Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[MerlinsByte]

It would be enjoyable if the topic weren't so tragic.

Merlin writes...I find communication about such subjects painful. I call them vampire subjects. So the subject of your agenda, athough ultra worthy, is a human ache that cannot be cured it seems. It is a horrible draining because of the negative (vampirish) forces out there. Good luck in your endeavors.

I think the eastern religious paradigm had it right about life when they alluded that physical life is pain. There is a lot to be thankful for and to have joy in but, all in all this is a painful existence. (to be separated from god for one thing) .

mb

[Technosoul]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes...I find communication about such subjects painful. I call them vampire subjects. So the subject of your agenda, athough ultra worthy, is a human ache that cannot be cured it seems. It is a horrible draining because of the negative (vampirish) forces out there. Good luck in your endeavors. I think the eastern religious paradigm had it right about life when they alluded that physical life is pain. There is a lot to be thankful for and to have joy in but, all in all this is a painful existence. (to be separated from god for one thing) . mb

The words of Merlin are most interesting. I just got done writing a message for another topic "Where were you, before being born" where I wrote about an ancient Christian cult called The Gnostics who had some of the same beliefs which I am now reading in the above message.

Tech

[MerlinsByte]

by technsoul...The words of Merlin are most interesting. I just got done writing a message for another topic "Where were you, before being born" where I wrote about an ancient Christian cult called The Gnostics who had some of the same beliefs which I am now reading in the above message.

mb writes...Thanks for the words Technosoul. I will check out your thread again. I was tempted to view it this morning but work was undone (the kind that pays my grocery bill).

The Gnosticism basicly taught that the (early) Earth was ruled over by a lesser "God" called Yaldabaoth, and I believe this was true. Gnosticism is generally believed to have predated Christianity in some aspects and flowered parallel with the early Christian sects.

I feel that all Christianity is refined paganism which is not an insult to traditional Christian and open theists as myself but rather a compliment.

Religion is not confined to the strict perimeters that traditionalists would have us believe. There will always be an intellectual vs. religious struggle but it doesn't need to produce fatalities on both sides. If these two very much alike forces do merge I feel that the universe and our world will be a wonderful and profoundly beautiful place again. I even have my doubts if Adam and eve in parable or literately were human or something else entirely. (I just thought I would throw that in there.)



mb

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Chris Weimer Although I put down Other, I would like to change my answer. I now hold firm that life begins at birth, when the child first takes a breath.

I would have to affirm what Pale Rider says; If the term “life” (and by this I believe we are talking about biological life) is to have any real meaning then, a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life and does so long before birth.

Below are criteria given on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life):

Growth
Metabolism
Motion
Response to stimuli (PR mentioned this one)
Reproduction
Require both energy and matter in order to continue living
Composed of at least one cell
Maintain homeostasis

While not all organisms demonstrate all of these all of the time, they are a good guideline or set of criteria to use in recognizing life. One can say that the embryo (after eight weeks) also demonstrate life (growth, metabolism, motion, response to stimuli, require energy and matter, composed of many cells, maintain homeostasis) according to this criteria.

Can you explain your criteria for “hold[ing] firm that life begins at birth, when the child first takes a breath”?

Thanks

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isaiah I would have to affirm what Pale Rider says; If the term “life” (and by this I believe we are talking about biological life) is to have any real meaning then, a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life and does so long before birth. Below are criteria given on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life): Growth Metabolism Motion Response to stimuli (PR mentioned this one) Reproduction Require both energy and matter in order to continue living Composed of at least one cell Maintain homeostasis While not all organisms demonstrate all of these all of the time, they are a good guideline or set of criteria to use in recognizing life. One can say that the embryo (after eight weeks) also demonstrate life (growth, metabolism, motion, response to stimuli, require energy and matter, composed of many cells, maintain homeostasis) according to this criteria. Can you explain your criteria for “hold[ing] firm that life begins at birth, when the child first takes a breath”? Thanks

No one was suggesting that a fetus is as dead as a doornail. Of course it is alive, so is your leg and arm. The debate is not about if a fetus is living or dead, but rather, when does human life begin. Is he fetus the extended life of a long genetic history passed down from past generations via live sperms and the female egg? So that is one of the opinons held by people here and it is as correct as any other idea. And you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that humans begot humans - "so life goes on". You noted reproduction as part of your criteria - can a fetus reproduce another fetus in it's own image? What kind of great fact is that relative to this debate? Of course, each cell can reproduce but no one is going to have the Supreme Court rule that it is unlawful to kill single cells, human or otherwise.

