Abortion

[dahermit]

They are not alive according to present standards of biology either. If you believe I am wrong, I encourage you to provide some credible information that says I am.

I cannot adequately define death, despite your arrogance, you cannot either. The scientific community cannot as well and are admittedly struggling with its definition:

Definition:
The permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism.
Source
WordNet Search - 2.1. Death. Cognitive Science Laboratory. Princeton University http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=death

By this definition a frozen embryo would not be dead because it is not "permanent".

An Alternative Definition
The state of a thermodynamic biosystem in which it cannot get and organize autonomously the energy from the environment.
Source
Nahle M. 2004. Meaning of Death: Biological Death Biology Cabinet. Available at: http://biocab.org/Biological_Death.html

But by this definition, it would be dead.

Here they discuss the problem of the difficulty of defining death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Problems_of_definition

One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. Death would seem to refer to either the moment at which life ends, or when the state that follows life begins. However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic however because there is little consensus over how to define life. Some have suggested defining life in terms of consciousness. When consciousness ceases, a living organism can be said to have died. One of the notable flaws in this approach is that there are many organisms which are alive but probably not conscious (for example, single-celled organisms). Another problem with this approach is in defining consciousness, which remains a mystery to modern scientists, psychologists and philosophers. This general problem of defining death applies to the particular challenge of defining death in the context of medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Problems_of_definition

The best they can do, short of an actually agreeing on the definition is to list some of symptoms which only apply to a complex organism, not a frozen embryo:

Signs of death, or strong indications that a person is no longer alive are:

Ceasing respiration, the body no longer metabolizes
Pallor mortis, paleness which happens almost instantaneously (in the 15–120 minutes after the death)
Liver mortis, a settling of the blood in the lower (dependent) portion of the body
Algor mortis, the reduction in body temperature following death. This is generally a steady decline until matching ambient temperature
Rigor mortis, the limbs of the corpse become stiff (Latin rigor) and difficult to move or manipulate
Decomposition, the reduction into simpler forms of matter.

You seem to be the only one who thinks they can determine what is alive and what is dead. Thus, the credible information you requested.

 

[palerider]

Fetuses are humans, but they are not sentient, so, wether the constitution says so or not, the mother's rights should override the fetuse's rights.

So in the end, your argument is no more than an article of your faith. If you can prove that sentience is what makes you a human being, feel free. Of course, you will lose that point as well on legal grounds as children born with ancephaly (no brain or only the most primitive brain) as well as the profoundly mentally retarded are also considered by science and the law to be fully human beings. Flawed human beings, but human beings none the less.

 

[palerider]

I cannot adequately define death, despite your arrogance, you cannot either. The scientific community cannot as well and are admittedly struggling with its definition:

I find no evidence of any such struggle. If it is a struggle, then surely papers are being written. I am part of the scientific community and read periodicals regularly dealing with biological and biochemical subjects and have seen no indication of any such struggle. Enlighten me by providing some credible literature.

The best they can do, short of an actually agreeing on the definition is to list some of symptoms which only apply to a complex organism, not a frozen embryo:

What exactly does this have to do with whether or not a woman actually has a constitutional right to kill her child? And whether or not the embryo is actually dead or merely cryonically suspended is irrelavent. If it can not be brought back, then it has been killed.

You seem to be the only one who thinks they can determine what is alive and what is dead. Thus, the credible information you requested.

Wiki can hardly be named credible. How about something from a credible scientific source addressing the struggle you claim. How about an article from the Journal of Medical & Biological Sciences or the Journal of Biology, Biological Systems and Bioinformatics, or even the Journal of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. If science were struggling with something as fundamental as defining what is dead, surely at least one of these would be addressing the issue. I can name a few dozen more if you are up to the research.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

So in the end, your argument is no more than an article of your faith. If you can prove that sentience is what makes you a human being, feel free. Of course, you will lose that point as well on legal grounds as children born with ancephaly (no brain or only the most primitive brain) as well as the profoundly mentally retarded are also considered by science and the law to be fully human beings. Flawed human beings, but human beings none the less.

Never said they were not human beings, but that sentient people's rights should overrise any rights they have. If you torture a chicken, it wont feel anything because they are unable to comprehend pain. All the squirming is the instinctive reaction of all animals to a threat. Fetuses are even less intelligent then chickens, so why should we care?

 

[dahermit]

I find no evidence of any such struggle. If it is a struggle, then surely papers are being written. I am part of the scientific community and read periodicals regularly dealing with biological and biochemical subjects and have seen no indication of any such struggle. Enlighten me by providing some credible literature.

What you read or do not read is not relevant. Also that you, "...find no evidence of any such struggle...", is not relevant either, inasmuch as you may not be able to find your ass when searching with both hands, for all I know. I provided documentation of such a struggle; you just decline to acknowledge it.

What exactly does this have to do with whether or not a woman actually has a constitutional right to kill her child? And whether or not the embryo is actually dead or merely cryonically suspended is irrelavent. If it can not be brought back, then it has been killed.

Throw in a red herring. The issue we were debating was how difference between what was "alive" and what was "dead" from a biological stand point. I did not mention the constitution, or a mother killing her child. Nice try though.
"...And whether or not the embryo is actually dead or merely cryonically suspended is irrelavent..." That was the point I was making. If it is not dead, then it is not murder. You are the one who stated it was "dead"; now prove it.
Furthermore, "...If it can not be brought back, then it has been killed...", ignores the fact that if it can be brought back, then is has not been killed (not dead), the point of which we are arguing.

Wiki can hardly be named credible. How about something from a credible scientific source addressing the struggle you claim. How about an article from the Journal of Medical & Biological Sciences or the Journal of Biology, Biological Systems and Bioinformatics, or even the Journal of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. If science were struggling with something as fundamental as defining what is dead, surely at least one of these would be addressing the issue. I can name a few dozen more if you are up to the research.

Princeton University http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn? Nevertheless, if you can "Enlighten me by providing some credible literature", that shows there there is agreement on the definition of alive vs. dead, I will be glad to read it. Also, if you can provide examples of grievous errors in their interpretation of information that come from scientific sources, that render Wiki non-credible, I will be happy to read those also. Wiki is credible until you prove otherwise.

 

[dahermit]

So in the end, your argument is no more than an article of your faith. If you can prove that sentience is what makes you a human being, feel free. Of course, you will lose that point as well on legal grounds as children born with ancephaly (no brain or only the most primitive brain) as well as the profoundly mentally retarded are also considered by science and the law to be fully human beings. (dahermit's emphasis)Flawed human beings, but human beings none the less.

If non-sentient = brain dead, then:
In all but two states, they would be by law, considered "dead".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_death
In the United States, brain death is legal in every state with exceptions for New York and New Jersey, which require that that a person’s lungs and heart must also have stopped before it can be declared they are really dead.
Whoops! there is that non-credible source again.

 

[palerider]

Never said they were not human beings, but that sentient people's rights should overrise any rights they have. If you torture a chicken, it wont feel anything because they are unable to comprehend pain. All the squirming is the instinctive reaction of all animals to a threat. Fetuses are even less intelligent then chickens, so why should we care?

"Should" override rights based on what? Your rights do not over ride the rights of the profoundly mentally retarded. Your rights to do not over ride the rights of a child born with ancephaly. In fact, your rights don't over ride those of any other human being.

And again, your rights are not based on what you feel or your ability or inability to feel pain. There are those who are unable to feel any sensation at all who otherwise have normal intelligence. Are you suggesting that they are less than human as well?

It is clear that you can not rationally defend your postion. In the end, as with all pro choice arguments, yours comes down to being an article of your faith, and nothing else. Predictable.

 

[palerider]

What you read or do not read is not relevant. Also that you, "...find no evidence of any such struggle...", is not relevant either, inasmuch as you may not be able to find your ass when searching with both hands, for all I know. I provided documentation of such a struggle; you just decline to acknowledge it.

You didn't provide documentation of any struggle. You provided a wiki article which hardly qualifies as a credible source.

Throw in a red herring. The issue we were debating was how difference between what was "alive" and what was "dead" from a biological stand point. I did not mention the constitution, or a mother killing her child. Nice try though.

The thread is about abortion is it not? What does one have to do with the other? I also note that you have not provided any credible source that states that frozen embryos are not dead.

Furthermore, "...If it can not be brought back, then it has been killed...", ignores the fact that if it can be brought back, then is has not been killed (not dead), the point of which we are arguing.

If it can be brought back, the question is moot. If it can not, then it has been killed and as many as 40% do not survive the freezing/thawing process.

 

[palerider]

If non-sentient = brain dead, then:
In all but two states, they would be by law, considered "dead".

First, non sentient does not equal brain dead. I suggest that you look up the word. A child with ancephaly can not be simply euthanized. To do so would constitute murder. A doctor can legally let them die as they have no right to extraordinary measures being taken on their behalf, but they are not considered dead. They get birth certificates and death certificates.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

"Should" override rights based on what? Your rights do not over ride the rights of the profoundly mentally retarded. Your rights to do not over ride the rights of a child born with ancephaly. In fact, your rights don't over ride those of any other human being.

And again, your rights are not based on what you feel or your ability or inability to feel pain. There are those who are unable to feel any sensation at all who otherwise have normal intelligence. Are you suggesting that they are less than human as well?

It is clear that you can not rationally defend your postion. In the end, as with all pro choice arguments, yours comes down to being an article of your faith, and nothing else. Predictable.

I am not suggesting that they are less than human. I am suggesting that they are limp human bodys with nothing holding them up. Why should we work our arses off for people who dont really care wether they live or die.

 

[palerider]

I am not suggesting that they are less than human. I am suggesting that they are limp human bodys with nothing holding them up. Why should we work our arses off for people who dont really care wether they live or die.

Because this government was instituted. and charged by law, to protect human rights and the right to live is at the top of the list.

 

[palerider]

dahermit, I did a global search on the status of the definition of death. While I found no evidence of a "struggle" within the scientific/medical community to determine what is dead and what is not, I did find an article (not available on the web) that touched on some possible legal issues that might arise with the approaching fact of death not necessarily being a permanant condition.

A couple of interesting suggestions was the institution of two different types of death certificates. The first being an irreversable cessation of life certificate. This would be issued to those who are to be cremated and/or buried. That is to say, those who are definitely not coming back. These people's estates could then be put in probate and their final arrangements settled

A second type might be a reversable cessation of life certificate. These would be issued to people who are transferred to certified cryo facilities. These people's affairs would be put into suspension till such time as a revival attempt was made. If they survive, then they are alive and the certificate recinded. If they do not survive the revival, then a permanant cessation of life certificate would be issued.

The legal world perhaps has a struggle with the definition of death, but not the scientific. Dead is still the absence of life; life being 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. Science doesn't care whether the condition is permanant or temporary. While one is dead, one is dead. If one can be revived, then one is no longer dead. The real issues arise not from the fact of life or death itself, but with legal matters, paperwork, and the settlement of estates and taxes.

I still don't see how this has any bearing on anything. As I said, if the frozen embryo can be revived, the whole issue is moot as it is no longer dead. If it can't be revived, then the issue is moot because the one who froze it has indeed killed it.

 

[dahermit]

dahermit, I did a global search on the status of the definition of death. While I found no evidence of a "struggle" within the scientific/medical community to determine what is dead and what is not, I did find an article (not available on the web) that touched on some possible legal issues that might arise with the approaching fact of death not necessarily being a permanant condition.

Did you use both hands? "Struggle", "disagreement", opposing definitions for the same thing, etc. semantics. The question was: Is a frozen embryo dead or alive. The two definitions I provided gave two different definitions of death that were relevant to the discussion. One stated a "permanent" condition the second did not. They were polar oposits...a struggle, conflict, disagreement, opposing definitions of the same thing.

A couple of interesting suggestions was the institution of two different types of death certificates. The first being an irreversable cessation of life certificate. This would be issued to those who are to be cremated and/or buried. That is to say, those who are definitely not coming back. These people's estates could then be put in probate and their final arrangements settled

"Irreversible" as opposed to "reversible"?

The legal world perhaps has a struggle with the definition of death, but not the scientific. Dead is still the absence of life; life being 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. Science doesn't care whether the condition is permanant or temporary. While one is dead, one is dead. If one can be revived, then one is no longer dead. The real issues arise not from the fact of life or death itself, but with legal matters, paperwork, and the settlement of estates and taxes.

Despite your effort to shift the issue from biology to legal, the the two definitions were biological not legal. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for science. And doing so, you have proclaimed that the definition that excludes the words "permanent", is the correct one.

"The permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism.
Source:
WordNet Search - 2.1. Death. Cognitive Science Laboratory. Princeton University http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=death "
Cognitive Science Labratory...Not their "legal", school?[/QUOTE]

I still don't see how this has any bearing on anything. As I said, if the frozen embryo can be revived, the whole issue is moot as it is no longer dead. If it can't be revived, then the issue is moot because the one who froze it has indeed killed it.

It does have a bearing on the abortion issue. If the definition of "dead" includes the words that indicate a permanent state, then the act of freezing the embryos would not constitute murder given that the only way to see if they were truly dead would be to attempt to thaw them (and for the purpose of ending the pregnancy, there would not ever be an attempt to revive them). So then, it does come down to the difference in the definition of "dead"; a permanent condition or not. And you arbitrarily picking one over the other, or claiming that there is no conflict, struggle, etc. and that any disagreement is only a legal issue, is only your personal opinion and does not reflect that of science, which offers two different definitions. Nevertheless, death as a permanent condition has been the accepted scientific definition for thousands of years and given frozen embyos and creatures like the New Zealand Weta (cave criket), is still the logical difinition.

 

[palerider]

Despite your effort to shift the issue from biology to legal, the the two definitions were biological not legal. You have taken it upon yourself to speak for science. And doing so, you have proclaimed that the definition that excludes the words "permanent", is the correct one.

Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. Sounds important, rational, and credible doesn't it? I took a moment to check them out and it turns out that it is a back stairs playroom for moonbats. Here is their own mission statement. Did you know this was the sort of operation you were referencing to speak for the actual scientific community?

The mission of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory is three-fold. To use the tools of modern behavioral, physiological, and physical sciences to:

1. Determine which parapsychological phenomena can be validated under strict laboratory conditions.
2. Understand their mechanisms.
3. Examine the degree to which they might contribute to practical applications.

Hardly representatives of the scientific community. Hardly the sort of place to determine whether or not any "struggle" exists within the scientific community over the definition of death. Hardly the sort of place one would expect a rational person to reference with regard to actual scientific questions.

A laboratory dedicated to the exploration of parapsychological phenomena? Really.

 

[palerider]

It does have a bearing on the abortion issue. If the definition of "dead" includes the words that indicate a permanent state, then the act of freezing the embryos would not constitute murder given that the only way to see if they were truly dead would be to attempt to thaw them (and for the purpose of ending the pregnancy, there would not ever be an attempt to revive them).

Again, you are addressing legal issues, not scientific ones. Science is pragmatic. If life is absent, it is either dead or inorganic. If it was alive and is reanimated, then it is now alive. There is no conflict, simply a different understanding; that being that death is not necessarily a permanant condition. And again, this frozen/reanimated embryo issue is now 4 decades old. If an actual struggle or disagreement existed, it would be well known and addressed by now.