Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Is Human Life A Human Being?
http://www.freebritannia.co.uk ^ | 6/16/2003 | Marvin Galloway

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.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Free Republic; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: embryo; humanbeing; life
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 961-974 next last
To: Semper
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.

Should the government step in to protect a child when he is being treated in a way that some people approve of but some people don't?

Which group gets the final say?

Hitting people is wrong - and children are people too

  Five European countries - Sweden (in 1979), Finland (in 1983), Denmark (in 1985), Norway (in 1987) and Austria (in 1989) have adopted laws which prohibit parents hitting their children. The purpose in each case has been educational; to change attitudes, not to punish parents. There are no criminal penalties attached to the bans. The reforms have not led to a rush of children taking their parents to court over physical punishment, and numbers of children taken into care in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are low and reducing.

641 posted on 06/24/2003 9:30:21 AM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
You stimulated me to learn more:

Selective reduction is a technique that is used when multiple embryos have implanted as the result of assisted reproductive technologies. The procedure is usually performed between 9 to 12 weeks gestation to selectively abort the extra embryos. Selective reduction is performed by a perinatologist on an outpatient basis by inserting a needle guided by ultrasound either through the abdomen or vagina to inject potassium chloride into the fetus. The incidence of miscarriage associated with this procedure is felt to be 4 to 5%.

The decision of whether or not to undergo selective reduction can be a traumatic one, and couples who have invested time and effort to achieve pregnancy may often be unprepared to make this choice. If this procedure is morally or ethically unacceptable, then the number of embryos transferred should be strictly limited. It is helpful for couples considering selective reduction to undergo professional counseling prior to the procedure.

http://www.miami-ivf.com/education/fertilitybooklet/selective_reduction.html

642 posted on 06/24/2003 9:35:31 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: chimera
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?

The umbilical cord is normally cut very soon after delivery. You are getting hung up on a detail of the birth process. But anyway, the change is that the baby has normal human functions that were not present in the womb: it is breathing on its own, it is feeding orally, it has normal excreation, it has vocal expression, etc. It has air on its skin, it has been seen by the unaided eye, it is beginning the process of becomming aware of the human environment in which we all live...etc.

You are arguing about details which will always be open to conflicting interpretation, and you are missing the main point here, please see post #639.

643 posted on 06/24/2003 9:36:06 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
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.

It implies no such thing. Snowflakes are as precious as the snowman.

644 posted on 06/24/2003 9:40:56 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
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.

Just because someone mentions the often-discussed stages of gestational development doesn't mean he accepts the principle that fetuses should be fair game in certain trimesters.

It only means he is open-minded enough to use familiar terms and a framework that other people are using.

I very often use the word fetus when I am discussing an unborn human being. That doesn't mean I think the fetus is not a person.

645 posted on 06/24/2003 9:45:28 AM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
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.

The moral compromise has to start somewhere. The moment someone says that an embryo is not a human being, then wholesale slaughter ensues. But that isn't how it happened is it? In America, however, they boldly jumped right over the embryo from the outset and said that 8-month old unborn babies aren't persons - a much bolder in-your-face lie. At this point in time, backtracking to claim that a "mere embryo" is not human is now much more palatable to a morally relativistic desensitized people.

646 posted on 06/24/2003 9:46:43 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
I agree with this "gestalt", but wouldn't get the same impression from a picture of a fertilized egg.

I argue this way in order to create doubt and questions in the pro-abort's mind. It's much easier to convince a blind person that something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck, and once they realize that, then the whole abortion issue, from embryo to birth, comes into question. You use your methods, I'll use mine. I don't need you to critique my methods of argumentation. I'm quite adept at it, thank you.

647 posted on 06/24/2003 9:49:07 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Semper
But anyway, the change is that the baby has normal human functions that were not present in the womb: it is breathing on its own, it is feeding orally, it has normal excreation, it has vocal expression, etc. It has air on its skin, it has been seen by the unaided eye, it is beginning the process of becomming aware of the human environment in which we all live...etc.

My son did none of these things, at least initially, yet you said it was not permissible to abort him. He did not cry, did not breathe, had no self awareness (at least nothing different than he had a moment earlier, still in utero). You're faced with a logical flaw in this case. Either you can abort him or not, and it is up to you to say why or why not.

