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.
But we're not talking about unattached zygotes here...we are talking about the living being whose body is cut to pieces by murderous abortionist. The little creature that feels pain! What is that creature? You cannot possibly say it is anything but a human being - if you do, you defy all logic and science and common sense. But then, no one accused pro-aborts of having any logic and common sense.
Can a newborn survive on its own? No. So why not kill it too? Does a person with with advanced viral encephalitis have awareness? No. Kill them too. Besides, it has bene shown that the unborn do have awareness - they actually shrink back from the abortionist's instruments before they are butchered...and they feel pain...and they dream. It seems you are the one who has no awareness or conscience.
You are arguing with yourself here.
Am I? What are those body parts that are pulled out of the womb piece by piece. When yo assemble them like a puzzle, what does it look like? A baby perhaps! Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
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.
If this statement wasn't so tragically dangerous, I would laugh. This is merely your ARBITRARY definition and it makes no sense in light of science and reality. It's quite clear huh? So, you are saying that the unborn are human beings but not persons? Then my eyes must be deceiving me because they certainly look like persons with arms and legs and toes and fingers and a beating heart and pain sensation. Are my eyes lying? You are saying that a baby has to be unattached from its mother in order to have status as a person? A 7-month term baby can survive outside the womb - but such preemies are being killed constantly in the womb and their body parts harvested! How does that fit into your little formula? huh?
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.
Your wife doesn't have the right to kill another person. That person is a separate being with its own heart and brain. Sometimes, it even has a penus - is that part of wife too? You have no right to kill another human being. Heard of the Lacy Peterson case? Why is it that her husband was charged with murder? I'll tell you...because Lacy planned on having the baby...because Lacy deemed her baby a person, so voila! it's a person! But if she deemed it only a blob of flesh or fetus and she had it killed, then voila! - it becomes only a blob of flesh! That's odd! The mother decides whether or not the unborn is a human being? Let me clue you in on a FACT. Your wife has no say as to whether the being is a person or not - it either is or it isn't INDEPENDENT of your wife's opinion! Your wife has no right to play God! Your wife doesn't have the moral authority to decide if the human being inside her is a person or a fetus. Your wife is not God and neither are you.
Anyone who kills their unborn should be tried for murder - I don't care who they are. And let's be real here - when a woman gets an abortion, we are not talking about flushing an unattached zygote! We are talking about snuffing out a human life. 40 million so far! An entire generation! No wonder social security is going broke! (not enough workers to support the aged pro-aborts - ironic isn't it!); No wonder every single nation on earth of euro descent have negative population growth and have shrinking populations - they are all killing off their posterity and committing ethnic suicide! (do you think they will wake up before they become extinct?)
No? Then it is not a thing, it's what? What is it?
Persons are protected by the U.S. Constitution. If the unborn is a person, it has rights. Get it?
What you said makes no sense logically. Just how is it that being attached to the mother makes a baby non-human? Explain that.
Does your family have the moral authority to do any act it wishes to do? Is there a right and wrong outside of your family's opinion? Yes or no.
My son was born by c-section at seven months gestation. I was there to witness his delivery and when he was removed from his mother's body the umbilical was still attached, he was non-viable on his own (needed somewhat heroic medical intervention to survive, but he did and is a very healthy and happy 14 year old today). Would an abortion be permissible at this point, in your view? Would it have been acceptable, if his mother changed her mind (as women are sometimes prone to do) and said, "Sorry, kid, I've changed my mind. You're toast.", and called in the friendly neighborhood abortionist to rip him limb from limb, or burn his skin off with a saline solution? Why or why not?
From another post (544):
You don't want to take the trouble, to save what you define as a human being, by screning the menses for fertilized eggs?
It's toooooooo much trouble.
Better tell all those firemen, all those policemen, all those coastguardsmen, all those life guards, all the military - not to bother going to such extreme effort to save peoples lives, even to the extent of risking and sacrificing their own lives. It's toooooo much trouble.
And from 549:Start applying your logic across the board.
You're right, I should apply my logic across the board.
Of course, it is good to interfere with (what would be) the natural course of events when someone's life is in danger,
but...
Checking for sloughed-off fertilized eggs would be like posting lifeguards in boats, at every 10 feet, out among swimmers who are wearing scuba outfits (with radio devices to relay their status) .
Certain natural laws of physics, chemistry, physiology, have great influence on the outcome.
Heroic people rightly interfere with the potentially fatal outcomes, but there are obviously limits to the extents to which they go.
A fetus is a being until it is killed.
True. But we do see the real situation of eggs fertilized in the laboratory prior to implantation, in infertility clinics.
