When Does Life End?

[Mott the Hoople]

Every conception begins a human life. There is no argument there either!

That's not entirely correct Dixie. A more correct statement would be "Successful fertilization begins a human life." Even after fertilization (conception) life does not always begin. Life would not begin until metabolic processes begin in that cell and the cell divides. This does not always occur at conception. Sometimes metabolic processes do not occur and the cell does not divide. Biologist call these "Residual Bodies". This residual body is not alive. Would we say that this new cell with it's unique DNA died? No, it would be more correct to state, that in this circumstance, it was not alive to begin with. So indeed, all human life does begin at fertilization but not all conceptions result in human life.

You are trying to claim, because SOME conceptions do not produce an organism that continues to live, it is never alive to begin with, and that is absurd. It can't die unless it is first alive, do you just not get that? What part are you having trouble with? If it was alive and then dies, that doesn't change the fact that it was alive. If it was alive at ANY point, it was a living human organism, it can't be classified as any other type of living organism!

No Dixie it can't. At fertilization (conception) that cell may be the beginning of human life but it is not a "living organism" at that point. The cell must grow, divide, differentiate into specialized tissue and those tissues must develop into organs with specialized functions before that form of life could be classified as "a living organism".

If it dies, then it dies... ALL LIVING HUMANS WILL EVENTUALLY DO THIS! At NO point does that change what they were BEFORE they died!

This goes without saying.

 

[apple0154]

A finger is neither alive nor dead....the cells that make up the finger are....
again whats your point ?
A finger is not a human being....

Great! We're getting somewhere. I see you're using the word "alive" as meaning a human being. So, all the cells in the finger can be alive but according to your definition the finger isn't "alive" in the sense it's not a human being. Is that an accurate interpretation?

If so, that's exactly what I have been trying to get across to you regarding the fertilized cell. The fertilized cell can be "alive" in the sense the cells are alive but that does not necessarily mean it is a human being.

As I explained before people are born with defects. For example, whatever was necessary for an individual to have a "normal" heart was missing from the fertilized cell that eventually produced an individual requiring an operation immediately after birth.

Logically, it follows there must be instances where a fertilized cell is missing so many parts that it can not be considered an organism and as mentioned before it must be able to be an organism if it is to become a human being.

Considering over 50% spontaneously abort within hours/days the logical conclusion is the fertilized cells in question were missing parts as it was incapable of carrying on the processes of life which is a requirement for being considered an organism.

 

[apple0154]

Well apple, if you ever feel the need for more schooling don't hesitate to rejoin the debate when I'm around........

It's unfortunate you're unable to grasp the most basic logic.

 

[Damocles]

It's been pointed out several times that medical and legal definitions do not define some human cells as living if the brain is dead. Those are the fields we are talking about. Context!

Why must I use the unknown scientist's (you still have not told us which one we are suppose to use) definition of life? I am not going to demand that a biophysicist use a biologists definition or vice versa. I am sure they have their reasons for the differences. So why would I demand that we use one of those definitions in the legal and/or medical fields.

Silliness. This again speaks to the person, not the cells themselves. Terry Schiavo was not legally alive, but her breathing sitting and other actions were evident that her cells and body were.

If you can't get past the differences between legal definitions and scientific ones you have lost your point to semantics. Being more careful in what you say would change this.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Great! We're getting somewhere. I see you're using the word "alive" as meaning a human being. So, all the cells in the finger can be alive but according to your definition the finger isn't "alive" in the sense it's not a human being. Is that an accurate interpretation?

.

A finger is not a complete organism. A zygote is a living complete entity, though young, with growing to do.

 

[apple0154]

Your finger is not a living human organism. It is part of a living human organism, as is a liver, a kidney, a fingernail. None of these have the capacity to carry on the process of life, they are dependent upon the organism they belong to.

You can call me names if it makes you feel better, I don't blame you, if I were failing miserably and making a complete and total fool of myself, I might resort to the same thing. The only person in this debate who has an unprecedented ignorance of science is you. That's not calling you names, that is the truth of the matter when it comes to this. You are wrong, and just about everyone is in consensus on that, in fact, not one poster has agreed with you on it.

I'm not here to compete in a popularity contest.

It is evident fertilized cells have defects as people are born with defects. Some slight, some severe. To believe a fertilized cell can not be defective to the point where it does not qualify as an organism is completely illogical. There are no scientific findings or opinions to suggest it can not happen. Also, there are no scientific findings on why over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Simply put, no one has any idea but logic and common sense leads to the conclusion the cells in question were not capable of carrying on the processes of life, a requirement in order to be classified as an organism which, in turn, is a requirement in order to be classified as a human being.

