When Is Human Life A Human Being?

http://www.freebritannia.co.uk ^ | 6/16/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[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.

[Hank Kerchief]

Only those capable of responsibility have rights.

So persons with low IQs have no rights?

I don't know. How low? Are they able to make moral choices?

If a being is not able to make moral choices, what does he need rights for? Is such a being alive? At whose expense?

The right to life does not mean a right to force someone else to keep one alive. The right to life only means a right to pursue one's own life by one's own effort.

Those incapable of keeping themselves alive, if they are alive, come under someone else's cutody and authority, else they would not be alive.

There is only a right to do, not a right to have. Those who are incapable of doing, have as much right as anyone else to do whatever they can. Rights cannot confer the power to do on those whose own nature prevents them from doing.

Hank

[XBob]

261 - "Isn't a human formed when they recieve their own, individual genetic code (DNA)?"

What is a human? What is a human being?

Personally, I just can't concieve that a fertilized egg is a human being, and more than I can concieve that an apple seed is an apple tree. Is an apple tree formed when an apple blossom is pollinated?

[XBob]

262 - read my point more closely. I said, "an embryo cannot be sustained without respiration from its mother", a viable fetus can sustain itself, even if born prematurely. But to do that it must be 'born', aborted, or caesared, and it will still live, whereas an embryo will not.

[Hank Kerchief]

Do we agree that all humans have the right to life?

Only if you mean by "right to life," what I wrote to syriacus:

The right to life does not mean a right to force someone else to keep one alive. The right to life only means a right to pursue one's own life by one's own effort.

Those incapable of keeping themselves alive, if they are alive, come under someone else's custody and authority, else they would not be alive.

Hank

[XBob]

267 - "Until abortion became an issue 30 years ago, how many people had a funeral for a miscarriage in the 4th month?
An infinitessimal percentage."

Excellent point. We need all those who think a human being is a fertilized egg, to start having funeral after funeral after funeral.

Speak up guys and gals, how many funerals have youall had for all these 'human beings' youall have created through the years?

[XBob]

"As I have said, God didn't bring death or illness into the world."

"My theory is that when Adam and Eve "ate the apple" they mutated their DNA. That could explain the longer lifespans of the earlier humans mentioned in the Bible. "

So, let me get this straight, fruit flys ate a whole lot of the apple, because they only live three days, and so they must have a lot of 'knowledge'. And all other non-human living things munched on that apple too, as god did not bring death into the world (and all living things die).

As far as the 'old age' of people in the ancient bible, in those days, there was no astronomy, and no 'years', but there were 'moons'. In fact, even today, the Arabs use a calender with a 'moonly' calculation, and their 'years' are much shorter than ours, and their months are one cycle of the moon. Now, if you figure that there are about 13 lunar months in a year, and divide the long lived ancient's ages by 13, you will find that their life spans were about the same as more modern men, and that the 'oldest', Mathuzela, at 900 'years' old, would be about 69, which in ages when average life expectancy was probably 25-30 years old, would be 'ancient'.

[cpforlife.org]

More proof of the slippery slope:

Louisiana Senate Committee Weakens Human Cloning Ban, Help Needed

The Louisiana Legislature is in session over the weekend on this, and closes Monday. Please call right now.

Call your Senator at 225-342-2040
Call your Rep at 225-342-8945

You can find your Senator's contact information at
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/senators/ByAddress.htm

Demand that they reject ALL human cloning, because it involves taking a human life! It kills a living person.

Also please reject efforts to amend SB388 to include mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives (some DO cause chemical abortion).

Details:

Baton Rouge, LA -- A Louisiana state Senate committee dealt a blow to a pro-life bill aiming to ban all forms of human cloning. The committee heard testimony from advocates of embryonic stem cell research who urged the senators to compromise on moral and ethics by allowing unborn children to be killed in order to obtain stem cells for research that may find cures to diseases.

The author of the bill, Rep. Gary Beard, R-Baton Rouge, insisted there was no difference between human cloning for reproduction and cloning used to obtain embryonic stem cells, and urged the banning of both.

But the senators on the committee heard impassioned pleas from LSU scientists, as well as from a doctor who sits in the Senate, Donald Hines, D-Bunkie, who said that such a ban would imperil promising research. Pro-life groups disagreed and said no one has yet been cured of any diseases through embryonic stem cell research while adult stem cells have already proven successful in numerous clinical trials.

A doctor and LSU pediatrics professor, Stuart Chalew, who told of treating diabetic children who "go to bed with the fear they won't wake up" said that Beard's bill would "criminalize one of the most promising avenues of research into a possible cure."

But Beard, calling it "the pro-life issue of the millennium," suggested there was no distinction between creating cells in the dish, and cells in the womb. He told of being inspired by a television documentary on human cloning -- part of which he showed to the committee.

"It was after I saw that documentary, it was 'Oh my goodness,' " Beard said.

Father William Maestri of the Archdiocese of New Orleans also urged that Beard's bill be passed. "So-called therapeutic cloning is considered morally illicit. What we have instead of an undifferentiated mass of cells, we have a potential human being," he said.

"We're not talking about potential human life. We are talking about human life with potential," Maestri said.

Dorinda Bordlee, legislative counsel for Americans United for Life also expressed disappointment in the Senate committee amendment. "Basic respect for human rights requires that a civilized and just society should not condone the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it in science experiments."