If I understand some on this thread, the fertilized egg would acquire full legal protection upon conception, if they could change the law to match their morality, and its disposal down the lab sink would therefore merit prosecution for murder.
The Supreme Court can be wrong.
The Supreme Court was wrong in their Dred Scott Decision
On March 6th, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Seven of the nine justices agreed that Dred Scott should remain a slave, but Taney did not stop there. He also ruled that as a slave, Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter.Some (perhaps superficial) similarities between Scott and Roe argumentsIn addition, he declared that Scott had never been free, due to the fact that slaves were personal property; thus the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories. The court appeared to be sanctioning slavery under the terms of the Constitution itself, and saying that slavery could not be outlawed or restricted within the United States.
| Dred Scott Outcome | Roe v Wade outcome |
| Dred Scott is not a citizen and can't bring suit against the federal government | Fetuses are not persons. Can they bring suit? (Can anyone bring suit on their behalf? I don't know the answer) |
| Court seemed to say slavery is sanctioned by the Constitution | Court says "right to choose" is sanctioned by Constitution (ask NARAL, they'll say this is true) |
| Property rights outweigh right to freedom | Privacy rights outweigh the right to life |
| Court says can't have particular laws restricting or outlawing slavery | Court says can't have particular laws restricting or outlawing abortion. |
No. He was born. You picked apart a sentence to get something to argue about.
My view on this subject is clear, when a developing life exists inside a woman's body, it is her responsibility - not yours or the government's. After the process of birth (however that occurs), the situation is obviously different.
Once again, you are talking about qualities of words, instead of qualities of reality. We can very easily talk about opposing qualities nowdays, but that does not mean both qualities were present years ago.
When the Earth was younger and animals had no skeletons, did skeletons exist ?
We can talk about skeletons now, but that doesn't (retroactively) give those early animals skeletons.
We can talk about death now, but that doesn't mean death existed when God was alone.
That is another issue, however, one cannot say that the 6 month old unborn baby is a human being, and not say that the embryo is a human being. Therefore, the embryo is a human being. Flushing a live embryo down a sink is killing a human being just as much as chopping up a 6-month gestation baby. Believing otherwise is to compromise on the definition of human being and begin the slide down the slippery slope to genocide. See my post #550.
You can't be consistent in your logic because it is hopelessly flawed. In partial birth abortion, the baby is "BORN" except for the crown of the head! So much for that distinction!
What if a woman changes her mind while her child is halfway born, or a quarter born, or 3/4ths born?
So what is the magical moment of the birth, in this case, that changes the status of the individual, from dehumanized, to humanized, and why? What is it about the individual that clearly changed? Remember, the umbilical is still attached. The child is still getting sustenance from his mother. Other than physical location, i.e., cicumstance, what has changed about the child, from one moment to another?
Some scientists sure have opened a Pandora's box, haven't they?
How about those "selective reduction" procedures for "fertility clinic" successes which have resulted in multiple fetuses? What a moral dilemma for some hopeful parents-to-be.
Twins and triplets are all the rage now...but how many people want 6 children at once?
Better to kill one or two than have too many of the (so-called) "wanted" children.
(I guess someone might have been uncomfortable with the sextuplet style pregnancies which were followed by "selective reduction", because scientists are working to correct the situation.)
When they succeed in solving the problem, people will be able to pretend "selective reductions" never happened.
Of course not. We are not talking about "any act", we are talking about reproduction - forming a family.
Is there a right and wrong outside of your family's opinion? Yes or no.
Yes, of course there is. But who has the ultimate authority to interpret what is right and wrong? Some things are easy and universally agreed upon; other things are not so easy and not agreed upon. What we are discussing here is not an easy topic and it involves deeply held and different religious beliefs regarding the nature, definition and manifestation of life in this human environment. In this particular topic, there is not agreement as to the ultimate truth or "right" regarding the reproductive process. You seem to believe that the government should require everyone to act as you deem right; I do not believe the government should be deciding this particular matter.
At 16 weeks, the being in the womb has arms, legs, a beating heart, and a brain. Are you going to tell me that this being is just a "thing"? My eyes tell me differently!
I agree with this "gestalt", but wouldn't get the same impression from a picture of a fertilized egg.
Flushing a live embryo down a sink is killing a human being just as much as chopping up a 6-month gestation baby. Believing otherwise is to compromise on the definition of human being and begin the slide down the slippery slope to genocide.
This implies to me that you may not see the fertilized egg as precious as the 6 month baby, but want legislative insurance to protect the latter.
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.