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.

[hocndoc]

I don't have funerals, remember?

[hocndoc]

This is in reply to your several posts showing your interest in my unknown pregnancies as well as to 377 (Look down at the foot of each post, it has the number of the post "in reply to..," so you don't have to make a note, unless you are posting to some other number than the one you click on.)

The rest of the post that you excerpted includes an answer for your librarian, child abuse, and unknown pregnancy questions:


""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). ""

[hocndoc]

They have ceased to exist as sperm and oocyte in syngamy in the zygote.

[hocndoc]

I wouldn't prescribe or recommend those kinds of pills. I don't prescribe "emergency contraception" for that purpose.

However, the purpose of the birth control pill and hormonal contraception in general is to prevent ovulation. There is more reason to believe that this is how hormonal contraception works than to believe otherwise, especially in the case of combination pills and depoprovera. (incidence of ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy while using the pills consistently are low with the pills and non-existant on the shot, since virtually no one ovulates with depoprovera) So called "emergency contraception" requires a dosage at least 4 times normal to work, so I don't believe that speculations about how EC works can be extrapolated to the usual consistent use of OCP's.

As to punishment for the mother, I don't know. Most women are law abiding and I don't think they would use these methods if they were illegal.
In the case of OC's and EC, it would be difficult to prove that an unmeasured pregnancy had occured. The laws would be more useful in preventing prescription of such meds.

I know that before R v W it was rare for the mother to be charged at all. I believe that the separate states define murder and degrees of homicide.

[hocndoc]

Actually, the evidence shows that the uterus treats the conceptus exactly the same, whether mom is on the pill or not. The timing would have to be extraordiary to prevent implantation.

Look at ectopic pregnancies. The fallopian tubes have no nice, thick welcoming lining, but the embryo implants, just the same.

The most probable scenario is that Emergency contraception prevents ovulation or interferes with the sperm traveling up the tract. I won't prescribe them because of the chance that I'm wrong and, even more, the ethical delemma of intending to kill. with the pills.

[hocndoc]

I don't know of any pills or methods that work "only by causing an implant failure." Even the IUD works mainly by irritating the uterine lining, increasing white cell counts, changing the pH and consistency of the lining and generally making it difficult for the sperm to make it to the oocyte.

[UnChained]

"But both private choices and public policies should incorporate sound and accurate science whenever possible. "

Let me make a stab at this...

The title of the article points at the key issue in the debate. I believe that there's hope for coming up with scientific data that would decide the issue once and for all. MHG, your focus on the human organism misses the point. What is or isn't an organism blurs the most important feature of human life and that is that were are beings! Though some may dismiss any discussion of being as philosophy, I assert that your "I AM" is the most certain fact in your entire reality. It is so certain that it achieves absolute certainty to any entity that notices itself being alive. This self awareness is what distinguishes a human being from the animals.

When God and Jesus were creating everything, God said "Let Us make man after Our image." Being is a trait possessed by the living God. It's what makes Him alive. His name is "I AM" and that points the way to the life that we were endowed with by our creator. His livingness is in no way wrapped up in Him being an ORGANISM.

Consider the science fiction concept of a cyborg. If there was an organic human brain tied to a mechanical body, would you adjust your definition of organism to include cyborgs to support your argument? The fact is that it should be considered murder to kill a cyborg because they would be self aware entities not just that the are human. By the same token, if we ever encounter extra-terrestrials or self aware computers then our laws against killing humans would logically be extended to protect these forms of life also.

We don't protect the lives of human beings because they are human but because they are beings. Without being there is no one there to protect.

Our society has acknowledged the concept of "brain death" to help determine that an otherwise functioning body is not truly a person. Without addressing whether there is an "I AM" in the unborn you won't succeed in turning the tide of abortion. Abortionists and liberal pro-abortion folk don't consider the ORGANISM argument to be all that convincing.

I believe that a scientific answer to this central question is possible. To settle this divisive debate in our country we should mount a national research effort to discover the mechanism of being. Whe must understand what being is, what brain structure does it occur in and exactly how it works. Only then can we know whether the unborn at any given stage of development are beings.

What sort of neural feedback loop explains the I AM?
If there's a physical mechanism then there is a solid scientific answer to the question. It's not something that should be dismissed as philosophical speculation or theology. Perhaps science can determine that the negative is true; that there is no mechanism involved. I actually hope that's the case but after having seen a woman who was the subject of split brain experiments I'm not so sure. She underwent pschosurgery that severed the link that ties the brain's hemispheres together. I saw this woman assembling a square hole/square peg puzzle and she had a brief tug of war with herself as both hands tried to grab the same piece of the puzzle in oder to do different things at the same time. Although they were damaged, there were two entities in that body! That truly gave me pause since I favored the notion that our "I Am" is a divine spark that just follows our bodies around.

