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]

836 - What really gets me is that the gigantic majority of my oponents, like 99.5%, take a position which imposes the cost of no research/no cure for super disabling diseases on me and millions like me, who have terminal illnesses. In all these arguments, I have only run accross one post from one 'person' several years ago, who said that even though he has one of these terminal diseases, he would not trade the 'life' of an embryo for his own.

Their beliefs demand that no stem cell reasearch be done on life which began living eons ago (sperm and egg are alive).

They think they can skip merrily away, with no 'responsibility', as they are not 'knowingly' killing their definition of a 'person', by failing to recognize it as a 'person' - just like 'manslaughter'.

I, and all those like me and my wife, and our children, must pay the price for their beliefs, and they get to blame us for disagreeing with their beliefs.

This makes me really mad.

LIFE DIDN'T BEGIN AT CONCEPTION. IT BEGAN EONS AGO.

And trying to pinpoint when the life of a 'person' began is like trying to nail jello to the wall. At this point, it is impossible to determine, except that it was a billion years ago or so.

So, since it is currently impossible to determine, our 'faith' is all we have, and the cost of that should not be 'escaped' by those who wish to impose it.

For thousands of years it has been the concensus of societies that a 'person' is defined by 'birth'.

[XBob]

40 - Just at what stage of the 'life' of a 'person', do you think manslaughter punishment be imposed, at 'conception', at 'birth', when you 'pull the plug', somewhere in between?

[XBob]

840 - "Didn't fit with the dissembling?"

You are overly quick to call others 'liars',particularly when you continually practice ducking questions, whose obvious answers would not support your thesis.

[MHGinTN]

XBob, you don't know what you're talking about most of your posts and it shows, yet you continue to make a fool of yourself because your bitterness will not be squelched ... For thousands of years it has been the concensus of societies that a 'person' is defined by 'birth'. XBob Even you, bitter little man, have heard of the term 'quickening'. Because of your irrational ramblings, I, for one, will not give you any further attention.

[XBob]

844 -

Dear 'quickening' - (same as a person? - my 'irrational rambling' question - just what society legally defines a fertilized egg as a 'person'?

That question should be simple enough even for you - who cant seem to figure out the penalties which should be imposed for disagreeing with his views.

[secretagent]

What you've quoted is the set up to her further assertion which you choose to disagree with so you dishonestly offer the set up without the 'cure' ... why not quote her more fully?

Sorry, I didn't state my intent: to quote a clear statement of the honest disagreements. I admire her writing and yours.

I meant the quote as an appetizer. I know she disagrees with my position.

Her "setup" makes her piece exciting, encouraging all parties interested in the issue to read further in her article.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you. There is currently a thread still up in the FR section (right hand margin titles) titled 'Cannibalism and Human Cloning' that you might find interesting, from one of our FR physicians.

[MHGinTN]

Actually, the title is 'Cloning and HUman Farming' ... doing so much research I'm starting to get my articles jumbled.

[secretagent]

What really gets me is that the gigantic majority of my oponents, like 99.5%, take a position which imposes the cost of no research/no cure for super disabling diseases on me and millions like me, who have terminal illnesses.

That explains your animus a bit, I guess. It has no bearing for me on where to fix legal personhood, and I assume you agree it has no bearing for you as well.

In all these arguments, I have only run accross one post from one 'person' several years ago, who said that even though he has one of these terminal diseases, he would not trade the 'life' of an embryo for his own.

Another acid test for a one's own definition of person: The point at which one would not trade their life for ours.

For thousands of years it has been the concensus of societies that a 'person' is defined by 'birth'.

Not so sure about that:

"Infanticide (the murder of newborn babies) was universally practiced by virtually every culture we know about. Why were babies killed?

Typical reasons were: * Population control * Sex selection (which always meant killing newborn girls) * Ridding society of potentially burdensome or deformed members.

Source: "The Jewish Impact on Civilization"

Perceptions of a legal person have changed, and can change again. I don't want to regress to Roman times.

Recognizing a person at birth - easy for all cultures of the most primitive technology. If the older civilizations had ultra-sound, they might have recognized personhood at some stage of development in the womb.

We could use consensus and tradition as the proper kind of "argument from authority" - use caution before making sweeping changes, and make them piecemeal where possible. But sometimes change makes sense, like banning infanticide.

[secretagent]

Sorry, I can't find the article.

[MHGinTN]

Try this link, if my html is sound.

[secretagent]

Got it. Thanks!

[XBob]

836 - "But prosecution aside, one's own conscience would seem to require screening, assuming that current technology can save the conceptus - if we agree on post-conception personhood."

This is why I declare those who want to confer 'personhood' status on fertilized eggs, HYPOCRITS.

They have nothing invested, and wish to inflict more pain and agony on millions of others, who actually are damaged from lack of cures which could be developed from stem cells.

Please note this MHGinTN. You have nothing invested. Do You really enjoy condemning millions of people to deadly diseases? Heart Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, etc.

Ah, but MHGinTN, you have already benefited from what you condemn, if you have been had a vaccine developed using human embryos. I think the polio vaccine was one of the many developed this way.

I doubt seriously I will ever see anything to cure my problems, but if I can help prevent the suffereing of others and future suffering, I wish to do it.

Every day MHGinTN and his ilk delay development of cures means hundreds of thousands of new people suffering, and millions continuing to suffer, who could be cured.

[secretagent]

They have nothing invested, and wish to inflict more pain and agony on millions of others, who actually are damaged from lack of cures which could be developed from stem cells.

I really don't think so, and don't know where you get that.

[exmarine]

I'm still waiting for you to give me a source for morality other than God or man.

[exmarine]

What do youall think - of where your arguments lead?

What is that creature being killed in the womb? Still can't answer, can you?

When does that creature become a person - at what stage of gestation? Your silence is deafening on these questions.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

But, if there is a burning building and there are many pregnant women inside , the firemen rush inside to save the women. And if one of the women dies and the infant can be saved, they do it. They don't just let the fetus die with the mother. Hmmm.. interesting debate.

In social work classes we were taught that an acorn is not a tree. IT ONLY has the potential of being a tree. Acorns and petri dishes are just another attempt to disguise the fact that we are talking about human life here.

It is not a choice,it is a baby.

[MHGinTN]

Well and truly stated. Each embryo, no matter where conceived, is the earliest age of an individual human being. To harvest these beings for their body parts in order to treat illness or malady is the insidious camel's cannibalism nose under the tent. The nose is attached to a camel though, and the dehumanization wouldn't stop there. I'm convinced that artificial insemination led to in vitro fertilization and the further dehumanization of the earliest ages of individual human beings, so that now science is encouraging the society to demand conception, life support, then harvesting of embryonic individuals, to obtain their body parts for research and medical application. Of course, 42,000,000 slaughtered preborn human beings on the altar of convenience and expedience during the last thirty years has done an enormous amount to dehuamnize the preborn, also.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I did go the artificial insemination route.. I drew the line at in vitro. I was lucky because I had a son nonetheless. I can understand the desperation caused by infertitltiy. That being said I would not go the in vitro route because I felt like I would always think I had babies laying around. I was lucky I never even had to make that decession. My son , a gift directly from God's hands, has just one brother and he lives here with us as well.

[XBob]

At this point, perhaps they don't 'want' to, but they purposely avoid seeing the results. It is like saying, you must not ever go into war, someone might get killed.