When Does Life End?

bravo said:
Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.


Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.
The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.


http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Click to expand...

You don't agree with anything in bold do you...but you like the post ???
 
bravo said:
I'm not sure how long it takes for the growth from 1 cell into 2, but that is growth, is it not....at that moment, it is alive as you've agreed...
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but the point is we do not know if the cell is growing towards splitting or just slowly dying.

Let me put it this way. The onus is not on me to show if a cell is growing. As soon as we know all cells do not grow it negates the argument that life begins at conception or, more accurately, that all conceptions are life. It only takes one exception even though there is a high number of conceptions which spontaneously abort.

Then we have "gastrulation" to consider. Up until the third week of pregnancy the cell can split and the result is two zygotes. The second zygote did not come into existence at conception. Not until after "gastrulation" do we know the zygote is destined to become no more than one human being.

Does that mean the second "person" is not really a person because they didn't come into existence at conception?

I'm still reading the article you linked to. It's a wealth of information and if you read the entire article you can see the points of my arguments clearly laid out.

Again, thank-you.

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

bravo said:
Not quite true....the claim and the definition is when a viable zygote is created...



If it doesn't grow, its not viable....if it splits from one cell into two cells, its growing


Irrelevant...



I'm not sure how long it takes for the growth from 1 cell into 2, but that is growth, is it not....at that moment, it is alive as you've agreed...




The length of a zygotes life is irrelevant...as is how many actually survive





Forget anti-abortionists, debate SCIENCE..why distort science to support abortion?.
Click to expand...
 
bravo said:
What in this post do you think supports what you've been saying ?
The twinning argument?
Click to expand...


The following. "Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell."

It is a process just as the growing of the cell is a process and we do not know if a particular cell is growing until it has grown or split.

Did you read the article?
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, but the point is we do not know if the cell is growing towards splitting or just slowly dying.

Let me put it this way. The onus is not on me to show if a cell is growing. As soon as we know all cells do not grow it negates the argument that life begins at conception or, more accurately, that all conceptions are life. It only takes one exception even though there is a high number of conceptions which spontaneously abort.

You don't have to be aware of when the cell starts growing...only realize that at that first cell splitting from 1 into 2, IT IS GROWING AND ALIVE....

Then we have "gastrulation" to consider. Up until the third week of pregnancy the cell can split and the result is two zygotes.

So what/ Whats your point?

The second zygote did not come into existence at conception. Not until after "gastrulation" do we know the zygote is destined to become no more than one human being.

Is it any less a human because of the delay in the creation of the second zygote?

Does that mean the second "person" is not really a person because they didn't come into existence at conception?

Of course not.it IS still a result of that first fertilization( the process).....

I'm still reading the article you linked to. It's a wealth of information and if you read the entire article you can see the points of my arguments clearly laid out.

Again, thank-you.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
Notice...

even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

I"ve stated this in post 649...long ago
=====================
And certainly bear in mind,...just because something is possible, doesn't make it so....
 
It is an informative article and I'm sure you'll find something there to satisfy your sick need to justify abortion....

Personally, I don't see why need to convince yourself you're not killing a human being...
You're like the creep that needs to convince himself that beating his wife is justified..and needs to convince others hes doing the right thing....my conscience doesn't need to be placated...
 
Again, it doesn't matter if it is dying, it couldn't die if it wasn't alive. Like in the case of a residual body, earlier our resident biologist informed us that the residual body isn't "dead" because it never started to live (grow).

You list natural deaths and attempt to say that something isn't alive because it died. It's simply illogical, and goes against the actual definitions from scientific literature that have been supplied throughout the thread. A living organism is living even if it is soon going to die. It could not die if it never lived. A living human organism is a human life, regardless of its stage of life.
 
bravo said:
You don't agree with anything in bold do you...but you like the post ???
Click to expand...

I love the post!

In bold you wrote, "One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others."

