The rights of the Unborn still a "hot potato"!

[Risus]

Dear Karrie, I never once insinuated that I was God…………..
A person concerned about managing human mental pain is not by far an Elitist my dear; he is a person of compassion, a person who understands the pain of abandonment….
If you are not able to differentiate between pain of abandonment or birth defects and well being, then your cause is self serving if you exclude qualified cases in need of abortion. I am not God, neither are you; we should let qualified cases do their thing with out interference in other peoples business…….
It is a woman’s choice, only if the woman is able to decide in making the correct choice good for her self…………if a woman has a dad history of physical drug abuse she has no business bringing in this world a human life with bad medical odds stacked sky high against them and then dump a problem on societies door step…………….

Soc, you have done a flip-flop (like the liberals) by now saying its the women's choice, where before the women were so drug dazed they couldn't even think for themselves. Make up your mind.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Soc, you have done a flip-flop (like the liberals) by now saying its the women's choice, where before the women were so drug dazed they couldn't even think for themselves. Make up your mind.

Risus spend some time to read not speed read just read.........and then you will get the drift...........you and I should go for a bear one day.............

 

[Risus]

Risus spend some time to read not speed read just read.........and then you will get the drift...........you and I should go for a bear one day.............

Well, maybe a beer...:lol:

 

[Praxius]

I ignored it because it's more of the same nonsense. But I can address your crap if you like, if that is what it takes to get you to put down in concise language what your criteria for a living thing is.

Hey if I read through your she'ite all the way through, I'd hope you have the decency to do the same..... how else are we going to learn anything from all this if we don't pay attention?

If we all do, then we all win!!
:wav:
Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! I like Pickles, that's why I'm Green.....

No, it is human life. This is why I ask you what your criteria is, because an embryo is metabolically active, and it is a different organism than it's mother. So, what does potentially alive mean? Is that embryo alive, or is it not? There is no middle road here.

It is not "Human Life" in the context I am talking about, in order to keep things simple. A jelly fish is life, and in the same sense, so is a fetus. But not in the context that diserves anything remote to Human Rights..... Understand? Good, because it answers both questions, because it's all irrelevent, because I've already agreed with you ffs..... Next time learn to read, because I sure as hell ain't repeating myself.

That's a nonsense analogy. A bridge only works as long as it is complete, that's obvious. Life doesn't depend on being fully developed.

Really? What happens to a premature baby if not taken care of properly in a hospital? What about pulling a fetus right out of the womb and just see how things go?

...... Hang on a second......




......... Ok back.... Stats Canada.... go figure... that took an hour or so. Oh well, she got her answers and left laughing, another person has a good day thanks to Praxius.

Now where was I?

Is the moth pupae not actually a moth? It's a moth that is still developing. It's not a different species simply because it hasn't developed into it's adult form, and it's not nonliving because it's still developing. Perhaps you need to take more biology classes to understand that...

And perhaps you need to look further into your biology before you start shooting off like you know something. Just because a Catipillar can do this, doesn't mean the Fetus does in the same fashion, let alone other species.

I'm talking about consciousness. Is there memory, is there thought.... is there someone present in that little noggin in the womb.... I seriously don't care about anything else, answer the damn question, I answer more then enough of yours.

Or do you even have an answer?

^ Do you have one for that one? Yes or no. It's pretty simple.

That is a garbage analogy.

So are most of your explinations and ability to make any sense in your comparisons.

So, what is it then. Is it alive, or is it not alive? It's not an extension of the mother, that's where DNA comes in, the same as a flea is not an extension of the cat.

Is the DNA in Cancer the same as the body its in? It feed off of the body, it's attached to it physically. It started within the body.

I'm not talking about extensions outside, as the fetus was created within. We remove a Cancer as we remove an unwanted fetus. That is the relation I am making.

Your relations make as much sense as my relations to dolphins being allowed to vote.... they're irrelevant to the orignal question asked pages ago, which has yet to get a simple answer.

