissue. Of course it is. The point is it was/is not an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life and that is the qualifying factor.
In order for it to be considered a human being it has to be an organism which means it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. If, as in the majority of cases, the genetic defects are so severe the cells/conceptions/zygotes can not carry on the processes of life it means it is not an organism which, in turn, means it is not a human being. I don't see with what you could possibly have difficulty understanding. If the genetic defects prevent the organism from carrying on the processes of life that means it's not a human being because the organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life before it can be considered a human being. How more straight forward can one say it?
Perhaps you might start by comprehending everyday English language. If an organism can not carry on the processes of life it can not be a human being. If it's inability is due to genetic mutations then genetic mutations are the reason it is not a human being. It's that simple and that conforms to scientific knowledge.
That's where you go wrong. They were not human lives as in denoting a human being. Of course, it was human material and that material was temporarily living but there was no organism capable of carrying on life's processes. That's why a human being has to be an organism and an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. It's not just a case of a sperm and an egg uniting and BAM, a human being. If that was the case there would be no mention of organisms and processes of life.
That's fine but as you said we have to determine when something is a human being and we know it has to be an organism first and that organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life.
As for my views not being based on science it is the views of those who do not understand what "carrying on" means. It does not mean a living sperm and a living cell unite, even though being so genetically mutilated certain processes may continue, the product produced is unable to carry on the processes of life. Carrying on a few, temporarily, is twisting the meaning. That's where viable come in.
You talk about me taking the extreme view. The product produced by the combining of the sperm and egg has to be able to carry on the processes of life. The normal, naturally expected process of life is for the cell/conception/embryo to produce a baby, not to wither or be absorbed or otherwise disappear in a hour or a day.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are misinterpreting what it says. You are taking the term "carry on the process" and assuming it means "indefinitely carry on the process" and this is a standard that no living thing can ever achieve. If it ever WAS carrying on the process, it WAS living! That is the FACT you seem to not be able to grasp in your empty little head, and you arguing about it will never change the fact.
apple0154
MEOW
The only misunderstanding is on your part. Obviously the five-limbed, three-toed, two headed, mentally challenged individual was an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life. That's why it ended up being born. Those who never made it to birth were obviously not capable of carrying on the processes of life.
Is that really too tough a concept to understand?