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.

[MHGinTN]

Bob, have you ever been under deep anesthesia?

[goodseedhomeschool]

LOL GOOD ONE :)

[XBob]

As far as I know, humban beings have been 'commodities' for thousands of years, farther back than the slaves of Egypt who built the pyramids.

When my government takes 40% of my life to pay my 'taxes', is that not equivalent to your 'cannibalization'? Perhaps not exactly, but I am still deprived of 40% of my life.

[MHGinTN]

I repeat, Bob, have you ever been under deep anesthesia?

[XBob]

301 - bttttttttttttttttttt


"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.

[XBob]

Don't forget to ban bone marrow transplants and blood transfusions while you are at it, and heart and other organ transplants.

Their souls will get mixed up.

[XBob]

310 - "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."

----

Why pick this particular point in the 'continuum' of life? The sperm and the egg are alive. And they contain the cytoplasm and other components from their 'creators', male and female, which contains components from their parents, etc, etc.

Life didn't begin with the union of sperm and egg, it began long before that.

At this point we can't 'create' 'life', we can however, re-organize existing life into a different form by uniting a sprerm and egg.

So when does this 'life' begin?

[XBob]

310 - "A fertilized egg is a human being. "

Sorry, I can't agree. It is a fertilized human egg.

A human being, it is not. Remember, was it Descarte? "I think, therefore I am".

An egg is an egg, and a chicken is a chicken. They are not equal. I don't enjoy "Southern Fried Eggs" or "Ham and chickens, sunny side up".

[XBob]

Show me a single piece of physical evidene, (not including your bible), of any human remains, anywhere, in history/archeology/anthropology of human remains living over 150 years.

There are numbers of instances of girls getting pregnant as young as 7-10 years old.

[XBob]

How many funerals have you had for your fertilized eggs?

[secretagent]

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.

Personhood, for most a quality contingent on development beyond the fertilized egg stage.

[Semper]

Suppose you stick to the facts as they are.

Ok. It is a fact that decisions are made every day which result in the death of already born human life. We know that a certain percentage of those who drive cars will die in accidents. If we were all forced to use mass transit, think of all the lives that would be saved - but no, we want that freedom. We know that a certain percentage of those who smoke cigaretts will die prematurely (over 1000 a day). That is an easy call for illegality but there is little chance for that because we want the freedom to indulge our appetites even at the risk of our health. We know that political differences which are settled by war will result in massive death but we have made the choice many times to endure that result to retain our freedom.

There is also the desire of some to retain the freedom to stop the process of reproduction well before there is emotional attachment to that potential human life and well before that potential human life has developed consciousness and well before that potential human life has the ability to function on its own. Why is that partially developed, potential human life more worthy of legal protection than the already born with a developed consciousness and emotional ties to others (like those in the above examples)? Note: The above examples are just a few of many instances where mature(?), conscious, functioning adult human beings do things which result in premature deaths; there are laws dealing with some of those things but a large number of those activities are still legal because we want the freedom to make those choices. Before you try to get into my family's reproductive decisions, first deal with those death producing decisions made by and for conscious and functioning human beings. But, if you are successful there, this will no longer be a free country.

[Hank Kerchief]

Abortion is not about forcing someone else to keep anyone alive ...

Then, what's your objection to it?

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

A fertilized egg is a human being. You don't need religion to believe this, you don't even need science.

Sure, you can all anything by whatever name you like. If you are going to call a fertilized human egg a human being, then we need another term for human beings who have been born. How about, homo epiphanous, which would roughly mean, men who have made their earthly appearance.

Words mean things. If a fertilized human egg is a human, than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. If you go to your grocer and ask for a pound of chicken, you won't be satisfied with a pound of chicken eggs, fertilized or not. A chicken isn't a chicken until it's hatched and human isn't a human until it's until it's born.

Religion, science and common sense all say, don't count your chickens 'til their hatched, and don't count your children 'til their born.

Hank

[palmer]

So when does this 'life' begin?

Before conception. But human life begins at conception.

[palmer]

Again, once that chicken egg is fertilized, at what point is does it become a chicken? It is undoubtedly a chicken when it hatches and a little before that and a little before that...

I think you can see that any arbitrary cutoff point can be shown to be false until you get back to the point at which the parents' DNA joined. There's nothing magic about it. In fact I've eaten fertilized chicken eggs and they taste exactly like unfertlized ones. There's just a microscopic chicken within the yolk.

[palmer]

At what instant does the "whatever" become a "child"? The halfway point in the birth canal? At the last moment it touches the mother? When the umbilical cord is detached? Sounds to me like an arbitrary and useless definition.

[palmer]

That sounds like a useful term to me as long as it is understood there is no magic moment at which "personhood" occurs, rather, it emerges gradually after a few weeks of development and becomes readily apparant at 8-12 weeks.

[Hank Kerchief]

At what instant does the "whatever" become a "child"? The halfway point in the birth canal? At the last moment it touches the mother? When the umbilical cord is detached? Sounds to me like an arbitrary and useless definition.

Alright. Always willing to accomodate.

For some of us, it is important to know whether or not a child is born, or a chicken is hatched. It means something to us. Birthdays mean something to us, and to most governments, for example. Try collecting SS nine months before you can legally retire.

So, we will just use the term "unhatched" for those chickens we are not interested in buying, and "unborn" for those humans who do not yet have birthdays. And we will call those for which these are not useful definitions, half-baked.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

Your style (or lack thereof) is showing, Bob. You are asked a simple question that you see will crumble your false premises, so you mock and bait and play juvenile nya nya games posting gibberish.

As for snotrag, well, that one is purposely dumb and any humane suggestion has to be mocked and derided in Hank's childish attempt to bring all discussion down to Hank's vacuous level. I doubt that eith one of you self-inflated posers even bothered to read the essay upon which the thread is based, despite it being posted in entirety so you wouldn't have to click and visit another URL for it. But then, you two have never allowed facts or the truth get in the way of your foolishness. In that you are both very consistent.

However, I do appreciate you two giving rational readers your doltish side of the discussion, offering illogical and irrational dehumanizing gobbledy gook to represent the pro-death side of these issues. Thank you for being consistent in your inhumanity and bold enough to continue your juvenile farce even when the simplest of questions trips you up ... the one-sidedness of this discussion has been useful for readers unsure about the humanity of embryonic individuals, as my e-mail attests. You've served a useful function, boys, and for that I thank you.