If we can understand the mechanism for the process of self awareness then we have a chance of determining whether the unborn are beings or human bodies with no one home. Failure to address this has led us to the current shouting match.

It's a person!
No it isn't!
Is too!!
Is not!!
Ad nauseum

[XBob]

no, i'm not trying to pick a fight, i'm perterbed, because you people who think an egg should be protected are trying to kill me, through preventing stem cell research to cure my diabetes , and raise my taxes, by bringing unwanted children into the world, and some other nuts here in texas on the 10 pm news, are trying to pass an anti-abrtion anti roe-v-wade law here in texas.

keep your philosophy to yourself, and practice what you preach on yourself, but don't attempt to to force it on me and others who don't agree with you.

[palmer]

no, i'm not trying to pick a fight, i'm perterbed, because you people who think an egg should be protected are trying to kill me, through preventing stem cell research to cure my diabetes , and raise my taxes, by bringing unwanted children into the world

You are a hypocrite: you want to raise everybody's taxes so we can develop a "cure" for diabetes that you brought on yourself (from earlier posts we have seen you have eaten way too much exotic food in your life). Then you will expect all of us to pay higher insurance costs so you can be "cured" with expensive repeated treatments instead of changing your crummy diet and sedentary lifestyle.

[MHGinTN]

The essay is posted at #201 above, in its entirety. Please give it a read.

You have settled on the brain (an organ within the organism) as the paramount feature for the 'I Am' status. In the essay, the author tries to explain why singling out one organ to define the 'I Am' is incorrect, as raised in Dr. Condic's article, where she focuses our attention on the functioning integrated whole organism as opposed to focusing upon the reflective valuation, the 'self awareness'. When organ harvesting is contemplated, the vegetaive state or deeply comatose individual may not be dissected for their body organs because the death protocol would establish they are still an integrated whole organism functioning for survival. 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.” ... or by a specific organ of the whole organism, unless that one organ is the central organ upon which organismic survival depends, as with the brain stem AND AS WITH THE PLACENTA OF THE EMBRYONIC INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING.

[puroresu]

A common error of pro-aborts is to assert that the unborn, especially in the early stages of life, lack human capacities. For example, they will state that an early embryo is "too tiny" to be a human being, or that it doesn't physically resemble a born human being, or that it lacks sentience. The problem with these arguments is that they are executed within a closed perceptual field in which it is presupposed that certain qualities exist in all humans at all times, when they do not.

Whatever capacities a human embryo possesses or lacks, those are the capacities he/she SHOULD possess or lack at that stage of development, assuming the embryo is normal and healthy. In other words, a human embryo is SUPPOSED to be tiny. Saying that size disqualifies him/her from being a human being is as silly as arguing that a newborn is less of a human being than a pro football linebacker.

Whatever capacities an embryo lacks are capacities it SHOULD lack (again, assuming normal development). A three year old boy lacks the capacity to father a child. He's SUPPOSED to lack that capacity. Lacking it doesn't make him less human than a twenty year old who can or has fathered a child. Lacking that capacity is itself a defining characteristic of a three year old male.

If a human embryo lacks sentience, it is because it is SUPPOSED to. It is a characteristic of a human being at that stage of development, not something that undefines it as a human being.

[MHGinTN]

Well stated! Beautifully put.

Each age along the continuum of a human individual lifetime is characterized by form and function, and each age is to some degree different from the other ages. It is interesting to note that the organ responsible for survival (the placenta) of the embryonic and fetal human being ages is cast off at birth! It was essential and normal for the earlier ages, but is irrelevent in the later ages.

The reason I keep focusing on the placenta has to do with the meaning inherent in the death protocol used at the end of an individual human lifetime.

[jethropalerobber]

The lack of differentiation in your usage of organ and organism is nullifying the points you're trying to reach for.

can you explain how you differentiated between them when you tried to make your original point in #99?

btw, i did read the article, i just don't think the organ/organism distinction has any bearing on my question for you (and you have not yet shown me how it does).

[jethropalerobber]

Since you believe that rights only exist as something guaranteed by someone else...

i didn't say "by someone else" - there is no reason you cannot act as the gauranteer of your own rights. but a much more common and effective method is for people to collectively create an authority with the means to gaurantee the rights of all. you originally said "humans have human rights because they are human." that's a pretty lie. humans have "human rights" only to the extent that we ourselves decide to gaurantee those rights. there is nothing automatic, natural, or God given about it.

