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.

[Diamond]

Thank you, DoughtyOne for your closing remarks. Thank you for allowing me to make a closing remark as well.

...the absurdity (use another word if you like, inequity or whatever) of stating that a person who causes less than week-old human embryos outside the body to die, is the same as a person who kills adult humans...
...I only support the manipulation of human embryos outside of a womb at the earliest stages, a week or less. In excess of seven days old, I also object to the manipulation of human embryos or cells outside of the womb.

I understand how you feel, and the point I would like to leave with you for your consideration (if you will indulge one more instance of my overworked thought experiment:^) is as follows:

According to your principle, if it were around Christmas, 1953 and the means had been available, and yours truly, that is, good 'ol me, myself and I were one of the human embryos who had been produced by our mad scientist, then you would not have objected to my death being deliberately caused to 'benefit humanity' up to 7 days after I began to exist. As this is my life we're hypothetically talking about here, you can see how I could object to the utterly arbitrary nature of the line between the seventh and eighth day. Because the seventh day was the ontologically necessary condition for my life on the eighth day (and thereafter) there is no coherent, rational unity of principle for support of my death on the seventh day AND support of my life on the eighth day for the very simple reason that on the eighth day I would have no life to support if my death were supported on the seventh day. This contradiction is a fundamental flaw in the principle that is fatal to it. I'm sure you can understand my revulsion at the notion that it would be ok to snuff out my life at some point in it, because if it had been I wouldn't be able to be here writing this to you (not to mention the wife, the children, the dog and "It's a Wonderful Life" and all that:^)

To sum up, I leave you the words of another Man:
Matthew 25
⁴⁰   "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."

Thank you again for writing.

Cordially

[syriacus]

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

You are right in one sense...but common sense tells us that the chicken/human analogy doesn't help in this discussion We are discussing the inherent, special worth of preborn human life. We are asking whether preborn humans are more valuable than mere animals (born or preborn animals).

We are not just discussing semantics or the applicability of the labels "born" or "preborn".

We are talking about the humanity of very young humans.

Chickens won't ever be human. They will always be fowl, so they can tell us nothing about humanness.

There is a special difference between human life and animal life and even the law recognizes that.

A person who beheads a group of people can be punished by lifelong imprisonment or execution.

A person who beheads a group of chickens doesn't get punished that way.

[attiladhun2]

Human beings ought not to be produced in petrie dishes any way. We are not ants. That the whole problem with the modern world is the death of humaness. I fear society will eventually evolve into a unisex beehive of test-tube babies and mindless people scurrying about serving the big mother collective.

[Bush2000]

I think Democrats define "Life" based on an entities ability to be signed up for a Government program.

I would add one more corollary: Democrats think "Life" based on an entities ability to claim victim status.

[hocndoc]

I've only miscarried once, at 18 years old in 1974, when I was less than 3 months along. At the time, I didn't think anything about the fact that I never got to see my baby, because the doctor was "in charge." It was years later that I finally mourned the loss of my baby and the way he or she was treated like a "no thing."

The social customs about burial and funerals vary as much as protection from fraud, theft, slavery and murder in the world. Social and cultural norms don't define the human species or members of the species or the right not to be intentionally killed, they only reflect local prejudice and personal beliefs.

BTW, I have made it known that I don't want a funeral or a gravesite when I die (If I haven't made my mark on people's life before I die, it's too late afterwards, so donate my body to the medical school and organ banks and cremate whatever's left over), so your question is irrelevant to my personal beliefs.

[tortoise]

In a God-centered world/'real-world', those babies in a petrie dish are no different than babies in a human 'dish'.

So YOU say, but your opinion on this has the same veracity and worth as mine i.e. NONE. These kinds of assertions like you are making contribute nothing to the world nor answering questions. I'm not trying to flame you because it applies to much of what is posted on this thread, but vapid assertions are worse than not saying anything at all and do nobody's credibility justice.

[tortoise]

You don't need religion to believe this, you don't even need science.

Heck, you don't even need a brain. (Seriously, if it isn't science, it is somebody's grossly unjustified opinion and rightly ignored as foolishness.)

[F.J. Mitchell]

"When is a human life a human being?"

If we must debate that subject, before extending mercy and right to life to the smallest, most helpless and innocent of us all, maybe humans no longer exist on this planet. It becomes more obvious everyday that we are calling ourselves human under false pretenses.

[hocndoc]

The inalienable rights of humans belong to individuals, even though they are enforced by societies and cultures.

Take each of your examples and weigh them in light of the right to life (the right not to be killed by someone else), the right to liberty (the right not to have your liberty restricted by someone else, unless you endanger the right to life of someone else), and the right to property (the right not to have your property taken away from you against your will - by force or fraud).

Abortion is the killing of a human by someone else before birth. Elective abortion means that the human killed without a medical reason.

Either all humans have their rights protected equally under law, or society and culture must discriminate between who may kill and who may be killed.

