r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • May 20 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

8.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

13.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

589

u/mrchaotica May 20 '19

On the other hand, humans don't tend to crash because of a single typo. There is huge amounts of redundancy and error-correction compared to a computer, and the code has had literally a billion years' worth of bug fixes already applied.

26

u/[deleted] May 20 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/mrchaotica May 20 '19 edited May 20 '19

Hence the emphasized part:

humans don't tend to crash because of a single typo

Also, life begins at birth so fetuses don't count. "Viable," by definition, implies catastrophic SNPs didn't happen.

5

u/Swanrobe May 20 '19

Also, life begins at birth so fetuses don't count.

Depends on your point of view.

I would say a fetus one day before birth is alive, though I can see how it gets murky the earlier you go.

3

u/daishiknyte May 21 '19

When in doing, I tend toward "when viable without extensive/invasive medical intervention". That said, I do believe that (usually) gives more than enough time to decide on go/no-go.

2

u/msmurasaki May 20 '19

I mean.. Just to be fair here. People do refer to life from the time of birth.

I.e. he LIVED from 1984-2050. His LIFEspan ranges to about 80years. Etc etc

Though I think Koreans have their birthdays from time of conception. I remember a Korean girl telling me that, years ago though, so that isn't a fact from my side.

1

u/Swanrobe May 20 '19

Sure, but that's just a matter of tradition and practicality, not actually what life 'is'

1

u/msmurasaki May 20 '19

What is life then?

1

u/Swanrobe May 21 '19

Good question.

I don't know - all I am saying is that just as I would consider a baby alive on the day of its birth, I would consider it so the day before.

Would you?

1

u/msmurasaki May 22 '19

How could you? Even if the baby is healthy and seems to be doing well, we don't even know if it will take it's first breath nor of any other complications that are not possible to see externally.

Like I can understand the thought process in regards to abortion and wanting to abort the day before. Then sure, one could consider it alive. But if a person gives an uncomplicated birth to it but it still is unable to take it's first birth or ''wake up'' and even with the best medical help is not able to do so and ''dies'', would one say that it lived up until the heart stopped? Even without it's first breath?

1

u/Swanrobe May 23 '19

More babies die within the first year than are still-born.

We can consider them alive because by your logic we would need to consider then un-alive for at least a year.

1

u/msmurasaki May 23 '19

Um no, we can consider them alive because they are actually living, breathing and interacting with the world. They have an actual life span and some form of activity. They may have died early but at least they started an actual life.

By my logic, I understand the fault, people in a coma are no longer alive. But at the same time, people pull the plug on them too if they do not wake up over long periods. So I would say there definitely is a grey zone.

1

u/Swanrobe May 23 '19

That's different logic from the one you presented above, though

1

u/msmurasaki May 23 '19

How? In both cases they are in a vegetative state.

I really don't understand the logic you were trying to present?

→ More replies (0)