Ireland legalizes the killing of the unborn

[Mountain Man]

Gotta disagree with you a bit here.

Unless things have changed radically in the past couple of years there is no precise scientific definition for what separates the living from the non-living. And no better example of the problem facing those who wish to make such a distinction can be found than viruses.

As Luis P. Villarreal, the Director, Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine wrote a little over a decade ago decade ago:

A precise scientific definition of life is an elusive thing, but most observers would agree that life includes certain qualities in addition to an ability to replicate. For example, a living entity is in a state bounded by birth and death. Living organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism. This level of autonomy is essential to most definitions.

Viruses, however, parasitize essentially all biomolecular aspects of life. That is, they depend on the host cell for the raw materials and energy necessary for nucleic acid synthesis, protein synthesis, processing and transport, and all other biochemical activities that allow the virus to multiply and spread. One might then conclude that even though these processes come under viral direction, viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems. But a spectrum may exist between what is certainly alive and what is not.

Essentially, viruses straddle the definition of life. They don't respire. They don't excrete. They don't grow. They don't display irritability. They lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize life, including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction.

But while viruses cannot replicate on their own they can do so in truly living cells by using their host's metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles known as virions, which allows it to transfer it to other cells.

For some the ability to replicate at all is the most essential attribute of a living thing yet others point out that this can be said to be true of fire which nobody is seriously suggesting is a living organism.

This seems to place them somewhere between supra-molecular complexes and very simple biological entities -- in a gray area between living and nonliving.

As virologists Brian W. J. Mahy (the Senior Scientific Adviser in the Office of the Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Marc H. V. van Regenmortel Emeritus Director at ESBS/CNRS -- French National Center for Scientific Research -- at the Biotechnology School of the University of Strasbourg)^[1]

Source: Are Viruses Alive?

Viruses are infectious, tiny and nasty. But are they alive?

Not really, although it depends on what your definition of "alive" is, two infectious disease doctors told Live Science.

Living beings, such as plants and animals, contain cellular machinery that allows them to self-replicate. In contrast, viruses are free forms of DNA or RNA that can't replicate on their own.

Rather, viruses need to invade a living organism to replicate, said Dr. Otto Yang, a professor of medicine and microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"[Viruses are] packaged RNA or DNA," Yang told Live Science. "They make more copies of themselves by hijacking the machinery of cells to replicate themselves."

Is it alive?Source

© Copyright Original Source

1. Both are also the Senior Editors-in-Chief of the Third Edition of the Encyclopedia of Virology.

Eh, your source flat out admits that "I don't think viruses qualify as being alive," and that they do not have "self-sustaining and self-generated action." He further says that the only way to qualify them as being life-forms is to "loosen up your definition of life", which looks suspiciously like trying to win a debate by redefining terms in one's favor. Which is to say that while this is all very interesting, it does nothing to undermine my position.

Because on the other hand, there is no debate that human skin cells and spermatozoa are not organisms while a human embryo undeniably is.

[Mountain Man]

I read the scientific definition of life you provided and started to wonder whether you agree with it when it says:

That has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand.

[Yttrium]

In this case, then, would you say the pro-choice position is one based on bodily autonomy?

Partly. It also relies on the fact that the embryo/fetus is not legally considered to be a "person", and therefore isn't protected by the US Constitution. Since it isn't a legal person and isn't protected, it is considered to be part of the woman's body, and the argument is then that the woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.

[Mountain Man]

I'm glad someone else said this. I'm pretty sure it would have been rejected if I had. "Life" is one of those things science has long struggled to define. It's easy to craft a definition that applies to all things that are living - but it is pretty hard (impossible?) to craft one that excludes all things that are not (e.g., crystals, etc.). And there are some things that seem to hover on that border between life and non-life. It's not as black/white as is being portrayed - and is almost as much a philosophical issue as a scientific one.

We are not discussing whether something is merely alive versus not alive but whether or not something qualifies as a life-form based on the most widely accepted scientific definition of life.

But thank you for demonstrating the fallacy of equivocation that has made this particular line of discussion such a needless chore.

[Charles]

That has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand.

Well, it weakens the credibility of the source if they are wrong on such a fundamental part. Do you think they are wrong? It should be rather simple to answer with a yes or no.

[Mountain Man]

Frankly, I think all the debate over the semantics of things like "organism" and "life form" is pretty pointless. The idea is that the human embryo/fetus is an innocent human life that will, barring abortion or miscarriage, eventually be born as a human baby. Seems simple enough to me.