A popular argument, however, that zygote can split and form another unique individual that just so happens to have the same DNA so how can unique DNA mean anything? The article states, "The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life.

That's why, as in your signature line, I wrote, "Therefore, the idea that unique DNA is the determining factor of whether one is a human being is nonsense."

It is nonsense because the two "people" the zygote eventually become do not have unique DNA. Their DNA is the same which means, according to you and that particular argument, neither one is a person. If unique DNA is the determining factor the moment another person comes along with the same DNA it means the person we thought was a person no longer qualifies as a person because their DNA is no longer unique. Now what do we do?

On the whole the article was excellent as it lists the people and/or definitions of what constitutes human life and we can see there was always some know-it-all who actually knew very little.

The bottom line is we don't know but that hasn't stopped people down through the ages grabbing on to whatever was fashionable at the time. The know-very-little's would take a position that couldn't be readily disproved and used it to implement policy. That is the same being tried today, however, science continues to rapidly progress resulting in disproving or, at the least, raising legitimate questions such as the ideas about conception and unique DNA, etc.

Again, thanks for posting the link. Excellent article.
 
Replies in blue.

bravo said:
Originally Posted by apple0154 Ahhh, but the point is we do not know if the cell is growing towards splitting or just slowly dying. Let me put it this way. The onus is not on me to show if a cell is growing. As soon as we know all cells do not grow it negates the argument that life begins at conception or, more accurately, that all conceptions are life. It only takes one exception even though there is a high number of conceptions which spontaneously abort.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be aware of when the cell starts growing...only realize that at that first cell splitting from 1 into 2, IT IS GROWING AND ALIVE....

Fine. So not all conceptions are a human life. That’s all I wanted to point out.

Then we have "gastrulation" to consider. Up until the third week of pregnancy the cell can split and the result is two zygotes.
Click to expand...

So what/ Whats your point?

My point is not all human life starts at conception.

The second zygote did not come into existence at conception. Not until after "gastrulation" do we know the zygote is destined to become no more than one human being.
Click to expand...

Is it any less a human because of the delay in the creation of the second zygote?

Not at all. It simply verifies my point is not all human life starts at conception.

Does that mean the second "person" is not really a person because they didn't come into existence at conception?
Click to expand...

Of course not.it IS still a result of that first fertilization( the process).....

The point is it didn’t come into existence at fertilization/conception and guess what? My point is not all human life starts at fertilization/conception.


I'm still reading the article you linked to. It's a wealth of information and if you read the entire article you can see the points of my arguments clearly laid out. Again, thank-you.
Click to expand...
 
bravo said:
It is an informative article and I'm sure you'll find something there to satisfy your sick need to justify abortion....

Personally, I don't see why need to convince yourself you're not killing a human being...
You're like the creep that needs to convince himself that beating his wife is justified..and needs to convince others hes doing the right thing....my conscience doesn't need to be placated...
Click to expand...

Now be nice. I was just starting to like you.

I thought it was very decent of you to post that article. It showed the character trait of wanting to be fair. What's that saying....oh, yes, "Fair and balanced." :)

The article mentioned a number of points I had brought up and I'm thankful you posted it. As I previously mentioned one outstanding thing the article showed was how people grasped on to the flimsiest of reasons to outlaw abortion and we see the same mentality prevails today.

There's nothing to be discouraged about. People have been mislead for literally thousands of years.
 
Damocles said:
Again, it doesn't matter if it is dying, it couldn't die if it wasn't alive. Like in the case of a residual body, earlier our resident biologist informed us that the residual body isn't "dead" because it never started to live (grow).

You list natural deaths and attempt to say that something isn't alive because it died. It's simply illogical, and goes against the actual definitions from scientific literature that have been supplied throughout the thread. A living organism is living even if it is soon going to die. It could not die if it never lived. A living human organism is a human life, regardless of its stage of life.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're deliberately misunderstanding my point. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. When the sperm and the egg combine it is possible, actually quite probable, it never has the ability to carry on the processes of life so while the tissue that forms is living in the sense our skin is alive it does not meet the criteria to be an organism. Thus "it" dies. "It" being the mass of tissue.

