When Does Life End?

[Timshel]

Now you are going from sublime to ridiculous. I have a 16ga. shotgun waiting to terminate your life if you enter my domain, and it would be perfectly legal in Alabama to do so. It doesn't change the fact that a would-be intruder is human! Maybe you don't like that, maybe it's not something that should be the case, but that is the facts of life and the law, and thus, a thing we call "REALITY!"

I have no idea how you think this is applicable to your point. I have no right to trespass on your property or person but a zygote does? Okay, whatever...

I am human because I have the capacity to live as a human. When I lose that capacity I am no longer alive as a human. And the zygote that does not develop that capacity is not alive as a human and was never alive as a human.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I DID NOT ARGUE THAT. You said that 100% of healthy zygotes will develop brain function. That is not true. You are the one applying the definition retroactively as you are defining health in the zygote as developing brain function at a later stage.

If nothing happens to cause the zygote's termination, it will indeed develop a brain and brain function, and it will do so 100% of the time. If that weren't the case, biology would say that "human life" begins at some other point in time, and there would be no debate regarding abortion.

I have given you the logic. Without brain function HUMAN life is not present. That is true in the brain dead it is true in the zygote.

I have not denied any biological facts. You are the one doing that.

If there is an organism, and the organism is living, then logic dictates it has to be SOME form of living organism. Since it is the product of a human sperm and egg cell, logic dictates it is HUMAN life, and nothing else. You haven't given any evidence to suggest otherwise, and you really can't. This is why you continue to try and distort the reality and tangle the debate up in semantics, denying logic and biological facts.

 

[Timshel]

Now you are going from sublime to ridiculous. I have a 16ga. shotgun waiting to terminate your life if you enter my domain, and it would be perfectly legal in Alabama to do so. It doesn't change the fact that a would-be intruder is human! Maybe you don't like that, maybe it's not something that should be the case, but that is the facts of life and the law, and thus, a thing we call "REALITY!"

And all this horseshit is just to evade the problems brought about by YOUR definition. You don't want to address the ugly ramifications of your definition. If something upsets your definition, unlike a good scientist, you just ignore it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have no idea how you think this is applicable to your point. I have no right to trespass on your property or person but a zygote does? Okay, whatever...

I am human because I have the capacity to live as a human. When I lose that capacity I am no longer alive as a human. And the zygote that does not develop that capacity is not alive as a human and was never alive as a human.

A zygote is a living organism, is it not? If so, what kind of living organism? I say, if it is the product of a human sperm cell and egg cell, it can only be human. Do you have any evidence to refute that?

 

[Timshel]

If nothing happens to cause the zygote's termination, it will indeed develop a brain and brain function, and it will do so 100% of the time. If that weren't the case, biology would say that "human life" begins at some other point in time, and there would be no debate regarding abortion.

You are now arguing that the woman's uterine wall is a part of the zygote. No biology text is going tell you that.

Nothing is causing the zygote's termination. It could have been created in vitro and kept in that stage indefinitely. There simply is nothing to allow it to progress any further.

If there is an organism, and the organism is living, then logic dictates it has to be SOME form of living organism. Since it is the product of a human sperm and egg cell, logic dictates it is HUMAN life, and nothing else. You haven't given any evidence to suggest otherwise, and you really can't. This is why you continue to try and distort the reality and tangle the debate up in semantics, denying logic and biological facts.

Then the brain dead are human life.

You are the one denying logic when you repeatedly avoid the messy details of your definition.

 

[Timshel]

A zygote is a living organism, is it not?

Yes, I have stated this numerous times.

If so, what kind of living organism?

A zygote. Again, this has been answered.

I say, if it is the product of a human sperm cell and egg cell, it can only be human. Do you have any evidence to refute that?

The sperm and egg are human. Likewise, the zygote is a human zygote. It is not a human.

The evidence is the biological fact that neither the sperm, egg nor zygote have the capacity to live as humans. They only have the capacity to continue in their current state.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And all this horseshit is just to evade the problems brought about by YOUR definition. You don't want to address the ugly ramifications of your definition. If something upsets your definition, unlike a good scientist, you just ignore it.

It's not MY definition. Biologists confirmed human life begins at conception back in the mid 1800s. It has been pier reviewed, published in science journals, confirmed by other scientists, and your stubborn refusal to accept it as a scientifically proven fact, is only because you need for it to be different in order to make your argument work. Unfortunately, that is not how science works.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, I have stated this numerous times.



