This is just a passing speculation. I can't even admit that I've read every word in the thread, but:

Nirvana. I think you are confusing the others by using the terms "life and death" where they don't necessarily apply. If I'm correct, you're saying that an inanimate object is Alive in the sense that it is connected to the supposed singular consciousness that exists in all things. There is nothing wrong with that, because if you follow that particular, and possible, viewpoint, then what you are saying is correct. However, you are also explaining the transition from "living" matter to "nonliving" matter. This is to mean Living in the scientific context. If you believe in the singular consciousness, then what a rock and a corpse have (after scientifically accepted death) is not "life." The connection with the singular consciousness, the 'living' network that extends through all things material and not, is still there, even if the material object/person is inanimate, but this connection to the singular consciousness can still not be defined as "Life." At the very least, not by the scientific context. These items are still Dead, by any and all scientific measurements. That is the state "Death" is defining. The underlying, still unconfirmed conscious connection is not even applicable when defining something as "dead or alive," but I think I understand your reason for labelling it that way.
I think your mistake was not making the distinct difference between the two apparent in your text. (Or perhaps you did and I skimmed over it, in which case I appologize) But I think that you're saying "you can't kill something that never began" is completely out of context with "the parameters of scientific death." You cannot even argue the two. You can't say that a rock is "alive." Ideally, if you subscribe to singular consciousness, it is connected with the Lifeforce of all, but if you are defining something in terms of "life and death" this, by default, would be speaking of what we humans consider "life and death" in which case, a rock, a corpse, or any inanimate object cannot be described as "living."
I think I understand your view of a rock being "alive" in the sense of singular consciousness, but if that is your main point, I just find it a little out of context with a conversation about the scientific explaination of "living and non." The two are simply too different to even compare and belief in one does not make the other right nor wrong.
Hope this makes sense. Like I said, its just a passing speculation. Tell me to sit down and shut up whenever you're ready. lol.