Did you read the article? Did you not get anything out of it?
 
apple0154 said:
I'm sure you're deliberately misunderstanding my point. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. When the sperm and the egg combine it is possible, actually quite probable, it never has the ability to carry on the processes of life so while the tissue that forms is living in the sense our skin is alive it does not meet the criteria to be an organism. Thus "it" dies. "It" being the mass of tissue.

Did you read the article? Did you not get anything out of it?
Click to expand...

In that case, "conception" never successfully happened and no organism was formed, therefore, it is not pertinent to this discussion. When you masturbate and ejaculate, the sperm cells die in your sock at the bottom of the hamper, no one cares about that, it's not pertinent to this discussion. Do you comprehend.
 
Just to inject a little humor here I recall when I mentioned fertilized chicken eggs someone berated me for comparing a human being to a chicken. Check out this guy's analogy for a dividing zygote.

Alan Holland puts forth the view that just because a zygote has the possibility to divide into multiple individuals does not mean that it is not an individual before it divides. As an analogy, he presents the case of the worm that is clearly a single individual worm until it is cut into two when it becomes two individual worms.

HAHAHAHAHA I guess some folks will resort to any analogy.
 
Dixie said:
In that case, "conception" never successfully happened and no organism was formed, therefore, it is not pertinent to this discussion. When you masturbate and ejaculate, the sperm cells die in your sock at the bottom of the hamper, no one cares about that, it's not pertinent to this discussion. Do you comprehend.
Click to expand...

What I comprehend is you need to spend more time reading the article and less time with your socks.
 
apple0154 said:
I love the post!

In bold you wrote, "One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others."

A popular argument, however, that zygote can split and form another unique individual that just so happens to have the same DNA so how can unique DNA mean anything? The article states, "The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life.

That's why, as in your signature line, I wrote, "Therefore, the idea that unique DNA is the determining factor of whether one is a human being is nonsense."

It is nonsense because the two "people" the zygote eventually become do not have unique DNA. Their DNA is the same which means, according to you and that particular argument, neither one is a person. If unique DNA is the determining factor the moment another person comes along with the same DNA it means the person we thought was a person no longer qualifies as a person because their DNA is no longer unique. Now what do we do?

On the whole the article was excellent as it lists the people and/or definitions of what constitutes human life and we can see there was always some know-it-all who actually knew very little.

The bottom line is we don't know but that hasn't stopped people down through the ages grabbing on to whatever was fashionable at the time. The know-very-little's would take a position that couldn't be readily disproved and used it to implement policy. That is the same being tried today, however, science continues to rapidly progress resulting in disproving or, at the least, raising legitimate questions such as the ideas about conception and unique DNA, etc.

Again, thanks for posting the link. Excellent article.
Click to expand...

I understood "unique DNA" to mean that the DNA is different when compared to either the mother or father's DNA....it is unique to new creation....
Identical twins, formed when one fertilized egg splits, are the only people in the world with identical DNA.....
You seem to think this is somehow an astounding development about DNA....
and yet it proves nothing....2 persons from one fertilized egg...big deal?
Not at all....genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life.
DNA just identifies an entity as human as opposed to an onion..or a Democrat...


You wrote...
That's why, as in your signature line, I wrote, "Therefore, the idea that unique DNA is the determining factor of whether one is a human being is nonsense."
Click to expand...
This is incorrect....unique DNA is the determining factor in identifying you as human, a human being....
Human DNA is unique to humans...what the hell did you think it meant....
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
I'm sure you're deliberately misunderstanding my point. An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. When the sperm and the egg combine it is possible, actually quite probable, it never has the ability to carry on the processes of life so while the tissue that forms is living in the sense our skin is alive it does not meet the criteria to be an organism. Thus "it" dies. "It" being the mass of tissue.

