Posted on 06/18/2003 3:25:36 PM PDT by MHGinTN
When Is Human Life A Human Being?
Since 1973, when the Roe abortion decision was handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, science has advanced our understanding of prenatal (before birth) life to a depth few could have anticipated. Most of the discoveries are unexplained for the general public, as we wend our way through daily life unaware of the amazing truths being revealed through honest hard science. The entire spectrum of prenatal discovery supports a rejection of abortion on demand and reinforces the correctness of protecting prenatal life, the way our society protects an adult individual at the end of their life.
In a recent article for First Things, Maureen L. Condic, PhD, Assistant professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, presents a convincing argument for meaning of the death protocol (used when organ harvesting is anticipated) to also be used when contemplating prenatal life. She has stated accurately that, “… the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the defining legal characteristic of death.”
That is an accurate assessment of the meaning but there is confusion regarding this protocol because it addresses ‘brain death’, yet it doesn’t refer to loss of thinking ability. It should not be assumed that ‘being alive’ as a human being is solely a function of higher brain functioning, or even dependent upon the organ called brain.
To paraphrase Dr. Condic’s assertion: to be alive as an ORGANISM, the organism is functioning as an integrated whole, rather than life being defined solely from an organ, a form within the organism. The one organ defines aliv notion was the perspective decades ago. People focused upon one organ when the heart was believed to be the center of function, before organ harvesting became a reality. When the heart stopped beating, the person was thought to be dead, thought to be no longer a functioning, integrated whole organism. Today, doctors routinely stop and start the heart, keeping the patient functioning for survival, viable as an integrated whole via artificial heart and lungs.
A person in an unrecoverable coma or vegetative state has no higher brain function, yet their body continues to function as an integrated whole. As Dr. Condic puts it, “Although such patients are clearly in a lamentable medical state, they are also clearly alive, [so] converting such patients into corpses requires some form of euthanasia. … Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells.”
Functioning as an integrated whole is far more complex than mere cellular structures, and the older the organism (in the first year from conception of the individual), the more the aliveness is spread out into sub-unit forms (the developing organs) of the alive yet integrated organism; the younger the human organism is, the less differentiated the sub-units are, the less spread out among forms is the integrated function.
A poster on an Internet discussion thread recently asserted that, “Unless you are looking at the issue [prenatal human life] solely from a religious standpoint, rational thinking minds would conclude that at 5-7 weeks, a fetus is not fully formed and is not a human life until at least 11-13 weeks.”
The first order in addressing such an assertion is the false comment that the earliest life of the conceptus is not human life. It is a human life, clearly, because the sex cells that conceived the new life are from human beings. The second glaring inaccuracy relates to the notion that at 5 – 7 weeks accepted definition holds the individual life to be in embryonic stage, not the fetal stage. [I prefer to use the term age as opposed to stage, since an age is but a segment along a continuum, and human lifetime is a continuum from conception until death.] Precise transition from embryo to fetus is not so easily assigned, however.
In order to accurately apply the meaning of the death protocol offered in Dr. Condic’s article, we will have to show how an embryo is more than a mere collection of cells. We will have to show how the embryo is in fact a functioning, integrated whole human organism. If the embryo can be defined on this basis, the definition of an alive, individual human being would fit, and the human being should be protected from exploitation and euthanasia.
What is the focus of the transition from embryo age to fetal age are the organs of the fetus. It is generally held that the organs are all in place when the individual life is redefined as a fetus. The gestational process during the fetal age is a process of the already constructed organs growing larger and more functional for survival. But during the fetal age, the not yet fully functional organs are not the sole sustainer of the individual life. The placenta is still drawing nourishment from the woman’s body and protecting the individual from being rejected as foreign tissue. If we are to apply the notion of a functioning integrated whole to define individual aliveness, the organs necessary for survival must all be included. Since the primitive brain stem and other organs such as primitive lungs, to be relied upon at a later age in the individual’s lifetime, are not yet fully functional, some other organ will have to be responsible for the functioning whole.
The first organ that a conceived human individual builds for its own survival is the placenta. This first organ is so important to the organism’s survival that in vitro fertilization doctors will not attempt implantation of an embryo until the encapsulating structure is in evidence. The newly constructed placental barrier is the organ that sends chemical messages to the uterine lining, for attachment to the woman’s life support system. This newly constructed barrier organ continues to grow and thicken, and is also what tricks the woman’s immune system into not rejecting the implanting life. The placenta functions as a survival capsule in which the alive, individual human being builds the other organs for later survival when exiting the womb.
Because of this amazing placental organ, an embryo is alive, functioning as an integrated whole organism. Further, it is an already alive organism that builds the organs of the later-age human body. It is not the woman’s body that builds the second individual on life support in her body.
The newly conceived life is a distinct and very much separate individual human being from the woman in whom it resides and grows. The Mother does not built the placental organ, nor any of the organs of the new individual, though it is from her body that the new individual receives protection and nourishment during the first age of its own lifetime, while that new individual organism builds the form (organs and structure) it will use for survival in the air world.