Is that so difficult to follow?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not here to compete in a popularity contest.

when people of all political persuasions agree your argument sucks, it's time to re-evaluate your argument......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It is evident fertilized cells have defects as people are born with defects. Some slight, some severe. To believe a fertilized cell can not be defective to the point where it does not qualify as an organism is completely illogical. There are no scientific findings or opinions to suggest it can not happen. Also, there are no scientific findings on why over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Simply put, no one has any idea but logic and common sense leads to the conclusion the cells in question were not capable of carrying on the processes of life, a requirement in order to be classified as an organism which, in turn, is a requirement in order to be classified as a human being.

Is that so difficult to follow?

let's say I tie you hand and foot, I place you in a box and I bury you twelve feet underground......you have no food and no water......I have no intention of digging you up again nor does anyone else know you are there....

you are dying.....

by your standards you are no longer a human being, you are no longer an organism......thus, when you die, I cannot be accused of murder, since the death involved was not the death of a living human being......

 

[apple0154]

That is EXACTLY what you are arguing. You keep saying that 50% of conceptions result in the organism dying, therefore, we can't say the organism is a living human organism. No one has ever argued that women shouldn't be allowed to abort dead organisms, it is only the other 50% that live, which are in debate here. However, your argument is, since some of the organisms died, then none of them are considered living, and that is absurd. You base this on the fact that the living organisms that died, were not able to "carry on the process of life", but this is the case with all 100% of the human organisms, unless you are aware of some immortality I am not privy to. So what you are basically saying is, none of us are humans, we are all just a meaningless clump of cells with no designation as to what kind of living organisms we are, because one day, we will no longer be able to carry on the process of life!

Wrong, again. What I am saying is not all fertilized cells are human beings and the core of the anti-abortionist argument is that all fertilized cells are human beings.

So, once we remove the incorrect assumption the anti-abortionists base their whole argument on what are we left with? We're left with "When can we definitively say something is a human being?" When can we determine something is an organism and can carry on the processes of life?

 

[apple0154]

Death of the fetus at any stage does not take away from its humanity, its time of being a living human being. Not all conceptions can carry on life? At at any given stage human being can die; the infant can die; as can the toddler; the young child; the teenager; the adult. At any stage the being can die. This does not take from its humanity. Of course I am talking to you, who have in the past, stated that it should be allowed that in the first year after the birth of a disabled defective child, a parent should be allowed to kill it...who was that guy you promoted??? I can't recall his name.

You assume that if a fertilized cell lives for an hour it carries on the processes of life for an hour. We do not know that and it's not a logical conclusion. It's more likely the moment such a cell is fertilized it's discovered it can't carry on the processes of life and slowly starts to die.

Isn't it a bit strange to believe a human being is created and it's normal life cycle or purpose is to live for a couple of hours and then die? That's what happens to over 50% of fertilized cells.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You assume that if a fertilized cell lives for an hour it carries on the processes of life for an hour. We do not know that and it's not a logical conclusion. It's more likely the moment such a cell is fertilized it's discovered it can't carry on the processes of life and slowly starts to die.

Isn't it a bit strange to believe a human being is created and it's normal life cycle or purpose is to live for a couple of hours and then die? That's what happens to over 50% of fertilized cells.

doesn't living = carrying on the process of life?

What is it with you and endless word parsing. Why does your reality depend on words? A baby by any other name smells as sweet.

 

[apple0154]

That's not entirely correct Dixie. A more correct statement would be "Successful fertilization begins a human life." Even after fertilization (conception) life does not always begin. Life would not begin until metabolic processes begin in that cell and the cell divides. This does not always occur at conception. Sometimes metabolic processes do not occur and the cell does not divide. Biologist call these "Residual Bodies". This residual body is not alive. Would we say that this new cell with it's unique DNA died? No, it would be more correct to state, that in this circumstance, it was not alive to begin with. So indeed, all human life does begin at fertilization but not all conceptions result in human life.


No Dixie it can't. At fertilization (conception) that cell may be the beginning of human life but it is not a "living organism" at that point. The cell must grow, divide, differentiate into specialized tissue and those tissues must develop into organs with specialized functions before that form of life could be classified as "a living organism".


This goes without saying.

Good luck in getting your point across. I've just about run out of ways to dumb it down for him. I suppose some folks just can't grasp certain concepts regardless of how diligent we are in trying to help them.

