When Is Human Life A Human Being?

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.

...the simple axiom 'there MUST be a god' and 'you must believe in god before I can argue with you about the exitence of god

I think people want moral absolutes, and try to short circuit discussion with the "God wants it so" move. I don't like to argue with them on their particular religion, since it seems to mean so much to them.

And then think about 'parents', mothers and fathers, who's attitude so often is 'save my children first', make sure they survive. This assures the continuation of the 'organism' called life, and the particular 'branch' of the 'tree of life' to which they belohg.

Many non-human species show this trait - I think. And then some will eat their young...

941 - "I think people want moral absolutes, and try to short circuit discussion with the "God wants it so" move. I don't like to argue with them on their particular religion, since it seems to mean so much to them."

I agree, except when they want me to pay the costs of their beliefs. In general, I think religion is good for mankind, and gives many people solace, and it keeps many from doing 'bad' things, and in general promotes them to do 'good' things.

So basically, I support religion, and belief in god.

941 - "Many non-human species show this trait - I think. And then some will eat their young..."

I agree, and that is why I think that we humans are just one branch of the 'tree of life'.

And as far as eating their young, most protect their young, but some do eat their young, and generally when they do, it is only sometimes. If you analyze the reasons, perhaps it assures that only the 'strongest'/most adept survive to reproduce. Like the chicks in a bird nest, only the strongest get fed. And sometimes the males will eat the offspring of other males, helping to assure their own genetic survival.

"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."

Hmmm. . .wonder if they bothered to test stem cells from umbilical cord blood or even stem cells within the patient's own body.

"And he taught me as a young boy, how, to assure a good crop of apples, you needed not only to fertilize the trees regularly, spray for insects and disease prevention, clean out the weeds and other undesirable elements, you also had to regularly 'trim' and 'prune' the trees (killing/preventing some potential 'apple life' - to improve the quality of those remaining)"

Comparing apples to humans?

Then you must view Stalin as Hitler as just good gardeners.

The "morals" of a lion fit his nature.

We have a greater range of acceptable or "natural" behavior between different cultures of humans, and some those differences lead to and reflect their overall "success".

The open societies have more science and material wealth than the closed ones, correllative with greater individual rights. More robust societies have more robust protections for individuals, at least so far.

The west advanced when we advanced the rights of minorities and women. We made a discovery about "human nature", recognizing new persons after years of activism by a few pioneers. This same perception shift may happen with a class of pre-born humans, after years of pro-life activism.

"... the apparent agony of a fetus dying of a saline solution. One can imagine the pain of partial birth abortion."

I have no way to determine that, exactly, (but read my last post), so I have ARBITRARILY selected the point where a fetus is viable. It seems to be as good a place as I can figure, within our capabilities, and not overburdening.

We can't say precisely when the fetus developed "pain nerves", hence the possibility of feeling pain, but we can tell with certainty once it develops enough. Right now premature babies have survived with only 21 weeks of development, and I'd guess the pain nerves developed before that.

It wouldn't compromise stem cell research to award legal personhood at the viability of the current preemie record holder - 21 weeks today and perhaps 20 weeks tomorrow.

948 - "The open societies have more science and material wealth than the closed ones, correllative with greater individual rights. More robust societies have more robust protections for individuals, at least so far.

The west advanced when we advanced the rights of minorities and women. We made a discovery about "human nature", recognizing new persons after years of activism by a few pioneers. This same perception shift may happen with a class of pre-born humans, after years of pro-life activism."

===

What I have noticed is that when society supresses potentially productive individuals, as in muslim societies, which suppress women and non-muslims, you end up with less productive societies.

In addition when societies try to preserve the non-productive, the society degrades, as there is no 'requirement' to perform to survive. ("From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs") - communism.

And then (I llearned from living in overpopulated societies), that when you have too much production, (too many people), the price/quality of things goes down, and you end up with extremely poor societies, because resources/effort are being spread too thin. You don't get great 'apples' if you don't have enough 'fertilizer' or plant the trees too closely together, or when you grow too many people (eg india).

It takes a fine balance.

Protecting all embryos stretches the resources too thin, yet, if every embryo is 'sacred', it must be done, or else you/your society, is a hypocritical liar.

In addition when societies try to preserve the non-productive, the society degrades, as there is no 'requirement' to perform to survive. XBob Sad to say, this astonishing assertion is not as alien to America in 2003 as one might wish it to be. Oddly enough, even the embryo conceived in a petri dish works to survive, building its own encapsulation that is the early placental organ for survival. As note in the essay, the in vitro tech looks for that encapsulation or the mebryo will not be implanted!