Completely wrong. Life stages are stages of development in an organisms life cycle, not stages towards it. Human development goes from zygote to adult, covering all the areas between. And a human heart is different than a pig heart.

That is what I ment in their compariosn to being no different.... in that they are grown and developed in the same way as each other, and yet are completely different. Too Complex for you? I thought you could run circles around me?

But thanks for saying the same thing I already said and thus confirming.

However in regards to Life Stages, you're talking about Life Cycles the way I already am, the issue is when that life actually begins. You just can't wrap your head that the DNA which was created to create that fetus, which is different then the mother, and father.... although only slightly due to being both combined in the first place, doesn't make it alive, as all of it's resources and function are developed via the mother..... all it's food, all that it uses for blood, comes through the placenta. It is not dependant, therefore it's life has not yet completely started. It is in development.

Just because it has different DNA, doesn't make it "individually alive" in the manner in which creates "consciousness." The fetus can be alive as much as you want it to be, but it is not the "Type" of alive I am looking for.

Why is that so damn hard for you to figure out and why do you have to continue with this repetative tripe, since I have already agreed with you countless times already, over the same damn things?

Not in so many words. I interpret a 100% complete/completed human--which you did say-- to be an adult.

See how subjective the subject can be? I don't think Adult is the complete form of the human. A completed human is one that can breath and operate on it's own resources..... in regards to the way I am looking at the topic.... you're looking at the reproductive development of a human which is induced to aging..... which is also correct, just not for the subject I'm seeking an answer to.

And perhaps the answer I'm looking for can not yet be answered by humans.... ?

Maybe that's just that fuzzy biology getting in the way again. Hence the problems with your words. Every time you've explained why it's not alive, you leave this gaping hole of uncovered circumstances that encompass much of what human life actually is. I've been trying to show you that, but then you switch course, and say something completely new and unrelated to your first explanation.

But see it's all relating, as I have already repeated myself countless times already, with many of the very same words already used before. You're just sticking yourself into this loop that you can't get out of. I already answered your question, but you're stuck, because you're not answering mine.

As soon as mine is answered, then the conversation can continue:

Is there consciousness within a fetus to feel pain and suffering? Proof?

Again, why is it not a living human? What makes it non-living, or non-human?

See above question, and you then get your answer. Here, I'll give you a hint.... when people in serious accidents go brain dead, I believe they shouldn't be put on life support and continue to waste away...... there is no "life" left to keep going.... only life support is keeping the body going..... look at it as a "Soul/Spirit" question in relation to science.

And none of that matters for classifying something as living or not, as I already explained. People are still alive when they are dependent on drugs or machines to keep their body functioning, so being independent in function is out the door. Unconscious people are still alive, so conscious obviously can't be used to determine life from non-living.

Sure it can... if I go brain dead, don't put me on life support.. pull the plug and dump my body somewhere..... it's subjective to your individual beliefs.... that's your problem. You're trying to dictate the answer to something that can not be proven one way or another.... consciousness.

You can have living tissue, but no consciousness within the body to feel pain if you cut off a finger or stab it..... that's the sort of "Life" i'm talking about... something that seems too complicated for you.

Your definitions and parameters suck, they don't meet any standard definition of what a living thing is, nor do they disqualify.

Well sook and stomp your feet some more why don't you..... I can't help it if it's a tough question and it sucks for you.

That's the wonderful thing about "Standard Definition" ~ It's only the "Standard", not "Absolute."

Oh no.... who's running the circles now? You gonna quit now that you can't or refuse to answer a simple question or understand an alternative concept that is alien to you, yet also can not be disproven anymore then your own?

He he.... I think you're ears are smoking.

No it doesn't. You touched on it earlier. As far as the government of Canada is concerned, if you aren't on paper somewhere, you aren't covered by them. Citizens, immigrants, visas, all of it requires documentation. There is no documentation for the unborn, but that doesn't mean they aren't alive.