 

[apple0154]

A finger is not a complete organism. A zygote is a living complete entity, though young, with growing to do.

Not all zygotes are complete. That's the point. That's why they don't grow. That's why they die.

 

[apple0154]

when people of all political persuasions agree your argument sucks, it's time to re-evaluate your argument......

All people. Please. A handful of right wing and/or conservative and/or religious indoctrinated folks.

Insane asylums are full of people of all different political persuasions but their disagreeing with me wouldn't sway my argument either.

When it comes to abortion people throw logic out the window. To think it's natural or normal or morally correct to believe human beings are created just so they can die within hours like the over 50% of fertilized cells do borders on the insane.

 

[Timshel]

So make a brain. Go on you can do it.

Note to rs~~~why the male ram; why the egg; why the female host ram? Hint...you're an idiot.

Note to icedancer~~ figure out how to make your point in clear and complete sentences or shut the fuck up. I have no desire to play "guess what the dumbfuck is talking about."

As far as I understand it, there was no male ram involved at all.

 

[Timshel]

Well you fed me a good straight line RS but I'll be serious. Uhhmm Actually you do need specialized cells to create a brain. The information to do so is stored in the DNA of the cells.

Not from my understanding. The entire organism can be recreated from any cell.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#whatis

Dolly's success is truly remarkable because it proved that the genetic material from a specialized adult cell, such as an udder cell programmed to express only those genes needed by udder cells, could be reprogrammed to generate an entire new organism. Before this demonstration, scientists believed that once a cell became specialized as a liver, heart, udder, bone, or any other type of cell, the change was permanent and other unneeded genes in the cell would become inactive. Some scientists believe that errors or incompleteness in the reprogramming process cause the high rates of death, deformity, and disability observed among animal clones.

 

[apple0154]

let's say I tie you hand and foot, I place you in a box and I bury you twelve feet underground......you have no food and no water......I have no intention of digging you up again nor does anyone else know you are there....

you are dying.....

by your standards you are no longer a human being, you are no longer an organism......thus, when you die, I cannot be accused of murder, since the death involved was not the death of a living human being......

There is a difference between my ability to carry on the processes of life and the deliberate prevention of my doing so. No one prevented the over 50% of fertilized cells that spontaneously aborted from carrying on the processes of life. No one even knew. The process relied completely and solely on the cells and they were unable to do so which means they were not organisms which means they were not human beings.

Again, what is so difficult to follow?

 

[Timshel]

again, I think you need to phrase your sentences more carefully RS. Cells in "A Body" can continue to live regardless of brain function for a period of time.

"A body", cannot continue to live with out a brain and eventually the cells and tissues dependent on that brain will die also......well except for certain right wing conservatives.....having no brain doesn't seem to affect them.

What do I need to rephrase. The body is not considered to be a living individual for medical or legal purposes. It is the body of a dead person. Saying the body is dead would be well understood in legal and medical fields.

To call it alive, in that case, would require anyone using that term to explain themselves more fully. If you told family members of a potential organ donor "it is alive" you might create a mess with your poor choice of words and out of context usage of the word.

 

[apple0154]

doesn't living = carrying on the process of life?

What is it with you and endless word parsing. Why does your reality depend on words? A baby by any other name smells as sweet.

Yea, well, when was the last time you changed a diaper?

I'm not word parsing. Anti-abortionists base their argument on the idea a fertilized cell is a human being. We do not know that for sure and the logical conclusion is most are not as most spontaneously abort.

It's like someone suing because of discrimination. Let's say they claim they were discriminated against because they were not hired as an engineer. Further investigation fails to prove they are an engineer. No diploma. No certification.

There goes their case. The core of their argument is null and void. The same thing with the anti-abortionist argument. If the presence of an organism is necessary for a human being to be present and it's shown a fertilized cell does not meet the requirements of an organism, specifically the ability to carry on the processes of life, then it has to follow there is no human being meaning not all fertilized cells qualify as a human being.

 

[Timshel]

What do I need to rephrase. The body is not considered to be a living individual for medical or legal purposes. It is the body of a dead person. Saying the body is dead would be well understood in legal and medical fields.

To call it alive, in that case, would require anyone using that term to explain themselves more fully. If you told family members of a potential organ donor "it is alive" you might create a mess with your poor choice of words and out of context usage of the word.

Let's test it. We will have damo hang out at hospitals for someone to become brain dead. We'll dress him in doctor's gear so he looks all official. Then he can point to a body while saying to the family, "still alive." I will do the same with any group of scientist, except I will say "dead." Let's then find out who was confused. Who do you think it will be?