Posted on 06/18/2003 3:25:36 PM PDT by 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.
No. But it is in a womb and attached to the mother. It has no ability to function on its own and it has no self-awareness or consciousness. Those things occur after the birth process.
My eyes tell me differently! My eyes must be lying eh?
You are arguing with yourself here.
Moreover, science confirms it is a unique "human being" - the DNA proves it. What precisely is the difference between a human being and a person in this case?
I'm not sure what you mean here but the difference between a fetus and a human baby is quite clear. The baby is outside of the mother's womb. It is not attached to the mother by an umbilical cord. It is breathing on its own, eating on its own, becomeing aware of the human environment, developing consciousness (through external input), requiring and receiving constant care and attention by its mother and others, and much more.
But the point here is not what you or I see and how we interpret that evidence, the point is whether or not you should be taking responsibility for what is in my wife's womb. How my family deals with a pregnancy is up to us and not up to you or the government. I do not like the concept of abortion and I hope that it will cease but I like even less the prospect of you trying to determine personal reproductive matters for me and my family.
At least poor XBob cannot help his dumb, baiting remarks. You, on the other hand, have thought through your deadly perspective and deemed it utmost utilitarian to have the unencumbered right to kill another alive individual human being as long as it is to ANY degree still inside a woman's body, and just what you want, regardless of the truths you must deny. You aree no longer pro-abortion, you're pro-infanticide. Aren't you proud of your promotion?
If the fetus was viable if it had been delivered, it's negligent homicide.
If the fetus was too imature to survive if delivered, it was water polution.
A simple standard, and the viable age gets lower every year.
So9
What about the period when the baby is outside the mother, but still attached to the umbilical cord?
Is it killable or not killable?
it is very sad that you have chosen to deny your individual lifetime extends back to your unique conception,
I do not deny my lifetime extends back to my conception (maybe even before that). I just acknowledge my mother's right to have decided whether or not to actually bring me into this world.
Also, I am not convinced that this would be a better place if a large percentage of unwanted, unloved humans were forced into this society. But, it is impossible to know that for sure either way. It is possible to know that freedom has been valued over life in some circumstances in our history. Reproduction is a personal family matter and when any group tries to restrict that freedom, it leads to problems.
you will have defined your exploitative desire as bankrupt
What am I trying to exploit? I am not trying to control your personal family decisions. I am not trying to impose my religious beliefs on you in the form of human laws. I acknowledge that you MAY be totally correct about abortion and life, I just disagree that you should force your religious beliefs, however right, on others. It is not your responsibility to deal with those who have not been born into this world unless it pertains to your family.
You, on the other hand, have thought through your wrongheaded perspective and deemed it utmost utilitarian and just what you want to be, regardless of the truths you must deny.
What is the truth I must deny? That I should give you authority over me and my family? I must accept your interpretation of incomplete physical knowledge and your determination of what is moral regarding my family's reproductive decisions? No. That's not it. I must accept your beliefs regarding the ultimate form, meaning, and manifestation of life? No. What gives you that ultimate wisdom or authority? My beliefs and actions are somehow going to restrict your freedom? No. That applies only to your beliefs and actions. That abortion prematurly stops a life (like so many other human activities)? Maybe. But there is an argument that human life does not really begin until birth. Granted a fetus can look like a human and have some human functions but it is not independent, self-aware and conscious. This is a point of disagreement, not an ultimate truth. That is not grounds for the state to take over individual reproductive decisions.
Not.
The argument that pro-lifers are imposing their religious beliefs on others is a stupid, hollow sham.
Many people who are opposed to abortion belong to religious groups that also have believers who think abortion is okay. What can be learned from that fact?
Belonging to a particular religion is not the determining factor in one's beliefs regarding abortion.
Will you allow me to be opposed to the murder of a six year old child?
Will you allow me to be opposed to the murder of all the children in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City?
Will you allow me to be opposed to the murder of Polly Klass?
Or will you say I am imposing my religious beliefs on you?
It's a topsy-turvy world in which people can't defend life, just because their religion happens to defend life.
Species, no. "Self", maybe. The totality of a human being must include experience. When you experience a substantial challenge and prevail you are a different person than if you had given up and failed at that challenge. The decisions you make determine what your experience, growth and development will be like. If someone else makes your decisions, you do not grow; that is why freedom is so important - without it life stagnates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.