Does human life begin at conception?

[PLC1]

Not all eggs hatch still a chicken in there.

I just had two eggs for breakfast. Is that the same as fried chicken?

 

[dogtowner]

I just had two eggs for breakfast. Is that the same as fried chicken?

Genetically speaking, yes.
Inert v living, yes.

 

[palerider]

I just had two eggs for breakfast. Is that the same as fried chicken?

That would depend entirely on whether or not the chicken the eggs came from had been cavorting with roosters....probably not if they come from a factory farm...if they were fertilized, however, then there was some chicken in there along with all of the nutrients that reside in eggs to feed the small chick till it is ready to hatch...

The ignorance you choicers display on the topic of biology is stunning. Are you really that ignorant or is it just a self defense mechanism that helps you avoid actually considering the reality of your position and what that position says about you as a person?

 

[PLC1]

That would depend entirely on whether or not the chicken the eggs came from had been cavorting with roosters....probably not if they come from a factory farm...if they were fertilized, however, then there was some chicken in there along with all of the nutrients that reside in eggs to feed the small chick till it is ready to hatch...

The ignorance you choicers display on the topic of biology is stunning. Are you really that ignorant or is it just a self defense mechanism that helps you avoid actually considering the reality of your position and what that position says about you as a person?

I was responding to Dogtowner's post:

Not all eggs hatch still a chicken in there.

So, actually, there isn't necessarily a chicken in there, particularly not if the eggs came from a factory farm.

Now, let's probe your "ignorance" on biology a bit:

At what point does human life end, that is to say, this mortal life? When is the human body presumed "dead"?

 

[palerider]

I was responding to Dogtowner's post:

Stupid is stupid whoever you were responding to.

So, actually, there isn't necessarily a chicken in there, particularly not if the eggs came from a factory farm.

Is basic biology really that much of a mystery to you? This is 5th or 6th grade level. An unfertilized egg is just an egg. It lasts through its preprogrammed viability span and then begins to degrade.

Now, let's probe your "ignorance" on biology a bit:

Funny...coming from someone who has already, on many occasions proven beyond any doubt that he doesn't know enough biology to even begin to know whether someone else is knowledgeable or not.

At what point does human life end, that is to say, this mortal life? When is the human body presumed "dead"?

I already answered the question...your life is over when enough cell death has occurred that you can not be resuscitated....then and only then are you dead and even then you aren't completely dead...you are just irretrievable. Your body isn't completely dead till all cell life ceases as evidenced by the fact that organs can be harvested and reused from people who are presumed dead.....if the person were actually dead, the organs would not be useable. Presumed dead and actually dead are not the same thing....presume has a legal meaning..."to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary". A presumption of death is a legal nicety with little to do with the biology of life. Typical of you choicers....you don't know jack and in an effort to prove that you do, you demonstrate that not only do you not know biology but are ignorant of the legal issues as well.

The tragic thing is that rather than just shut the f**k up and let people wonder (if they are so disposed) whether you have a clue or not, you people feel the need to broadcast your abject ignorance on subject after subject after subject to anyone who might be listening. Guess you aren't bright enough to take good advice from the giants of history.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." A. Lincoln.

 

[PLC1]

Stupid is stupid whoever you were responding to.



Is basic biology really that much of a mystery to you? This is 5th or 6th grade level. An unfertilized egg is just an egg. It lasts through its preprogrammed viability span and then begins to degrade.



Funny...coming from someone who has already, on many occasions proven beyond any doubt that he doesn't know enough biology to even begin to know whether someone else is knowledgeable or not.



I already answered the question...your life is over when enough cell death has occurred that you can not be resuscitated....then and only then are you dead and even then you aren't completely dead...you are just irretrievable. Your body isn't completely dead till all cell life ceases as evidenced by the fact that organs can be harvested and reused from people who are presumed dead.....if the person were actually dead, the organs would not be useable. Presumed dead and actually dead are not the same thing....presume has a legal meaning..."to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary". A presumption of death is a legal nicety with little to do with the biology of life. Typical of you choicers....you don't know jack and in an effort to prove that you do, you demonstrate that not only do you not know biology but are ignorant of the legal issues as well.

The tragic thing is that rather than just shut the f**k up and let people wonder (if they are so disposed) whether you have a clue or not, you people feel the need to broadcast your abject ignorance on subject after subject after subject to anyone who might be listening. Guess you aren't bright enough to take good advice from the giants of history.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." A. Lincoln.

I don't believe we've discussed biology before. You have proven that you believe you know more about climate than the scientific organizations that actually study it, but that's an aside.

The subject is not me. The subject is not you. The subject is abortion and when life begins.

When a patient no longer has brain function, he/she is dead. Life ends when the brain no longer functions.

Now, you can discuss the subject if you want. I have no interest in discussing you or in discussing myself.

 

[dogtowner]

So you're saying Joe Biden is dead ?

 

[PLC1]

So you're saying Joe Biden is dead ?

lol..............

 

[palerider]

I don't believe we've discussed biology before. You have proven that you believe you know more about climate than the scientific organizations that actually study it, but that's an aside.

I haven't said that I know more about the climate than scientific organizations....I have said that I know a scam when I see one. The scientific organizations know as well as I do that AGW is a hoax, but it is politically and economically (for them) expedient to continue with the AGW crisis narrative whether it is true or not.

The subject is abortion and when life begins.

And I have proven my point....feel free to prove me wrong.

When a patient no longer has brain function, he/she is dead. Life ends when the brain no longer functions.