Although all parts of the human body is alive and likewise most all fetus it has been ruled that you do not get your governmental "rights" until you are born and take your fist breath of air. That single act of being born alive is your rite of passage into this culture and places you under the protection of the country of "your orgins" where you are born (not the country where you are conceaved). That rite of passage is a gift provided by the mother and not a right of any busy body congressman to claim. Respect Motherhood and if you are alive thank her for giving you life, not the Supreme Court. God, father, and mother. But mostly the mother because she is the one who must painfully do all the hard work.
If a mother does not grant that gift of life the fetus would never know the difference anyway. That is also a medical and scientific fact. And it would be in the hands of God to provide another vechicle for the soul, if such is in fact what happens, so nothing is really lost due to early abortions, except living flesh and blood - but you could loose that also if you had to have an operaton to remove a leg or something else.

DNA is just DNA - like a fingerprint, it is not a total fully formulated human being.
Get real and do not think emotionally.

Opinion - you would still be here even if your first mother had an abortion, because the spirit self would just incarnate in another womb or later on when she is ready to have children for real. We should not presume that such spiritual aspects are doomed at the hands of an abortion doctor. So this topic has no real religious implications.

I say these things even when I do not personally advocate (most) abortions.
I am not in favor of it and would always attempt to reason someone out of going through with such a plan, in most cases. I have even proposed a "sacred life admendment" over in the political section that would aid and protect the birthing process. You can check it out your self. I am not insensitive to the wonderful mircile that brithing of life represents.
Nor the rights of women, by free will, to fully agree to be part of that miricle. I would not even tell what's his name (Abraham?) to sacrifice his child on the alter like a goat. May the guardian angels protect us all.

But likewise I cannot go along with this foolishness some posters are advocating here.

They want to make laws so they can have the justice system legally kill the abortion doctors on their behalf, because they would like to do it their self but cannot. They want to make a capitol crime out of abortion surgery and send teenage girls and doctors off to death row. Not very "pro-life-ish" if you ask me. I call that (very) late term abortion of life.
I call it burning witches at the stake, along with their witchdoctors. I say "nay"! No More.
Stop the maddness. Get a life.

You might shake your technological facts at me in great intimadation, but I shall not faint, I know what I know, and can look though to the real motives of the pro-life and anti-women movement and see the motive of murder in their hearts - so bring it on, I'm ready. And when I'm flat right I am just plain flat right.

Technosoul.

[tPA]

Quote by: Technosoul Of course, we know that we do not reproduce clones of the mother or father, otherwise we would have lots of people who look the same. But the mother and unborn are one in the same in other ways, in effect the same blood in passing through the both of them, along with all the life supporting goodies in that blood stream. And many of the genes are passed on from generation to generation, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the type of race (skin colors), if the mother and father are African the child will end up having the face of that nationality. As is the case in all cases. So much of the mother is duplicated but not just perfectly cloned. If the pro-life (and pro-death to those violating anit-abortion laws) got their way then soon someone would say "well if the unborn is not a part of the mother, and does not belong to the mother, then that means the government could claim parential rights and take the child away after birth to raise it in a military training school. (whatever?). So anti-abortion reasoning could become a slippery slope which would give women even less rights and the governmental over-seers more rights. What your step! Techno

