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.
Personhood, in the legal sense, derives from the opinions of individuals.
Exactly! XBob and Semper merely have personal "opinions" or "guesses" as to when the unborn become persons. Therefore, they are advocating the killing of the unborn without any moral or scientific certainty whatsoever that what they are killing is not a person. They throw caution to the wind - they favor killing without being sure that what they are killing is not a person. Moral relativism! It's really a spiritual problem - if there's no God, then there is no absolute right and wrong; and if there's no absolute right and wrong, then people simply do what they want - morals are a matter of personal taste. XBob and Semper have a taste for killing babies. Their attitude is: "Killing unborn babies may be wrong to you, but it isn't wrong to me" or "I like vanilla, you like chocolate, you like feeding the poor, I like killing unborn babies."
Do I detect some anti-Christian bigotry here (big surprise!). All human beings are hypocrites, and all need a Savior to save them from certain judgment of the living God - even you.
We may not see any moral harm done to the fertilized egg itself in its destruction. But we may still want to call it a "person" for in a strategy of protecting real persons.
We see the danger to real persons, even those outside the womb that pro-choicers see as persons, in too many "pick a person points" on the slippery slope.
The pro-lifers (I include myself as partly pro-life), have started a perception shift in society concerning personhood. Finding the next bright line seems too hard to agree on, hence some pro-lifers picking conception. That umbrella certainly protects all persons, and saves time and resources.
I think there is ample scientific evidence for that choice as well as being logically and ethically defensible. Appropriate and reasonable application of Occam's Razor leads us to that point anyway.
If you did an unofficial survey of your friends and family, to see how many actually realize that the embryo builds its own placenta, that the mother doesn't build the placenta nor the other tissues and organs of the individual in utero ... if you did such a survey, I would bet the number of persons you could find who know the actual scientific facts would be less than ten percent.
The original purpose of this essay (I have this on good authority, that the author intended this) was to connect the meaning of the protocol defining 'aliveness' when contemplating organ harvesting, to the advent of individual human life, to show the embryo fits the protocol standard for 'aliveness' as an integrated functioning whole organism and is thus as much a human being as one being considered for organ harvesting but who evidences the standards for still being an alive individual and thus not to be harvested from. How do you feel about that notion?
It's an important point since mindless pro-aborts are constantly spewing the "fingernail" argument for DNA. The difference is that fingernails never become anything more than fingernails. Embryos become people - if left unmolested by the nefarious destructors.
Every time someone chooses abortion to end their inconvenience, or to set aside responsibility for their behaviors, or to avoid the consequences of earlier choice, that person affirms the truth that the earliest age of a human being's lifetime is connected inextricably to later ages unless purposed termination is done ... unless they kill the vulnerable early aged individual human being, that being will reach the later ages of its lifetime. THAT is the truth of abortion thinking! They know the truth but choose to believe a lie or a field of lies because the lie(s) serve their selfish ends. Sadly, their selfishness relies on killing of an already alive very young individual human being to serve their older liberty.
The promoters and champions of the abortion holocaust must seek to cancel the truth in order to enlist others to their castle of lies. That's why they use terms like 'reproductive rights', at once foisting the lie that an already alive individual human being is of less human value than an older human being. It's all about 'choice' all right, the choice to believe and further lies for the convenience of killing to avoid consequences. The reason the abortion champions are seeking earlier and earlier ways to guarantee the kill is directly related to the truth they know down deep, that an individual human being begins their lifetime at conception and that if someone doesn't purposely kill that individual early on, the natural later ages of the individual's lifetime will very likely come about.
Yes, of course, except that I am not sure that most of the baby killers care what stage they kill them at.
This is America - I say what I want to say. This isn't Iran. It is because of Christian moral principles that we have this freedom of speech.
The reason Allah doesn't exist is because he can be traced back to a 7th century moon god. Allah is nothing more than the moon god Al-Ilah, who was chief God in a pantheon of 300 gods in arabia at that time. Don't read what muslims say - read what the archeologists say.
Logic is another reason. The Law of Contradiction does not allow that both the Christian God and muslim God can be real at the same time because they are two different gods, yet both claim there is only one God. Logical rules apply. So, one has only to determine which faith has the best evidence. That's a no brainer for anyone who has looked at it objectively.
Can 1.2 billion people be wrong? Of course. The majority is frequently wrong on many things. For example, a sizeable number of people believe it's okay to kill the unborn, but they are wrong.
An unattached embryo that falls out of the woman is not purposeful events that happens as the result of the willful act of the woman, and the woman isn't even aware it happens! So, stop your evasive lies and moronic replies and answer the question directly. I repeat:
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.
Actually, you are not able to answer the question! Here is a fact that you cannot deny or refute: YOU DON'T KNOW AND CAN'T SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHEN THE LIVING BEING BECOMES A PERSON! YET YOU WANT TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO KILL IT ANYWAY! Refute that you Nazi liar.
End the life of the embryo and you may presume you've ended the later ages of that individual's lifetime (and that is EXACTLY what the serial killer supporters presume they have a right to do, kill the very young to avoid the young growing into their natural later ages) ... else why do the pro-baby-slaughter advocates want to 'get them as early as possible'?
Every time someone chooses abortion to end their inconvenience, or to set aside responsibility for their behaviors, or to avoid the consequences of earlier choice, that person affirms the truth that the earliest age of a human being's lifetime is connected inextricably to later ages unless purposed termination is done (purposeful killing is done) ... unless they kill the vulnerable early aged individual human being, that being will reach the later ages of its lifetime. THAT is the truth of abortion thinking! They know the truth but choose to believe a lie or a field of lies because the lie(s) serves their selfish ends. Sadly, their selfishness relies on killing of an already alive very young individual human being to serve their older liberty.
The promoters and champions of the abortion holocaust must seek to cancel the truth in order to enlist others to their putrified castle of lies. That's why they use terms like 'reproductive rights', at once foisting the lie that an already alive but very young individual human being is of less human value than an older human being, foisting the lie that killing alive young is soemhow reproductive and to be viewed as a valid choice!
It's all about 'choice' all right, the choice to believe and further lies for the convenience of killing to avoid consequences. The reason the abortion champions are seeking earlier and earlier ways to guarantee the kill is directly related to the truth they know down deep, that an individual human being begins their lifetime at conception and if someone doesn't purposely kill that individual early on, the natural later ages of the individual's lifetime will very likely come about.
None. First, you can't see an embryo with the naked eye so how do you stop it or even know it's coming? Second and most importantly, it is not caused by an act of the human will as abortion is. If I die of a heart attack, should they charge my wife with murder because she is there and could not stop it? Stop with the moronic questions. In your case, you advocate the purposeful and WILLFUL stopping of the beating heart of a gestating infant and then butcher it alive! That is a callous and willful act. When does the being become a person? Answer the question. And you still haven't answered the question as to "what the creature is". What is it you are killing? You can't answer any questions because you are WRONG.
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.