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.

[XBob]

677 - "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."

Interesting, sort of like what my brother said when his children became 'people', little individuals, and not just crying poop machines.

[XBob]

679 - "So, because it looks like a baby, then dolls are human?

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."

===

Your argument was that if it looks like a baby, it must be a baby. So I countered with a doll, 'looks like a baby'.

As far as the bird goes, there is one stage of gestation, where the fetus looks like a bird, and we eat birds. So, is it a bird? Would you eat it, because it looks like a bird?

[XBob]

680 - "My wife has never had an abortion"

How many fertilized eggs has she flushed?

[XBob]

683 - "Just answer the question! What is that creature being butchered???"

i haven't got a clue. wasn't mengele a nazi doctor?

[MHGinTN]

"i haven't got a clue." XBob Phew! I had nearly losy hope that you were still sane, but your admission has renewed my faith. Thank you so much for stepping out of your 'over-the-topism' cocoon long enough to tell us the truth at least once.

[XBob]

685 - "You are really ignorant. You think a fetus is "a single cell" and you equate natural and unpreventable miscarriage with intentional abortion. You need to take a biology class."

so then a fetus is different from a fertilized egg. please tell everybody here that. and that implant failure is not a miscarrage. i wish youall would get your s... together. we keep giving all these different definitions of 'people' to deal with.

[secretagent]

Interesting, sort of like what my brother said when his children became 'people', little individuals, and not just crying poop machines.

Another approach: determine when one feels empathy for the creature facing destruction.

[XBob]

689 - you wrote in 637 - "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 so 'magical' about two cells combining, or dividing, for that matter. it happens all the time.

[chimera]

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.

Visual perception is a dangerous basis upon which to rest your system of ethics regarding the life or death of individuals. Clearly what you see or can't (won't) see changes nothing about the individual being seen or not seen. Remember, the Nazis could look at a full-grown person of the Jewish faith and not "see" a person, but a subhuman, in their minds.

What if you couldn't see the individual at all, 26 weeks or otherwise? Would that change the reality of the person?

But, I think, intentionally or not, you may have swerved into the reason why those who find abortion acceptable do so. And, if pro-abortion people are intellectually honest, they will admit it, at least to themselves. And the reason is this: you don't see it. You don't witness the tiny body being torn asunder, you don't see the blood and guts being spilled, you don't hear the soundless screams of agony. The bloody deed is done silently, hidden from view, where those who support such butchery don't have to witness the results of their handiwork. Why do you think people find pictures of the results of abortion so offensive? It is because, deep down, they know the reality of the bloody deed, but have deluded themselves into thinking it doesn't matter, because they don't see it. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, it does matter, and we as a people had better have the intellectual courage to face the truth, or have the blood of millions on our collective hands, now and in the future.

One reason I changed from pro-abortion to pro-life many, many years ago was partly because of an honest facing up to the reality of what I was advocating. That, and the moral indefensibilty of the act, based on facts of science and logic and reason.

[Hank Kerchief]

I shall prefer to believe that of you, rather than believe you would stoop so low as to try this deceit to 'win at any cost'...

What do you think I'm trying to win? Whom do you think I am trying to deceive? I'm not even trying to convince anyone. I learned long ago, you cannot change people, and only fools waste their time in that useless effort.

I'm just stating my views, and asking questions. Believe what you like, it will make no difference to me. It will make a huge difference to you, however.

I'm sorry you can only see things as some kind of contest or battle to be won. There is only one prize reason has to offer, and that is the truth, but truth is only a prize to those who are willing to live according to it in everything.

Hank

[secretagent]

I agree that one can't rest one's ethics upon the senses, but it still has a role.

You illustrate, ahem, my point with your word pictures of abortion. Most pro-choicers prefer not to see those pictures and will go great lengths to get away from those pictures. They see a dismembered person, I assume, and that bothers them.

For that same reason the Nazis shipped the Jews off to the "work camps" and "relocation centers" - out of view of the vast majority of Germany. For all the propaganda, most Germans couldn't really see the Jews as total "non-persons". Or even the "enemy" in its full sense.

(I have this association just now of "taking leave of one's senses" and "moral disintegration".One reason I changed from pro-abortion to pro-life many, many years ago was partly because of an honest facing up to the reality of what I was advocating.

I think of the pictures.

That, and the moral indefensibilty of the act, based on facts of science and logic and reason.

The senses and reason and culture come together into a "moral gestalt".

And so far, I don't have even a hint of perception of the fertilized egg as a person. A picture of a ruined egg wouldn't bother me.

Along with pictures, I think of actions as a kind of summing up. For example, a thought experiment with me sitting as juror doesn't end with me finding a fertility clinician guilty of murder for incinerating surplus fertilized eggs.

I can understand a reason for such a law, that we need the insurance against dehumanization of real persons. I don't buy it, but can understand it.

I haven't had the ethical perception shift yet, where I see a person in the egg, worthy of defense for its sake.

[XBob]

what crap. the gametes are made up of their parents' components, genetics, dna, protoplasm, cytoplasm, etc. therefore, THEY ARE THEIR PARENTS, NOT NEW LIFE. Just extensions of their parents' lives.

they bring nothing new, they just expand on what already is, in a different form.

you pious hypocrits raised holy hell with me when I made the brick-house analogy. well, I make it again.

there is no 'new' life, just life in a different form. there is no new brick, just brick in a different form.

[XBob]

690 - "You see, Bob, the placental cell barrier is constructed by the embryo, not the mother. "

You see, MHG, the sperm SWAM into the egg,just as the sperm and egg constructed the placenta. And the egg opened for the sperm, just as a woman opens her legs for a man.

NOTHING NEW IS CREATED. OLD IS JUST REARRANGED !!!!

[XBob]

690 - EVERY COMPONENT OF THE FERTILIZED EGG WAS PRESENT IN THE PARENTS (except for mutations).

AND JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF YOU HOLIER THAN THOU HIPPOCRITS HAS FLUSHED THOSE CIOMPONENTS DOWN THE DRAIN, YET NONE WILL ADMIT IT.

[XBob]

695 - "We should stop killing unborn humans until we can be certain that we aren't killing sentient beings. "

So you are saying that a single celled embryo is more 'sentient' than a pig, or a cow, or any other animal we kill and eat?

Can't buy that as a reason. In fact, I would say, if that is your definition, that a single cell bacteria is more 'sentient' than a zygote, as it will protect itself, live and reproduce much better than a human zygote.

[jethropalerobber]

And everyone of us has no true rights, only privileges bestowed by whatever might they can muster.

bingo. welcome to the real world.

[hocndoc]

I haven't destroyed any of my children.
In the case of elective abortion and cloning-to-kill-for-research, the actions are deliberate, planned, intentional killing. They are not analogous to natural death in any way.
As far as who can operate on me, you are describing a function, not the species, or what the person *is.*
When you declare that a zygote or embryo or fetus is not a person, you simply state your personal discriminatory opinion.

[hocndoc]

You show your lack of knowledge as well as your bias against some humans when you repeat this ridiculous question.
The embryos that do no implant are dead or dying when passed, otherwise, the fertility docs would try again with the same embryo when implantation after in vitro fertilization fails.

[hocndoc]

There is a big difference between "save" as in futile and extraordinary measures to prevent the death of an embryo that is dead or dying and "save" as in not using intentional, purposeful actions to cause death.

Once again, elective abortion and clone-to-kill are not in any way comparable to natural death.

[hocndoc]

There is no way that the embryo that fails to implant and is dead or dying when passed is analogous to the embryo or fetus that is purposefully and intentionally killed.