When does life begin?

[petros]

Is it life that is the important begining or is it when awareness begins?

Again, I agree. And if we go the way of dinosaurs, abortion won’t be to blame, earth is overpopulated as it is. Besides, I am not sure we will last as long as dinosaurs anyway. They lasted more than 150 million years, we may be lucky to survive a tenth as long as that.

Dinos are still here and no, the earth is not over populated. It's resources are completely mismanaged.

 

[Sаbine]

:lol: So where does the complication enter the picture? They aren't living things.

Metabolism is partly chemical pathways. I mention metabolism because if something had biochemical pathways without a cellular structure, then I would agree that this complicates matters. But where a virus has none of either, I fail to see how it complicates a discussion about when life begins.

Sorry for repeating myself, but viruses are neither living nor are they non-living. We already discussed why they are considered non-living things. But viruses also possess certain characteristics of living beings - they have genetic material, they replicate (yes, by means of host cell replication machinery, but still), viruses produce new progeny viruses, and, which is very important, viruses undergo evolution. You won't find any of these characteristics in chemical reactions, so it would be an unsuccessful comparison. That's why it complicates the OPs question.

 

[karrie]

Due to human self centeredness and greed, we have become as a plague upon the Earth. We have become one of the lowest common denominators on the web of life.

Ya know, this argument just keeps striking me as more and more absurd...

most pro-lifers view abortions of convenience, done out of apparent self centeredness, as their main reason for loathing abortion. Constantly rebutting with 'humans are self centered' isn't a good argument for why they should not worry about abortion, it's the very reason they do.

 

[Tonington]

Sorry for repeating myself, but viruses are neither living nor are they non-living. But viruses also possess certain characteristics of living beings - they have genetic material, they replicate (yes, by means of host cell replication machinery, but still), viruses produce new progeny viruses, and, which is very important, viruses undergo evolution.

They are non-living. If you really want to be technical about where they are in the grand scheme of things, you'd have to place them between the simplest life forms and a supramolecule. But they are definitely not a living thing. Simply sharing characteristics doesn't make them a living thing.

More than that, they only share those characteristics with living things once they contact a suitable host cell. The rest of the time they are inert virions.

That's why it complicates the OPs question.

The esoteric discussion of placing a virus in a classification of living/non-living things in no way complicates "When does life begin?"

I'm asking you specifically what part of this complicates that question? I don't see it.

 

[JLM]

The original question wasn't about human life.

Please enlighten us and tell us what other specy it was. :smile:

 

[Sаbine]

They are non-living. If you really want to be technical about where they are in the grand scheme of things, you'd have to place them between the simplest life forms and a supramolecule. But they are definitely not a living thing. Simply sharing characteristics doesn't make them a living thing.

More than that, they only share those characteristics with living things once they contact a suitable host cell. The rest of the time they are inert virions.



The esoteric discussion of placing a virus in a classification of living/non-living things in no way complicates "When does life begin?"

I'm asking you specifically what part of this complicates that question? I don't see it.

Sorry Tonington, you can conclude anything you want, but viruses are both living and non-living. This is the mystery of modern science, like it or not.

 

[Tonington]

Considering that at the time the thread was posted, there was also a thread discussing "What rights should a fetus have?", a thread started by the same poster, a thread which derailed into the question of the OP in this thread, I think most of us made the connection between the two. Maybe that context was lost on others, but that's clearly the direction this thread took, as well as the first response by Machjo in this thread.

 

[gerryh]

Considering that at the time the thread was posted, there was also a thread discussing "What rights should a fetus have?", a thread started by the same poster, a thread which derailed into the question of the OP in this thread, I think most of us made the connection between the two. Maybe that context was lost on others, but that's clearly the direction this thread took, as well as the first response by Machjo in this thread.

The thread to a right turn on page 3 message 56. That's when sjp ran out of arguments and pulled else where. That doesn't mean that it should have continued on with more of the same crap that had nothing to do with the original OP.

 

[Tonington]

Sorry Tonington, you can conclude anything you want, but viruses are both living and non-living. This is the mystery of modern science, like it or not.

It's not a mystery at all. We have classification systems in science. What kingdom of living things do you find the viruses in?

Something cannot be living and non-living, that is a logical absurdity.

But you're dancing around the implications of this to the question that this thread is attempting to discuss.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ya know, this argument just keeps striking me as more and more absurd...

most pro-lifers view abortions of convenience, done out of apparent self centeredness, as their main reason for loathing abortion. Constantly rebutting with 'humans are self centered' isn't a good argument for why they should not worry about abortion, it's the very reason they do.

Most pro lifers oppose abortion due to their religious views, due to their superstitions. Their Holy Book tells them (or at least they think it tells them, nowhere in the Bible does the word 'abortion appear, many Christians don't have a problem with abortion) that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.

 

[Sаbine]

It's not a mystery at all. We have classification systems in science. What kingdom of living things do you find the viruses in?

Something cannot be living and non-living, that is a logical absurdity.

But you're dancing around the implications of this to the question that this thread is attempting to discuss.

