Posted on 06/18/2003 3:25:36 PM PDT by MHGinTN
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.”
...
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. …
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.
Good thinkin'.
Would like to venture an explanation, from your perspective, for when an alive human organism becomes a human being?... I will take as axiomatic that innocent
human beings deserve protection of their right to life in your reckoning.
251 posted on 06/19/2003 7:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
Thank you for the question. It's actually a good question, but rather than answer that directly, I am going to refer people back to my fist post on this thread. From there I'd like to invite them to review each of my comments if they would like to. While this exact question hasn't been asked up to this point, I don't think I've left any doubt over time what my views are regarding this question or just about any other related issue you could raise. In fact I'd venture to state that most people probably thought I was too verbose as it was.
I appologize if you feel this is dodging your question. It just seems to me that if I answer this, we're off on another round of questions and answers that have basicly been hashed out over time. The next question would be, well if you feel that way, why don't you defend the rights of the embryo at that point? We've covered that in detail, so I think it is fair to avoid repeating what I've already explained.
I've appreciated the debate and discussion, but there's only so much you can say on one topic, and after nearly 28 hours on this thread, I think we've reached that point. At least I have.
Perhaps I'll join another of your threads on this topic at a later date.
Take care.
This was my first post on the thread. LINK
The embryo is alive. The embryo is a member of the human species and is thus a human being (a human existing, if you like). The embryo is acting/functioning to survive in its environment, building the encapsulation organ (the placenta) that will function as lungs, and nourishment processor and waste disposal system throughout its lifetime age while in the uterus. Because the embryo is functioning as an integrtaed whole organism, is a member of the human species, and the organ(s) for its survival are of its own construction, we can factually assert that the alive embryo fits the protocol used when organ harvesting is contemplated at later ages along a human lifetime continuum.
At one point I thought you had made pretty much the same arguement you made here. Both you and hocndoc expressed yourselves well, I just don't agree.
I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. I don't expect to change your mind. I just wanted to present an alternative view. Take care.
Then you commented: By this definition, you are denying the right to life and liberty to anyone not "capable of making choice."
I do not deny anyone anything. Liberty means, "free to choose." If someone cannot choose, it is nature or God that denies them that ability, not me. They are still free to choose, if they can, but if they cannot, that does not change the nature of liberty.
A "right to life," means a right to live your life without threat from anyone else and as you choose. It is not a right to have someone else feed you, care for you, and to keep you alive if you cannot or will not do it yourself.
You also said: That makes it open season on many people who are protected under current laws.
Under current laws, all sorts of people are clothed, fed, and provided medical services at the expense of others, essentially making the decent and comptetent slaves of the indecent and incompetent. Current laws are not a good example of freedom and rights. And those you think are "protected" under current laws, are actually threatened by them. For example many people's children are regularly, and on a daily basis, by threat of force, taken from their families and sent to government training camps to be endangered by other children, and taught vile things no parent would ever subject their children to.
Children, at home, are protected by their parents. (They do no belong to the government). There is no "open season" on children except by the government. Children on their parent's property and in their parent's custody are protected by their parent's rights.
Adults are free to make arrangements for their own care and support should they be incapacitated physically or mentally, and most do. Like children, adults, when incapacitated, come under the custody of another, whose rights then protect them.
Those who make no preparation for their own future, do not, by that failure, have a claim on anyone else, their time or their property. What you want is open season on those who can choose for the sake of those who cannot. This is the criteria of men, and the criteria is usually called socialism.
Hank
Perhaps, as the conceptus is beginning to divide into two or more separate humans it receives a second soul or more.
We are certain to not agree on what a soul is. Since I do not believe it is possible to separate "consciousness" from the meaning of soul, whatever you believe a soul is, to say something has more than one soul would mean it had more than one consciousness, which is absurd.
My guess is that you would like a "scientific answer," ...
Hardly. It is not a question science can address. The consciousness is subjective, as we experience it. Science deals with the objective and demonstrable.
Since I also believe human consciousness, "qua human," does not really exist until it has reached the stage where it can (whether it does or not) rationally and volitionally develop cognition (verbal knowledge), it is not yet a human soul or consciousness. This does not deny consciousness; it does not deny "humaness," in the genetic sense; it does deny that in terms of moral and political principles, true humaness does not exist until conscious rational choice is possible.
We do not hold any creature incapable of making conscious choices morally responsible. Moral responsibility cannot be divorced from any correct concept of rights. Only those capable of responsibility have rights.
Hank
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.