When Does Life End?

rstring show me any scientific article that asserts that a cell is not a form of life. so far you have failed to do so. Every article and study you have posted thus far only confirms that a cell is considered to be life by science
 
3XO3NDO said:
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.
Click to expand...

It most certainly helps my argument. You are arguing that science has proven that this or that meets your definition of life. So what? All you are doing is categorizing. Is your criteria for this categorization scientifically proven. Nope. Some things that are life fail to meet the definition and some things that are not do meet the definition. Because of that the definition changes and evolves regularly and continues to be debated.
 
3XO3NDO said:
rstring show me any scientific article that asserts that a cell is not a form of life. so far you have failed to do so. Every article and study you have posted thus far only confirms that a cell is considered to be life by science
Click to expand...

I don't care. I am not concerned here with the proper scientific definition of life. I am concerned here with the proper legal definition of life. I am pointing out two things which you continually fail to grasp. 1) the scientific definition of life (well, the one I think you are using) is not applied to the brain dead. Why should it be applied to a zygote?; 2) the scientific definition of life (well, whatever one you are using) is not a fact in and of itself. It is simply, a not very much agreed upon definition that changes.
 
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...
Not subjective, you are your brain. When your brain dies, you are dead. End of story. There is no PERSON outside of the brain. If that were so we could remove your brain and you would still continue to be a person. Completely illogical.
 
Why should it be applied to a zygote?
Click to expand...

it shouldn't be. i never asserted otherwise.

I am more concerned with consciousness and personhood. A cell as a lifeform is pretty much accepted fact in the scientific community. A few definitions here and there might be different, but a cell almost always fits into any definition of life a scientist will come up with. Every article that you have submitted thus far only continues that trend.

When arguing about abortion, you shouldn't frame the issue in terms of "is it life or not" Even if we were to stipulate that you are correct (which I don't think you are at all), it's irrelevant. There are probably invertebrates in the ocean more advanced and cognizant than an early developing fetus/zygote. The crux of this entire issue is whether or not a fetus has rights, to what level of conscious do we endow it with rights, at one point it becomes a person, etc.

Arguing about when life begins is futile, as almost all accepted science and biology states that a cell is a lifeform. Even if we could have an debate against such notions, your main point is just going to end up being lost in the noise.

Stick to what matters: human rights, consciousness, personhood.
 
Socrtease said:
Not subjective, you are your brain. When your brain dies, you are dead. End of story. There is no PERSON outside of the brain. If that were so we could remove your brain and you would still continue to be a person. Completely illogical.
Click to expand...
This is an arbitrary measure not based on the biological definition of "alive", you think that because the brain is dead "you" are, but that has little to do with whether the organism lives. This is, again, subjective in the assumption that the sum of "you" is the brain, it does not change that the organism may live on in a biological sense regardless of brain activity for quite some time.

People took a event to call the end of "personhood" and used it to give a legal definition to death so that your meat trap isn't kept alive to the exclusion of means of society.
 
Damocles said:
This is an arbitrary measure not based on the biological definition of "alive", you think that because the brain is dead "you" are, but that has little to do with whether the organism lives. This is, again, subjective in the assumption that the sum of "you" is the brain, it does not change that the organism may live on in a biological sense regardless of brain activity for quite some time.
Click to expand...
So assuming that you are your brain is subjective. I have a wager for you. I will sign a contract, stating that if you will allow a doctor to remove your brain, except for the brain stem, and then you are able to recover and leave the hospital, I will pay for the operation. If not, your family pays for it. I mean, if there is a YOU that is not your brain, you should get right up and walk away. Right. At least we could end this strawman subjective objective argument.
 
3XO3NDO said:
it shouldn't be. i never asserted otherwise.

I am more concerned with consciousness and personhood. A cell as a lifeform is pretty much accepted fact in the scientific community. A few definitions here and there might be different, but a cell almost always fits into any definition of life a scientist will come up with. Every article that you have submitted thus far only continues that trend.

When arguing about abortion, you shouldn't frame the issue in terms of "is it life or not" Even if we were to stipulate that you are correct (which I don't think you are at all), it's irrelevant. There are probably invertebrates in the ocean more advanced and cognizant than an early developing fetus/zygote. The crux of this entire issue is whether or not a fetus has rights, to what level of conscious do we endow it with rights, at one point it becomes a person, etc.

Arguing about when life begins is futile, as almost all accepted science and biology states that a cell is a lifeform. Even if we could have an debate against such notions, your main point is just going to end up being lost in the noise.

Stick to what matters: human rights, consciousness, personhood.
Click to expand...
Which is where the law is attempting to draw the line. As soon as you become a "person" that is when it is unconscionable to kill for convenience. Whether it is at the end of life or at the beginning, killing to save cash or to maintain a certain lifestyle would be considered wrong by most thinking people if you are whacking a thinking person without their consent. (And for some consent means nothing).
 
Socrtease said:
So assuming that you are your brain is subjective. I have a wager for you. I will sign a contract, stating that if you will allow a doctor to remove your brain, except for the brain stem, and then you are able to recover and leave the hospital, I will pay for the operation. If not, your family pays for it. I mean, if there is a YOU that is not your brain, you should get right up and walk away. Right. At least we could end this strawman subjective objective argument.
Click to expand...
This is silliness. When, in my post, I said you would never be able to animate the meat trap again you somehow take this from it? Lawyers sometimes can't think well.

