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.

[secretagent]

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.

We can't escape having personal opinions, some less contradictory than others. I include us all in that category.

They throw caution to the wind - they favor killing without being sure that what they are killing is not a person.

They sound pretty sure that they don't see some humans as persons, at least at the fertilized egg stage of development. I agree with them that far.

But they can speak for themselves.

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.

Assuming a God that has absolute right and wrong. Of course a God might have moral relativism itself. I remain agnostic about God and its nature.

I think morality has more to it than religion or science or 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."

I don't think they "like killing unborn babies", but I haven't read each post.

[jwalsh07]

I think morality has more to it than religion or science or personal taste.

Then why is killing the innocent wrong if it profits the Mother and Father if their moral imperative is self?

[MHGinTN]

Looking at the state of humankind, without appealing to religion, may I ask you if human beings are to be made into commodities for medical exploitation? Is that acceptable to you?

[secretagent]

"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.

But the theory fails a thought experiment for me. I can't see myself finding a fertility technician guilty of murder for destroying surplus fertilized eggs.

[secretagent]

Then why is killing the innocent wrong if it profits the Mother and Father if their moral imperative is self?

Killing the innocent has wrong "built in" for me. Not sure I can explain it. It seems definitional.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Who said anything about sentient? I'm only working with what you wrote previously: My definition of an individual human being, is when he can sustain his own life with his own organs.

Do you want to reconsider your position? Because I've just given you an example of an individual human being that cannot sustain her life with her own organs, and yet you would consider it unethical to kill her.

[jwalsh07]

Killing the innocent has wrong "built in" for me. Not sure I can explain it. It seems definitional

That's the problem in a world devoid of moral absolutes. The guy next to you may think it is fine and can't explain that either.

[secretagent]

I just read your full article at freebrittannia, and want to sleep on it. Thanks!

[UnChained]

"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."

"Sentience" is not defined by those qualities. A frog will protect itself, live and reproduce much better than a human newborn. Which is more sentient do you think?

Sentience is the process of being aware of yourself being aware. It isn't dependent upon motor skills, sensory aparatus or learned responses to stimulus. It is an internal process and hard to detect perhaps but it is the primary distinguishing quality of human life.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the decency to read the essay; some on this thread have chosen to not read the essay and find fault with the premise as they image it to be proffered rather than as it is actually offered.

Allow me to take issue with something, no animosity intended :

"But the theory fails a thought experiment for me. I can't see myself finding a fertility technician guilty of murder for destroying surplus fertilized eggs." secretagent
It is important to note that first, once cell division is occurring (and that is the embryo that is frozen, the ones evidencing that they are expressing their individual aliveness with cell division, mitosis, building their own placental barrier to encapsulate and protect themselves), the technician no longer has a 'fertilized egg'. The emrbyos that are frozen have demonstrated that they are indeed alive and going through cell growth and differentiation when they are frozen; the techs wouldn't waste the energy to freeze non-living embryos. Second, if the conception and storage and destruction of human individuals in their embryo age were outlawed, the techs would stop doing that; it is only sane to not break definite laws banning certain behaviors, excpet with criminal minds, and I wouldn't even characterize in vitro techs as criminals!

Essentially, our cuture has been lulled into accepting the dehumanization of the embryonic individual human beings because in vitro fertilization was foisted as a boon to infertile couples. That many 'extra' embryos would be conceived yet not used for the pregnancy was one of the main objections of the faithful Priests and ethicists who opposed in vitro fertilization so long ago and were squelched, much the way those objecting now to cloning are being ridiculed. [The first in vitro baby was born in 1978, though artificial insemination was already a reality at that point.]

The ESCR and cloning debates are essentially about the dehumanization of the earliest age of an individual human being to be cannibalized for their utilitarian value in aiding older human beings. There are many who see nothing wrong in such cannibalism, then they adopted some form of delusion to define the embryonic individual age as 'non-human' or not human enough to protect the individuals so vulnerable because they may be cannibalized to aid older individuals deemed more human.

[kdf1]

When someone wants to kill something i is because it is alive. I have a little trouble with the petri dish issue. The preborns in the scriptures were connected in their mother's wombs. (Sex yes, babies no.. Premeditated homicide is what is really happening. Satan, Hitler, most Democrats and too many Republicans might know why this is considered good law.)

[cpforlife.org]

"Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." G.K. Chesterton

[hocndoc]

Actually, I am probably a little more on the naturalistic side for what I would bind on others and for what I would want to do for myself.I tend to believe that natural death is not a bad thing, and that sometimes we doctors go to far to intervene in natural death. I've worked with Hospice and try to find our what my patients really want, rather than what I want to do in order to prove how good a doctor I am.