Living Tissue and Alive are two different things once again.... so yes it can.

That's something they would have to change to really give the unborn rights, which as I already explained, this legislation doesn't come close to fulfilling.

Then we no longer have to argue about this part. All we need to do is answer if a fetus has consciousness and we can go further? Do you believe it has one or not?

A dead body is still a human body. An unborn is still a human body. The morphology doesn't change the fact that it is a body, and that it is human. The metabolically active body is alive. The inert corpse is not. How silly...

I already know this.... but I'm not talking about just a human body, as a dead human body isn't "Alive" as you put it earlier, but it's still a human.... it's just a dead human, while a fetus is a human fetus.

As I said and I quote: "Which is no more human then a dead body." ~ Which you just once again, argued, and yet agreed with me on.... what the hell is wrong with you? I didn't say it wasn't anymore alive or not, just human.

Who's switching goal post again? You're trying to argue one thing to support another thing, which I already agreed on both long ago, but you're avoiding the main point of the argument......

.... are you trying to avoid something that might rattle your own beliefs or something or are you just getting confused?

If it isn't human, what is it? It's not a freaking chimpanzee.

See, you avoided it again.

Anybody else reading this, do you remember me telling you about the limitations science puts itself into by its own rules? This is what Happens when you follow your life so close to a limited belief.... you can't or won't answer certain questions..... just like a religion.

In biological terms, it's not dead tissue. It's called viable. You can keep living tissue viable while it's removed from the body, by slowing cellular decay and solute concentrations. It's not brought back to life, it's prevented from becoming dead tissue.

So..... like that brain dead guy on life support?

Dead tissue cannot be brought back to life, because it no longer has the equipment needed. The cell membranes have deteriorated, which destroys the ability to control what products enter and leave the cells. The organelles of the cell have deteriorated because the nutrients needed to sustain them were used up. In short, preventing the cells from lysing en masse keeps the tissue viable. Once the cells lyse, they're dead.

In their short little lives in comparison to our own, you're correct, they die and when they die, we die.... but a cell in itself can not function and do its duties until it is also developed, and they just don't *pop* come into existence, nor do they just die without reason. But they all have development.

But let's not get too deep into things here, because it's not needed at this stage. The problem is there are two kinds of alive we're talking about.... you're just avoiding one of them.

Clinically dead, not dead. Clinical death is when the heart stops, and blood flow and breathing have stopped. The reason it isn't called death anymore is that they can still be resuscitated. Brain death is a whole different ball of wax, but follows shortly after clinical death if blood flow can't be restored.

yes, someone gets into an accident, their heart stops, eventually they are brought back to life but need life support to keep alive, and now they are brain dead.... no consciousness.... no ability to feel pain.

Now all of this goes all the way back to Loon's report of a Doctor claiming without a doubt, that a fetus after so long in development, can and does feel pain, because the nerves are developed enough to do so..... but is the fetus brain dead during this time?

Yes or No?

In any event, the fetus has both brain activity and blood flow. It has a heart beat after just four weeks in the womb, at which time the brain is also developing, certainly not 'dead'.

So your answer is no, it is not brain dead at this time... so by your conclusion, do you belive there is a consciousness present in a fetus?

But that's not correct. Individual organs can fail, and you'll still be alive.

It can be correct, just as your explination can be correct, depending on the situation. Individual organs can fail and you can still be alive, but not for very long without a replacement. The only one we can live without is the appendix.... however if one organ does fail, such as the heart or brain, then we die.

Argue consciousness with someone else. That's not needed to be alive, and besides that, the embryo has all of those key organs before birth.

Then end the debate now, because if you can't answer the question or the concept, then why are you still debating with me?

Do the mother and fetus have the same genetics? NO. They are separate living things. The placenta isn't a permanent organ....

Nope, and nobody cares what happens to it. But do the mother and fetus have the same genetics? Not exact, but they do carry the same genetics with the addition of the father's genetics within the fetus, but enough genetics of the mother to not be rejected by the body.

