Why are we living beings?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I suppose, on the grandest scale, the most reasonable explanation of why we are alive is the Anthropic Principle: in a universe wherein we weren't alive, this question would be meaningless.
What makes us alive? What is the true -life- in us?
Metabolic processes? Motion? Interaction with non-self entities? As far as I'm concerned, "life" is not an either/or concept (Dead/Alive [like kitties!]); rather, it's a continuum. The only conceivable object in the universe that cannot be considered alive to any degree would be a single atom, at absolute rest, at 0 degrees Kelvin, in a vaccuum. At the other end of the spectrum would be fully biological entities such as ourselves.
Now some people think it's really as simple as "Well, that's because the brain makes you process things around you and it makes you think and react and so on". I say yes, fine. But what really makes the difference between a corpse with a -working- but switched off brain, and a living person?
I've never heard of a corpse with a working brain. Once the parasympathetic nervous system shuts down, we are defined as "dead." If there is no brain activity, the metabolic processes shut down. So, I would say, the difference between your hypothetical corpse with a working brain, and a living person, is that one is a fictional entity.
Other people may say "That's the soul. It has been proven that a person loses 21 grams right at the moment of death etc." but that's not a complete answer either.
They may say that, indeed. I could also say that we only exist because the Great Unicorn decreed it to be so. It's amazing what ridiculous claims become tenable, once you remove the need for falsifiable evidence. The <ahem> study to which you refer has proven faulty - the results have not been replicable by other, independant observers.
What really happens during an abortion? When does one actually start living?
Ummm... a fetus is removed from the uterus of a pregnant woman? Radicals take aim at the doctor? I'm not sure that I understand the first question.
As to the second - we're somewhat alive, and somewhat us, even before our fathers get drunk enough to settle for our mothers, or vice versa. In our daddy's testes and our momma's ovaries, "we" are perfectly alive, perfectly viable, batches of chromosomes. When sperm meets ovum, we become perfectly alive zygotes. When those germline zygotes' cells start differentiating into organs, we become perfectly alive fetuses.
After we're birthed, we're considered to be fully alive, human beings. I would argue, however, that infants and toddlers aren't even fully human yet - usually, it's not until we're 7 or 8 years old that we develop a full theory of mind, with abstract, conceptual reasoning - the hallmarks of being fully human.
What IS really living? What is the value of life? What measures one's worthiness of life?
Too many metrics. Life's value, in strict terms, is the propagation of more life - whether by breeding; supporting parasites; feeding bacteria (of which we are a colony organism); or being a nutritious snack for a passing leopard. Your genes don't care about any abstract measures of worth; they care only about replication and propagation.
Life has no intrinsic value - it's a process, not a commodity.
And finally, what made -us- instead of fish or grasshoppers start a society?
Theory of Mind, mixed with opposible thumbs, with a smattering of language. Of course, grasshoppers can swarm in the billions, and fish school in the thousands - are these not societies? Your question, without defining society, is at best meaningless. Wolves have societies; they're just not
human societies. Heck, even single-celled bacteria form colonies that react differently to the outside world, as a whole, than any individual member therein would. So, if society is defined as a group of individuals working together for the greater good of any individual member, I think you'll find that societies are the rule in nature, rather than an exception reserved for us. Especially interesting are the societies of birds - theft, betrayal, paranoia, love, family, architecture, altruism... none of these traits are foreign to your average murder of crows.
To claim that a society that isn't like ours isn't a society is like claiming that someone speaking a language you don't understand isn't really speaking.
Put work on things everyone can use?
???
I know those are a lot of questions so you don't have to answer all of them if you don't want to.
Also, I'm sure that not all of you will have the same opinion on this one, so what do -you- think and why?
There you go. I'm pretty sure that my outlook meshes pretty well with the current state of modern biology.
