koon no kami
Member
sephirothsid94":zlqhe77k said:
Life begins when you can operate a PC and go to teh int0rnet! o_o
XD
Please don't make posts like this, especially in the Symposium.
When Does Life Begin? When are you a person?
- Thread starter sixtyandaquarter
- Start date
Life begins when you can operate a PC and go to teh int0rnet! o_o
XD
Please don't make posts like this, especially in the Symposium.
From a scientific point of view: Life begins, for both humans and all other animals (Humans are animals after all, Problem Sleuth) as soon as they are conceived. It has become a living organism, whether dependant on the mother or not. Many forms of life are dependant on one another, take parasitic and symbiotic fungi in nature as an example if you need one.
Whether abortion should be allowed at this point, or any point along the line the development is up to personal taste and beliefs. How many of you have destroyed a bee nest? Poured boiling water into an ant nest? You're killing hundreds of organisms in one fell swoop and not being the least bit affected by it, yet they are all more conscious and self-sufficient than a feotus 9-months along. 'Potential' for further awareness from a human baby probably comes in to play, but you see the point i'm making.
Dissonance claims life begins when you're aware, and when you're providing for society (which contradicts his/her original posts, but hey) but that's obviously not accurate from a scientific point of when life begins. It is, however, a very good sociological point of view on this subject. Certainly, my life began in my 'mind' when I became self-sufficient and able to do what I wanted with my life.
Whether abortion should be allowed at this point, or any point along the line the development is up to personal taste and beliefs. How many of you have destroyed a bee nest? Poured boiling water into an ant nest? You're killing hundreds of organisms in one fell swoop and not being the least bit affected by it, yet they are all more conscious and self-sufficient than a feotus 9-months along. 'Potential' for further awareness from a human baby probably comes in to play, but you see the point i'm making.
Dissonance claims life begins when you're aware, and when you're providing for society (which contradicts his/her original posts, but hey) but that's obviously not accurate from a scientific point of when life begins. It is, however, a very good sociological point of view on this subject. Certainly, my life began in my 'mind' when I became self-sufficient and able to do what I wanted with my life.
Any answer to, "when does life begin?" must also be compatible with the answer to, "when does life end?" Death is often defined as the cessation of brain function, thus its hard to imagine something brainless as being alive. Further, any living thing has to be capable of death; if the cessation of brain function is how we define death, then it only makes sense that something that never had brain function cannot die. In other words, if a prebrain fetus is alive, then it is alive in such a way that it is incapable of dying. Of course, you could redefine death for that which has never had a brain, but since the possibility of death neccesitates the presense of life; making such a move rather circular 
By that line of reason brain dead patients on life support are zombies. I'm not sure if that's what you were shooting for, but it is kind of funny. At least part of life includes the functioning of other necessary organs besides the brain, but then you go back to, well, an embryo doesn't exactly have a heartbeat.
When you say brain dead do you mean the loss of all brain activity or do you mean the loss of all higher brain activity? In order to have a heart beat and natural respiration you need some brain activity. Obviously, someone on life support may be able to circumvent this, but you would still need some signals in there. At any rate, lack of a heart beat would still count.
On a deeper level; I imagine that any position on when life starts would have to be one of the following type:
1.) At conception
2.) At birth
3.) When a certain organ forms,
any others are open to the whole, "and why not a tad earlier(later)" question, which such positions couldn't provide a justified answer. 1.) seems doubtful unless God exists and likes giving souls to cell clusters. 2.) seems feasible, 3.) seems meaningful only if an adult could be called alive in such a state. So, it seems we're left with:
ensouled cells, zombies, or at birth. I'd have to choose at birth every time with a nod to the zombies
On a deeper level; I imagine that any position on when life starts would have to be one of the following type:
1.) At conception
2.) At birth
3.) When a certain organ forms,
any others are open to the whole, "and why not a tad earlier(later)" question, which such positions couldn't provide a justified answer. 1.) seems doubtful unless God exists and likes giving souls to cell clusters. 2.) seems feasible, 3.) seems meaningful only if an adult could be called alive in such a state. So, it seems we're left with:
ensouled cells, zombies, or at birth. I'd have to choose at birth every time with a nod to the zombies
Dissonance":2gpm36df said:
I agree with you. You are ALIVE when you have a meaning in the world. You are NOT alive when you are being a retarded faggot, who can die and no one whould complain. When you are important to someone, then you are alive. You are important. Your life HAVE a meaning to be there.
Yaxor":3vgvq4do said:
Congratulations on not making any sense... If you can die and no one would complain about it, then you must have been alive in the first place to be able to die. Besides, everyone's life has a meaning, even if it's as simple as our base instincts: survive and replicate.
I once had a debate with a Christian who refused to believe in evolution, and who thought that humans should not be classed as animals, that we're entirely different. When I told her these two base human instincts (survival and replication) and mentioned that all animals share them, which is what makes us so similar, so replied with this:
"The strongest instinct in a human is to help others. It over-rides the need to survive, and is what separates us from animals."
I then gave her a scenario:
"Imagine you're in a room with two doors, one at either side of the room, and a man with a machine gun walks in from one of the doors. He proceeds to open fire at you, and the other 30 people that are in the room with you. Everyone runs for the opposite door to escape the gunfire, but a couple of people are shot in the legs and fall to the floor. Are you really telling me that you'd be genetically hardwired to go back, stand in front of the gunfire, and help those wounded people get out of the room? That this desire would over-ride your need to escape the room and save your own life?"
And she of course answered "yes, that's exactly what I would do."