You keep regurgitating this crap! What happens if the blood of the baby mixes with the blood of the mother, or vice versa? Do you even know? It can be fatal to both. The only thing the baby gets from the mother is O2 and nutrients--no different from a life support machine. Minor genetic traits are of course passed on, but you seem to forget that it is genetically DIFFERENT from the mother. My liver, my lungs, my gall bladder, my heart, my intestines, ALL have the same DNA as every other part of my body. The baby, however, has different DNA. That should be enough to shut you up, but it isn't. You seem incapable of differentiating between "carrying" and "part of." My body is not "carrying" my liver, my liver is "part of" my body. After a certain period of time, by liver will not just pop out of my body and live its own life. A baby, however, is "carried" by the mother, and after 9 months, exits the mother and functions semi-autonomously (much as it did in the womb). It is semi-autonomous in that it still relies on others for sustenance, until a few YEARS after it exits the womb, and then more than a DECADE before it can provide sustenance for itself. My liver was a part of my body from when I was in my mothers womb, about 8 weeks into my stay there. It has always been, and will always be a part of my body, unless it is forcibly removed from my body. If it is removed, and not replaced, it is quite likely that I will die. If a baby is removed from a mother (either by birth or by abortion), in all likelihood, she will live (the chances of dying are slim--less than 2%).

Again, hardly a "part of her body." The baby is no more a part of the mother's body than I am a part of the Earth--I simply rely on the Earth for sustenance and oxygen. I am "carried" by the Earth, not "part of" it.

[tPA]

Growth
Metabolism
Motion
Response to stimuli (PR mentioned this one)
Reproduction
Require both energy and matter in order to continue living
Composed of at least one cell
Maintain homeostasis

You didn't refute any of them.

Growth - it goes from being 1 cell, to 2, to 4, to 8, to 16, to (eventually) trillions. Is that not growth?
Metabolism - it uses energy. If it didn't, there would be no need for a placenta. It gets nutrients from the mother.
Motion - it moves and implants itself on the uterine wall (of its own accord--no one pokes and prods it into place). It obviously kicks etc, otherwise you wouldn't FEEL those kicks. If it is moving at the beginning, and moving towards the end, chances are quite high that it is moving in between...
Response to Stimuli - Watch the Discovery channel sometime--they even had a program on tonight. This is well documented and easily provable. Just do a Google search.
Reproduction - you thought you had us here, didn't you? It doesn't sexually reproduce, true, but look at "Growth"- one cell becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, etc. It reproduces itself over and over. Dead cells are replaced by live ones (yes, there are dead cells--it has fingernails and hair when it is in the womb, andd obviously when it exits the womb).
Require both energy and matter in order to continue living - See motion and metabolism.
Composed of at least one cell - covered this one, too. One cell (zygote) becomes 2 (embryo), becomes 4, becomes 8...becomes trillions...
Maintain homeostasis - Doesn't have high fluctuations of activity or body temp. Maintains a steady growth pattern (which is why pregnancy is fairly predictable).

So, you still going to stick by the idea that it isn't a living organism?

As for you "the spirit self enters another womb" malarky, you exhort him to not get "emotional" about DNA and fingerprints, yet you maintain this tripe? At least we can PROVE that DNA exists, and that it is DISTINCT from the mother. Where's your proof that we were all floating around in some metaphysical holding cell, until we entered a "body" that was hopefully not aborted, but if it was, we re-entered the cell until another body opened up? And, interestingly, you say that our spirit is in the womb (as if it weren't there would be no need to wait around for another body after an abortion). So, isn't it counter to the natural "spiritual" progression for someone to kill a baby in the womb? It is, after all, inhabited by a spirit, that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't change, and is thus the "consiousness" you were seeking?


Argh--you've sucked me back in. I thought I'd shrugged off your ignorance, and written you off as another wack-job weirdo shaman who invents facts as HE sees them, rather than as are empirically proven... But, alas, I cannot let such fatal ignorance stand...

[7 Swildo 7]

It does not matter if the mother has even the embryo destroyed. That embryo will grow to become a human one day and it is not our right to deny that person a life in this world. Killing even the embryo is the same as killing the baby no matter how much u try to defend that position.

[Savant]

The fact of the matter is, there is no actual begining or end to life. Life is a concept, not a measurable event. Why would I state something so obvious? Because people don't seem to recognize that the most important thing about an idea like life, is that we remember it is just an idea - a perception.

When you create a fixed ideal within yourself, based on opinion rather than anything real, you invent your own reality. We all do it of course - using our imaginations to keep our worldview under control. It's part of steering a human mind, but it's those who get comfortable doing it that become the sort of trapped mind that can sink a business or blow up a bus.

