The legal definition doesn't necessarily equate to the ethical or scientific definition.
REP:The defintion of life has evolved over a period of time.What yesterday was without life is today known to be alive.This iterative process of self correction does not make the topic hypothetical or redundant. The question still remains relevant and necessary because so much depends on it.The answer is known but it is subjective.
The desired objective reality is still debated.
However I am sure that there is an objective answer which can be accepted by all... The discreet calibaration of cause and effect produces false reality in some cases.From killing an Ant to a Human being there is a sudden crystallization of its implication.
How many ants can be killed before it becomes equivalent to a murder?
The nature of crime and its punishment as defined by Law is assumed to be consitent with the Laws of Nature.I am not criticizing the system which has performed so well but yes there is tremendous scope for improvement.
With so much of information around I think it should be possible to create the complete picture of commonly understood reality.
Running away from the debate will only encourage those who do not believe in Science.
==============================================
