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]

Your snide comments indicate that it is not whether the embryo or fetus is in fact a human being that you care about (as if you have found the final answers to the deep things), but it is your political imperative that rules your belief system. So clintonesque.

[XBob]

Hank - you said - "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."

"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."

===
Perhaps, since we who believe in abortion are a majority, should push for laws to be passed to 'draft' all doctors, and force them to care for all the unwanted children. And for all those who think that zygotes have a right to life, be forced to adopt and support support each of these unwanted 'babies', and that every woman save each of her 'menstrual flows' for analysis, to determine if there is a fertilized egg in it, and if there is, the doctors should fill out a death certificate and perform an investigation as to just why the 'baby' died.

We have millions of these 'babies' dying every year in this country.

That means, as we only have so many resources, that we need to put most of our medical research funds, pull them from cancer and diabetes and all the other diseases, and put our scientests and medical researches to work trying to save all these young 'people'.

Now, it seems to me that further, to prevent these 'individuals' from being destroyed, we need to prevent their creation. So, we need to follow MHGinTN's example, and prohibit sexual intercourse, except for the purpose of 'approved' creation of a new individual. So, in order to have sex, the couple must either be incapable of creating a new individua eg tie their tubes (male and female). And when they apply for a permit and have it approved to have a new 'individual', they can have sex. That would be on a case by case basis, and only one new 'individual' at a time. As soon as they are capable of making a new 'individual', they must again be made infertile.

And this must be done for every person, male and female, as people (male and female) have a tendency to 'cheat', so it cannot apply just to 'couples'.

What do youall think?

We have a terrible problem here, and there are hundreds of millions of one celled 'people' dying every year, around the world, from this affliction.

[XBob]

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

Is a brick house formed when you lay the first brick?

[XBob]

262- "Umbilical cord moves oxygen through the mothers blood to the fetus. Were you breathing oxygen 1 minute before your delivery from your mother womb? By your words, a human is not a human until they are breathing on their own, is that correct? Not picking at you, just asking for clarification."

Seems like that has been a pretty useful definition for a person, or for a human 'being', when one is 'born'.

When is a 'painting' a 'painting'? When you put the first brush full of paint to canvas, or when it is 'finished'.

[Semper]

Your snide comments...

Please cite an example of a "snide comment".

... it is not whether the embryo or fetus is in fact a human being that you care about...

Wrong. I do not believe that an embryo or fetus is a human being because there is no independent consciousness or independent ability to function as a human being (as I have stated to you in previous posts). I believe the reproductive process must be complete - including birth - before human being status is achieved. I know there is disagreement here which is why your following comment is way off the mark:

(as if you have found the final answers to the deep things)

I have not found the final answers to these matters and neither have you. That is why this should NOT be in the political arena and should remain in the personal arena of religious belief.

it is your political imperative that rules your belief system.

I am not the one who is trying to get the political power to allow my religious beliefs to determine your reproductive choices. I do not hold candidates to a litmus test of pro-choice or anti-choice regarding reproduction. Your "movement" does that.

So clintonesque

Are you not aware of the policy of no degrogatory personal attacks here?

[XBob]

266 - "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? "

Congratulations jethro - you seem to be the only one who thinks as do I, that life begins before the union of sperm and egg, that it began long ago. However, I go beyond the first 'human being' for that initiation of life, to the initiation of all life, and that 'human beings' are just one branch on that 'tree of life'.

[MHGinTN]

Please cite an example of a "snide comment". Semper
Note: While you will not be successful in making personal reproductive decisions for others, you may indeed help the democrats win elections. Semper

Killing an already alive individual human being is hardly a 'reproductive decision' ... but you knew that, so you included the mischaracterization with your snide comment.

[XBob]

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

Then god didn't bring life either. As, the only way for there to be death is for there first to be life.

There can be no light without darkness.

There can be no nothing without something.

Death, like life is a comparative term, and cannot be without something to compare it to.

