Life: Defining the Beginning by the End

First Things ^ | May 2003 | Maureen L. Condic

[Remedy]

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

• When Do Human Beings Begin? former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception. Personhood Begins At Conception Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is. Is the Unborn Less Than Human?Dr. Beckwith explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth. When Does a Human Become a Person? Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley. Does Life Begin At Implantation? Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage, that fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception. Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- Biochemist, Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data. The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation. The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument.

• The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks- comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others. The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights". A Woman's Right Over Her Body? In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body. Unplugging a Bad Analogy Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle. A Fetus is NOT a Parasite chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson. Begging the Question Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults.

• I Was Once a Fetus -- mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss .The Real Problem with Abortion -- Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

---

ED : Respect Life Curriculum Guidelines

Below are excerpts from the first 12 pages of the 108 page document Respect Life Curriculum Guidelines. It was published in 1977 by the Department of Education, United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.
The purpose of making these excerpts available here:
Primarily to advance the common sense logic that if we want to create a culture of life we should properly educate our children-- starting when they are very young, about the sanctity of life. These Guidelines are an authoritative work and should be faithfully implemented.
Abortion was "legalized" in the Soviet Union in 1920. China followed suit about a decade later. Great Britain "legalized" abortion in 1954. Nineteen short years later, Roe v Wade was decided. The major Christian Church's were aware of what was spreading throughout the world, and had 50+ years of advanced warnings. Even with these Guidelines available since 1977, students today are woefully ignorant of the battle between the cultures of life and death.
The spirit in the schools of one generation, is the spirit in the Government of the next.
The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement covers pro-life education thoroughly. It faithfully builds upon the bishops Guidelines, offering more evidence as to why comprehensive education beginning in kindergarten and lasting through high school and into adulthood is going to be necessary in order to defeat the culture of death.

---

Death as Deliverance: Euthanatic Thinking in Germany ca. 1890-1933 Writing in 1989, the late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York City, an ardent pro-life advocate, predicted that euthanasia would "dwarf the abortion phenomenon in magnitude, in numbers, in horror." When one considers the sheer number of abortions that are performed each year and that have been performed over the last two decades, this statement borders on fantastic. But Cardinal O'Connor's are not the words of someone given to exaggeration. While there is nothing inevitable about human predictions, O'Connor's words are haunting. What is it that can hinder this "prophecy" from coming to pass?

[Remedy]

1. We now know, basically, that a fetus is alive and, of course, is human. By most definitions, an unborn baby is a person. But if Bork and the conservatives on the court don't see it that way, we have some persuading to do. 3 posted on 02/23/2003 8:22 PM EST by Cicero
2. disenfranchisement by tacit agreement will be applied to embryonic and fetal individual human beings, in order to legally exploit individual humans for their body parts ... cannibalism is about to be convention in our twisted, 'amoral' society. 9 posted on 02/23/2003 9:48 PM EST by MHGinTN
3. Someone should remind the justices that the life cycle of the human species is well known. Like all mammals, it begins at fertilization.17 posted on 02/24/2003 12:19 AM EST by hocndoc

[Consort]

Hypnotize a person and regress them to their infancy, then to their time in the womb as a fetus and as an embryo, going back week by week, then day by day, then hour by hour, minute by minute...until you can't go back any further and see if it coincides with the approximate date of conception.

[alisasny]

After watching a fetal operation to cure spinal bifida I am truly convinced that life begins at conception. I wish more people could be made to watch this film. The surgery was done at 24 weeks and the leg at the knee was shown as well as the fully developed hand of the baby. He was born 10 weeks later at 34 weeks and is doing very well. Try and tell his parents he was not alive that day.

In addition one child was born at the time of the surgery and did live! I believe he was 3 when they showed him again, doing well and no brain swelling. Almost able to walk but still in need of braces. Developing slow but doing excellant by all accounts considering how traumatic his entry into the world outside the womb was.

Amazing science at work.

[Remedy]

Fetal Psychology

Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.

As if overturning the common conception of infancy weren't enough, scientists are creating a startling new picture of intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations:

• By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear.
• Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
• The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
• Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
• Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.