I didn't expect anything from you, other than for you to read and comprehend at an adult level.

Well I'm glad I'm making you happy.

No, you haven't. You haven't demonstrated that it isn't a human.

Because I'm not trying to.

It is.

Duh

You haven't demonstrated it isn't a living thing. It is.

Because I'm not trying to do that either.... it is a living "Thing"

Non-living things don't have beating hearts, with metabolically active cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems.

You'd be surprised.

You've tried using some twisted logic to say it isn't a human, and that it isn't alive, but none of them are useful because they disqualify some who everyone would call living humans. Unless you can come up with some revolutionary definition for human, and for classifying a living thing, you won't be able to claim that it isn't human, or that it isn't alive.

It is alive, it is humanoid, but it's not a living human being with a consciousness.

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you repeat correct.

No kidding, how much have you repeated thus far?

You're not at all in sync with biological conventions, which is what we have for classifying living things. So, I'm going to continue to challenge your nonsense as long as you repeat it.

Well that's because you want to try and argue something I already agree with you on, because you avoid what I want to actually talk about. If you don't want to talk about consciousness and go from there, then don't bother reading this any further, don't quote me, don't hit that submit button in response with a comment, or this will just continue until our fingers fall off..... I've got nothing better to do, do you? Apparently not, since you will continue to repeat the same old stuff without progressing through the conversation.

Because I haven't been discussing that, but can if you like. I kind of said something above to this effect already, but in the eyes of the government, it's not a person. Which doesn't make it 'non-living'.

I don't care what the government thinks, as I already know.... what do you think? If the word suits you better, do you think a fetus is a Person?

Forget what the government says, and what biology says, or what science says.... what do you yourself say?

Women and different races at one time weren't considered "people" under the law, because that's the way the laws were written. Giving the unborn rights requires changing laws, and would require giving them equal rights to the mother, which I have never agreed with.

So you don't think a fetus is a "Person" in respect to the pregnant woman as a person?

The law doesn't have to be in sync with science. Maybe that makes me a monster for thinking it's a living human that doesn't deserve the rights of the mother. I can deal with that. That's not to say it's something I would choose, or my girlfriend for that matter, she feels the same way I do about this. That is, a woman's right to choose is paramount. The right to choose belongs to the mother. It's to me an unfortunate decision, but it's not my choice to make for anyone, it's the choice of the mother, in exactly the same way as the next of kin can choose to pull the plug on their husband, child, etc.

Thank you, that was the explination I was waiting to hear from you.... your own personal opinion.

This is what I was trying to get at, including above when I was referencing the life support examples. You explained yourself above exactly as one only could to the question I was presenting.

Thank you once again.

See that wasn't so hard, now was it?

It is together. It doesn't matter, no matter how often you ask that question. If you use that question on a fetus, it has to apply to other living humans too, no? Because if a living human has individual consciousness, what is a person who lives ina coma? Babies in the womb show more response than the coma victim, who is a living human.

However, that response in the brain can also be attributed to the brain's development through creation of electrical pathways, etc...... is there a possibility of consciousness during this process, or is the brain developed and grown enough to hold a conscousness while it is in this process?

Get you sh!t together.

Don't worry, it's all where I can see it.

I'm discussing what makes something living or not. Are you?

No, not really.

Is individual consciousness applicable to all things?

Perhaps in some levels or another.

Nope. Not a criteria for living bacteria, plants, etc. It's a characteristic, but not a necessity.

Neither is one while growing safely within the womb.

Independent bodilly function, do you consider conjoined twins to be one person now?

Nope... two conscousnesses at play, unless two bodies share the same brain, and that's pretty rare.

There's two individual consciouses at work there, but they aren't independently functioning, so what does that do for your classification of a living thing?

It makes me go into futher detail to refine my view to you..... one or more conscousness has to be present for what I believe in.... One will do, which is why I was limiting my explinations to just one at this time.