There is a popular argument that the transition from embryo to fetus is an acceptable stopping point for abortion on demand ... prior to the fetal stage, the woman would have exclusive right to determine which embryos will continue receiving a woman's life support and which will be disposed of for whatever reason the woman chooses to cite. If our society is to go down that road, let us not be dishonest in assigning non-human being status to the embryos euthanized.
It is scientifically impossible to discover a precise point when the individual alive being transitions from only embryonic to fully fetal in nature. Because that topic is deeply dependent on not so easily explained scientific facts, allow me to move to the next objection to such an arbitrary assignment of value when contemplating euthanasia.
Prior to the fetal age of the individual lifetime, the organs necessary for survival as a fully functional human being in the air world are not present but are being built by the embryo and looped into the primitive brain, the brain stem. The lungs are not sufficiently developed to support breathing until as old as twenty-one weeks from conception.
If survival functioning of brain and lungs and heart is what will be chosen to define an alive, viable, individual human being, it is important to note that the first organ built by the newly conceived individual, the first and crucial organ for survival is cast off at birth! That is why the choice of fetal age is so arbitrary in the false assertion that fetuses should be protected while embryos should not (should not, based on the specious notion of an integrated whole organism functioning for survival and growth and development only when the fetal age--with the organ structures for future survival--is reached). A human embryo fits the protocol for an alive, functioning, integrated whole organism, the same protocol upon which organ harvesting depends when contemplating the death of a human organism.
In the not so distant future, science will devise an artificial chamber, in which an alive, functioning, integrated whole human being in early fetal age may be sustained, kept alive. Following that seeming miracle, the artificial means will be devised for supporting the embryo into the fetal age. It is vital that our society rightly defines an individual human being’s aliveness, before the weighty issues of personhood, right to life, right of privacy, and property rights run headlong into the dehumanization of individual lifetimes.
In science, it is often the simplest solution that is the most elegant solution to a problem. Since the embryo builds its own survival capsule (the placenta) to allow it to have shelter and nourishment, it is elegantly factual to assert that the embryo is an alive, integrated whole for that age of its lifetime begun at conception. The embryo is no less an individual human being with at least one functioning organ that allows the integrated whole to survive into the future ages of the lifetime already up and running.
i'm not sure why you think science leads to orwellian government (?) but as for a jules verne culture, we are already there and personally i think it rocks.
And it's all to make us 'healthier, happier and live longer'.
exactly, and i say rock on god of science, you're the coolest!
I wonder if when they are finally finished there will there be anyone around who will want to live longer?
and i wonder if you'd rather live 50 years in the 21st century or 100 years in the God centered 12th century. i'm not afraid of the future, i'm much more afraid of people who want to return to the bad old days when religion was king and they put galileo on the rack. come back if the scientists ever put the pope on the rack and then maybe i'll consider if you might have a point.
is that not what we already have?
i like this philosophical tack, MHGinTN.
but by that thinking, how can you say that you and your parent are not the same individual, when that unbroken continuum connects you?
...and her shoes also, let's not forget.
DoughtyOne, you are rightfully esteemed among Freerepublic with great respect among those who know you, myself included.
Did I ever mention what a superior sense of perception you have? Heh heh... Everyone would like to think your description is how folks think of them, but it is closer to the truth that some people like me, a number of people dislike me, some people respect my attempts at logic and others think I'm 49 cards short of a full deck.
Now that being said, I appreciate the comments and wish to assure you I am appropriately off balance for what is surely to come. Smile...
Yet, I must ask you about your position here. As a thought experiment, assume that it is 1954. Am I to understand your position to mean (assuming the technology had been available in 1954) that you would approve of me having being taken from my home; starved to death, or killed by oxygen starvation, and my cells then be used for some scientific experiment?
No, you should not understand my position to mean this. Will you understand my position to mean this? That is a possibility. Is that a reasonable possibility? I would like to think it isn't. It is up to you and others to decide for yourselves.
Even now, at my young 48 years of age, according to your principle of curing diseases, how long would I be "viable" outside my mother's womb without nutrition and hydration? By what principle of morality could I be kidnapped and killed by deprivation of essentials such as food or oxygen, and the predictible result be justified by the fact that I "was not viable anyway", and that my death will benefit mankind?
I believe I understand the point you are trying to make. And I don't disagree so much with the attempted comparison as the final conclusion that might be gained by it. I think you somewhat accurately address one issue I have raised, that of viability. But there are other considerations as well. I'll clumsiliy (no doubt) try to address at least part of them.
1. Is the human embryo under one week old exposed to the possibility of going to hell if it terminates? If not, then I am not convinced God evaluates it identically to that of an adult human. Do I personally think God values the human embryo? Yes I do. I will even go so far as to state that there is a distinct likelyhood that these human embryos will wind up in heaven. That being said, I think you begin to understand the serious level of thought I have given to this issue. Do I think God values the human embryo more than the curing of a human who suffers seemingly endlessly, helplessly, hopelessly? I am not convinced of it. I am also not totally convinced He doesn't.
