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.
You didn't help yourself here. You only have more questions to answer. You say that cultures decide morals (therefore, the source is MAN since cultures are made up of men and women). So, you are left with this logical conclusion: Since Hitler believed he was right in slaughtering 6 million jews (his culture believed he was), then he was right! And since the Aztecs believed human sacrifice was good, it was good! The culture decided what is right and wrong. Secondly, if cultures decide morals, then there is no way to adjudicate right and wrong when two cultures have different morals - might makes right in that case. In addition, feminists cannot say that female circumcision in Egypt is wrong, and Mao wasn't wrong is killing 20 million people in the cultural revolution - it was HIS culture after all. Thirdly, there is no moral force in telling someone something is right or wrong because the culture says it is - that is no more than political correctness wherein the State or culture appoints itself as highest moral authority. I scoff at such folly. Morality is a personal matter governed by the "sense of ought" which all people have. It seems your moral model leaves alot to be desired.
Now, in addition, to help you a little bit more, at this point, I believe that is most likely that man 'invented' god, to fulfil an innate need for a 'father'. (do a google search for the 'god gene'. So, even if you attribute 'morals' to god, if man invented god, then man invented morals too.
There is no "god gene" and there is no "morality gene" - this is nothing more than junk science predicated upon presuppositional biases, with zero empirical basis. There is ZERO empirical evidence to show that morals are inherited. However, if you say that, then you must also believe that our brains are the source of all our thoughts - even YOURS. I suppose that makes it a faith statement, doesn't it? Moreover, you can't exempt yourself from your little theory, in that your theory itself must also be the result of irrational forces inside your materialistic brain (just like my morals are). So, why do your mental atoms have any more meaning than mine? Matter in motion can have no intrinsic meaning. I can see you are new at this. You just refuted your own argument in case you didn't notice. Care to continue on this tack?
Have you sent food to a starving family today?
I've already done reading on this and I already know its a bunch of B.S. As I said, and you ignored it, if my thoughts are matter in motion, SO ARE YOURS and so are the the theories of the authors on the morality gene. This is called "Materialism" and its a dead philosophy. It's self-refuting. The atheist materialist scientist cannot exempt his own thoughts from his theories. Are we to suppose that my thoughts and feelings about God are the result of irrational forces (colliding mental atoms), but those of the idiot scientist are not? So, the more you press this, the more I am going to tell you that your thoughts on the matter are meaningless - why should I pay attention to your mental atoms?
As I said, there is no morality gene and there is zero empirical evidence for it - it's a mere theory based on the unscientific biases of the scientists. Egad! Scientists are biased??
Ah, you admit it, that your moral model comes from man.
Haha. You are confused about the difference between a person's moral motions and absolute moral principles. My moral motions are my own, but absolute moral principles come from God (see the 10 commandments). I have a free will as to whether I will obey those absolute moral precepts. Morals are either absolute (flow directly from God) or relative (invented by man) - which is it? You say they are relative, and I am showing you how illogical and unworkable that is in light of human experience and intuition.
Who makes the moral rules? You say it is culture (man), and I showed you how lame and illogical that is. You could not provide any logical argument as to why Hitler's germany would be wrong under your system. If culture invents the moral precepts, then each and every culture is right! There is no way around it. You can't wiggle out of this one.
Where did you get this wakko idea. I said 'morals are invented by man' and vary significantly.
Haha. You are the one who is whacko - you can't even defend your own moral system. If morals come from culture, they are indeed invented by man and vary significantly - that's the problem! You can't even see the flaws in your own logic! Are you blind? If cultures invent moral rules, then Hitler can't be wrong! The german culture said that jews are subhuman and should be eliminated. Tell me how the german can be wrong in your system. You can't!
Morals are, period.
How eloquent. I am going to force you to either make sense of your moral system or abandon the argument.
Morals are what are acceptable behaviour one must have to be accepted in a particular culture.
This is nothing more than political correctness and mindless submission. You would fit right in in Nazi Germany - they were real good at submitting to the nazi morals.
Posted on 07/01/2003 10:28 AM EDT by scouse
Amniotic fluid may hold 'ethical' stem cells
17:34 30 June 03
NewScientist.com news service
Stem cells may be present in the amniotic fluid that cushions a baby in its mother's womb, suggests a new study.
Not worldwide. A jewish child is one year old when born. or maybe you don't consider jews as humans?
Your logic is flawed since it doesn't hold true in all cases. But if you feel comfortable killing a baby, it doesn't seem like it really matters whether it is in or out of the womb, since without the mother or someone to care for it it will die.
No, you already said morals are invented by cultures, and I already pointed out, and rightly, that if cultures invent morals, then no culture can be "wrong" no matter what its morality is. If you say another culture is wrong, on what moral standard do you base that claim? - it must be on the basis of the morals of YOUR culture. How is it that your culture can be right and another wrong? Can't be. In your pathetic system, the moral standards of your culture can not logically be superior or more correct than the moral standards of any other culture on earth. If each culture makes its own morality, then each culture must be right - therefore, Nazi Germany was right! Maoist China was right! The human-sacrificing Aztecs were right! Every culture in history is right! That is where your logic leads. It seems your explanation for the origin of morals cannot be correct in light of human experience and logic.
What a crock of manure. You are not an intellectually honest person. You need to specify precisely what that creature is. Saying is is a piece of life is nonsense. It has a beating heart, brain, arms and legs. What is it? Name it. Is it a duck? A frog? A cockroach? What is it? Huh? You still haven't answered - more B.S. from the B.S.-meister.
When does something living become a 'person'? You really have got me there. I picked, when it becomes a viable fetus. You picked when two previously alive cells combine. Others pick always (life is eternal), others pick 'in the bowles of the earth' long before entering the womb.
I sure have got you there! On precisely what scientific or moral authority do you base your view that it becomes a person as a "viable fetus?" Your own! You ARE NOT CERTAIN - you are guessing! You favor killing a 5 month old unborn human baby even though you have no certainty as to whether the unborn human creature is a person or not. That is the bottom line. I say it is a person from its conception and since I am not taking the life of anything at any stage, I cannot possibly be in moral error nor can I be accused of murder. You, on the other hand, must provide a moral authority since you are taking a life without knowing what it is; You are the one who favors killing something based merely on your personal biases and whims. you favor taking a life to spare the mother an inconvenience, as if the mother's inconvenience or desires is more important than life itself. You lack moral authoriity and you lack moral certainty. Where does that leave you - you have big problems.
What sort of mystical poppycock is this? Once you kill it, it is dead! This statement serves to illustrate the total lack of scientific and moral backing for your position. Your position is based on nothing more than your warped belief system.
No! If they acutally called the newborn, "one year old," even if full term, it would be wrong by three months. There is a Jewish tradition giving the age of an individual in terms of the year of life they are currently in. The new-born are obviously in their first year from birth, there are 1 (one) at birth. And why do you assume I am not jewish?
Your logic is flawed since it doesn't hold true in all cases. But if you feel comfortable killing a baby ...
I am opposed to abortion. Do you always make groundless accusations. My assertion that the unborn are not and should not legally be considered "persons" has nothing to do with my view on abortion. It seems to me your logic is a bit confused. I may have misunderstood you, and you are free to explain, of course. I'm not accusing you of anything (as you seem to enjoy doing), but it does seem you jumped to some baseless conclusions.
Hank
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.