When Does Life End?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow, that is insightful!

The original post was about brain activity and how we define life and death. So of course that is what the debate is about.

LIFE is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

There is no criteria for specific organs to perform at particular levels of measure, if an organism is in the state of growing trough metabolism, it is alive.

That is how we should define life and death. The only reason we don't take this logical approach to the rather simple question, is because liberals need to justify murdering innocent human life. In order to do this, they concoct false criteria, as you've done here, and try to redefine what "life" is, when it is relatively simple and not hard to understand.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I agree it does not argue for abortion after brain activity has been detected. But, it also does not lend support to the idea that life begins at conception.

concerning that we are dealing with one of the most polarizing, vicious debates politics has seen in the last 100 years, it would serve you well not to go down that path. All it does is distract from the main issue. Don't let the debate get into tangents of how you are wrong (which you are) concerning when life begins, and rather, just keep the question simple:

"when does significant life begin?"

"when does personhood begin"

"when does consciousness begin"

"at what point in the womb does one acquire individual rights?"

etc

 

[Canceled2]

That's just an opinion piece.

The science is not opinion, known brain activitity is present by 3 weeks gestation...

It is a philoshical argument by a doctor of philosophy based on actual brain activity...you posed a fucking philosophical question yourself and you are certainly NO expert!

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Not necessarily. You have heard the expression dead as a doornail. Dead can describe the absence of life.

not colloquially. you are being deliberately obtuse and you are being unusually retarded. get your terms right/acceptable so you can be taken more seriously.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"when does significant life begin?"

"when does personhood begin"

"when does consciousness begin"

"at what point in the womb does one acquire individual rights?"

etc

Your "significant life" has yet to begin.

You deserve to have your personhood revoked due to dumbness.

You've never shown signs of consciousness.

Right to life is "unalienable."

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Your "significant life" has yet to begin.

You deserve to have your personhood revoked due to dumbness.

You've never shown signs of consciousness.

Right to life is "unalienable."

i was providing no answer dixie, I was asking what I believed to be the appropriate questions for this debate.

As I predicted before reading through this entire thread, rstrings obtuseness ended up in nearly half the thread talking about irrelevant definitions, all the while missing his main point. it was shabby on his part.

note to a select few: stop saying life does not begin at conception. it does. it's a scientific fact. you look like a prole retard when you deny this. If you want to argue about personhood, or consciousness, then fine. But don't say something so retardedly unscientific that it ends up hurting your real argument. All it does is distract from the main issue.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i was providing no answer dixie, I was asking what I believed to be the appropriate questions for this debate.

As I predicted before reading through this entire thread, rstrings obtuseness ended up in nearly half the thread talking about irrelevant definitions, all the while missing his main point. it was shabby on his part.

note to a select few: stop saying life does not begin at conception. it does. it's a scientific fact. you look like a prole retard when you deny this. If you want to argue about personhood, or consciousness, then fine. But don't say something so retardedly unscientific that it ends up hurting your real argument. All it does is distract from the main issue.

Okay, I take it all back, your personhood has now been reinstated!

 

[Minister of Truth]

In answer to the thread title that Stringy posed:

Life ends at 30. Deal with it, people.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

People are declared brain dead while their heart still beats.

on life support that causes the heart to beat......that's why they are measuring brain activity....to decide whether to turn off the life support.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Not true. Your heart can completely stop and you can be easily resuscitated. The doctors give up when your brain is gone.

dude, perhaps you don't understand science but don't you even watch television?......they try to resuscitate for a few minutes....they don't have time to test for brain activity.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's just an opinion piece.

I notice you didn't acknowledge it, but was my link to the Mayo Clinic an opinion piece?......at the very least, was it a very learned opinion?......

 

[DamnYankee]

How is that a strawman? You said, "the zygote contains all the information necessary to make a brain." So does anything containing dna.

DNA by itself is not alive.

 

[Timshel]

on life support that causes the heart to beat......that's why they are measuring brain activity....to decide whether to turn off the life support.....

No, the heart beats on it's own. They would have to be on ventilation or they would soon die. But we do not use our lungs until birth.

 

[Timshel]

DNA by itself is not alive.

Obviously, circular.

A zygote is alive because it has the necessary information to build a brain.
Any genetic material having sufficient human DNA has the necessary information to build a brain.
But, unlike dna, a zygote is alive.

Obviously, the information to build a brain is no longer the standard and all you are left with is "a zygote is alive because a zygote is alive."

 

[Timshel]

dude, perhaps you don't understand science but don't you even watch television?......they try to resuscitate for a few minutes....they don't have time to test for brain activity.....

Are you serious? They do not need to test. They know the brain is still alive and will continue to try for the 6 minutes or so that they have before it dies. That is the point of no return or death.

 

[Timshel]

I notice you didn't acknowledge it, but was my link to the Mayo Clinic an opinion piece?......at the very least, was it a very learned opinion?......

Sorry, I must have missed it. You will have to post it again or give me a post number.

 

[Timshel]

i was providing no answer dixie, I was asking what I believed to be the appropriate questions for this debate.

As I predicted before reading through this entire thread, rstrings obtuseness ended up in nearly half the thread talking about irrelevant definitions, all the while missing his main point. it was shabby on his part.

It was not me who drug the discussion off into definitions.

note to a select few: stop saying life does not begin at conception. it does. it's a scientific fact. you look like a prole retard when you deny this. If you want to argue about personhood, or consciousness, then fine. But don't say something so retardedly unscientific that it ends up hurting your real argument. All it does is distract from the main issue.

We are talking about laws or ethical/political philosophy. Science can inform the debate but it answers little. And it is not a scientific fact. At best, it is merely a definition. Which returns us to... for medical and legal purposes we define death as the end of brain activity.

 

[Canceled2]

It was not me who drug the discussion off into definitions.



We are talking about laws or ethical/political philosophy. Science can inform the debate but it answers little. And it is not a scientific fact. At best, it is merely a definition. Which returns us to... for medical and legal purposes we define death as the end of brain activity.

You are clueless. The absence of detectable brain activity in a zygote earlier than 3 weeks is not an indicator of no brain activity only of our inability to detect it. The fetus has exactly the right amount of function at each stage of its developement.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

We are talking about laws or ethical/political philosophy. Science can inform the debate but it answers little. And it is not a scientific fact. At best, it is merely a definition. Which returns us to... for medical and legal purposes we define death as the end of brain activity.

At conception, you have life. This isn't up for debate. Don't confuse personhood, consciousness, etc, for life. It distracts from the main issue and makes you look dishonest. SAY personhood. SAY consciousness. Don't say life.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Life actually began 4 billion years ago, and we're all just splitoffs from that.