2. Is there self-awareness of the human embryo at one week along? No.
3. Is there a sensation of pain associated with termination at that stage? No.
3. Would I approve of these human embryos advancing beyond one week outside the human female body? No.
4. Do I think God would damn those who were trying to help others by manipulating very young human embryos? I don't that's a given at all.
5. Should I approve of limited scientific research on the less than week old human embryo? I believe so.
6. Should we use this research to try to cure Parkinsons and other diseases in adults and children? I believe so.
Cordially,
190 posted on 06/19/2003 12:50 PM PDT by Diamond
I am glad you asked, but I am confident I cannot answer all of everyone's questions on this subject. I know some people are convinced this is a black and white issue and there can only be one outcome, "the right one." I am only trying to say that it may not be as black and white as some think it is."
The final conclusions regarding this are yours and the others to make as much as they are mine.
The two things regarding this issue that I am most assured of, is that sin caused this terrible dilema, and that God will end this controversey when sin is fully revealed.
that's great rhetoric but it's not true. rights cannot be 'endowed' they can only be 'guaranteed' and the guaranteer is the sole source of the right.
Abortions are murder.
not just doctors... i commit genocide every time i shave.
imho, anti-abortionist hurt their cause when they try to equate african americans with non-viable fetuses.
I'll take the 100 years in the God centered 12th century, thanks. :o)
"i'm not afraid of the future, i'm much more afraid of people who want to return to the bad old days when religion was king and they put galileo on the rack."
hey, palerobber, you're a poor historian along with being an atheist. Galileo was never put on a rack, tortured, or even jailed. His "punishment" was house arrest in his old age, and when he was held it was in the Cardinal's mansion, where Galileo was free to do as he wished. Science was very much enjoyed by the Catholic Church in Galileo's times; in fact, Galileo was educated in Catholic Universities by Catholic science profs.
your second option is the correct answer.
for all their flowery language, the founders understood that it is humans who define and gaurantee rights. they were not about to sit back and wait for God to do it.
A few more questions:
If you were successful in getting the government to classify abortion as murder, what would be the appropriate punishment for the women?
Suppose a group of religious people determined that there was scientific evidence to support their belief that your particular contraception (vasectomy) was causing "murders" and they were successful getting laws passed requiring that you have another surgery to correct that condition. What would your view be on that situation?
Their argument might be that the reproductive process starts with sexual intercourse and proceeds through conception, pregnancy, birth and rearing. You can't have conception without sexual intercourse and if you are preventing the reproductive process from progressing beyond that point, you are "murdering" potential life. YOU may not accept that but some people do and if they had their way there would be no contraception. Do you want their religious beliefs to determine how you live?
Suppose it was confirmed (as some scientists now believe) that overpopulation will soon cause massive social, environmental and survival challenges. And, those challenges must include the option of abortion as a successful means of dealing with them. Do we go with the religious beliefs of some to the detriment of all?
Do you acknowledge that there are those who generally oppose abortion and believe in God but do not want any particular religious group taking away their right to make reproductive decisions for themselves and their families?
did you read the part where he said he's an agnostic, not an athiest?
thanks for the reply.
but at times, even the very young are kept alive on life support with very little chance of recovering. would you fault a parent for pulling the plug, even though the child's death is not immenent?
Not good enough. For one thing, this is a moral ethical issue that goes far beyond mere legality as we are talking about unalienable rights which the founders proclaimed were self-evident and in no need of legal support. No man can abrogate an unalienable right. The idiots on the Supreme Court in 1854 said slaves were 3/5 of a man - so much for legality! Furthermore, the Constitution does not say that only the people who are BORN are persons - I don't care what the debased interpretors say - they make it up as they go along.
Second, where in the Constitution does it give a justice the moral or legal authority to say the unborn AT ANY STAGE is not a person with rights? Hmm? Nowhere! In fact, what do the founders mean when they refer to rights for their "posterity"? Gee, could that mean "yet unborn children"? And where in the constitution does it talk about a "right to privacy"? I don't see it! It doesn't take a legal genius to read the Constitution!
If you're looking for the spiritual definition of human person, I'll defer to soemone else to address that for you ... people don't like my answers/opinions on spirit; I suppose that's why XBob continues to ignore the many invitations to address that instead of the human soul.
The Supreme court definition is PURELY ARBITRARY and is based on nothing other than their ideology, not logic or unalienable human rights. I'm looking for a REAL LIFE definition, not a spiritual one. The being in the womb is alive and is real. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the difference between a human being and a person! Can you tell me? Can any of the reprobates in black robes tell me? No, and you and they never will be able to tell me simply because a human being is a person is a human being.
Methinks that the Supreme Court and all pro-abortion nazis are moral midgets who are unable to defend their position on logical, moral and ethical grounds.
you're quite right and thanks for the correction - he was in fact only threatened with these things until he recanted.
i never said i was an athiest.
as incomprehensible as this must be to you, it is *possible* for some people to be religious and at the same time not want religion to be the basis of government and law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.