Because no one could accurately define life, no one can decide it's attributes. And thusly no one should be allowed to legislate it for others - in my opinion.

Anyone that claims to have knowledge of life's True attributes is living in a reality they created for themselves. It's unknowable. You are forced to use you judgment, and even worse, you are forced to let others use there judgment.

You might decide different things about different lives, or life forms... is an ant's life the same as a plant? Is a plant really alive? Are you the same creature as your fetus? Was that sperm and egg still you - where there two of you at one point in time?

Neither you nor anyone else could ever really be right.

[7 Swildo 7]

im not exactly sure what your goin for dude but anyways what i am saying is that if there is even an organism then there is life there. If there is life then nobody should have a right to destroy that life. One day it will grow to be a person. its like u are killing someone. And for what? because you were too lazy to carry it around or take care of it?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant The fact of the matter is, there is no actual begining or end to life. Life is a concept, not a measurable event. Why would I state something so obvious? Because people don't seem to recognize that the most important thing about an idea like life, is that we remember it is just an idea - a perception. When you create a fixed ideal within yourself, based on opinion rather than anything real, you invent your own reality. We all do it of course - using our imaginations to keep our worldview under control. It's part of steering a human mind, but it's those who get comfortable doing it that become the sort of trapped mind that can sink a business or blow up a bus. Because no one could accurately define life, no one can decide it's attributes. And thusly no one should be allowed to legislate it for others - in my opinion. Anyone that claims to have knowledge of life's True attributes is living in a reality they created for themselves. It's unknowable. You are forced to use you judgment, and even worse, you are forced to let others use there judgment. You might decide different things about different lives, or life forms... is an ant's life the same as a plant? Is a plant really alive? Are you the same creature as your fetus? Was that sperm and egg still you - where there two of you at one point in time? Neither you nor anyone else could ever really be right.

Look Technosoul, another shaman!!

Savant, it is clear that your genius doesn't lie in the field of biology. Or philosophy for that matter. Can you add 5,348,987,370 + 349,874,176,900 in your head?

Where do you guys get this foolishness? The fact is that someone can accurately define life. Would you like to see a definition that you can't logically refute?

life - n. -The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

My life began long before I remember anything. My life began at the moment of my conception. If I go back one second further, I did not exist, and I can follow my path of growth and development from that moment till this and out until my death. That is what is obvious.

Maybe you should skip back over to the shaman thread, because here, science is going to tear you down and embarrass you terribly. I suppose next you will be suggesting that heat, light, gravity, etc. are also concepts that we create for ourselves.

A good philosophy, mr shaman, is not so easily discounted. A good philosophy stands in the face of fact and doesn't have to discount the actual world in order to work. If I were you, I would take that philosophy back to where you got it and tell them that it is broken and that you want one that actually works.

[Savant]

Quote by: Pale RIder Look Technosoul, another shaman!! life - n. -The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Apparently you can't see how far short of the meaning of life this is. Imagine you were sitting next to a blind person, and they said: "Hey, what's red?" And you opened up the dictionary and said " Red - A color. Manifested in such objects as strawberries and firetrucks."

Could that blind person now decide where red stops and orange begins?

The dictionary can define "life" the word, but not the concept. You can call me names if you like, but it's those who would create absolutes from abstracts that are using voodoo magic.

[Technosoul]

Okay Pale Face - look a the following drawing - what is it?

O

You might think it is a letter or a number. Or a circle. Right?

How come you did not think that is in fact "a hole in a wall"?

The reason you did not think the - O - is a hole is because your mind was not trained to think that way.

You might ask "what is the universe" but that is like asking "where is the universe?" Which would suggest that the universe is someplace inside the universe. Foolishness.

So where is "life"?

[Technosoul]

[quote=Pale RIder]Look Technosoul, another shaman!!

Savant, it is clear that your genius doesn't lie in the field of biology. Or philosophy for that matter. Can you add 5,348,987,370 + 349,874,176,900 in your head?

Where do you guys get this foolishness? The fact is that someone can accurately define life. Would you like to see a definition that you can't logically refute?

life - n. -The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

"The property or quality that distinguishes......" Well that really nails it down Mr Webster.
What real estate property are you talking about? What guality are you making refference too? It is easy to say "the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter - because you leave open a gaint hole for speculation about what proptery or quality will make such a distinguishing discernment.