Did you read the article? Did you not get anything out of it?
Click to expand...
And again you are deliberately ignoring that it is carrying on the processes of life once it begins to grow. And even in the article you just ignored it is an organism even when it is a residual body, it just isn't "living" at that point. It is growth that defines it as alive.

The article stated much of what I already stated, that you ignored those points in that article as much as you ignored it here doesn't change anything at all about my points or the deliberate way you ignore science in order to continue this inanity.
 
bravo said:
I understood "unique DNA" to mean that the DNA is different when compared to either the mother or father's DNA....it is unique to new creation....
Identical twins, formed when one fertilized egg splits, are the only people in the world with identical DNA.....
You seem to think this is somehow an astounding development about DNA....
and yet it proves nothing....2 persons from one fertilized egg...big deal?
Not at all....genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life.
DNA just identifies an entity as human as opposed to an onion...
Click to expand...

Statement one: "DNA....it is unique to new creation"
Statement two: "Identical twins, formed when one fertilized egg splits, are the only people in the world with identical DNA"

Statement two contradicts statement one. If DNA is unique to a new creation and another creation comes along with the same DNA ( a twin) then either the other creation can not be a creation OR DNA is not unique to a creation.

Obviously the twin is a creation so the only possible answer is DNA is not unique to a creation which means unique DNA is not the determining factor of whether something is a creation (human).

unique DNA is the determining factor in identifying you as human, a human being....
Human DNA is unique to humans...what the hell did you think it meant....
Click to expand...

Unique DNA does not determine if something is a human being and chimerism proves that. Let's say samples of DNA are taken from a pregnant woman who is a chimera. One sample of DNA is taken from her blood, another sample from her liver and the last sample of DNA is taken from the fetus.

Assuming we use the sample from her blood to DNA type-cast her do the other two unique samples mean she is carrying fraternal twins? Is her liver a human being?

Unique DNA does not determine a human being. It determines the sample is human material. Furthermore, DNA does not determine if something is alive. A sample from a live fetus and a sample from the same fetus after it died would read exactly the same.

The point is DNA can no more determine if a fetus is a living human being any more than it can tell us if a strand of hair is a living human being and that's very important because anti-abortionists like to state things like, "You can't argue with science" or "Why deny what's been scientifically proven" and other similar remarks which are misleading at best and lies and deception at worst.

All that DNA can tell us is a fertilized cell or zygote or embryo or fetus is composed of human material. It can not tell us if any of these things are human beings or even if they are alive.

Anti-abortionists have deliberately twisted the meaning of DNA testing trying to claim it's irrefutable, scientific proof a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human being or a human life. It does nothing of the sort.

If, as you say, your point was human DNA is unique to humans then obviously I agree and I have said exactly that, over and over. DNA can tell if something is human material.

I’m not looking to make “points” here. The purpose of discussion, as far as I’m concerned, is to learn and I thanked you for posting a certain link. It put things in perspective and if we misunderstood each other I think we’ve cleared that up. Agree? Disagree?
 
Damocles said:
And again you are deliberately ignoring that it is carrying on the processes of life once it begins to grow. And even in the article you just ignored it is an organism even when it is a residual body, it just isn't "living" at that point. It is growth that defines it as alive.

The article stated much of what I already stated, that you ignored those points in that article as much as you ignored it here doesn't change anything at all about my points or the deliberate way you ignore science in order to continue this inanity.
Click to expand...

Under which view is that mentioned:
Metabolic View? Genetic View? Embryological View? Neurological view? Ecological / Technological view:?
 
apple0154 said:
Statement one: "DNA....it is unique to new creation"
Statement two: "Identical twins, formed when one fertilized egg splits, are the only people in the world with identical DNA"

The DNA is unique in that its not exactly like the fathers and not exacxtly like the mothers...ITS UNIQUE...if you weren't so narrow and closed minded, you have room in that thick skull for some new FACTS....FACTS


Statement two contradicts statement one. If DNA is unique to a new creation and another creation comes along with the same DNA ( a twin) then either the other creation can not be a creation OR DNA is not unique to a creation.