And for myself, my advance directive pretty much says "stand back and do not resuscitate." But that's a personal decision and has nothing to do with abortion, cloning-to-kill-and-canibalize or the death penalty. (And, unlike my pro-life ethics, is probably only justifiable by my religious beliefs, so I wouldn't attempt to force someone else to follow my wishes by passing laws.)

Many ethicists will speak of intention and action. The intention must be a good intention and the action must be good, also. Having the intention to save some people is good, but the action and consequences may end up in more pain and suffering for the patient that allowing to die. Another problem in "saving" the non-implanted embryos or the end stage patient can be enforcing a law that makes inaction a crime.

Action may be bound by the government inaction when there is no contract or duty to act may not be bound by the government. Otherwise we are all slaves to whomever the government says we much rescue or serve or save.

[hocndoc]

Parthenogenesis does not happen in mammals in nature. In fact, it won't happen in humans and mice with out some sort of genetic micromolecular surgery that will negate the 'parthenogenesis" label more toward cloning and designer humans.

Ever read Heinlein or Bujold?

[hocndoc]

I don't know why their calling this parthenogenesis. "Male parthenotes" is an oxymoron. This is cloning or recombinant genetices. ACT is the company that has a lot of money and reputation tied up in cloning, has been trying to find a way to rename or perfume the facts about cloning and "SCNT" and now "parthenotes."

He, like the other man you quoted, is a liar. You hang out with, and seem to pattern yourself after, the wrong crowd.

[XBob]

793 - "Actually, I am probably a little more on the naturalistic side for what I would bind on others and for what I would want to do for myself.I tend to believe that natural death is not a bad thing, and that sometimes we doctors go to far to intervene in natural death. I've worked with Hospice and try to find our what my patients really want, rather than what I want to do in order to prove how good a doctor I am. "

Very thoughtful. My wife died from colon cancer at 40, and I had to standby and watch, helplessly, as the doctors tried heroic measures, until she was essentially hollow inside, and in great pain.

She made peace with her god, and she said please, let me go. Helplessly, I had to agree. And for me, it was devistating, here I was the husband, the protector, and I could do nothing, I was powerless to help her live. I was powerless to protect her.

I was left with an empty hollow feeling and an empty bank account (It cost $250,000 for her to die). I have recovered from neither.

Would I trade a few amorphous cells for her life - absolutely, in a New York second. She is irreplacable, and her life and experiences and contributions are also irreplacable. New zygotes are formed every day.

I am dumbfounded that so many religious zealots think that is without value.

I know that there are others who face the same quandries we faced. And I see a bunch of hypocrical fools on this thread who would dictate to us that their god thinks a cure for cancer, which could come from embryonic stem cell research, should be banned because of their religious beliefs.

And so far they (meaning youall on this thread) have been successful, banning this research (headed by president Bush), and condemning millions of sentient people to this horrendous experience. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Youall have a very cruel religion and a very cruel god, which I find no proof exists. And youall blithely discard living 'people' (at least according to your beliefs) nearly every month, while calling me a murder for not believing that an embryo is a 'person' or that it has equal value to my wife.

[XBob]

793 - PS - I am an ex-military man, who has been engaged in war, and sent men to their deaths (I have saved numbers of them too). I know that not all can live, and some casualties must be expected. And generally in a war, those casualties are the youngest and least experienced.

I also know that if we try to save everyone, and not lose a single soldier, we lose the war.

[XBob]

794 - obviously, with only 7 cases of documented parthenogenis among billions of humans, it is not 'normal'. And it was a long time ago (in the 60's), when our knowledge of DNA and RNA was much more limited. However, they were supposedly 7 documented 'virgin' births, around the world, and all were female, and were apparently twins of their mothers.

Perhaps today, with our much greater knowledge of DNA, they be proved not to be in fact products of parthenogensis. In my dual minors in college (chemistry and biology), my emphasis was more on chemistry than biology.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

"All that openeth the matrix is mine"

[XBob]

794 - "Ever read Heinlein or Bujold?"

I read a lot of Science fiction in the 60's and 70's, and Heinlein was one of my favorites, but now the stories and authors have mostly run together in my mind, and Azimov, with his 'Foundation' and some of his short stories is the only author who stands out. It is amazing how much he predicted, even in the early 50's, which has come true.

I remember when he perfectly described the electronic calculator (3"x5", steel grey in color, with entry keys and glowing red numerals) in a short story written in 1952. He called it an 'electronic slide rule'.