Independent bodilly function, and individual consciousness. Read above for the problems with that.

Unless the two heads share one body, your above example can not apply, and since every medical case I have seen where a baby is born with two heads, along with two consciousnesses, one always had to be killed in order to save the other, and they picked the healthier one over the other..... so that kind of example can not work, as two conscousnesses sharing one body causes too much energy drain, the heart will fail and the body will die, killing both conscousnesses.

If they are both just attached elsewhere by a limb, skin or organ, then they have most of their own independance.... nobody's perfect. But Conscousness can be detected regardless.

I'm talking about the complete development of a functioning human body that can substain a human conscousness.

Those twins that shared one body survived the entire pregnancy, but complications followed shortly after they were born.... why?

Umm, no we couldn't. Everything that lives passes on DNA. It is a component of all living things. We classify a living thing according to conventions, not abstract delusional crap. All living things:1) resond independently to stimuli, 2) require energy to sustain themselves, 3) excrete waste, 4) pass on their genes to the next generation, and 5) die. Those are the 5 fundamental characteristics of living things. It's straightforward biology. A rock doesn't respond independently to environemntal stimulus. A star doesn't pass on genetic material.

Well that of course depends on who you ask, and what level of genetics you are looking for... not to mention how far back one wants to go.

Maybe you forgot, but that quote you responded to was in response to you saying it[the fetus] was an extension of the mother. I said the DNA proves it isn't an extension, it's a different individual. All living things do have DNA. That it can still be found in a dead creature is irrelevant, it obviously once lived.

it once existed, but being that the fetus's DNA is half the mothers, the tissue and organs that make it up are half the mother, and the energy and blood that travels through the umbilical cord is the mothers, it's mostly the mother at that time then it is itself. In surrogate mother cases, you have a position in your explination, but not in all cases in regards to DNA being totally different from the mother.

You responded to Curio's question of hen life begins. It begins when there is a metabolism, that metabolism starts independently of the mother's. Even the clinically dead you mentioned earlier, which can still be brought back to life, are metabolically active.

Uh huh, but once again, I was responded to my beliefs in the other form of life, the "Person"

No, I'm still arguing your contention that a human life begins at birth. Unless you've changed your position in the past few pages, I'm still arguing that you're wrong.

Well I haven't, and in the terms I am speaking of, I'm not, as you haven't proven it to be.

It's not at all hard to understand, and makes logical sense as science does. What you're saying doesn't make logical sense.

Based on your "Standards"

Your answer to Curio explicitly stated you think life begins at birth. Has that changed?

Nope.

That very well could be. Appologies for thinking that you still think human life begins at birth.

Oops... well I guess we have to start all over again then. :roll:

 

[Praxius]

Ok Tonnington, lets say we go with your definition of human life:

If its alive, then then the mother shouldn't have to keep it inside of her. Take it out and it can be alive on its own.

You can't be forced to donate blood or any other tissue, even to your own child to save its life.

So its not abortion, its not supplying body tissue to another living being. There ya go.

Yeah, what he said, lol..... in shorter terms.

 

[Praxius]

I'm not defining human life. I'm using a definition of a living thing. It's pretty standard that all living things require nutrients, produce waste, pass on genes, respond to stimuli and die. You'll find that in any zoology, botony, microbiology or biochemistry text books. That makes the fetus a living thing, and of course it is not an extension of the mother. That's simple genetics.

I'm kind of shocked that anyone would have problems with that.

We're not, but you're having the problem with what we're trying to say.

 

[Tonington]

If you don't have any problems with that Praxius, you shouldn't have any problems calling it a living human. It's not anything else but a human.

 

[Praxius]

If you don't have any problems with that Praxius, you shouldn't have any problems calling it a living human. It's not anything else but a human.

"Human" can have various meanings depending on its use, that is the problem you are having in the debate.

It is living in the sense anything else lives, such as a jelly fish, or a sea sponge, to a hippo..... it is a human based on it's characteristics and DNA structure..... but it is a Living-Breathing-Human with Conscousness.... AKA: A Person?