The problem is that you have dehumanized an individual based on circumstances and attributes whose merit or non-merit is the decision of an external agency. IOW, you have removed the humanity from an individual which is clearly human in its own right. Your system of ethics seems to vest the humanity of individuals in an external agency, not within the individual him/herself.

Huamnity has been down this road before, and the result has been only rivers of blood. For if you insist subjecting the "human-ness" of individuals to narrow definitions of one sort or another, the result can only be measureless destruction. Because the scope of those narrow definitions can change at a whim, often based on who at the time has the power to do so. Only by defining humanity in the most general, complete terms, encompassing the entire sweep of human existence, from the first flicker of life to its final and irreversible extinguishing, can such a holocaust be avoided.

648 posted on 06/24/2003 9:50:23 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Five European countries - Sweden (in 1979), Finland (in 1983), Denmark (in 1985), Norway (in 1987) and Austria (in 1989) have adopted laws which prohibit parents hitting their children.

If you think that is a good thing - giving government that role - we are WAY apart in our view of human government. You seem to favor a much bigger role for government than I do - especially in deciding personal family matters. If you think we get a "free republic" with more human government, you might want to think again.

649 posted on 06/24/2003 9:53:08 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
http://www.miami-ivf.com/education/fertilitybooklet/selective_reduction.html

Nice find

The phrase "selective reduction" sounds so benign, doesn't it?

It sounds like the procedure helps fat fetuses lose weight.

It's interesting that, since abortion is legal ("a right protected by the constitution", according to NARAL), the practitioners don't call it selective abortion.

Could they be trying to hide the fact that particular "previously wanted" fetuses are not really "wanted?"

650 posted on 06/24/2003 9:56:37 AM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Sorry. I meant to politely disagree with you, not on your activist strategy, but on a seeming implication of your ethics: murder trials for lab technicians who dispose of unwanted fertilized eggs (prior to implantation).

I meant no criticism of your presentation of your convictions, but rather to challenge them, respectfully, on one point.

651 posted on 06/24/2003 9:58:07 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Semper
Of course not. We are not talking about "any act", we are talking about reproduction - forming a family.

So you agree that right and wrong do exist independent of your opinion. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in any instance if not you?

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.

Right and wrong remain right and wrong regardless of your interpretation or the govt's. Besides, the govt. is on your side in case you didn't notice! (then again, the german govt was on the side of the holocaust). Murder is wrong - period. Stealing is wrong - period. You are trying to justify killing living human beings (beating heart, brain, arms, legs, fingers, toes) and you are using nothing more than your OPINION as the basis for your position. I am not interested in your opinion - you are not your own authority when it comes to right and wrong, as wrong exists independent of your beliefs, whatever they might be. If you try to say you are not using YOURSELF as an authority, then precisely who is your authority for your beliefs? You have no authority outside of yourself. I do.

652 posted on 06/24/2003 10:01:45 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Right. "Selective abortion" describes it better than "selective reduction" - they know it would increase discomfort to call it "abortion".
653 posted on 06/24/2003 10:06:06 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
You misinterpreted my post as my moral position rather than my strategy of persuasion, which, in fact, it was. There is no one on the planet more pro-life than I am. tHE authority for my position is eternal and absolute (jer. 1:5, Ps. 139:13ff). Are we clear?
654 posted on 06/24/2003 10:07:03 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: Semper
If you think that is a good thing - giving government that role - we are WAY apart in our view of human government. You seem to favor a much bigger role for government than I do - especially in deciding personal family matters. If you think we get a "free republic" with more human government, you might want to think again.

I know what I think. Killing a human being is wrong.

You are welcome to discuss the "slippery slope of government intrusion" exactly as long as you are willing to ignore the (often painful) deaths of millions of preborn humans. Hundreds of them are dying today.

But, as for me,

After many years of going along with the "don't impose your beliefs on others" crowd, I'm not willing to play that game anymore. Their argument was a diversion and a sham. It tells me to "shut up" because I might make someone feel bad. Who should I feel sorrier for, the fetus or the human who decides to kill him?

And no one here (or anywhere) has demonstrated that the human being who is born is a different animal than the human being who is growing in a womb.

Prove that they are not the same and I could rethink my position.

655 posted on 06/24/2003 10:11:43 AM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Huamnity has been down this road before, and the result has been only rivers of blood. For if you insist subjecting the "human-ness" of individuals to narrow definitions of one sort or another, the result can only be measureless destruction. Because the scope of those narrow definitions can change at a whim, often based on who at the time has the power to do so. Only by defining humanity in the most general, complete terms, encompassing the entire sweep of human existence, from the first flicker of life to its final and irreversible extinguishing, can such a holocaust be avoided.