And, by your definition, none of the people dependent on IV's and feeding tubes are persons.

Completely wrong. My definition of a human person is a being with a human consciousness. People dependent on IV's and feeding tubes in the most part have consciousness and are aware of their existence. Human beings have no awareness or memory of pre-conception life or zygot life or fetal life. There is one clear event which initiates the beginning of human consciousness and that event is birth.

There may be evidence of brain activity before birth - there is brain activity in all manner of lower life forms - but the beginning of human consciousness can only be identified after being born into this human environment.

My definition of an individual human being, is when he can sustain his own life with his own organs. That is sometime in the last trimester.

Actually, it happens from conception. The fetus sustains itself through pregnancy. The mother's body only provides the environment, air and nutrients required for the fetus. Even adults need to be provided environment, air and nutrients (the earth is convenient for that).

-The Hajman-

that's why you haven't got a clue - you can't get the obvious - that cake batter is not a cake- an embryo is not a person. It is a potential person - just like cake batter is a potential cake.

Actually, a correct analogy would be between the cake batter/frosting and the sperm/egg, and the cake and the human (from conception on). The embryo isn't a potential person. It's a developing, self sustaining (yes, self-sustaining. It doesn't require artifical sustainment. It only needs to be provided with an environment, air and nutrients.. just like all other humans). Its gene code is complete. It's classified as homo sapien (taxonomy classification is based on what it'll become in its adult stage). It grows, eats, breaths (before it attaches via unbilical cord, it uses up the rich nutrients and oxygen that the egg stored, and after it attaches via umbilical cord, it draws air and nutrients from its mother, who's body pumps said air and nutrients via blood stream through the placenta, providing it for the unborn, who's blood stream is seperate from the mother. Air and nutrient/waste swap is a kind of osmosis thing). It's not a potential. It's active; developing on its own.

Reproductive Knowledge

(BTW, self-sustaining doesn't mean to make one's own food in this particular case. It means to sustain oneself off the existing environment.)

-The Hajman-

According to your personal belief about the criteria for human beings ( ""My definition of a human person is a being with a human consciousness. .... Human beings have no awareness or memory of pre-conception life or zygot life or fetal life.""), no one is a human until about 3 years old, some very few as early as 2 1/2 years old. And it *does* rule out many human beings who are currently defined as legal persons, other than infants and toddlers.

The human uterus is the first human environment.

Locality, ability, age, geography, or religion does not determine the humanity of an individual or his or her rights - the fact that the individual is a member of the species is sufficient. Rights are not endowed by anyone or any government or faith, otherwise rights may be limited, rationed, or revoked accordiing to latitude, longitude, law or personal belief. Either all humans are *human enough* to have their rights protected, or no one truly does --- in that case, might (of majority in power or force) would be the only marker between "rights" of "persons" and death and slavery for the "non-persons."

...no one is a human until about 3 years old, some very few as early as 2 1/2 years old

The exact moment of awareness is a very subjective matter; the exact moment of birth is not. Birth is the event that clearly defines the beginning of our conscious development in this "earthly" environment. It is the first time external elements have a direct impact upon us, without being processed through our mother. There is a clear and obvious difference between the environment inside a woman's body and the environment outside of that body. Does a woman give up rights when she becomes pregnant? Do the rights of an undeveloped human have more value than the rights of an adult human being?

Either all humans are *human enough* to have their rights protected, or no one truly does

All human rights cannot be preserved all the time - there are conflicts of rights at many points in human experience. Parent's rights normally supersede those of their children, etc.

The key point here is who decides the conflict of rights in the case of an individual or family where, for example, a pregnancy brought to term would cause great harm (such as a severe health risk to the mother). Does the family decide this or does the state. And if the state decides this type of matter (which gives it great power over individuals and families) what other decisions will the state take as its prerogative? Do we want other family matters, health care, entertainment, etc. to be decided by a "tyranny of the majority" (which our government was fashioned to resist)?

To possibly clarify our differences:

We both agree that abortion is not desirable (you, maybe always - me, most cases).

But you seem to believe that the decision on abortion should be state influenced by making it illegal. I believe that the decision should be individually made but morally influenced by churches and families.

Women have gotten and will continue to get abortions if they are illegal. The political consequence of focusing on legislative abortion policy is much more negative for conservatives than for liberals. If you tell women that the state will determine their rights regarding pregnancy because the state must determine the rights of what is inside their bodies, you will lose many elections that you should have won and the whole political environment will be worse.

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.