You and I already said no.... so what's the big deal?

 

[Tonington]

For the purposes of a living human, there's not really various meanings at all.

If you want to get all philosophical, sure, then there's all sorts of frames.

No big deal at all.

 

[Zzarchov]

depends what you define as a "living human", living homo sapiens sure.

But "living human" has another quality, for instance, was Terry Schiavo living? Is someone who is brain dead alive?

They are a living being, but are they "alive". Its an important linguistic difference in meaning.

 

[Praxius]

For the purposes of a living human, there's not really various meanings at all.

If you want to get all philosophical, sure, then there's all sorts of frames.

No big deal at all.

Then that ends that part of the dabte then.

 

[Tonington]

It's semantics. There's a reason that science has specific terms, with specific meanings. It has to be precise. If you know of a better method to classify what a living thing is, I'll ask you to do the same as Prax and posit that criteia here. I haven't been arguing that it's a person with rights, as I've told Prax multiple times now. That is a legal classification. classifying something as a living thing, human, bat or otherwise, is done with science, with biology.

Look, the human life cycle begins at fertilization. That it's called a zygote, fetus, toddler or pre-teen at different physiological landmarks means precisely nothing. It's alive. It's a human. You can't use normal development of a human to say it's not a human, or it's not alive.

Now, as to Terry Schiavo, of course she was alive. She was alive until her body no longer worked. We can keep humans alive with a machine. Or we can keep them alive with regular intervals of drugs. Or we can keep them alive with organ transplants. Being alive is not dependent on levels of interpersonal interaction. It's dependent on biochemical processes. Being brain dead as you put it, again is totally semantic, and not at all meaning the person is no longer alive.

It's not at all important. For the purposes of this thread title, the only thing that matters is the legal classification of a person. Most modern societies grant that at birth. I've only said, that being a person is not the hallmark entry of the human life. That was Curios question, and Prax's response is what I responded to.

 

[Zzarchov]

Ok, lets be REAL serious then,

Alive is a fundementally philosophical term that people keep trying to define with science. As of yet there is no perfect definition of alive that fulfills the definition of the word, which predates modern science.

Thats a pet gripe of mine though, science trying to force exact meanings upon words that predate it. All of it being useless semantics (a long running headdesk situation of mine regarding the whole pluto thing)

 

[Tonington]

No, I was defining a living thing with science, as in when does life begin. Do non-living things produce organic compounds like hormones? No. I said things like living things require "..." That's not at all philosophical, those are the basic needs of living things, and the eventuality all living things meet, death.

A pet gripe of mine is when people confuse what I've said, like using similar but different words that distort what I actually have said. I've been discussing the incorrect things Prax has said in relation to the biology, right from the start. Did you read all of that, or stumble into a conversation mid-way?

I mean you went with my supposed definition of human life, which I never defined in the first place, and then used the non-sequitur that assumes to be alive one must be completely independent...

 

[missile]

Every fetus should have certain rights, such as the right to a warm,nurturing position in the female womb. beyond that..only the rights that any victim of violence or assault might have.

 

[Zzarchov]

No, I was defining a living thing with science, as in when does life begin. Do non-living things produce organic compounds like hormones? No. I said things like living things require "..." That's not at all philosophical, those are the basic needs of living things, and the eventuality all living things meet, death.

A pet gripe of mine is when people confuse what I've said, like using similar but different words that distort what I actually have said. I've been discussing the incorrect things Prax has said in relation to the biology, right from the start. Did you read all of that, or stumble into a conversation mid-way?

I mean you went with my supposed definition of human life, which I never defined in the first place, and then used the non-sequitur that assumes to be alive one must be completely independent...

Scientific definitions of alive do not exist as the word intends. Attempts to pin a scientific criteria on life are futile, inaccurate and wholly besides the point.