Again...nothing more than a legal expediency...with nothing to do with actual biological life whatsoever. Go to your local grave yard...dig up someone who is well and truly dead (Jewish preferably since they do not embalm their dead) and cut out a kidney or two and see how much success you have with a transplant....only living organs may be transplanted and living organs can only be found in living beings. They may be called dead by the law but biology says otherwise.

Now, you can discuss the subject if you want. I have no interest in discussing you or in discussing myself.

There is nothing more to discuss...I have proven my point and there is no evidence whatsoever that would counter me...the best you can come up with is a legal expediency...which is not an argument about life, or its end...it is an argument about when we can stop expending medical resources.

 

[PLC1]

I haven't said that I know more about the climate than scientific organizations....I have said that I know a scam when I see one. The scientific organizations know as well as I do that AGW is a hoax, but it is politically and economically (for them) expedient to continue with the AGW crisis narrative whether it is true or not.



And I have proven my point....feel free to prove me wrong.



Again...nothing more than a legal expediency...with nothing to do with actual biological life whatsoever. Go to your local grave yard...dig up someone who is well and truly dead (Jewish preferably since they do not embalm their dead) and cut out a kidney or two and see how much success you have with a transplant....only living organs may be transplanted and living organs can only be found in living beings. They may be called dead by the law but biology says otherwise.



There is nothing more to discuss...I have proven my point and there is no evidence whatsoever that would counter me...the best you can come up with is a legal expediency...which is not an argument about life, or its end...it is an argument about when we can stop expending medical resources.

I'm fairly certain that the corpse just dug up in the cemetery isn't going to have any brain function.

Here's more:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end

Defining death as the irreversible loss of brain function remains for some a controversial decision. The fact that the cells and organs of the body can be maintained after the death of the individual is a disturbing concept. The feeling that corpses are being kept artificially “alive” as medical zombies for the convenient culture of transplantable organs can be quite discomforting, especially when the body in question is that of a loved one. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that this state of affairs is essentially no different from what occurs naturally following death by any means. On a cellular and molecular level, nothing changes in the instant of death. Immediately following death, most of the cells in the body are still alive, and for a time at least, they continue to function normally. Maintaining heartbeat and artificial respiration simply extends this period of time. Once the “plug is pulled,” and the corpse is left to its own devices, the cells and organs of the body undergo the same slow death by oxygen deprivation they would have experienced had medical science not intervened.

Scientifically, medically, and legally, life ends when the brain ceases to function.

 

[dogtowner]

Scientifically, medically, and legally, life ends when the brain ceases to function.

I believe PRs point is that the second asked for and received the third for convenience so that they could have a safe out to avoid the first. the first came to realize they benefited as well when they wanted to do questionable work.
Much in the world gets a free ride in the name of simplification.

 

[palerider]

I'm fairly certain that the corpse just dug up in the cemetery isn't going to have any brain function.

Logical failure....but then what else is new....all cubes are boxes but not all boxes are cubes......lack of brain function is a legal reason to allow a person's body to die....life is over when the body is irretrievable.


Scientifically, medically, and legally, life ends when the brain ceases to function.[/QUOTE]

Sorry guy, but you are wrong....you are usually wrong because you seem to operate from a position of faith...or emotion....or anything other than actual research into a topic.

Here....from US Legal definitions....

Legally dead traditionally has meant a human being is dead when her heart and lungs have irreversibly ceased to function. In some cases, permanent loss of consciousness may precede cardiopulmonary failure. Today however, with modern medical technology, a patient may lose consciousness a decade or more before his heart and lungs fail.

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The UDDA also recognizes whole-brain death -- irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain -- as a legal standard of death. A person can be legally dead even if her cardiopulmonary system continues to function. If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial means, that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death.

Brain dead is a "standard of death".....not death itself. As I said, brain dead is a legal expediency that allows us to stop expending medical resources on someone who is very likely to never recover...

 

[PLC1]

Logical failure....but then what else is new....all cubes are boxes but not all boxes are cubes......lack of brain function is a legal reason to allow a person's body to die....life is over when the body is irretrievable.


Scientifically, medically, and legally, life ends when the brain ceases to function.

Sorry guy, but you are wrong....you are usually wrong because you seem to operate from a position of faith...or emotion....or anything other than actual research into a topic.

Here....from US Legal definitions....

Legally dead traditionally has meant a human being is dead when her heart and lungs have irreversibly ceased to function. In some cases, permanent loss of consciousness may precede cardiopulmonary failure. Today however, with modern medical technology, a patient may lose consciousness a decade or more before his heart and lungs fail.

All fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The UDDA also recognizes whole-brain death -- irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain -- as a legal standard of death. A person can be legally dead even if her cardiopulmonary system continues to function. If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial means, that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death.

Brain dead is a "standard of death".....not death itself. As I said, brain dead is a legal expediency that allows us to stop expending medical resources on someone who is very likely to never recover...

So, the legal standard isn't good enough? Seems to me that a standard of death is a way of defining when a person has died.

Heartbeat can continue after death. Hearts can continue to beat even after being taken from the body. That doesn't mean that the person is still alive while serving as a heart donor.

 

[dogtowner]

So, the legal standard isn't good enough? Seems to me that a standard of death is a way of defining when a person has died.

Heartbeat can continue after death. Hearts can continue to beat even after being taken from the body. That doesn't mean that the person is still alive while serving as a heart donor.

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

 

[palerider]

So, the legal standard isn't good enough? Seems to me that a standard of death is a way of defining when a person has died.

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

Heartbeat can continue after death. Hearts can continue to beat even after being taken from the body. That doesn't mean that the person is still alive while serving as a heart donor.

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?