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]

889 - "You have no moral code but your own"

I think it's important to try to use all our resources to help alieviate the suffering of as many people as possible.

Your god apparently loves to make suffering.

[XBob]

889 - "What should the penalty be for 1st degree premeditated murder?"

a) I think it could be death. So - kill your god for all his premeditated murders. It's pretty hard to kill the creature called 'life', and I don't have that capability to kill 'life', not even one little fingernail clipping of the crature called 'life'. But, I have killed hundreds, perhaps even thousands of 'people', in a thing called 'war'.

I thought your god was the source of everything

b) " You still can't tell me what the creature is"

It is a human zygote one point in time and one location of a single multifasceted creature called 'life'.

c) " and you can't give me any moral authority for claiming that it becomes a person at viability. "

No, just my own morals which I created, or perhaps which your god created, if your god exists.

[XBob]

Daoism
Multimedia

2 items
Article Outline
Introduction; Basic Tenets; History
I Introduction
print section

Daoism, Chinese philosophical and religious system, dating from about the 4th century bc. Among native Chinese schools of thought, the influence of Daoism has been second only to that of Confucianism.

II Basic Tenets
print section

The essential Daoist philosophical and mystical beliefs can be found in the Daodejing (Tao-te Ching, Classic of the Way and Its Power) attributed to the historical figure Laozi (Lao-tzu, 570?-490? BC) and possibly compiled by followers as late as the 3rd century BC
. Whereas Confucianism urged the individual to conform to the standards of an ideal social system, Daoism maintained that the individual should ignore the dictates of society and seek only to conform with the underlying pattern of the universe, the Dao (or Tao, meaning “way”), which can neither be described in words nor conceived in thought. To be in accord with Dao, one has to “do nothing” (wuwei)—that is, nothing strained, artificial, or unnatural. Through spontaneous compliance with the impulses of one's own essential nature and by emptying oneself of all doctrines and knowledge, one achieves unity with the Dao and derives from it a mystical power. This power enables one to transcend all mundane distinctions, even the distinction of life and death.

[XBob]

if you hadn't noticed part of my personal philosophy stems from Taoism, which I studied as a young man, searching for answers.

[XBob]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=421168

Human cells used to make paralysed rats walk
By Charles Arthur Technology Editor
03 July 2003


Cells from human embryos could be used to help some people with spinal injuries to walk again, successful work involving rats has indicated.

Scientists from the University of California at Irvine college of medicine said that paralysed rats walked again after being injected with stem cells from "early-stage" human embryos. They hope that the breakthrough will prove to American policy makers that the use of human embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning - presently banned in the US - are justified.

The team, led by Hans Keirstead, took stem cells from early-stage human embryos, and altered them in the laboratory into oligodendrocytes. These are the primal cells that form myelin, the vital fatty sheath that surrounds nerve fibres. These cells were transplanted into paralysed rats with bruised spines. After nine weeks, the rats regained the ability to walk, New Scientist magazine reports today.

Analysis of the rats' spinal cords showed that the oligodendrocytes had wrapped themselves around neurons and formed new myelin sheaths. They also secreted growth substances that appeared to have stimulated the formation of new nerves.

Dr Keirstead said last week that he planned to use the same technique to treat human patients who had suffered recent spinal cord injuries and localised damage.

Treating people who have been paralysed for years or suffer from degenerative nerve diseases would be far more difficult. Stem cells can develop into every form of tissue in the body; early embryos consist of stem cells, which then specialise as the embryo matures. If removed from the embryo early enough, they retain that ability to metamorphose into any sort of tissue. That realisation opened up the possibility of many new treatments.

But in Britain and America, the use of stem cells is strictly regulated, and the European Union may ban any such experiments. In the US, federal money cannot be used for stem-cell research.

The latest work was funded by the US biotechnology company Geron, whose president, Thomas Okarma, said only embryonic stem cells could really succeed in new therapies. Embryonic cells could be mass-produced, unlike adult stem cells. Mr Okarma said that one cell bank derived from a single embryo could yield enough neurons to treat 10 million Parkinson's disease patients. He added that adult stem cells might not be as versatile as embryonic ones.

He said: "At this moment, there is very little hard evidence that a bone marrow stem cell can turn into anything but blood or that a skin stem cell can become anything but skin."

The method does not hold any immediate promise for accident victims such as the actor Christopher Reeve, who was paralysed from the neck down in a riding accident in May 1995. His spine was badly crushed by the bones of his neck, cutting many nerves to the rest of his body. In the rat research, the repaired nerves were only "bruised".

Mr Reeve has been among those lobbying to reverse the US government's opposition to stem-cell research. Dozens of scientists are working on spinal cord repair methodologies. But despite numerous successes in rats, hardly any have moved forward to human trials.

[XBob]

sorry youall wish to see millions of people paralyzed.

[syriacus]

Syriacus - "Have you sent food to a starving family today?"

Not today, in fact, not for quite a few days recently. I did for many many years, though.

I am positive the starving families appreciated your gifts of food.