It in the end boils down to people trying to use science to push morality one way or the other. Who exactly had the authority again to dictate what is life and what isnt in a scientific setting?

Who decides live needs to secrete organic compounds? Or die?

What if we find something that is inorganic but otherwise meets all the criteria of life? like a self-replicating and aware machine?

Another definition touted is:

They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.


The last bit was added in so that fire doesn't classify as life. Now lets get down to that.

Why, why change the definition to exclude something from the list?

If life had a real scientific meaning then you wouldn't change it to exclude something from the list. If it meets the criteria then its alive, its not "well this was alive, so we arbitrarily changed the requirements to make it not alive. The results have also been changed back and forth to see if Viruses fit the definition of "life". If you are going to arbitrarily change the definition of scientific term then you destroy the entire scientific purpose in the first place. But that is exactly whats been done. People didn't like the idea of fire being alive, so they changed the definition to get the results they wanted. Then they had debates about if Viruses should be alive, so they changed the definition to try and get the results they want.

Why not just say "Life, defined as anything we currently say is alive until we change our mind"



And the reason is simple. All the scientific definitions of life are created after the fact, to try and add applicable "rules" to a word designed to be vague and fuzzy, up there with love or art. If you want to be scientific whether or not something is "Alive" is inconsequential, all that matters are its physical properties which are just as easily described without the term "life". The reason life is used at all was because at the time whether or not something was alive had important religious reprecussions. If for classification you really need to use a term, don't use the term "life" make a new one that fits (of coursse Biological Nomenclature itself is just an arbitrary system for ease in day to day tasks)


The terms "life" is not scientific and has been highjacked by science trying to explain a word that is specifically vague in meaning simply because the populace at large wanted an explanation.

 

[Tonington]

Scientific definitions of alive do not exist as the word intends.

Alive no, a living thing yes, a living cell, yes.

It in the end boils down to people trying to use science to push morality one way or the other.

Pro-lifers perhaps. Studying the universe and classifying/characterizing things is not pushing morality at all.

Who exactly had the authority again to dictate what is life and what isnt in a scientific setting?

As all science works, someone put forth their explanation, and others adopted the convention. Eventually, things like biological taxonomy work because people like Linnaeus put forward an explanation that worked, and as in all sciences, as our knowledge progresses these conventions need tweaking.

Who decides live needs to secrete organic compounds? Or die?

Our understanding of the universe does. All living things have metabolism, and part of that metabolism is the manipulation of chemicals for energetic and physiological needs through bio-chemical reactions. Maybe someday we'll discover Transformers from other planets...

What if we find something that is inorganic but otherwise meets all the criteria of life? like a self-replicating and aware machine?

Well, then we'd have to change wouldn't we? What-ifs are still only what-ifs until they become known.

I never took you Zzarchov for one who would think science has to be infallible and immutable. It isn't, but if you can think of a better system or method to describe the universe, then I'm all ears.

Another definition touted is:

They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.


The last bit was added in so that fire doesn't classify as life. Now lets get down to that.

Redundant, because it's understood that reproduction means the passing on of genetic material through successive generations, from parent to progeny. Fire has no genetic sequences to pass on.

I've never heard that characterization of life though. Growing is covered by metabolism, and everything that lives dies, which doesn't appear on your list.

Why, why change the definition to exclude something from the list?

Probably because that list sucked?

If life had a real scientific meaning then you wouldn't change it to exclude something from the list.

There you go again, ascribing characteristics to science that don't belong. Science evolves too, it's not static. Differentiating a living thing from a non-living thing has real scientific meaning and value. Unless you'd pray for a cure, rather than have a doctor diagnose the bacteria that's making you ill...

If it meets the criteria then its alive, its not "well this was alive, so we arbitrarily changed the requirements to make it not alive.

Do you think evoultionary concepts are not a characteristic of living things? We didn't always know such things.

