Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="squeaker" data-source="post: 3272776" data-attributes="member: 95818">No...I'm taking a strict interpretation of the definition, to highlight the point that you can pretty much interpret 'life' any way you want. The definition states that reproduction is a requirement for life. Independent, as retroviruses are not counted (by the standard biological interpretation) as 'living'. Extending this to absurdity you can then draw the idea that nothing is alive until puberty, and that in fact any sexually reproducing organism is never actually 'alive' as you pointed out. Of course that only matters if you take the view that this mysterious 'life' quality is intrinsically valuable.</blockquote>