10-06-2015, 06:08 PM
(10-03-2015, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 1. You never stop being an individual, so you use the opposite criteria for death to establish individualism, because at that point it meets all the qualifications to becoming an individual living human. Why would you say something is an individual at the point we can prevent it's death? We know it's alive, and we know that it's not a part of the mother, because after conception it attaches to the mother. So that obviously shows that it's a separate entity.
If someone is dead, but still an individual why would you use the opposite of death to establish individualism when their individuality is independent of their death? Why would you say something is a separate entity when it would die within moments if not connected to an umbilical cord for life support?
Quote:2. When is someone alive, but doesn't have a heartbeat and brain activity?
Your answer to #2 . . .
(10-01-2015, 11:01 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's living but not alive. It doesn't have a heartbeat or brain activity. If you say someone is dead when they don't have brain activity and a beating heart then it only makes sense to say they're alive and their own individual at that point also.