[drlevy88]

There is no clock watching in the womb, silly

[Consort]

Then my idea might be worth trying.

[Remedy]

Then my idea might be worth trying in a hollywood sci fi.

1. Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - The John Ankerberg ...
2. False Memory Syndrome Recommended Books, Videos, and Reports

[MoralSense]

bttt

[MHGinTN]

No, your 'idea' is founded in an assumption that the brain organ is the primary defining form with which to convey the status of human being. You would define the organism based on the functioning of the organ, the brain. The entire point of the brilliantly constructed essay is that the coordinated whole of the organism is what defines human being status and it is the coordinated wholeness that is gone when death is scientifically declarable. As you know, the brain is a coordinated functioning organ of the organism only after birth, by several months if the perspective is language acquisition.

The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of "human life."

[Consort]

I was basing my idea in the possibility that the human mind in any given lifetime knows itself from conception to the death, at a minimum. I was differentiating the non-physical mind from the physical brain. Our selfness spans our lifetimes.

[MHGinTN]

Remedy, a few years ago, when I learned of the extensive fetal tissue/fetal body harvesting industry (which is now well over a billion dollar buisness), I tried to find a law firm or pro-life lawyer willing to sue any abortion clinic that provided fetal body tissue to the harvesting/selling industry on the grounds that the willing consent was not in order since there is absolutely no address to the issue of dead or alive for the individual from whom the body parts are to be or have been harvested for sale and or exploitation. As the following paragraph so amply notes, the assumption of alive must be over-ridden before organ harvesting may proceed legally.

      The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of "human life." This definition does not depend on religious belief or subjective judgment. From the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan (1976) on, the courts have consistently upheld organismal function as the legal definition of human life. Failure to apply the same standard that so clearly defines the end of human life to its beginning is both inconsistent and unwarranted.

I have yet to find a legal representative willing to approach the exposure of this glaring inconsistency where fetal tissue harvesting and exploitation of only moments before alive individual human beings occurs. The very acts performed prior to the killing and harvesting evidence the truth that the process of exploitation of body parts begins well before the assualt and killing ... the harvesters are allowed to view the files and physical characteristics of the human host with in utero child, prior to the abortion, to determine which specimens are most desireable. Since there is no death certificate, no proof that the little one was dead when harvested, the very distinct possibility arises that an alive individual human being of fetal age can be send on ice to the requesting research facilities. Does it happen? I don't have proof of such, but the very possibility is not eliminated with the current procedural methodology which assumes falsely that the harvested source is in fact dead (because the assumption is made arbitrarily that the source was not alive to begin with). The same fallacy in assumption without proof is the basis upon which embryological aged individual human beings are and will be exploited for their body parts.

[MHGinTN]

From a recently FR posted essay:
      "Touted as a boon to infertile couples, the in vitro fertilization process manipulated sex cells in a lab environment, conceived multiple embryos to be implanted in a woman’s uterus, stored excess embryos … and the process redefined the earliest age of an individual’s lifetime as but one stage ‘in a process that eventually becomes a human being’. So, where was the error in reasoning first made?

      Sex cells are sub-units of organs; organs are sub-units of organisms; embryos are whole organisms. That was so quick, allow me to reiterate: cells are sub-units of organs, organs are sub-units of organisms; an individual human being is an organism; a kidney, for instance, is an organ of an organism.

      In vitro fertilization manipulates, first, sex cells … sub-units of sex organs, organs of the parents. But if successful, in vitro fertilization conceives a whole, new organism … not just an organ, the whole organism! As the embryo grows, with the cell total climbing from one, to two, to three, to five, etc., the early cells are totipotent or pluripotent--less differentiated into the individual organs of the organism--thus the early cells are the organs of the individual begun with ‘petri dish’ conception, the assertions of Senator Orrin Hatch notwithstanding."

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[MHGinTN]

Hypnotism assumes mind as a recorder of events held within the subconsious, thus your reliance upon hypnosis would be dependant upon the brain as the organ of greatest worth, the seat of the 'recorder'. From a purely biologically consistent perspective, mind is a function of brain, as opposed to reproduction or digestion or elimination. Before the brain functions as a recorder, what would be the 'location'/locus of awareness that would be tapped with hypnosis of the brain? See the paradoxical circle you're suggestion would entail?

