akuma587 said:
Gnizmo said:
|
akuma587 said:
Why not? It responds to stimuli and has all the characteristics of a living cell? I think it is far more difficult to claim that it isn't alive than it is. Why isn't it alive? We all came from one.
|
There is an actual set criterion list for whether or not an organism can be considered to possess "life." Simply being able to respond to stimuli and having all the characteristics of living cells (in a very general sense here) does not mean it is actually alive. A virus is not considered to be alive for example, but contains most if not all the features a sperm cell does. What is or is not alive (amoeba versus sperm) is a very different arguement than when an organism that is alive first can be considered to have come to life.
|
So, the cells in my body aren't alive? Last time I checked the sperm in my body were just modified cells, thus making them only slightly different (they are haploid rather than diploid), from every other cell in my body. And if those aren't alive, looks like I am pretty fucked.
|
I think it really comes down to how we feel about this stuff. Do we define life scientifically or spiritually. What's funny to me, is the switch in positioning. A doctor who performs abortions would say that it's not the same life while a religious anti-abortion person would say that the life is the same.