Can a fetus reproduce another fetus in its own image?

According to webster then you are not "life" until you are old enough to get laid and have a baby. because life is "manifested in functions such as reproduction". Your fact does not even support your own theory.

"the manifestation of functions such as growth" Okay dokey - What about your eyeball Mr Biology - must be a "dead object". What happens when you reach a certain age and stop growing up? Do you become one of the greatful dead just after you reach your prime time? After childhood can you grow more teeth if you the dentist should pull some out at age 30? Do we spend half of life growing and half dieing? Am I debating a deadhead?

"the quality or the property that distinguishes" eh? What property? What quality? and which of us is the "Distinguisher" of which property or quality that shall be used to make the determination? You base your case on a foundation of pure assumption and/or speculation - all of which could spearhead another season of endless debating.

My life began long before I remember anything. That is what is obvious.

Agreed.

Maybe you should skip back over to the shaman thread, because here, science is going to tear you down and embarrass you terribly. I suppose next you will be suggesting that heat, light, gravity, etc. are also concepts that we create for ourselves.

Wrong - shamanism and science are the same thing - natural science. Shamanism is about the observation of nature and the application of those discoveries. Modern science is in fact the manifested growth of shamanism, and that is why modern science is into creating modern myths about the universe and other things. Which they call "a theory".

Science created a myth called "the machanical universe" and used the invention of a machanical clock to teach that myth. A prehistoric shaman might have used a turtle as his anology to explain earthquakes - that the crust of the earth is like a turtle shell and when the turtle awakens and moves so does the shell. When the earth awakens and starts to move around it comes alive with motion and we experience that as an earthquake, thus mother earth can create or "reproduce" more rocks. It is just storytelling for teaching children - once you are an adult "school is out".

The "property or quality" is the "anology" that you wish to employ. When facts get too old to cut the mustard anymore they are called myths. Science has often times discovered that past truisms are really deceptions based on an "observation" that was somehow "limited" or isloated from a greater totality. In fact knowledge has a life of its own, it is passed down from generation to generation like a family Bible, it is reproduced, it grows and grows, it consumes ideas and theories, it is like an expanding universe, and it reacts to new stimuation from logical minds. It is like a "living Bible" because knowledge is a living steam of thought that called the "the tree of life" which is every relvelation coming forth from out of the "blue" - called "discoverage". Your life is in effect the sum total of all the knowledge that you know and apply to living. AKA "quality". Did you forget your "roots"?

If I told you that you would get sick tomorrow because I put some goofy dust under your bed, and you believed my fact was fact, tomorrow you would get sick. That is voodooism. And the fact that you got sick would be the "proof of the pudding". If I should believe that your biological facts are the "big authority" then I done got voodooed by the voodoo man. Because I fell prey to the art of intimidation - but I did not fall victim to such foolishness - because my magic is better then your magic.

Life is magic. It is all done with lights and mirrors - that is a fact

A good philosophy, mr shaman, is not so easily discounted. A good philosophy stands in the face of fact and doesn't have to discount the actual world in order to work. If I were you, I would take that philosophy back to where you got it and tell them that it is broken and that you want one that actually works.

Then don't be hypocritical, do as you tell others to do and take your own philosophy back to Mr. Webster and tell him I just broke it - because he forgot to set an absolute standard about what property or quality should be used for drawing the line between life and death, or life and "objects". And I might even think that such as not fully noted because it is yet an unknown factor still under investiagation, or flexable, not absolute.

So what is the real difference between matter and physical life - which is determined only for classification pruposes? DNA? Consciousness? The ability to grow and to stop growing? Spirit or some metaphysical "quality"? What is the "property of" life? Is it earth, wind, fire (energy), water, and a Big Mac with cheese on it? Got Milk? Flesh, blood, bones, bark, fruit, and sap? Chemical combinations interlocking to produce DNA designs? You think you know - because like a cult you are isolated by limited facts or knowledge, and cannot see what is outside that goldfish bowl of your own personal reality zone. Life is the total living planet, and our little part is dependant on that everything-ness that surrounds us and that is within us. It is a seamless in respect to the fact your skin is soaking in water, air, and sunlight, and biologically you are just a "tube" that things go into at one end and then go out of at the other end.