[MHGinTN]

Personal attacks? ... Are you trying to whine, Semper? You can do better than that!

I have not found the final answers to these matters and neither have you. That is why this should NOT be in the political arena and should remain in the personal arena of religious belief. Semper The 'personal arena' you wish to protect has been responsible for 42,000,000 aborted individual alive human beings in America, and counting. If that holocaust is to be protect as your precious 'religious belief system', we have nothing over which to discuss the right to life since you've conveniently dehumanized all pre-born alive individuals as fit sacrifice for your 'rite of choice'.

It is past time to make this the most important issue in America, to stop the holocaust. Folks like you want abortion legal and easy to obtain, regardless of the truth regarding the prenatal alive individuals to be slaughtered on the altar of convenience and expedience. You couch your assertions in religious gobbledy gook, as if to apply a patina of piety and 'personal choice'. It is disgusting, in the main. Now, go whine to the Administrative Moderator that you've been insulted. You are an insult to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence where the flow is LIFE, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.

[MHGinTN]

Bob, this is over the top even for you! LOL ...So, we need to follow MHGinTN's example, and prohibit sexual intercourse, except for the purpose of 'approved' creation of a new individual. XBob I never said 'prohibit sexual intercourse, except for .. etc.' and the fact of my vasectomy ought to tell you something, guy! You are too much, dude! It is fun waiting to see what outlandish thing you'll come up with next. Entertaining, Bob.

[hocndoc]

I disagree that the possession of rights is dependent on the ability to protect those rights.
By that logic, Dred Scott had no rights, as Taney said. Women in Saudi Arabia have no rights, as their theocracy says. And everyone of us has no true rights, only privileges bestowed by whatever might they can muster.

[hocndoc]

I did not claim moral superiority, I asked you to defend your personal belief that prenatal humans don't have the right to life.

You say that your personal belief is that the right to life is dependent on the parents before birth. Can you explain this in light of cloning and embryos created by in vitro fertilization? And, why do rights change at birth, rather than at 20 weeks or 15 weeks, or 7?

[hocndoc]

Take a look at what you propose in light of the right not to be killed by someone else (not the right not to die).

[hocndoc]

""Is a brick house formed when you lay the first brick?""

If the first brick is capable of obtaining the rest of the materials through metabolic processes and guide, direct and assemble the rest of the house.

We each began life as a zygote, at syngamy of the oocyte and spermatocyte.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit of God from birth. While in Elizabeth's womb, the name of "Jesus" was mentioned, and it is written "the baby in Elizabeth's womb lept". Only God reveals Jesus to humans. So are you saying God's a liar, and John the Baptist was not a human in Elizabeths womb?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

A fetus grows from an embryo. A house does not grow from a brick. A painting does not finish itself. If a painting was indeed able to finish itself, then it would be a painting from the first stroke. The DNA structure is the "brick" on which the rest of the human is built. So your comparison is good, the thought process is not.

[r9etb]

So, I lost the capability to breathe while inside an airplane? Not, quite, not unless the cabin pressure fails.

IOW, you're not a viable "organism" in an airplane -- you rely on an external mechanism to keep you alive. Just like a certain something else you're calling a non-organism.

You cannot claim the luxury of changing your definitions to suit the point you're trying to make.

[freedumb2003]

>>When Republicans abandon core issues, they lose votes. <<

This is true and what cause Bush the Sr's fall from grace. This is called Principles and is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom (AKA the Democratic Party).

We put our "main man" out because he abandonded his pledges and his conservative Principles.

Compare this to the overwhelming call by feminists to put Billy if-harrasment-is-about-power-then-there-was-never-a-more-obvous-harrasment-case Klintoon out. Oh, that didn't happen? Surpise surprise surpise.

Liberals have no real principles or ideals -- merely slogans and memories of the glory days when they mattered. And of course, the embodiment of that lack: The Klintoons.