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.

[hocndoc]

You're wrong. The human being is a member of the species homo sapiens, at all stages of development. Any distinction which allows one human to enslave or kill or steal from or harm another is discrimination.

[Proud2BAmerican]

My definition of an individual human being, is when he can sustain his own life with his own organs.

And when an individual human being can no longer sustain his own life with his own organs, he ceases to be living? (i.e., someone hooked up to a machine, or who lives w/ the aid of some sort of mechanical device). Involuntary euthansia OK in your book?

[hocndoc]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled When Is Human Life A Human Being?, XBob wrote: 564 - "I could if I chose to. If you will wait 20 or 30 years for the oak to grow"

I hate to use this example, but "it depends on the meaning of what is, is".



There we have it: you quote a liar to make your point, because it's the best argument you have.

[Proud2BAmerican]

My apologies -- I'm sure my response to you has been posted several times over by now (I just noticed the thread count is up to 720).

[XBob]

to paraphrase you in 717 - "When you declare that a zygote or embryo or fetus is not a person, you simply state your personal discriminatory opinion."

[XBob]

720 - "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."

Well now, how come you can be arrested for manslaughter "child neglect"?

[XBob]

722 - "Involuntary euthansia OK in your book?"

Yes, and I have a 'living will' just so there won't be any confusion, like there is on this thread.

[jethropalerobber]

However, I go beyond the first 'human being' for that initiation of life, to the initiation of all life, and that 'human beings' are just one branch on that 'tree of life'.

actually, i see it the same way. but i think there is a rule against bringing up evolution in an abortion thread as it could crash the server. :^)

[XBob]

719 - "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. "

So you do believe in 'extraordinary' measures to prevent the death of a child? I thought not, from your opinions.

And you believe that an embryo is a 'child'.

So, that means you should believe in 'extraordinary' measures to save your own 'children', or is that too much 'trouble'?

[XBob]

not really. I figured somebody would pick up on it.

But now I understand that work, time and effort, and growth have no value in your book, for building a desk. but are too much trouble for 'saving' a 'child'.

[Proud2BAmerican]

So, say my mother is paralyzed but conscious, able to communicate, but can't "sustain her own life with her own organs" -- you wouldn't see any moral infraction if I were to put a bullet in her head, even though she's screaming as loud as she can for me to stop? You don't think that would be murder?

[chimera]

My point was that while what we perceive or don't perceive with our senses might affect our outlook, it doesn't change the reality. Vesting another's humanity in the perceptions of an external agency is a prescription for bloodshed on an unprecendented scale. Where humanity has trod this road there has been nothing but massacre after massacre, holocaust after holocaust. My concern with the pro-abortion position is that it establishes, as a point of law, the ability of one person to do anyway with another simply as a matter of preference. This runs contrary to almost all ethical and moral precepts, and turns back the clock on thousands of years of ethical reasoning.

[exmarine]

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

I used the term "Dr. Mengele" as a metaphor for an abortion doctor. The question is: What is that creature that is butchered in the womb by the abortionist? Now that you are clear on the question, you can answer it.

[exmarine]

How many fertilized eggs has she flushed?

What is that creature in the womb? Either answer the question or take a hike.

[hispanarepublicana]

I've always heard that no matter what the ethicists, theologists, or abortionists come up with, LIFE REALLY DOESN'T BEGIN until all your kids leave home and the family dog dies.

[exmarine]

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'.

This is just plain embicilic. I can see you have no real arguments. I don't know why anyone even takes you seriously. You won't win any debates, that's for sure.

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?

What is the creature in the womb that you want to butcher?

[exmarine]

well, I would call it a fetus, not a baby (which is born) and not a 'person'.

I'm not asking you what you would call it - "fetus" is merely a medical terms that refers to the unborn human species. So, are you saying it's a human being? I'm asking you what it is. What is it? Now, just when did that fetus become a 'person'? Remember, you are using the argument of the beard here.

You just trapped yourself with your own stupid question. That is a question for you, not me. You already know (unless your daft) that I don't believe the being in the womb ever "becomes" a person - but YOU DO! (I believe it is a person from conception). So, YOU need to TELL ME when that being becomes a person. At what stage in gestation? If you can't tell me authoritatively when it becomes a person, then you most certainly do not have the moral authority to kill it because you cannot be sure you are not killing a person. Or is it that you don't care if you don't know because you like killing? Oh, and when you answer, you can also tell me precisely what moral or scientific authority (other than your own arbitrary corrupt mind) you are using to make your claim.

[exmarine]

So now you are judging the church, and morals of other god believers. Where does your authority for that come from?

The bible (Word of God) itself judges the actions of these churches. What authority do you have other than your own brain?

[exmarine]

Can I cite the Koran as reason/authority for killing you, as an infadel? The authority is there, is it not?

My post wasn't directed at you. I know you are a god-hating reprobate. And I really don't care what you think of the bible or my God. You are totally ignorant in this area.

[exmarine]

So, exmarine - you believe the muslims are right, because they have the authority of allah and the authority of the koran. And they believe many of your beliefs are wrong. I get it. Those in power have the authority, so might makes it right.

I can see that your religious IQ is at the level of plankton. Allah doesn't exist.