The results have also been changed back and forth to see if Viruses fit the definition of "life". If you are going to arbitrarily change the definition of scientific term then you destroy the entire scientific purpose in the first place. But that is exactly whats been done. People didn't like the idea of fire being alive, so they changed the definition to get the results they wanted. Then they had debates about if Viruses should be alive, so they changed the definition to try and get the results they want.

No, people found better ways to classify something. That's all. When you're learning new things through the ages that tends to happen. Get the results they want, if by that you mean accurately describe the known universe? Where the hell do you get your science history from anyways?

Why not just say "Life, defined as anything we currently say is alive until we change our mind"

For starters your assumptions of why and how conventions change is flatly wrong. Second, we wouldn't say that because it sounds retarded.

And the reason is simple. All the scientific definitions of life are created after the fact, to try and add applicable "rules" to a word designed to be vague and fuzzy, up there with love or art.

After the fact? Umm, yes of course it is. We obviously have to know about something before we can attempt to describe it. Do you think this is a problem? Would you rather the crystal ball method?

If you want to be scientific whether or not something is "Alive" is inconsequential, all that matters are its physical properties which are just as easily described without the term "life".

Science deals in physical properties, and describes them in detail. What do you think science is? It's not meta-physics:roll:

The reason life is used at all was because at the time whether or not something was alive had important religious reprecussions.

It's still important. That's why Curio asked the question.

As far as this legislation is concerned, and the OP is concerned, it really isn't.

If for classification you really need to use a term, don't use the term "life" make a new one that fits (of coursse Biological Nomenclature itself is just an arbitrary system for ease in day to day tasks)

We don't need a new term. Most level headed people know exactly what someone means when the question is asked: "Is this thing alive?"

The terms "life" is not scientific and has been highjacked by science trying to explain a word that is specifically vague in meaning simply because the populace at large wanted an explanation.

Hijacked? Where the hell do you get this? Science can describe what a living thing is. That's not an abstract concept like me telling you to "Get a life." It's describing a characteristic of our small portion of the universe that we've found, and we hope to find elsewhere. Maybe if we do some day, that definition will need revision. It won't be because someone didn't like it, it will be because we learned something new and interesting about the universe.

In science, the best thing you can hear isn't "Eureka", it's more like "That's interesting" or "I didn't expect that".

In any event, the characteristics of living things don't need revision as you seem to think to include a fetus as a living thing.

 

[Zzarchov]

Life, the word, is an abstract concept by nature. When something is alive or not is a classical morality tale going back to antiquity.

The desire to put a concrete definition on if something is alive or not, is stupid. It was created after the word life was in the popular lexicon. Life as a word, as it is used, is not designed to have an exact definition.

But there is an inherent need in science to take non-scientific terms and add an unneeded exacting definition upon them, that usually doesn't fit with the intended usage of the word.

And thats simple human nature, but its still wrong.


The debate about if a Virus is "alive" is a great example. Whether or not you tag a virus is "alive" or "not alive" does not change it status.

Any definition of "alive" that science comes up with is inherently biased, it starts with someone deciding ahead of time what they want to be alive and what they don't, and changing the criteria to fit that model.

And life is just one example of a highjacked word. Love is fast becoming another one, where a scientific definition of a vague word is attempting to be created rather than the more accurate, less confusing and generally more useful function of creating new words to explain the exact different kinds of biological changes that laymen may describe as love.

Such is what should have been done with the term "life" in a scientific context. Don't take an existing philosophical and religious term and try and assign an exacting definition to it. Create new terms to make the very specific and narrow definitions you set up.

 

[dancing-loon]

Every fetus should have certain rights, such as the right to a warm,nurturing position in the female womb. beyond that..only the rights that any victim of violence or assault might have.

Does abortion constitute an assault in your opinion? If it does, then the fetus has rights!
Thanks missile!:smile:

 

[missile]

If it was the old style abortions[coat hanger types], then ,yes, it is assault and a crime. I understand that today's procedures are quick,painless and not very intrusive. For the record, I am for legal abortions and against Dr. Morgenthaler & his clinic.