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.
Bravo! This is the heart of the matter. Abortion is an ACT of murder, not reproduction. Semper is a moral relativist who uses himself as his own moral authority on all matters, as are virtually ALL pro-aborts.
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them. (Ps. 139:13-17)
and-
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer 1:5)
Clearly, in God's eyes, we are created as persons in His image from even BEFORE conception. So, tell me, what is YOUR moral authority for your position, other than yourself wherein you play God and decide what is right and wrong according to your desires and whims?
You went on to assert, "You seem to believe that the government should require everyone to act as you deem right; [Actually, it is you and your ghoulish ilk who are trying to establish what you deem right, even though it is opposite what the truth is, what science has verified repeatedly, and upon which many prenatal tests have been based, namely that every individual alive individual human being went through several ages on their way to neonatal age ... and they were the exact same individual HUMAN BEING in every one of these separate ages that you now want to dehumanize so that your chosen exploitation may be legal, regardless of whether it is right or moral, because you claim this rite of salughter as your right based on your disagreement over the truth you wish to reject.]
And you proved your desire to establish your belief system regardless of efficacy or moral correctness (moral doesn't mean religious, doofus) with the following pontification:"I do not believe the government should be deciding this particular matter." [Tell me, demigod, when the law reads opposite what you want, do you obey the law anyway? ... Or are you in fact the final authority and only want the law to come into agreement with your desires, want the law to reflect your beliefs regardless of the vast agreement in science regarding the unborn? Your spin on this will be interesting to read, in fact, clintonesque I would predict.]
What concerns me about the pro-abortion position, in addition to the tens of millions of innocents slaughtered for no morally defensible reason, is that the principle has been established whereby dehumanization is possible for a specified group of individuals, and it is founded mainly on arbitrary and indefensible (logically and ethically) bases. The alternative for a pro-abort is to say that while we aren't dehumanizing these individuals, we are sanctioning their deaths, in a most horrible manner at that, for reasons which are starkly different (and unjustifiable) than any others which society uses to sanction the death of an individual.
Once God is cast aside and people make themselves the ultimate moral authority, bad things always happen. Another good case in point is Robespierre who presided over the beheadings of thousands in the French Revolution only to be executed himself. "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint" Prov. 28:19
I agree wholeheartedly. Moral relativism is nothing new - in the 1960s it re-emerged under the slogan - "if it feels good do it," and the scourge of narcissistic hedonism was unleashed on America. Roev.Wade is a direct result of that hedonism. Like you say, babies were sacrified to the idol Molech in the OT, today they are sacrificed to the god of pleasure and the god of convenience. It is indeed ghoulish to say the least. I believe that the problem for the church is that most churches have abandoned the Word of God as the ultimate authority for moral law and, as a result, the moral relativism of the world has crept in. Many so-called Christians operate on their own authority or have adopted worldly standards of morals. Just look at the ordination of gay clergy, or the sanctioning of gay marriages within mainline churches, or at the molestation of children by so-called priests and how their superiors protect them at the expense of the innocents. Jesus Christ said, "you will know them by their fruit" and the majority of churches in the West today wreak of rotten fruit.
Thanks.
But I'm not asking you about zygotes, I'm asking you about the being that is butchered in the womb, say, at 5 months (not yet viable) and extracted in pieces (leg here, arm there, head there, torso there). What is that creature being butchered? Is it a frog? A bird? What is it? You tell me what it is.
I think pro-choicers (I include myself) rest upon a non-recognition of "personhood" - at some point after conception up to some point of development. It seems to me that the recognition of personhood has a great deal of sensory "gestalt" to it, at least it does for me.
That is, I see a "person" in a picture of a, say, 26 month old, that I don't in a picture of a fertilized egg.
This answer is just plain stupid. Don't you think before you type? Dolls don't have beating hearts and functioning brains and aren't alive. Is that what you think the unborn are - inanimate objects?
So, if it looks like a bird it is a bird? Would you eat it when it looks like a bird, complete with beak and tail?
More nonsense. Are babies food now? Are they birds? Your comparisons are ludicrous. I am beginning to think that you are detached from reality.
And what right do you have to impose your religion and your god on others. I lived in theocracies in the mid-east for numbers of years. It is really bad when religion and government are the same, which is what you are trying to do, make us a theocracy.
Stopping people from murdering human beings is a form of religion to you? Is murder wrong or is it a personal preference? What right do you have to take a human life? NONE. Just who or what is your moral authority for saying that you do have the right to kill the unborn? GIVE ME A NAME. It's YOURSELF isn't it! That makes you a moral relativist. Morals and rights are nothing more than personal preference to you - Mr. Relativist. Psychiatrists have a label for people who make up their own moral rules - psychopath. To you, deciding to kill a baby is no more important than deciding on chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Abortion is an acquired taste...I like vanilla, you like chocolate, I like feeding the poor, you like torturing babies. It's all the same in your warped little world.
Another nonsensical reply. My wife has never had an abortion. Have you?
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.