This reminds me of the the famous quote of Martin Niemoller: "First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Which presents the practical side of morality as enlightened self interest.

656 posted on 06/24/2003 10:17:23 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
If I'm reading the author correctly, this 'definition' of death could be stretched to include many funtioning adults who have some medical problems with one or more organs that do not work properly or at all. Does that mean we could consider them 'dead' and have them buried while they still breathe?
657 posted on 06/24/2003 10:30:39 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper
Exmarine asked you, "Does your family have the moral authority to do any act it wishes to do?"

You replied (in your chosen prevaricators mode),"Of course not. We are not talking about "any act", we are talking about reproduction - forming a family." No you're not, you gross liar, you're talking about and defending the killing of already alive children! And you keep shoving that lie like you believe it too!

Won't you be proud of yourself in this life when you succeed in confusing or deceiving some impressionable young female into hiring someone to kill the alive child within her body based on your proposed lie that killing the alive pre-born is 'reproductive', a right when deciding in god-like fashion which alive individual humans will be granted the right to continue alive in your kingdom and which will be sent to the shredder as unworthy of our omnipotent granting of the right to continue alive? Yes, you are of the ilk who would collect scalps, proud of your 'omnipotent limiting of reproduction'.

Hey, and you've got one worshipper at least, in XBob! He would toss a few alive babies on your firey idol, to appease your 'reproductive rites' because he isn't able to discern the aliveness of the unborn so they're fair game and you could probably enlist his worship, especially if you told him the toss would give him a shot at a cure for his diabetes.

And one more item, your worship, why have a woman have to go through the dangers of abortion? Why not give her the reproductive right of refusal, to terminate the crib-bound, since those little beggars are more trouble to take care of? It is a woman's, a family's right of reproduction to toss the inconvenient into the fires of Moloch or over the odd cliff or into the den of a ferocious carnivore. ... Your patina of righteous family planning is tarnished, ghoul. Killing the alive unborn little ones is not 'reproduction' nor a reproductive right. It IS a rite of child slaughter that connects you with some of the ancients, however. Aren't you proud? ... If dismembering an alive unborn child is reproductive rights, putting a fork through the brain of a crib-bound is also, because the both children are alive human beings differing only by location. Oh! Never mind ... the law says you cannot neglect a crib-bound unto starvation, so I suppose you'll have to forego the hiring of a serial killer for those nuisance whimperers in the cribs. But you can take consolation ... the SCOTUS has granted you supreme being where the unborn are concerned, so you can slaughter those as you wish in your 'reproductive rites'. Oh my! Better take care there too! There are fetal homicide laws in many states now, so you better be very careful to have not one sound that could be construed as someone wanted the inconvenient parasite, because killing the wanted babies in the womb is homicide (unlawful killing of a human being), so don't mess up your rites by ever claiming someone in the inner circle actually wanted the little blighter to continue living! [/sarcasm]

658 posted on 06/24/2003 10:34:22 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Flushing a live embryo down a sink is killing a human being just as much as chopping up a 6-month gestation baby.

Here you equate the fertilized egg with the 6 month baby in "moral preciousness."

Believing otherwise is to compromise on the definition of human being and begin the slide down the slippery slope to genocide.

Whereas here you make a distinct and non-contradictory point to appeal to those who don't see the moral preciousness of the fertilized egg.

Tell me if I follow so far.

659 posted on 06/24/2003 10:35:24 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Whereas here you make a distinct and non-contradictory point to appeal to those who don't see the moral preciousness of the fertilized egg.

Yes, I was trying to point out that the denial of personhood at ANY stage is a moral compromise and leads to genocide. It is my view that pro-abort people are generally more numb to embryo arguments as compared with 6-month unborn fetus arguments because abortion was sold to the American people on the basis that the unborn AT ANY STAGE are not human beings. So, if a person can't be convinced that the being is human at 6 months (when the appearance is human!), trying to convince them that an embryo is a human being is a hopeless task. Most people are thoroughly grounded in moral relativism and have been desensitized to the mass murder occurring all around them (just as the german people were in WWII). Deception is powerful in that the decieved do not know they are deceived.

660 posted on 06/24/2003 10:50:29 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 961-974 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson