Does human life begin at conception?

[PLC1]

This is an example if setting an arbitrary standard for convenience. That's ok but only if acknowledged as such.

I'm not sure how it's arbitrary exactly. Once there is no brain function, the body can be kept breathing and the heart beating mechanically, but there is no one home. The body will never regain life, and the person is gone.

 

[palerider]

This is an example if setting an arbitrary standard for convenience. That's ok but only if acknowledged as such.

Amazing isn't it?... How can an adult possibly have such poorly developed critical thinking skills? To think that someone who is presumably allowed to drink, vote, own a firearm and procreate would be unable to grasp the difference between a legal ruling and a biological reality. How do people with such poor thinking skills manage to live day to day?

 

[PLC1]

Are you being deliberately stupid or are you really unable to see how stupid what you are saying is? You really are unable to differentiate between a legal expediency and an actual biological condition



Sorry bucky but not true....absence of heart function is part of actual death as opposed to the legal expediency...once a person is actually dead...meaning cell death, then the heart is no longer viable...tissues deteriorate very quickly after the heart ceases to function which is why there is a very small window in which to remove a heart and get it on ice after the heartbeat ceases....the body is alive till cell death has reached a point at which the organs can no longer be resuscitated.

I have to say that I find it stunning that you are unable to differentiate between a legal ruling and a biological reality. Do you really go about your life knowing so little....about anything?

Disagreeing with your point of view =/= being "deliberately stupid", nor does it mean that I "know so little", so leave the ad hominem attacks alone, as they just make your other points irrelevant. It has been my observation that such attacks are a sure sign that the person making them really has no valid points to make.

But, since you seem to agree that the legal definition of death is when brain function ceases, medical procedures such as organ transplantation are also legal, IMO. Do you disagree with that one, or not?

Or would you want to stick to your guns and say that taking a beating heart out of a person whose brain has ceased to function is tantamount to killing them?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not sure how it's arbitrary exactly. Once there is no brain function, the body can be kept breathing and the heart beating mechanically, but there is no one home. The body will never regain life, and the person is gone.

Three different arbitrary characteristics but how do they define life ? Amoeba only have one cell none of which brain but they are alive are they not ? Surely not as complex or capable as humans but alive still. Humans can function with only a brain stem not as amazingly but heart beats, lungs respire, muscles tick etc.
If you agree that "not being there" will represent dead Ness then that's ok but it is a rationalism.

 

[PLC1]

Three different arbitrary characteristics but how do they define life ? Amoeba only have one cell none of which brain but they are alive are they not ? Surely not as complex or capable as humans but alive still. Humans can function with only a brain stem not as amazingly but heart beats, lungs respire, muscles tick etc.
If you agree that "not being there" will represent dead Ness then that's ok but it is a rationalism.

I suppose you could try to make a point that a human body without brain function is alive in the sense that an amoeba or a tree is alive. The difference is that amoeba doesn't need machines to keep it going, and neither does the tree. Once the human body loses brain function, it can not continue to process food or oxygen without artificial help. It is dead.

The link I posted above shows that the body is dead legally, biologically, and medically. The latter two may be controversial, as some people choose not to believe it, but the first is undeniable: Legally, the body is dead when the brain ceases to function.

 

[palerider]

Disagreeing with your point of view =/= being "deliberately stupid", nor does it mean that I "know so little", so leave the ad hominem attacks alone, as they just make your other points irrelevant. It has been my observation that such attacks are a sure sign that the person making them really has no valid points to make.

No...failing to grasp clearly presented unarguable fact is stupid. And apparently your observational skills are wanting also as I have already made arguments to which there are no rational arguments.

But, since you seem to agree that the legal definition of death is when brain function ceases, medical procedures such as organ transplantation are also legal, IMO. Do you disagree with that one, or not?

The legal definition is not actually a definition of death...the legal definition is an expediency that allows us to stop expending medical resources on someone who is not likely to ever recover. Let me ask this one more time...are you able to grasp the difference between a legal ruling and biological reality?

Or would you want to stick to your guns and say that taking a beating heart out of a person whose brain has ceased to function is tantamount to killing them?

I, don't have a problem with harvesting organs from people who are not likely to ever recover consciousness....I don't have a problem with either letting someone die or actually ending their life. The legal ruling on death is nothing more than a go ahead to either let the person in question die, or to end their life. Funny, you have no problem killing a perfectly healthy human being for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience but are squeamish about letting a person who will never recover die. That's the problem with letting emotion rule you....you can't be rational....you have to attempt to justify your positions to yourself via flawed logic and really dumb stories that you tell to yourself and anyone else who will listen.

 

[palerider]

Three different arbitrary characteristics but how do they define life ? Amoeba only have one cell none of which brain but they are alive are they not ? Surely not as complex or capable as humans but alive still. Humans can function with only a brain stem not as amazingly but heart beats, lungs respire, muscles tick etc.

Alive is alive. Being alive doesn't speak to the quality of that life....it only speaks to the reality of that life.

If you agree that "not being there" will represent dead Ness then that's ok but it is a rationalism.

Of course it is a rationalization...apparently rationalization is required when one lets emotion unseat reason. Damned interesting isn't it that he is perfectly fine with killing a perfectly healthy unborn human for reasons that rarely rise above convenience but gets squeamish over ending the life of someone who is so damaged that there is virtually no chance that they will ever recover? That is the sort of internal and external hypocrisy that one apparently must live with when one isn't a rational human being....elaborate stories that one must ell oneself to justify opposing internal positions.

 

[palerider]

I suppose you could try to make a point that a human body without brain function is alive in the sense that an amoeba or a tree is alive.

A body is either dead...or it is alive. If it is functioning, even by artificial means, then it

The link I posted above shows that the body is dead legally, biologically, and medically. The latter two may be controversial, as some people choose not to believe it, but the first is undeniable: Legally, the body is dead when the brain ceases to function.

The link above is a demonstration of rationalization....not of biological fact. Legally the body may be dead...biologically it is alive but damaged....medically it is damaged beyond recovery. The legal ruling allows us to withhold further medical treatment or begin harvesting organs without fear of legal reprisal from family or friends of the person in question....a legal ruling can not change a biological reality....and I find it damned interesting that you are unable to grasp that reality.

 

[palerider]

The link I posted above shows that the body is dead legally, biologically, and medically. The latter two may be controversial, as some people choose not to believe it, but the first is undeniable: Legally, the body is dead when the brain ceases to function.

The link above is a demonstration of rationalization....not of biological fact. Legally the body may be dead...biologically it is alive but damaged....medically it is damaged beyond recovery. The legal ruling allows us to withhold further medical treatment or begin harvesting organs without fear of legal reprisal from family or friends of the person in question....a legal ruling can not change a biological reality....and I find it damned interesting that you are unable to grasp that reality.

By the way, in reading your "opinion piece" that supposedly somehow rises to the level of empiricall evidence in your mind it is clear that the whole steaming pile is full of unsupported, and demonstrably false assumptions....the idea that the brain is dead while the body continues to function is demonstrably wrong...if a body is functioning any degree on its own...hearbeat, respiration, digestive function, kidney function, etc, then the brain is clearly alive...were it dead catastrophic failure of the body quickly follows. Your opinion piece wrongly assumes that because the consciousness is no longer present that the brain is dead...clearly a false assumption and the rest of that dribble is based on that flawed assumption.

 

[PLC1]

By the way, in reading your "opinion piece" that supposedly somehow rises to the level of empiricall evidence in your mind it is clear that the whole steaming pile is full of unsupported, and demonstrably false assumptions....the idea that the brain is dead while the body continues to function is demonstrably wrong...if a body is functioning any degree on its own...hearbeat, respiration, digestive function, kidney function, etc, then the brain is clearly alive...were it dead catastrophic failure of the body quickly follows. Your opinion piece wrongly assumes that because the consciousness is no longer present that the brain is dead...clearly a false assumption and the rest of that dribble is based on that flawed assumption.

So, you finally got around to following my link.

and now you want to counter it by calling it an opinion piece, then expressing your own opinion.

OK, you're entitled to your opinion.

Do you think it stands up to the definition of "life"?

life
līf/
noun

1. 1.
   the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
   "the origins of life"

1. 2.
   the existence of an individual human being or animal.
   "a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 Americans"
   synonyms: person, human being, individual, soul
   "more than 1,500 lives were lost in the accident"

 

[dogtowner]

I suppose you could try to make a point that a human body without brain function is alive in the sense that an amoeba or a tree is alive. The difference is that amoeba doesn't need machines to keep it going, and neither does the tree. Once the human body loses brain function, it can not continue to process food or oxygen without artificial help. It is dead.

The link I posted above shows that the body is dead legally, biologically, and medically. The latter two may be controversial, as some people choose not to believe it, but the first is undeniable: Legally, the body is dead when the brain ceases to function.

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/oct/deadcomplicated142
Kid alive with just a brain stem and could not legally be declared dead. Saw another story about a six year old "not there" but still kicking.
I don't think it's as settled as you think.
There are many reasons one would want to declare a simpler bar to cross but science is not one of them.

 

[palerider]

So, you finally got around to following my link.

The content was predictable considering the nature of your argument....

and now you want to counter it by calling it an opinion piece, then expressing your own opinion.

Of course it was an opinion piece...now you can't even recognize an opinion piece when you see it?...What am I thinking....of course you can't...you believe my argument is based on my own option rather than actual biological science and knowledge of the law.

Do you think it stands up to the definition of "life"?

The definition of life is quite simple...it goes something like this.......The properties or qualities that distinguish giving plants and organisms from dead ore inanimate matter, including the capacity to grow, metabolize nutrients, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to the environment.

Brain dead people whose bodies are still functioning certainly meet the definition of the living....they are certainly metabolizing nutrients...their cells are dividing and growing and if you put them on a high calorie diet they will certainly grow...they respond to stimuli (let me guess, in your mind responding to a question is the only sort of stimuli that you can imagine)...burn them and they will blister...lay an ice cube on their skin and gooseflesh appears....along with most of the involuntary reflexes...the blistering and gooseflesh are also adaptations to the environment. Consciousness is not a requirement for life since the vast majority of the life on this planet has no consciousness.

The fact is that if a paramecium is biologically alive, then so is a brain dead individual whose body is still functioning...the legal expediency does not negate the biological reality....do you think that paramecia would suddenly become dead if a legal decision were passed that called them dead? Let me guess...you do believe exactly that.

 

[palerider]

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/oct/deadcomplicated142
Kid alive with just a brain stem and could not legally be declared dead. Saw another story about a six year old "not there" but still kicking.
I don't think it's as settled as you think.
There are many reasons one would want to declare a simpler bar to cross but science is not one of them.

What amazes me is that he is unable to distinguish between legal and biological realities....

 

[dogtowner]

What amazes me is that he is unable to distinguish between legal and biological realities....

They had to concoct legal to protect their assets, I get that. And there was much hrumphing with rationalizations to make a complex but actually simple thing seem ok. Lets just be honest about it.

 

[palerider]

They had to concoct legal to protect their assets, I get that. And there was much hrumphing with rationalizations to make a complex but actually simple thing seem ok. Lets just be honest about it.

The amount of mental masturbation liberals engage in in order to just be able to look themselves in the mirror is genuinely startling. The more I talk to them the more I just have to shake my head. I don't think I have ever discussed a single topic with a liberal in which they were straight forward and brutally honest. They lie to themselves and lie to everyone they speak to in an effort to get someone else to join in the lie.

Personally, I don't see why someone would have to go to such lengths in order to simply admit that there comes a point when someone is so damaged that they are never going to recover and at that point, there is nothing wrong with withholding medical resources and letting them die. A person could bankrupt their family and cost taxpayers millions lingering on for years. Again, what strikes me with this issue is the amount of rationalization required to simply let someone who is so damaged that they will never recover die while at the same time they casually say that it is fine for a woman to have a perfectly healthy individual killed for reasons that very rarely amount to more than convenience. The hypocrisy is stunning and it leads one to wonder what goes on in a mind that can apparently justify holding such opposing viewpoints.