And I hope you will feel stronger soon. I hope you are getting all the help fighting the cancer that you can.

My point about sending food to starving families is this:

Killing embryos is worse than neglecting to send food to a starving family.

Killing embryos is comparable to stealing the last bit of food from that starving family.

[exmarine]

if you hadn't noticed part of my personal philosophy stems from Taoism, which I studied as a young man, searching for answers.

You can't even see the illogic and contradictions in your own moral beliefs, even after I pointed them out to you! You are a moral midget and there is no reason to discuss it further with you.

[exmarine]

Well, thanks for the replies, but I don't care to continue when it gets to the insult stage.

Not an insult - it's the truth.

[exmarine]

When I read such a string of gobbldy gook, I find there is not reason to discuss further with such an mind.

It is truly amazing. I am convinced this is a spiritual blindness. One can only know TRUTH if one knows the Author of Truth. 1Cor 2:14.

[exmarine]

exmarine - there are no absolute morals, right or wrong. they just are, period. god or no god, they exist.

Saying "right and wrong just are" doesn't cut it. It's illogical. If they exist, you need to tell me how they exist - source? Are "right and wrong" made of particles - do they have extension in space? Where do they reside? If you say they exist, you have to account for their existence.

[exmarine]

You did not answer the following problem after I asked you more than once:

If you can, show me how Hitler can be wrong using your cultural morality. You can't. I will not let you off the hook - you either tell me how Hitler could be wrong or we can all assume that you have no good response.

Let the record show that you are unable to answer this very straightforward problem with your moral system.

[XBob]

912 - Hitler was wrong because I decided, like most of my culture, that Hitler was wrong. You forget my response in 670, about my visits to Dachau, (a NAZI concentration camp where hundreds of thousands were killed).

However, according to you, your god allowed it to happen, according to you. You have a cruel god.

Morals are, period.

If Hitler had won WWII, you would be speaking German, and killing Jews in concentration camps would be right, as that was the culture he developed.

Those who win the wars write the rules and the history and the culture.

[exmarine]

Hitler was wrong because I decided, like most of my culture, that Hitler was wrong. You forget my response in 670, about my visits to Dachau, (a NAZI concentration camp where hundreds of thousands were killed).

Haha. You don't even understand the logical implications of your own moral system. You said EACH culture decides what is right or wrong - EACH ONE. On that basis, you can't say ANY other culture is wrong without contradicting yourself and violating your own moral system, becuase under your system EACH culture MUST be right becuase EACH culture decides what is right or wrong. Hitler's culture said it was good and right to kill jews, and you cannot stop him from doing it without FORCING your morals on another morally autonomous culture. Might makes right in that case. Care to try again as to why Hitler can be wrong?

However, according to you, your god allowed it to happen, according to you. You have a cruel god.

Man has free will and is reponsible for his own evil deeds. Blaming God is irrational.

Morals are, period.

Again, this is nonsense without addressing the source of those morals.

[exmarine]

If Hitler had won WWII, you would be speaking German, and killing Jews in concentration camps would be right, as that was the culture he developed.

Who says killing jews is wrong? You? You have no moral authority. Hitler doesn't give a flip what you think.

[XBob]

911 - "exmarine - there are no absolute morals, right or wrong. they just are, period. god or no god, they exist.

Saying "right and wrong just are" doesn't cut it. It's illogical. If they exist, you need to tell me how they exist - source? Are "right and wrong" made of particles - do they have extension in space? Where do they reside? If you say they exist, you have to account for their existence."

===
So, now take the same logic, and apply it to your concept of your god. apply it to your concept of the 'soul'.

[XBob]

907 - "Killing embryos is worse than neglecting to send food to a starving family.

Killing embryos is comparable to stealing the last bit of food from that starving family. "

So, preventing the formation of that 'family' is 'stealing' that whole family? Contraception - you are preventing the formation of those 'families'.

You better tell MHGinTN, and the others practicing abstinence and contraception and tying their tubes that they are starving a lot of families.

[melsec]

How many of 'your' firemen are Christians?

In a God-centered world/'real-world', those babies in a petrie dish are no different than babies in a human 'dish'.In a real God centred world there would be no babies in petrie dishes hence no quandry for any philosophical fireman - If we are to base our worldveiw on what a fireman might or might not do then we are lost. Not to disparage firemen.

Mel

[secretagent]

Stem cells can develop into every form of tissue in the body; early embryos consist of stem cells, which then specialise as the embryo matures. If removed from the embryo early enough, they retain that ability to metamorphose into any sort of tissue. That realisation opened up the possibility of many new treatments.

I have no problem with using the stem cells from an "early enough" embryo. The problem for me comes with "developed enough" fetuses - I start to see them as persons.

"Harvesting" cells sounds ok, but body parts - not ok.

[MHGinTN]

Stem cells are the body parts of embryonic individual human beings ... human beings who have built their first and most crucial organ for survival that functions to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, functions to bring nourishment to the life, and functions to protect the new individual from the environment.