However, I don't see how this is "devastating" to the pro-choice position, or even relevant. I'm sure there are some on the left who mistakenly think that the embryo/fetus is not a human life, but that doesn't matter as far as the pro-choice position goes.

You might have a point if there weren't pro-abortionists in this very thread vigorously objecting to the notion that a human embryo is a unique organism while others are absurdly claiming that the scientific definition of life applies to every cell in the human body.

Pro-abortionists desperately need for an embryo to not be an innocent human life, because otherwise they will have no justification for killing it.

[Yttrium]

You might have a point if there weren't pro-abortionists in this very thread vigorously objecting to the notion that a human embryo is a unique organism while others are absurdly claiming that the scientific definition of life applies to every cell in the human body.

My point is that the scientific semantics don't matter.

Pro-abortionists desperately need for an embryo to not be an innocent human life, because otherwise they will have no justification for killing it.

And I would disagree with you on that. Many of them might want to view an embryo as not a human life to numb them from the feeling that they are killing a human life, but they have different justifications.

[Mountain Man]

Well, it weakens the credibility of the source if they are wrong on such a fundamental part.

Let's put this logic to the test:

Source makes Claim A.
Source also makes Claim B.
B is false.
Therefore, A is also false.

Yeah, I'm afraid that doesn't really work.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're a liar, LPOT.

Do you believe that all stages of human life deserve protection or is abortion only an issue after a certain stage?

[Charles]

Let's put this logic to the test:

Source makes Claim A.
Source also makes Claim B.
B is false.
Therefore, A is also false.

Yeah, I'm afraid that doesn't really work.

So instead of giving an answer you misrepresent my point. Good try. I did not say claim A would be false if claim b was false. I was making the statement that it would weaken the credibility of a scientific source if it was wrong on a very fundamental part. You pointed to it as a scientific source. Is the part I quoted a valid scientific statement? And why are you so afraid to give a plain answer? Did you hope we would not read the source?

[carpedm9587]

Biology by its very nature is extremely messy with lots of gray areas and very few sharp borders.

Agreed.

Indeed - most (all?) of science is that way.

[carpedm9587]

Eh, your source flat out admits that "I don't think viruses qualify as being alive," and that they do not have "self-sustaining and self-generated action." He further says that the only way to qualify them as being life-forms is to "loosen up your definition of life", which looks suspiciously like trying to win a debate by redefining terms in one's favor. Which is to say that while this is all very interesting, it does nothing to undermine my position.

Because on the other hand, there is no debate that human skin cells and spermatozoa are not organisms while a human embryo undeniably is.

In my experience, when someone says "there is no debate," they usually are simply refusing to acknowledge that there actually is a debate underway, and want only their view to be considered.

[Cow Poke]

In my experience, when someone says "there is no debate," they usually are simply refusing to acknowledge that there actually is a debate underway, and want only their view to be considered.

Would that be the same as when somebody declares something is "settled science"?

[Mountain Man]

So instead of giving an answer you misrepresent my point. Good try. I did not say claim A would be false if claim b was false. I was making the statement that it would weaken the credibility of a scientific source if it was wrong on a very fundamental part. You pointed to it as a scientific source. Is the part I quoted a valid scientific statement? And why are you so afraid to give a plain answer? Did you hope we would not read the source?

How does it weaken anything when the two statements are independent of each other?

So I'm curious, are you suggesting that you dispute the second claim you cited and therefore do not accept the source in questions as authoritative? Or are you just playing rhetorical games because you can't attack my argument directly?

[carpedm9587]

We are not discussing whether something is merely alive versus not alive but whether or not something qualifies as a life-form based on the most widely accepted scientific definition of life.

But thank you for demonstrating the fallacy of equivocation that has made this particular line of discussion such a needless chore.

MM - you are painting hard/fast lines in science and biology where such lines simply don't exist in such concrete terms. If you read widely, the term "organism" is used more widely than you are permitting it to be here. A zygote has a unique DNA, no question about it, but it is entirely incapable of subsistence without support. And then there is the entire realm of personhood, which is as much about law as it is about science and biology (perhaps more).

I believe the fertilized egg, upon implantation, is a unique human life with the potential to become a person. I believe it is wrong to intentionally end that life. But your language and terminology is a little too absolute for me, and your insistence that there is "no debate" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to shut down any and all opposing views.