Are you seriously gonna deny scientific FACT
Although identical twins have the same genotype, or DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways.

Traits determined by phenotype, such as fingerprints and physical appearance, are the result of "the interaction of the individual�s genes and the developmental environment in the uterus." Thus, a DNA test can't determine the difference between identical twins, while a simple fingerprint can.

Obviously the twin is a creation so the only possible answer is DNA is not unique to a creation which means unique DNA is not the determining factor of whether something is a creation (human).

" unique DNA is not the determining factor of whether something is a creation (human)."

Do you even understand what the hell your statement says...????
-----------
HUMAN DNA IS UNIQUE TO HUMANS.....period....
Apes don't have human dna
Chickens don't have human dna
Cats don't have human dna

and I"m not even positive about you....


Unique DNA does not determine if something is a human being and chimerism proves that. Let's say samples of DNA are taken from a pregnant woman who is a chimera. One sample of DNA is taken from her blood, another sample from her liver and the last sample of DNA is taken from the fetus.

Assuming we use the sample from her blood to DNA type-cast her do the other two unique samples mean she is carrying fraternal twins? Is her liver a human being?

Unique DNA does not determine a human being. It determines the sample is human material. No shit Dick Tracy..
Furthermore, DNA does not determine if something is alive.No one made that claim

A sample from a live fetus and a sample from the same fetus after it died would read exactly the same. So what

The point is DNA can no more determine if a fetus is a living human being any more than it can tell us if a strand of hair is a living human being and that's very important because anti-abortionists like to state things like, "You can't argue with science" or "Why deny what's been scientifically proven" and other similar remarks which are misleading at best and lies and deception at worst.
No one made the claims you carry on about...you're just like TCL...make rediculas points about issues not even in question as if your telling us something we don't know...

All that DNA can tell us is a fertilized cell or zygote or embryo or fetus is composed of human material. It can not tell us if any of these things are human beings or even if they are alive.

Anti-abortionists have deliberately twisted the meaning of DNA testing trying to claim it's irrefutable, scientific proof a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human being or a human life. It does nothing of the sort.
The DNA testing will and does prove it is human...it ain't a fuckin' carrot in the womens womb, you dope..

If, as you say, your point was human DNA is unique to humans then obviously I agree and I have said exactly that, over and over. DNA can tell if something is human material.

I’m not looking to make “points” here. The purpose of discussion, as far as I’m concerned, is to learn and I thanked you for posting a certain link. It put things in perspective and if we misunderstood each other I think we’ve cleared that up. Agree? Disagree?
Click to expand...

The bottom line is....Life does not create DNA...DNA creates life....
The fact that the fertilized egg splits into two cells proves life .....

Why you keep about this is weird...

Chimerism is an extremely rare disorder that mixes the chromosomal population in a single organism. In these cases, chimerism may manifest as the presence of two sets of DNA, or organs that do not match the DNA of the rest of the organism. In some cases, hermaphroditic characteristics, in other words, having both male and female sex organs, can be signs of chimerism. Alternately, small patches of DNA can be present throughout the body.

Do you claim that this chimerism, this organism is not human...not A human ???????
 
Damocles said:
And again you are deliberately ignoring that it is carrying on the processes of life once it begins to grow. And even in the article you just ignored it is an organism even when it is a residual body, it just isn't "living" at that point. It is growth that defines it as alive.

The article stated much of what I already stated, that you ignored those points in that article as much as you ignored it here doesn't change anything at all about my points or the deliberate way you ignore science in order to continue this inanity.
Click to expand...

I scanned the article again and do not see where it's written a residual body is an organism. Perhaps you would be so kind as to direct me to where such is written?

Just to be clear are you talking about the article located here? http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top