Definition of Life

[James Bond]

One of the hardest parts about arguing either for or against abortion is determining just what life is and what life isn't.

In my studies of science I have learned that all living things are composed of cells. This is very strange because in my biology course last winter I learned about viruses and the professor had said that viruses, even if they are autonomous, have DNA, and breed, are not life because they do not have cells.

This is just about the only thing I'd say science is 100% wrong about, but as I say this I, myself, don't have a definition of life.

What do you guys think? What constitutes life for you?

[DoctorBarber]

I think that a living thing is life.

[Jack]

An interesting question that affects more debates than just the abortion issue. It is also at the heart of the questions surrounding abiogenesis and brain death. I don't, at the moment, have a good definition to offer, and I'll refrain from following post #2 with an equally useless circular definition. But it's a question I've pondered for some time and no doubt will for some time to come.

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: Jack An interesting question that affects more debates than just the abortion issue. It is also at the heart of the questions surrounding abiogenesis and brain death. I don't, at the moment, have a good definition to offer, and I'll refrain from following post #2 with an equally useless circular definition. But it's a question I've pondered for some time and no doubt will for some time to come.

I don't think there is a more useful definition than mine. What more do you need?

[James Bond]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I don't think there is a more useful definition than mine. What more do you need?

Is there anyway you can not be an annoying troll?

Yes Jack, I forgot about abiogenesis and brain death (right to die stuff). Good thinking!

Edit: I think my inability to think of a definition for life is the reason I can't come to a conclusion on the abortion debate. That's strange because I fully understand that brain dead=dead and abiogenesis does produce life. It seems I have a definition I'm using subconsciously, but I can't pin it down.

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: James Bond Is there anyway you can not be an annoying troll? Yes Jack, I forgot about abiogenesis and brain death (right to die stuff). Good thinking! Edit: I think my inability to think of a definition for life is the reason I can't come to a conclusion on the abortion debate. That's strange because I fully understand that brain dead=dead and abiogenesis does produce life. It seems I have a definition I'm using subconsciously, but I can't pin it down.

Your disagreeing with me does not make me a troll.

Also I think theres already a topic where the definition of life was being discussed.

Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[James Bond]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Your disagreeing with me does not make me a troll. Also I think theres already a topic where the definition of life was being discussed. Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

I can't disagree with a non argument. That thread is about the definition of life in relation to the abortion topic. This topic is more general.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I think that a living thing is life.

But then what's a living thing?

*scratches noggin*

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: Thanatos But then what's a living thing? *scratches noggin*

In order to be living, you have to be alive. A dead body is not life. A piece of paper is not life. The keyboard you're typing on is not life.

A living thing is a thing that lives! I don't know what more you people want from me!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: DoctorBarber In order to be living, you have to be alive. A dead body is not life. A piece of paper is not life. The keyboard you're typing on is not life. A living thing is a thing that lives! I don't know what more you people want from me!

This... feels circular. What we'd like is a general checklist of features that living things have but nonliving things don't. Without using a form of the word "life" please.

James Bond, welcome to Volconvo. I'm sorry one of your first acquaintances had to be this guy.

[James Bond]

Thank you very much Thanatos and Dr. Barber welcome to my ignore list.

[Jack]

Is there life at the quantum level?

[James Bond]

Quote by: Jack Is there life at the quantum level?

I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. In order to answer that question we must first have either an accepted or objective standard as to what this word "life" means. It's like trying to answer the question, "Are there snouses at the quantum level?". If you have no idea what "snouses" means, it's impossible to answer.

Lets look at dictionary.com shall we;

1) a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul 2) the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 3) the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual

We don't have any evidence of a soul so I think we can discount #1. #2 excludes viruses. #3 seems like a winner until you realize this excludes most plants. (Animate defined as movement at will.) The words "alive" and "living" led to circular, vague results.

[gela]

The scientific definiton of alive is easy - something that contains cells. If you changed that definition to be 'anything that contains genetic material and can reproduce' to include viruses then whatever. The details don't bother me at all.

A fetus is alive, and even if someone is brain dead - there body is still alive.

But I assume you are trying to say that 'a life' and 'alive' are different things. What does and doesn't have 'a life' is an ethical question, some answer it using religion, and some answer it using science.

Religion tells us that any and every human life is important, because they have souls. Thus the fetus and the braid dead person still has a 'life'. Religion also tells us that animals do not have 'lifes' because they have no souls and were put on earth for the benefit of man.

Science tells us that the only real difference in humans and animals is level of intelligence - and so objectively, a human and an animal 'life' is equal.
It has also found that a fetus has no self awareness, no consciousness, no nervous system (thus can feel no pain), and so it is generally assumed that it doesn't have a life.

[SmirkingMan]

Possible definition of life:

Entity that has the capability of reproduction.

[Lostinlife]

Gela has incorporated my general views on this matter. The issue of the abortion debate is not what constitutes a "life", as plants are alive, and yet are never given moral consideration at least in a rightist viewpoint such as abortion.

Then we may ask, what is a right? Basically rights are derived from an inidividual's desires or "interests". For example, If a child has an interest in living we can say that they have a "right" to not be murdered through moral imperitives.

Then, interests are formed through the existence of a conciousness, while a conciousness is formed through the existence of a nervous system. Therefore, since the early-term fetuses that are frequently aborted do not have a central nervous system, there is no reason to believe we are violating their rights.

The issue typically tends to revolve more around what constitutes as a HUMAN life, which is far more subjective and elitist in my view, the latter meaning that it suggests that human life is important above all else.

[Jack]

I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. In order to answer that question we must first have either an accepted or objective standard as to what this word "life" means.

What I meant was "is there anything at the quantum level we would consider alive, and if so, why?" Starting at the most basic level we can discern, is there something that is considered alive? If not, then we move up a level until we arrive at a level where something exists we consider alive. By considering the difference between that level and the one prior we may get an idea of what constitutes life.

It was just a suggestion of how to help along the defining process.

[Lostinlife]

There is no reason to be concerned alone about wheather something is alive or not, as that trait is not sufficent enough for moral consideration. Stating that something is "alive" is often used as evidence in itself for protecting that certain lifeform, but it irrelevant from a rights-based perspective.

As I said above, wheather that being can be said to possess interests is the only morally relevant criterion or characteristic for entrance into the moral community.

[Jack]

We also have moral laws concerning desecration or abuse of a corpse, something I suspect we'd all agree is not alive.

I don't see the OP asking about the morals considerations. It simply asks how we define life.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Jack We also have moral laws concerning desecration or abuse of a corpse, something I suspect we'd all agree is not alive.

Except that this moral consideration is aimed towards the famliy members who value it more than the piece of meat it really is, rather than the dead body being morally considered in itself. There is no reason to consider, lets say, consuming the dead body of a human that died unintentionally to be a moral wrong.

I don't see the OP asking about the morals considerations. It simply asks how we define life.

Makes for a lax dicussion imo.