I stand outside the gate of that cult, come forth, and be born again into freedom and free thinking.

Technosoul.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant Apparently you can't see how far short of the meaning of life this is. Imagine you were sitting next to a blind person, and they said: "Hey, what's red?" And you opened up the dictionary and said " Red - A color. Manifested in such objects as strawberries and firetrucks." Could that blind person now decide where red stops and orange begins? The dictionary can define "life" the word, but not the concept. You can call me names if you like, but it's those who would create absolutes from abstracts that are using voodoo magic.

Actually mr. shaman, you just demonstrated how short sighted you actually are. If a blind person asked me what is red, I would say that it is a color at the long wave end of the spectrum of visible light at wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers. I would go on to compare the spectrum of visible light in terms of temperature with red being on the warmer side and moving towards the shorter wavelengths of 380 to 420 nanometers where the blues and violets, or cooler colors may be found.

The fact that you simply can't deal with, or accept the fact that unborns are living growing human beings from the moment of their conception (even though it is an established scientific fact) is a shortcoming on your part...or a defensive mechansim that you use to escape the guilt of your hand in some innoncent's death.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Okay Pale Face - look a the following drawing - what is it? O You might think it is a letter or a number. Or a circle. Right? How come you did not think that is in fact "a hole in a wall"?

I thought you were disclosing your scientific IQ

[Savant]

Quote by: Pale RIder Actually mr. shaman, you just demonstrated how short sighted you actually are. If a blind person asked me what is red, I would say that it is a color at the long wave end of the spectrum of visible light at wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers. I would go on to compare the spectrum of visible light in terms of temperature with red being on the warmer side and moving towards the shorter wavelengths of 380 to 420 nanometers where the blues and violets, or cooler colors may be found. The fact that you simply can't deal with, or accept the fact that unborns are living growing human beings from the moment of their conception (even though it is an established scientific fact) is a shortcoming on your part...or a defensive mechansim that you use to escape the guilt of your hand in some innoncent's death.

I was using red as an example of how the definitions in a dictionary are in regard to language, not concept. The color red, as you have just observed, is measurable, definable in various ways. You can prove something is red, or more red, or not red at all. Life however has no measurement. I don't know how else to spell this out for you.

Take for example (perhaps one than we so relate so strongly to that it blurs our perspective) an earth worm. If you cut an earthworm in half, the half with the head (the saddle) will grow a new tail and live on.

The other half of the worm will die, but is not dead yet.... sort of. It wont grow a head again, but it will continue to live until it has burned up all of its resources and literally starves to death. If you call that life... and death.

So is it alive or dead? If it's dead, why doesn't it realise it? What if you found a way to feed it? If it's alive, is it now two lives, or is the earthworm alive in two places? Did you create life by cutting it in half, or destroy it, or not effect it at all?

If you want to, you can come to a conclusion. But you would simply be inventing a reality, you couldn't be right because all you are doing is applying a human ideal, not making a real observation. There is no right or wrong. If the worm had changed color, you could proof it, record it, etc. If it were red, and I said it were blue, you could prove me wrong,

So it bothers me to see folks posting "i know I am right" about such an abstract idea. No one can know when life begins or ends, or what is more alive than another thing. I think we should not be so inclined to pretend to know things, or accept it when others do. Some ideas are not neat and tidy, like a color. We will spend our whole live revising our perception, unless we are commited to not think about it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul "The property or quality that distinguishes......" Well that really nails it down Mr Webster. What real estate property are you talking about? What guality are you making refference too? It is easy to say "the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter - because you leave open a gaint hole for speculation about what proptery or quality will make such a distinguishing discernment.

I'm sorry that you can't read for comprehension. Didn't I write down exactly how those properties and qualities are manifest? I was sure that I did. You commented on the very qualities that I wrote down.

Quote by: Technosoul Can a fetus reproduce another fetus in its own image? According to webster then you are not "life" until you are old enough to get laid and have a baby. because life is "manifested in functions such as reproduction". Your fact does not even support your own theory.