[jethropalerobber]

Whatever capacities a human embryo possesses or lacks, those are the capacities he/she SHOULD possess or lack at that stage of development...

and whatever capacities a decomposing skeleton possesses or lacks, those are capacities he/she SHOULD possess or lack at that stage of development.

form and function, more than potential or history, decide how we classify things in our world, and that is appropriate.

A three year old boy lacks the capacity to father a child. He's SUPPOSED to lack that capacity. Lacking it doesn't make him less human than a twenty year old who can or has fathered a child. Lacking that capacity is itself a defining characteristic of a three year old male.

a jelly doughnut is also SUPPOSED to lack that capacity, but that's no reason to classify it as human. your example is silly - fertility is not even a defining characteristic of adult humans.

[puroresu]

####a jelly doughnut is also SUPPOSED to lack that capacity, but that's no reason to classify it as human. your example is silly - fertility is not even a defining characteristic of adult humans.####


My point surely didn't shoot over your head that far did it? We are assuming human genetics, obviously.

Good grief! I was merely pointing out that a species develops according it's genetic blueprint.

[puroresu]

Precisely! The capacities and characteristics of a human embryo are those inherent to it. Embryo isn't a species which becomes another species (human) after it develops sufficient human characteristics. The characteristics it possesses are those of a human being at that stage of development.

[MHGinTN]

Referring back to #278: I wrote, "...you must either not understand the difference in organ and organism..."

You responded, "i don't but it's not important to my question." ... [But it is vital to the incorrect assumptions you pose in your flawed question!]

You wrote, "i was responding to your suggestion that the neonate is the same individual as the zygote because they are part of the same continuum, and therefore should be treated the same. my reply was to suggest that there is no break in that continuum when it ties back to the parent, only a branch. when viewed outside of time, all off humanity is a single individual - a great tree. can this individual be faulted for cutting off its own limb?" [And that incorrect assertion is based on the false notion that at each age along the individual's lifetime continuum, the cell structure and organ function is equal in complexity, thus you've based your assertion on incorrect assumptions that can be corrected if you were to better understand the differentiation between the organism (the whole integrated individual) as different from the organs, the sub-unit parts of the organism.]

[You wouldn't happen to be XBob by another name, would you?... You two appear to share the same blind spots and irrationalities.]

You wrote, "furthermore, that same continuum you mentioned links the neonate to its future death, at which point no rights are gauranteed. should we treat the neonate the same as we would its future dead self on this account?" [The theme of the essay is that the same protocol used when contemplating organ harvesting from an individual can be applied accurately to the earliest age of the individual human being and that the embryo functions as an integrated whole organism fitting the meaning in the death protocol which restricts organ harvesting.]

You asked, "if to extend your life of wonder you must resort to cannibalism, are you willing?" [I answer by telling you that I would not kill another alive individual in order to consume them for my personal survival.]

[Semper]

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

"Prenatal humans" and I have the same right to life before birth and that is determined by our human parents. After human parents have delivered someone into this human environment, then there is an obvious right to continue. That is my personal belief and I know it is different than yours. The problem here is that you assume to have moral authority superior to mine and therefore you believe that you may decide personal family matters for me. That is wrong and clearly rejected by the majority in this country.

It is often a problem to make absolute moral conclusions regarding human circumstances where information and understanding is incomplete. If you want to do that for your own family, fine; but don't assume that your limited-knowledge moral/religious judgements aught to dictate my family's personal reproductive decisions. The point is not that we want to choose abortion; the point is that it is our choice not yours.

My personal belief: God produces Life. God's life is perfect and eternal, spiritual.

Human parents produce human life. Human life is imperfect and mortal, material.

There is a clear difference here.

I apply "sanctity of life" to God's spiritual life. You apply it to prenatal human life. We have a religious disagreement. Since we value religious freedom, your particular religious belief will not dictate my personal reporductive decisions.

Note: While you will not be successful in making personal reproductive decisions for others, you may indeed help the democrats win elections. Making this personal decision a political issue has helped the democrats win many elections they would have lost otherwise (see California). This may not have been your intention but it is a fact. Keep pushing this contentious religious belief into the political arena and you will keep loosing elections.

[jethropalerobber]

Good grief! I was merely pointing out that a species develops according it's genetic blueprint.

thanks for clearing that up.