Can you defend your personal belief that prenatal humans are not human enough to have the same right to life that you do?

[hocndoc]

The individual organism's life does begin at fertilization, and the oocyte and sperm cease to exist.

[syriacus]

Words mean things

---

You are absolutely right!!! Words mean things and words have power to influence our thinking.

That's why people commonly referred to a pre-born human as a "baby," until the liberalization of abortion in the seventies.

The labelling changed at that time, as pro-deathers insisted that the human preborn be called by its scientific names...fetus, embryo, etc. They did their best to dehumanize the little unborn person.

Why do you need a new name to label born human beings?

We already have all sorts of labels for them, such as teenager, adolescent, tot, toddler, adult, senior citizen, oldster, youngster, kid, etc...

[hocndoc]

Personhood is a social and legal construct, which varies according to geometry, national borders and religious beliefs and time. Fortunately, the history of humans has shown a trend toward more individual humans being designated as persons and given protection.

As a woman, I'm glad I don't live in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that there are people on this board who are glad that they weren't born when Taney's decision against Dred Scott would have denied them personhood. And others who are glad that they weren't dependent on Mengele and Hitler's definition of personhood.

According to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, personhood does not begin until birth. According to Barbara Boxer and Peter Singer, it's later. There have been posts on this thread that state that a person must be conscious, reasoning, and/or able to protect himself from being killed.


I believe the definition of legal personhood should include all human beings, not just the ones I like, value, can see, or who agree with me on religion and politics.

[hocndoc]

My objection to elective abortion is that it is the purposeful killing of a human being who is no danger to anyone, with government aide and protection for the killers.

[hocndoc]

You say,""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.""

Do you think that if you can't see someone, they don't exist on earth? Ultrasound could be a true epiphany for you.


You are now giving your personal beliefs, not anything based on science. In fact, they deny the facts of physics, chemistry and biology.
Why should I care about your personal, non-scientific beliefs and prejudices which deny the protection of human rights?

[Hank Kerchief]

We are not just discussing semantics or the applicability of the labels "born" or "preborn".

We are talking about the humanity of very young humans.

You say we are not talking semantics then immediately use a word in the very way the disagreement began with.

We are talking about the fact that the term human cannot be correctly applied to the unborn for purposes of moral or ethical considerations.

Hank

[hocndoc]

Again, personal opinion.

Similar to Taney's:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/

""4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.
7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.
8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous. ""

[MHGinTN]

ping

[MHGinTN]

The complete essay is posted at #201 on this thread.

[secretagent]

Well written post!

I believe the definition of legal personhood should include all human beings, not just the ones I like, value, can see, or who agree with me on religion and politics.

I can't go that far.

At least not as far as finding a mother and lab technician guilty of murder for disposing of unwanted fertilized eggs. I would find a mother guilty of murder if she killed her post-birth baby.

[XBob]

You wrote:

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?

---

Some interesting questions, which I have also pondered over the years. Which is also why I am an agnostic. I can't answer them.

I don't know what a 'soul' is. I don't know what 'god' is. And apparently, I don't know what 'sin' is, as I feel it must be really terrible to warrant eternal damnation.

I don't know whether people or animals have 'eternal life' as individuals. I do however, feel (not know, but it seems pretty certain) that 'life' while perhaps not 'eternal' no longer ends, since it has begun. Eventually, scientests predict that it will end, when then universe dies from entropy (it just runs out of energy in a trillion years or so). Or, if the earth is the only place where there is life, and we don't get beyond our solar system, it will end with the death of our sun.

I do know that 'life' is the only thing like this, and pretty much figure that all 'life' is related, both human and non-human, because the 'living' protoplasm and cytoplasm is transferred from the old existing living thing(s) to the new existing living thing(s). I do know that while human DNA is the most complex, much of our DNA is common to many lvinging things, which is why I say "Human Beans", as we also have the DNA of the 'bean' in our DNA.

I grew up with Baptist ministers ranting and raving that I and my brother and my Mother and my Father were all sinners and going to hell because we were so bad. Then my first wife, a Buddhist, and my second wife, a Hindu, and all of my Muslim friends were also going to hell too because they were sinners. None of of that makes any sense to me. Sure, we all make errors and do things we shouldn't at times, but going to hell forever because we are such baaaaaaad people. That's not a God I can 'believe' in.

So, I thought and thought and thought, for many years, and came to the conclusion that I could not believe in the normal religions (not good enough explanations), and don't know the answers to my questions, and I became a relatively happy 'non-believer', agnostic. Not a believer in the non-existence, an 'athiest'. They both take just as much 'faith'.

Perhaps, someday, somebody may be able to answer these complex questions, but not in our lifetimes.

Did you ever stop to think - "Where are we?"
On Earth, in the Solar System, in the Milky Way Galaxy, in the Universe. And where is the universe? Perhaps, as one author theorized 40 years ago, we are like a bacteria? of athletes foot, and perhaps we are just sitting on the big toe of so gigantic cosmic athelete?