A zygote. Again, this has been answered.

Zygote is a STAGE of development of the organism.

The sperm and egg are human. Likewise, the zygote is a human zygote. It is not a human.

It is human life.

The evidence is the biological fact that neither the sperm, egg nor zygote have the capacity to live as humans. They only have the capacity to continue in their current state.

A sperm and egg do not have the capacity to live as humans, a zygote is already living as a human, that is what it is! The earliest stage of a human life.

 

[Timshel]

It's not MY definition. Biologists confirmed human life begins at conception back in the mid 1800s. It has been pier reviewed, published in science journals, confirmed by other scientists, and your stubborn refusal to accept it as a scientifically proven fact, is only because you need for it to be different in order to make your argument work. Unfortunately, that is not how science works.

A-FUCKING-GAIN, it is not a fact. It's a definition. One I do not argue in the context of biology.

It's not a workable definition in the context of legal and medical definitions. If it were you would stop avoiding the problems it creates in that context. That's NOT how science works. A good scientist does not just ignore the hard cases that seemingly disrupt his definition. He would have to change his definition or just leave it to "I don't know" yet.

Biology has no concern for rights or morality. Biology can inform those concerns but can not answer them.

You are trying to fit a square peg (the biological definition) into a round hole (the legal/medical definitions). It does not work.

 

[Timshel]

A sperm and egg do not have the capacity to live as humans, a zygote is already living as a human, that is what it is! The earliest stage of a human life.

Nope, it does not yet have the capacity to live as a human. It is less of a living human than the brain dead. It is not yet a HUMAN life. It is no more a living human than your heart is a living human. We can take your living human heart and put it another body. It is not a human life and will not have the capacity to live as a human.

 

[Timshel]

Just to clarify. The zygote is human. It is not A human. Likewise the heart is human but not A human. The brain dead are human but not A human. I am sure Dixie will drop context or fail to grasp this distinction.

 

[apple0154]

There is no requirement of attachment for any definition of "organism" that has been posted. You want it to be so badly that you effectively ignore the definitions provided.

Then what is viability? The organism has to attach in order to survive. How can a reasonable person say the organism is viable when it isn't able to attach or do you not want to include viability?

In any case the definition of an organism is the ability to carry on the processes of life. It can not do that without attaching.

 

[apple0154]

No one has ever argued that any woman carry a non-viable dead cell to term. Stop being silly!

The point is when do we consider something an organism and, thus, a human being? If we do not know when it begins, which we don't know because some fertilized cells or zygotes or conceptions or what ever you want to call the merging of a sperm and an egg are not organisms, then how do we determine what is and what isn't a human being?

 

[Damocles]

Then what is viability? The organism has to attach in order to survive. How can a reasonable person say the organism is viable when it isn't able to attach or do you not want to include viability?

In any case the definition of an organism is the ability to carry on the processes of life. It can not do that without attaching.

Again, the definition provided says that a zygote is viable when it begins to grow. The first cell division creates a "viable" zygote and an "organism". It's silly to deliberately "misunderstand" what an organism is so you can fit your beliefs around what you want rather than what is. The question of the thread is if that organism is at that time a "person" or a "human being" not whether it is alive, it's silly to reject the actual signs of life so you can pretend you are right.

 

[Timshel]

Then what is viability? The organism has to attach in order to survive. How can a reasonable person say the organism is viable when it isn't able to attach or do you not want to include viability?

In any case the definition of an organism is the ability to carry on the processes of life. It can not do that without attaching.

It cannot advance to another stage without implantation. It is alive, it is an organism. It can continue it's life as a zygote until it dies or implants.

To define it as an organism only based on some later stage is as incorrect as Dixie's attempt to define "healthy" or "human" based on some later stage. It should be defined based on it's current state.

A zygote is not a human life until it takes on the properties necessary for a human life. If at any point after if it loses those properties, it still was a human life while it had those properties, though it may not any longer be a human life.

The zygote is alive, it's human, it is not a human life.

Likewise a piece of wood may be house material, it is not a house. Not even if that piece of wood could only be used in the construction of a house is it then a house. It is simply house material. If the house burns to the ground it was still a house though it may no longer be a house. If the house material burns it was still house material though it was never part of a house and may no longer be house material.