Have you ever noticed that taxonomy always changes?

 

[JLM]

Most pro lifers oppose abortion due to their religious views, due to their superstitions.
.

You forgot the most important ones value of life and common decency........:smile::smile::smile:

 

[Tonington]

Have you ever noticed that taxonomy always changes?

Do you ever give straight answers to questions?

Yes, taxonomy changes. When new information is learned, classifications are adjusted accordingly. In my field of work, there is a bacterial disease agent which used to be called VIbrio viscosus. With new information it was found that it actually belonged to another genus, and it's now called Moritella viscosa.

But, when new information was learned, they didn't make a new kingdom of living things for viruses, they gave them their own classification, because they are not living things...they have nucleic acids. That is the only part of them which is similar to a living thing.

 

[TenPenny]

Most pro lifers oppose abortion due to their religious views

Well that would make sense, if you think about it. On what other grounds would someone oppose abortion?

 

[Liberalman]

Most pro lifers oppose abortion due to their religious views, due to their superstitions. Their Holy Book tells them (or at least they think it tells them, nowhere in the Bible does the word 'abortion appear, many Christians don't have a problem with abortion) that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.

I oppose abortions on purely economic reasons.

Each aborted baby is worth $2 million of compounded money.

Each aborted baby fractures a country's national security.

Each aborted baby caused this that there is more people ready to retire than children that will put a strain on the economy and a big skilled labour shortage.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/17/census-canada.html

Each aborted baby caused the Pension plans which were designed for the younger generation to pay for the older generation to be strained.

Each aborted baby helps a country lose their national identity by bringing in more immigration that really don't believe in the countries values.

Each abortion provider should pay $2 million for each aborted baby to the government.

But raising the baby until maturity would be a lot cheaper and more productive and a psychologically beneficial.

 

[Sаbine]

Do you ever give straight answers to questions?

Yes, taxonomy changes. When new information is learned, classifications are adjusted accordingly. In my field of work, there is a bacterial disease agent which used to be called VIbrio viscosus. With new information it was found that it actually belonged to another genus, and it's now called Moritella viscosa.

But, when new information was learned, they didn't make a new kingdom of living things for viruses, they gave them their own classification, because they are not living things...they have nucleic acids. That is the only part of them which is similar to a living thing.

The fact that viruses aren't classified into any kingdom is just summarized evidence supporting that they are non-living (which I fully accept and talked about earlier). For some reason you still avoid to accept that viruses also exhibit certain properties of the living (which I also talked about). Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[darkbeaver]

Life begins with an electric field and evolves into higher forms such as coffee percolators.

In this picture you can clearly see the beginning of life.

 

[AnnaG]

BTW in modern science viruses are in a somewhat gray area between living and nonliving.

According to virologists, a virus is an "ultra-microscopic infectious agent that replicates itself only within cells of living hosts; many are pathogenic; a piece of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) wrapped in a thin coat of protein".

BTW in modern science viruses are in a somewhat gray area between living and nonliving.

Right. But not either living or not-living.

 

[Tonington]

The fact that viruses aren't classified into any kingdom is just summarized evidence supporting that they are non-living (which I fully accept and talked about earlier). For some reason you still avoid to accept that viruses also exhibit certain properties of the living (which I also talked about). Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Where did I say they don't share characteristics with living things?

More than that, they only share those characteristics with living things once they contact a suitable host cell. The rest of the time they are inert virions.

Is this not tacit approval of the similarity between viruses and living things? I'm pretty sure it is. I'd never say otherwise. In fact I also said that just because they share characteristics, does not make them the same things.

Computer viruses and viruses which are pathogenic to living things share characteristics too. Not the same though.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I oppose abortions on purely economic reasons.

Each aborted baby is worth $2 million of compounded money.

Each aborted baby fractures a country's national security.

Each aborted baby caused this that there is more people ready to retire than children that will put a strain on the economy and a big skilled labour shortage.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/17/census-canada.html

Each aborted baby caused the Pension plans which were designed for the younger generation to pay for the older generation to be strained.

Each aborted baby helps a country lose their national identity by bringing in more immigration that really don't believe in the countries values.

Each abortion provider should pay $2 million for each aborted baby to the government.

But raising the baby until maturity would be a lot cheaper and more productive and a psychologically beneficial.

Really? If it is that important, let the government do it. Let the government pay for upbringing of each baby, let the government compensate the mother for any loss of income she may suffer as a result of pregnancy, compensate her for the expense of the baby sitter, compensate her for the cost of the baby's college education etc., and for all the incidental expenses.

Let the government compensate the mother to such an extent that she won't be even the least bit inconvenienced as a result of the pregnancy. Only then government will have the moral authority to talk of restricting or banning abortions.

If each baby contributes 2 million $ as you claim, surely government can compensate the woman for the several hundred thousand it is going to cost to bring up the baby? The government will make a handsome profit out of the deal.

But as I said before, ti is not about economics, not about concern for human life (pro life motto is: life begins at conception and ends at birth). It is about religion, about superstition.