You have such a narrow field of knowledge. Are you really under the impression that sexual procreation is the only sort of reproduction that exists? Did it never occur to you that by the simple process of dividing, multiplying, and growing that the unborn is exhibiting reproduction?

Quote by: Technosoul "the manifestation of functions such as growth" Okay dokey - What about your eyeball Mr Biology - must be a "dead object". What happens when you reach a certain age and stop growing up? Do you become one of the greatful dead just after you reach your prime time? After childhood can you grow more teeth if you the dentist should pull some out at age 30? Do we spend half of life growing and half dieing? Am I debating a deadhead?

Do you imagine that we must keep growing until we become giants towering thousands of feet high in order to be alive? I guess we are back to the reading for comprehension thing. I take it that you didn't understand that by adding the phrase "such as" we are saying that these properties distinguish the living from the dead and inanimate, but the presence of all of these properties is not necessary in order to establish life.

[quote=Technosoul] Wrong - shamanism and science are the same thing - natural science. Shamanism is about the observation of nature and the application of those discoveries. Modern science is in fact the manifested growth of shamanism, and that is why modern science is into creating modern myths about the universe and other things. Which they call "a theory". [/quote}

How pitiful you are. I sarcastically mentioned once that the pro choice side, in this argument, has distanced itself from science and has sought out advice from necromancers and gypsies. You, sadly, prove my point.

Shamanism is about bridging the distance between the visible (or real) world, and the invisible spirit world. Shamanism is about using magic and sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events. The fact that you aren't able to distinguish the difference between science and mysticism speaks volumes about why you are like you are.

The rest of your tripe is far to boring to comment on further. You know, and I know that unborns are living human beings from the moment of their conception and the more we learn about the science of human development, the more hardened that fact is going to become. All these pages of bunkum double-talk and gibberish that you have posted are nothing but a febile, impotent attempt to escape the truth. The message board equivalent of tapping your palms over your ears while shouting la la la la at the top of your voice.

[Pale RIder]

[quote=Savant] Take for example (perhaps one than we so relate so strongly to that it blurs our perspective) an earth worm. If you cut an earthworm in half, the half with the head (the saddle) will grow a new tail and live on.

The other half of the worm will die, but is not dead yet.... sort of. It wont grow a head again, but it will continue to live until it has burned up all of its resources and literally starves to death. If you call that life... and death.

So is it alive or dead? If it's dead, why doesn't it realise it? What if you found a way to feed it? If it's alive, is it now two lives, or is the earthworm alive in two places? Did you create life by cutting it in half, or destroy it, or not effect it at all?{/quote]

The more I talk to you guys (pro choicers) the more I come to understand how you can hold the position that you do. Quite simply put, you don't know crap. If you cut an earthworm in half, you have a half that is dying, and a half that may or may not live. The half that is definately dying is no more aware of its dying than your arm would be if it were severed. It is removed from the brain. The continued movement is reflex, not evidence of intelligence or awareness. that is quanifiable fact.

Quote by: Savant If you want to, you can come to a conclusion. But you would simply be inventing a reality, you couldn't be right because all you are doing is applying a human ideal, not making a real observation. There is no right or wrong. If the worm had changed color, you could proof it, record it, etc. If it were red, and I said it were blue, you could prove me wrong,

Actually, some simple electrodes could monitor what is happening in the worm's respective halves and I could observe what is actually happening and draw my conclusions, as I always do, based on factual evidence rather than simply pulling opinions out of my a$$.

Quote by: Savant So it bothers me to see folks posting "i know I am right" about such an abstract idea. No one can know when life begins or ends, or what is more alive than another thing. I think we should not be so inclined to pretend to know things, or accept it when others do. Some ideas are not neat and tidy, like a color. We will spend our whole live revising our perception, unless we are commited to not think about it.

I believe what bothers you is to see folks posting information that you can not refute. You are bothered by people who know what they are talking about who can not, and will not be snowed by your line of bull.

The thing is savant, we do know when individual human lives begin. It is observable and quantifiable. That you expend so much energy running away from the facts speaks volumes