 

[apple0154]

I don't know where you are going with this but that seems absurd. It may not be alive in the legal or human sense, but it is definitely an organism and alive (so long as it continues it's activity) in the biological/zygote sense.

Unless you are arguing that we do not yet know that it will have the necessary equipment to carry on the processes as a human and therefore is not yet alive in the human sense. But, it is an organism.

A tadpole is not a frog and may never develop the capacity to live as a frog, but is an organism and is alive so long as it is able to carry on the processes of life as a tadpole.

The life of a zygote is not the life of a human and cannot truly be said to be a human until it develops the ability to continue the processes of life as a human. That brings us to about 20 weeks.

In order for something to be classified as an organism it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That is the scientific definition.

In order for it to carry on the processes of life it has to implant.

When a sperm and an egg unite whatever is formed may be alive but that does not automatically mean it's an organism. Otherwise, science would not stipulate it has to carry on the processes of life.

If the organism is supposed to implant and it does not what other conclusion can one draw other than it does not have the necessary qualities to implant. That assumes the mother did not deliberately interfere. Therefore, if it does not have the necessary qualities to implant it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life.

When we see over 50% do not survive is it reasonable to conclude they were all organisms and some outside factor resulted in their demise or is it more likely they were never organisms?

The bottom line is we don't know so we certainly can't say they were human beings.

 

[Damocles]

In order for something to be classified as an organism it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That is the scientific definition.

In order for it to carry on the processes of life it has to implant.

When a sperm and an egg unite whatever is formed may be alive but that does not automatically mean it's an organism. Otherwise, science would not stipulate it has to carry on the processes of life.

If the organism is supposed to implant and it does not what other conclusion can one draw other than it does not have the necessary qualities to implant. That assumes the mother did not deliberately interfere. Therefore, if it does not have the necessary qualities to implant it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life.

When we see over 50% do not survive is it reasonable to conclude they were all organisms and some outside factor resulted in their demise or is it more likely they were never organisms?

The bottom line is we don't know so we certainly can't say they were human beings.

It does carry on the process of life when it begins to divide and grow, both of which happen long before implantation.

 

[NOVA]

Then what is viability? The organism has to attach in order to survive. How can a reasonable person say the organism is viable when it isn't able to attach or do you not want to include viability?

In any case the definition of an organism is the ability to carry on the processes of life. It can not do that without attaching.

And you have to eat in order to survive...so if you can't eat, does that mean you're not viable? You never were viable ? Is that your claim ?

 

[NOVA]

In order for something to be classified as an organism it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. That is the scientific definition.

In order for it to carry on the processes of life it has to implant.

When a sperm and an egg unite whatever is formed may be alive but that does not automatically mean it's an organism. Otherwise, science would not stipulate it has to carry on the processes of life.

If the organism is supposed to implant and it does not what other conclusion can one draw other than it does not have the necessary qualities to implant. That assumes the mother did not deliberately interfere. Therefore, if it does not have the necessary qualities to implant it is not capable of carrying on the processes of life.

When we see over 50% do not survive is it reasonable to conclude they were all organisms and some outside factor resulted in their demise or is it more likely they were never organisms?

The bottom line is we don't know so we certainly can't say they were human beings.

You're making a fool of yourself....

 

[apple0154]

So far I have made no argument that it is a "human being" in fact I have tried to direct the conversation to that point. A zygote is human life at its earliest stages, as yet incapable of any thought. But the real question is.. When do you believe the "Person Faerie" shows up to endow it with "personhood"? Many people use the subjective idea of the capacity for thought, basically the ability to think, "Wow, what is that?" when they come upon something interesting like feet while still in the mother's body. You however don't believe that the Person Faerie shows up until they are just exiting the vaginal canal.

That's right. I believe birth is the defining line. Just like anything else in society unless we have a defining line we have chaos. Is a doctor a doctor before he completes his exams and internship? A week before? A month before? Where do we draw the line?

But beyond that there are so many questions that need to be resolved, if they can, before one decides to classify anything unborn as a human being. The best that can be said is if the unborn are considered human beings they will be considered second class humans or worth less than the born human as evidenced by most anti-abortionists agreeing the fetus should be sacrificed for the life of the mother. By what moral code do we kill an innocent human being so a defective one may live? It's absurd on the face of it.

As a society do we want to go down that road where some humans beings are worth less than other human beings? Have we learned nothing?