[MHGinTN]

(((PING)))))) to a very important read! Please, read this vital essay.

[cpforlife.org]

Since we are on the subject:

Morally acceptable Organ
Donation and Transplantation:
And Catholic Church teaching


By Richard Mahoney, Founder
NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL
http://www.cpforlife.org/memorial

Actual Page is http://cpforlife.org/id87.htm

In conformity with sacred biblical teaching in conjunction with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I will explain why the donation of vital organs is prohibited and immoral. Our Lord tells us in sacred scripture that "the life is in the blood" (Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17). Physiologically the fundamental building blocks of the human person are at the cellular level. Each cell within the body receives the oxygen and biochemical nutrients it needs for cellular metabolism through the blood. When perfusion (blood flow) ceases at the cellular level, whether through cardiopulmonary arrest, cardiopulmonary insufficiency, shock, exsanguination, etc. and the cells are no longer supplied with blood, metabolic acidosis ensues. For a certain time period this respiratory and/or metabolic acidosis is reversible by re-establishing ventilation and sufficient blood flow (perfusion) to the cells and vital organs. This is the basis of CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) and ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support). A person, who arrives at a medical center in cardiac arrest and asystole and is resuscitated, was not dead and then brought back to life. The CPR and ACLS merely re-established adequate perfusion to the cells and vital organs before such an extensive ischemia and necrosis takes place as to make it irreversible (persistent irreversible catabolic state). Physiologically, death is an irreversible catabolic state leading to total cellular necrosis of the entire human body. Spiritually, death is the separation of body and soul. When the soul, which inhabits and animates the human person, no longer has a living organism to embody, it leaves the body and goes to its Creator.


Having thus laid the most basic premises of human physiology, life and death, we will now expose the falsehood and immorality of epivalothanasia (the Greek word for "imposed death") and euthanasia. In organ transplantation the donor's organs are taken while their heart is still beating and their vital organs adequately perfused. The donor is not only alive while his organs are being excised for transplantation, physiologically his organs are very healthy and in good shape. Historically over the past 40 years, in order to justify abortion and epivalothanasia, the American Medical Association has redefined the beginning of life, from the moment of conception to the moment of nidation (implantation) and has redefined death as a cerebral phenomena which they have coined "brain dead". In so doing, the vast majority of the medical establishment has chosen the "quality of life" ethic over the "sanctity of life" ethic. Initially they used cerebral electroencephalographic activity as a measure of classification. Currently, medical institutions have been using a Glascow Coma Scale as a criterion for organ donation. A human being's worth or quality of life even after a severe cerebral trauma (subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage or ventricular bleed, etc.), pathology or anomaly cannot justify any "death dealing excision" of his vital organs. In the worst case scenario, although a medullary or pontine infarct would precipitate nearly immediate fatal demise, to excise organs while a person is alive is murder. To use a utilitarian philosophy to promote or actuate the death of a human person is heinous and immoral. The Church teaches that the donation of non-vital organs that would not cause death or debilitation of the donor is allowable as well as certain tissues such as corneas, bone and skin, which can still be useful for donation even after death.


In conclusion Pope John Paul II reminds us "Neither human life nor the human person can ever be treated as an object to be manipulated or as a disposable commodity; rather each human being at every stage of existence, from conception to natural death, is endowed by God with a sublime dignity that demands the greatest respect in vigilance on the part of individuals, communities, nations and international bodies". Father John Powell states in his book Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, "The problem of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society". Quoting Malcolm Muggeridge, "We will not recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the lives of others; however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine Flame which no man dare to presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened".



Richard Mahoney, RRT CPT

[blam]

"(((PING)))))) to a very important read! Please, read this vital essay."

Thanks for the ping but, I don't get into these discussions, there's usually too many hurt feelings afterwards.

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Consort]

Hypnosis plays back the cellular memory from day one of conception. The recorder is the brain that is mature enough to be hypnotized so that all data can be accessed.