Don't misinterpret such simple things as crazily as she did. You can argue that humans don't have a life just because they aren't important to someone. You could argue they aren't a benefit to society, and don't provide for other people's lives as well as they perhaps could, and should. But saying they aren't alive at all is as silly a statement as that christian once made to me.
In the future please don't use terrible unreadable colors, fixed for now ~N
I like how she talks in innocent white and you're in rebellious dark blue.
anyway, I really don't see how that anecdote ties into the debate at hand (besides "she was crazy and I am smart" and that's pretty weak bro) but I'm gonna agree with you that we probably shouldn't be judging people's right to live based on whether or not their lives are "worth anything" purely because people would give sucky and wildly variable assessments of who's worth what (and if we start bringing up degrees to which people are alive (are YOU living?) then we're going to have some pretty weird discussions about where the bar should be set.)
anyway, I really don't see how that anecdote ties into the debate at hand (besides "she was crazy and I am smart" and that's pretty weak bro) but I'm gonna agree with you that we probably shouldn't be judging people's right to live based on whether or not their lives are "worth anything" purely because people would give sucky and wildly variable assessments of who's worth what (and if we start bringing up degrees to which people are alive (are YOU living?) then we're going to have some pretty weird discussions about where the bar should be set.)
Volti Nova
Member
When does life begin?
First of all we have to define "Life"
I define it as, When you are born.
Now we have to define "Born"
I define it as, when you come out of your mothers womb
Yet I still say, you are a person when you are formed into your mothers womb, not when you come out.
Second of all, we have to answer the question "When are you a person"
First we have to define "Person"
I define it as when you have got an Occupation / Carrer, and are leading a life that you wish to choose.
With that information, you should be able to extract what my answers are.
I am open to criticism though, if you wish to disaggree with my statements in any way. Just remember to quote my post.
First of all we have to define "Life"
I define it as, When you are born.
Now we have to define "Born"
I define it as, when you come out of your mothers womb
Yet I still say, you are a person when you are formed into your mothers womb, not when you come out.
Second of all, we have to answer the question "When are you a person"
First we have to define "Person"
I define it as when you have got an Occupation / Carrer, and are leading a life that you wish to choose.
With that information, you should be able to extract what my answers are.
I am open to criticism though, if you wish to disaggree with my statements in any way. Just remember to quote my post.
Necro_100000
Member
Your alive as soon as you can prove to someone your alive.
look at all of the old post, IS THIS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
The point is no matter how you do it life begins once you prove to someone you are alive.
On a side note* you have to be a physically aware being. Then if you can prove your alive, and you are alive then you have justified your exsistance and your not a ghost like you thought you were you idiot.
Damn don't you people read? Read "I'm a Strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. Awesome book with a good IMO explanation on the value of souls and justifications for the word "I".
look at all of the old post, IS THIS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
The point is no matter how you do it life begins once you prove to someone you are alive.
On a side note* you have to be a physically aware being. Then if you can prove your alive, and you are alive then you have justified your exsistance and your not a ghost like you thought you were you idiot.
Damn don't you people read? Read "I'm a Strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. Awesome book with a good IMO explanation on the value of souls and justifications for the word "I".
Necro_100000
Member
Nphyx":1haxcpb3 said:
lol win.
This is the symposium; shitty responses like this aren't tolerated. Don't do this again; your hanging on by a thread with your recent number of generally bad posts. Please refrain from posts that don't contribute to the topic at all; or there will be consequences.
~Surmuck
Personally I feel life begins as soon as there is a heartbeat in a foetus. If you're parent then you'll know what I mean when I say that the first scan or sign of heartheat from your unborn child really makes you associate them with being a 'person'. That glimmer of recognition in their eyes and behaviour right after birth just seals the deal.
Yes - technically speaking - babies ARE parasites... I can think of a lot of examples of this progressing into adulthood.
Until you are a parent and have experienced the above, I think the judgement you can make on babies not being 'people' right at first is rather limited.
Just my tuppence worth...did I really just use the word tuppence? :shock: ah well...
Its one of those annoying debates that we love to argue about even though there will never be a 'proven' resolution... I can barely remember what happened last week let alone when I was a baby so I've no idea wht I felt back then. I can only look at my own kids and decide what I believe to be true.
:straightthumb:
Yes - technically speaking - babies ARE parasites... I can think of a lot of examples of this progressing into adulthood.
Until you are a parent and have experienced the above, I think the judgement you can make on babies not being 'people' right at first is rather limited.
Just my tuppence worth...did I really just use the word tuppence? :shock: ah well...
Its one of those annoying debates that we love to argue about even though there will never be a 'proven' resolution... I can barely remember what happened last week let alone when I was a baby so I've no idea wht I felt back then. I can only look at my own kids and decide what I believe to be true.
:straightthumb:
Dissonance
Member
Necro_100000":36n4w79s said:
So if you live in isolation you're somehow not alive because there's nobody else around to verify it?
Sorry, but I don't need other people to justify my own existance.
Necro_100000":36n4w79s said:
Being physically aware is not enough for life. I know people who hold steady jobs, drive cars, know how to shop, know how to breed, and know how to act civil around company, and I would certainly never call them alive. They are walking husks, animated not by a soul but by the spastic jolts of electricity shunted down their spine to their muscles from their brain.
True life takes more than brain activity.
fallenravenlyn
Member
I believe that life begins when a baby is born and breathes air for the first time. But in the case of still born babies, the baby's systems shut down and so it never took its breath. It's an empty living shell that is attached to the mother's life force. It's only my opinion, you can agree or not.
Incognitus
Member
New topic direction!
Should late-term abortion doctors be murdered by "pro-life"-ers?
Should late-term abortion doctors be murdered by "pro-life"-ers?