When Does Life End?

The legal definition of death is not the same as the biological definition of death. You can keep the meat prison alive longer than the brain, biologically it would be a living organism but it wouldn't legally be a living PERSON, which again is a philosophical and subjective argument.
 
RStringfield said:
Because, that is what we call those machines. Once again, you guys revert to splitting hairs over stupid trivial bullshit.

If you are arguing that the brain dead are still alive, then fine. But, then why do they not deserve the protection you demand for a zygote? Or should they be protected in the same way?
Click to expand...
They are alive, just not viable without unnatural and abnormal intervention.
 
Damocles said:
The legal definition of death is not the same as the biological definition of death. You can keep the meat prison alive longer than the brain, biologically it would be a living organism but it wouldn't legally be a living PERSON, which again is a philosophical and subjective argument.
Click to expand...
Unless they were a Democrat, and could be kept alive forever for voting purposes.
 
Damocles said:
The legal definition of death is not the same as the biological definition of death. You can keep the meat prison alive longer than the brain, biologically it would be a living organism but it wouldn't legally be a living PERSON, which again is a philosophical and subjective argument.
Click to expand...

Just like with the brain dead, the debate on abortion concerns the proper legal definition of life. Further, the legal definition is no more subjective than any definition utilized by science. In both, it is simply a guideline. To pretend the definition itself is fact is retarded, when it changes rather frequently.
 
RStringfield said:
Just like with the brain dead, the debate on abortion concerns the proper legal definition of life. Further, the legal definition is no more subjective than any definition utilized by science. In both, it is simply a guideline. To pretend the definition itself is fact is retarded, when it changes rather frequently.
Click to expand...
Pretending that the Zygote is not a human life at a different life stage is pretense, arguing whether it is a "person" or a "being" is more valid, but it is extremely subjective. The fact that the philosophical definition "changes" with greater knowledge doesn't make it better.
 
RStringfield said:
It's not a fact. At conception it meets your definition of life. That's all you have. Your definition is just something you fabricated. It is not a fact at all. The only facts can be whether your definition works. I am pointing out that it does not work in application to the brain dead, unless you wish to argue that they are alive and should be treated that way.
Click to expand...

No, it IS a fact, and you are just ignorant of the fact. Your ignorance of fact does not make something less of a fact, it just means you are ignorant. It's not fabricated or an arbitrary definition, it is a proven biological fact that can't be refuted. It works in any and all applications, something that is a living organism, IS a living organism until it becomes inorganic and dies.
 
Dixie said:
Doesn't matter... if it aborted, it WAS living! If it WAS living, it had to be some form of living organism. If it was the result of a male human sperm and female human egg, it was a living human organism. If it existed in the state of being as such, it was a "human being." What happened to it after that, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

It does matter. Do we know if the egg and sperm, when combined, had the necessary properties to become a human being? No, we do not. There could have been parts of the DNA missing or genes so defective nothing would have come of them.
 
rstring, a cell is understood by all of a science to be life and a living organism. a zygote is a cell. Pretty much every scientist in the world disagrees with you.
 
apple0154 said:
It does matter. Do we know if the egg and sperm, when combined, had the necessary properties to become a human being? No, we do not. There could have been parts of the DNA missing or genes so defective nothing would have come of them.
Click to expand...
Lack of knowledge doesn't make the decision to kill something any better.
 
Damocles said:
Pretending that the Zygote is not a human life at a different life stage is pretense, arguing whether it is a "person" is more valid, but it is extremely subjective. The fact that is "changes" with knowledge doesn't make it better.
Click to expand...

The scientific definition of life changes. It is not set in stone. It is not universal. It is not a fact in and of itself. It is simply a guideline of human construction for describing what we refer to as life from the perspective of science. It changes and adapts when it fails to accurately describe what we mean as life.

The same is true of the legal definition. The only difference is that moral philosophy informs legal definitions where science has no concern for that.

It is not pretense to argue that your scientific definition of life fails in the legal realm.
 
RStringfield said:
Oh, here we go back to your natural and normal bullshit, where anything that offends your faith fails your definition of natural and normal.

All that is, is more circular bullshit.
Click to expand...
No reason to get belligerent just because you've lost a simple argument. It doesn't offend me that you're wrong, and I don't see what my Faith has to do with it.
 
Southern Man said:
No reason to get belligerent just because you've lost a simple argument. It doesn't offend me that you're wrong, and I don't see what my Faith has to do with it.
Click to expand...

I have not lost anything. We have seen where this line of your circular reasoning leads and it is a complete dead end.
 
RStringfield said:
The scientific definition of life changes. It is not set in stone. It is not universal. It is not a fact in and of itself. It is simply a guideline of human construction for describing what we refer to as life from the perspective of science. It changes and adapts when it fails to accurately describe what we mean as life.

The same is true of the legal definition. The only difference is that moral philosophy informs legal definitions where science has no concern for that.

It is not pretense to argue that your scientific definition of life fails in the legal realm.
Click to expand...

I posted the definition of life earlier, it is when something is not inorganic or dead. If it is not inorganic, and it is not dead, it is living. It possesses LIFE!
 
RStringfield said:
The scientific definition of life changes. It is not set in stone. It is not universal. It is not a fact in and of itself. It is simply a guideline of human construction for describing what we refer to as life from the perspective of science. It changes and adapts when it fails to accurately describe what we mean as life.

The same is true of the legal definition. The only difference is that moral philosophy informs legal definitions where science has no concern for that.

It is not pretense to argue that your scientific definition of life fails in the legal realm.
Click to expand...
The scientific definition of life changes? Please do tell. Give me a link as to when that happened. Every scientist I know of understands that an abortion takes a life, it is whether it is a "person" or a human "being" that creates the argument. Subjective philosophical stuff, not the science.
 
RStringfield said:
Of course, it changes and there is still debate over what it means.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html
Click to expand...

if there is any debate at all, it is that more things than we thought are alive (such as viruses) as opposed to less. This doesn't help your argument at all, and of course the molecular biologist in this article once again sums up pretty much everything that has already been said in this thread.

the fact that you are arguing that a cell isn't scientifically accepted as life is asinine. you are way out on a limb here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top