Still, several senators suggested they were troubled by the scientific ban the bill would impose, and they unanimously adopted an amendment to Beard's bill that allows research to continue. Beard said later he was opposed to the amendment.

If the bill passes in the Senate, it will have to be approved by the House of Representatives, which passed Beard's pro-life measure in its original form.

ACTION: Please ask your state Senator to vote to remove the embryonic stem cell research amendment from the bill and to ban all forms of human cloning. You can find your Senator's contact information at
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/senators/ByAddress.htm

[MHGinTN]

Father William Maestri of the Archdiocese of New Orleans also urged that Beard's bill be passed. "So-called therapeutic cloning is considered morally illicit. What we have instead of an undifferentiated mass of cells, we have a potential human being," he said.

As noted in the essay of this thread, the embryo is a human being who fits the protocol proscriptions used when contemplating organ harvesting. The good Father mentions potential humans, but I would assert that embryos, even those conceived outside a woman's body, are already human beings as evidenced by the organ they build for their own survival.

[MHGinTN]

If we have any Louisiana freepers who want to try and make themselves heard immediately, I do have an essay on why it is time to ban all human cloning, and of course this thread essay may also be sent ... faxing to the offices directly is the only way to reach the legislators other than making direct hand carried contact. This is more serious than most would imagine. The snowball effect could cause U.S. Senator Landrieu to alter her bill seeking a ban on all human cloning.

[palmer]

Personally, I just can't concieve that a fertilized egg is a human being, and more than I can concieve that an apple seed is an apple tree.

A fertilized egg is a human being. You don't need religion to believe this, you don't even need science. All you need to do is look at the development of a human from conception through birth and ask yourself if there is any point along that continuum where the fetus isn't human. I used to believe what you believe, but I no longer do.

What differentiates me from pro-life people on this thread is that I look for human features (as early as 8 weeks) such as human form (head and body) and human functions (neural activity). Those are what I want to protect. I believe those features trigger emotional responses in people (empathy) that can be harnessed to convince them to protect that fetus. I also value human life from conception and don't want it thrown away or experimented with.

But a human life lost at such an early stage cannot reasonably be expected to trigger emotional responses in all people. The primary reason is that there is no suffering. How can an organism with no neural capacity whatsoever suffer?

[palmer]

I assume you are asking me rhetorically. Fetuses are human beings; see my last post #310

[syriacus]

If a being is not able to make moral choices, what does he need rights for? Is such a being alive? At whose expense?

Is execution of a "feeble-minded" human killer okay?

Does such a person have rights?

Is such a being alive? At whose expense?

Is execution of a "fetal-minded" human non-killer okay?

[hocndoc]

Abortion is not about forcing someone else to keep anyone alive, because without force and purposeful acts, the human being, who is no danger to anyone else, would continue to live.

As to your statement that,"Those incapable of keeping themselves alive, if they are alive, come under someone else's custody and authority, else they would not be alive," do you believe that the doctor in the ICU has the authority to kill the patient who costs too much in resources or who is responsible for the late night calls? Did Andrea Yates, have the right to kill her children because they were incapable of of keeping themselves alive, and were, in fact under her custody and authority?

For that matter, every murder victim was obviously incapable of keeping himself alive.

[syriacus]

As far as the 'old age' of people in the ancient bible, in those days, there was no astronomy, and no 'years', but there were 'moons'.

Interesting..

In words describing the circumstances of Isaac's conception, The Bible says Abraham was about 100 years old and Sarah was 90 and describes those as advanced ages. Genesis 17:17 says,

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

According to your system, that would mean Abraham was about 8 years old, and Sarah was about 7 years old when Isaac was conceived.

By that time, Abraham already had a son Ishmael.

[hocndoc]

30 years ago, we didn't have ultrasound pictures of the child in utero. We didn't even have dopplar ultrasound to monitor the heart rates.

DNA typing wasn't practical, then either.

How ironic that at the very time when we obtain the technology to see our children before they are born and to know that they are genetically unlike anyone else, we have laws that allow killing them on demand.

[syriacus]

I have no explanation for the life spans of the animals. Your point is very interesting and more than a few questions come to mind...

Do you think animals have souls that are similar to those of humans?
Did the animals sin, and were they promised that eternal life would be regained for them?
Did animals ever have eternal life?

The more questions I ask, the more I'm beginning to realize ... man really might have been a special creation of God's.

Maybe, by sinning, Adam and Eve brought humanity closer to the level of the animals.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the animals of Eden.

[syriacus]

Speak up guys and gals, how many funerals have youall had for all these 'human beings' youall have created through the years?

Women who have miscarriages do grieve. So do their husbands.

[MHGinTN]

And prior to abortion on demand, a miscarriage of a four month old in utero was dealt with as a death in the family, complete with funeral arrngements, idiot assertions above notwithstanding.

[MHGinTN]

^

[XBob]

288 - "I imagine that you've flown on an airliner. According to this definition, you were not "an organism" for the entire time the plane was at altitude, because your life depended on the airplane for respiration. "

So, I lost the capability to breathe while inside an airplane? Not, quite, not unless the cabin pressure fails. And my brain, an organ, tells me, don't fly around at altitude without a pressurized airplane. My ability to breathe hasn't changed, only my location. Besides, my 'wings' don't work very well, when flying so high.