I point out simply that the body may continue to live regardless and it would still be biologically "alive" even though the law uses the subjective measure of when you are no longer a "person"...

Are you truly arguing that the legal definition isn't different from a biological definition of life? Or are you taking umbrage to me calling that line subjective?

I call it subjective because that line often moves, if we later on discover a way to reanimate the gray cells I am sure that line will again change. The subjective legal measure of "person" is what we are talking about in this thread, somebody keeps trying to say that in no way could a zygote be considered "alive" another points out that it certainly does meet the accepted biological definition of "life"... Is it a "being" or a "person"? That's where people are drawing their lines here.
 
3XO3NDO said:
it shouldn't be. i never asserted otherwise.

I am more concerned with consciousness and personhood. A cell as a lifeform is pretty much accepted fact in the scientific community. A few definitions here and there might be different, but a cell almost always fits into any definition of life a scientist will come up with. Every article that you have submitted thus far only continues that trend.

When arguing about abortion, you shouldn't frame the issue in terms of "is it life or not" Even if we were to stipulate that you are correct (which I don't think you are at all), it's irrelevant. There are probably invertebrates in the ocean more advanced and cognizant than an early developing fetus/zygote. The crux of this entire issue is whether or not a fetus has rights, to what level of conscious do we endow it with rights, at one point it becomes a person, etc.

Arguing about when life begins is futile, as almost all accepted science and biology states that a cell is a lifeform. Even if we could have an debate against such notions, your main point is just going to end up being lost in the noise.

Stick to what matters: human rights, consciousness, personhood.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it meets whatever scientific definition you choose to use. All that can be be proven scientifically is that it meets the definition. There is no scientific consensus on the definition and it is not possible to prove the definition. In fact, scientific research has and will continue to alter what is a workable definition.

So again whether, my use of the word "life" fits whatever scientific definition you are using is not relevant to me one bit. Especially, since I am arguing what is the proper legal definition of human life.
 
Damocles said:
This is silliness. When, in my post, I said you would never be able to animate the meat trap again you somehow take this from it? Lawyers sometimes can't think well.

I point out simply that the body may continue to live regardless and it would still be biologically "alive" even though the law uses the subjective measure of when you are no longer a "person"...

Are you truly arguing that the legal definition isn't different from a biological definition of life? Or are you taking umbrage to me calling that line subjective?
Click to expand...
I guess what I am saying, is that the argument of "being alive" is what kept Terry Schiavo's empty slab of flesh functioning for much longer than it should have, and at great waste of time, and money. It is the same for a fetus, at some point we should value the potentiality of the unborn over desires of the host. But from the moment of conception is every bit as foolish as it was to keep Terry Schiavo's corpse functioning.
 
Socrtease said:
I guess what I am saying, is that the argument of "being alive" is what kept Terry Schiavo's empty slab of flesh functioning for much longer than it should have, and at great waste of time, and money. It is the same for a fetus, at some point we should value the potentiality of the unborn over desires of the host. But from the moment of conception is every bit as foolish as it was to keep Terry Schiavo's corpse functioning.
Click to expand...
It isn't even close to "as foolish" to continue to allow an otherwise flourishing life to continue its development.
 
Damocles said:
It isn't even close to "as foolish" to continue to allow an otherwise flourishing life to continue its development.
Click to expand...
At six weeks you are no more sure it is flourishing than were Schiavo's parents and the dumb ass conservatives in florida that she was still alive. And they were, in there own mind, as certain as you are, that she was alive, hell, she smiled when you walked into the room. Only her brain was HALF the size of a normal brain, and her optic nerves had rotted in her head. But your whole party was SURE she was still alive.
 
Socrtease said:
At six weeks you are no more sure it is flourishing than were Schiavo's parents and the dumb ass conservatives in florida that she was still alive. And they were, in there own mind, as certain as you are, that she was alive, hell, she smiled when you walked into the room. Only her brain was HALF the size of a normal brain, and her optic nerves had rotted in her head. But your whole party was SURE she was still alive.
Click to expand...
However, you are sure to find out by waiting just a bit. Almost every R that I know and knew at that time simply wanted to have another doctor take a look.

It isn't even close to the same "foolishness" to make sure before you kill something or possibly someone.

When I found out how many doctors had tested her (many didn't know), it was a no-brainer ;) and I argued it is a family's right to make that decision. I think you are foolish for suggesting that they are the same thing. One has potential, the other has none.
 
Southern Man said:
In other words, you're making up your own definitions of language to suit your argument. How lame.
Click to expand...

I am looking for a workable legal definition of life. The definition alluded to (but rarely stated) of the "one true" (it's not either) scientific definition of life does not work because it would define the brain dead as alive.
 
RStringfield said:
I am looking for a workable legal definition of life. The definition alluded to (but rarely stated) of the "one true" (it's not either) scientific definition of life does not work because it would define the brain dead as alive.
Click to expand...
You are looking for a legal definition of "living person", not "life"... I think you lose the point you are trying to make to semantics.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't care if it meets whatever scientific definition you choose to use. All that can be be proven scientifically is that it meets the definition. There is no scientific consensus on the definition and it is not possible to prove the definition. In fact, scientific research has and will continue to alter what is a workable definition.

So again whether, my use of the word "life" fits whatever scientific definition you are using is not relevant to me one bit. Especially, since I am arguing what is the proper legal definition of human life.
Click to expand...

A cell is considered life by any scientific definition that there is. There IS scientific consensus on that. I challenge you to find even one scientific definition that would assert otherwise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top