Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Is There A Functioning Integrated Whole Human Being?
FreeRepublic ^ | 6/13/2003 | Marvin Galloway

Posted on 06/13/2003 9:59:38 AM PDT by MHGinTN

In a previous essay we addressed the notion that with an alive human organism, the forms (sub-units) of the organism must be found to be functioning as an integrated whole. With an older individual human, the whole organism is working through a feedback system involving the most rudimentary portion of the organ called the brain. The older individual human being has a complement of organs that have been built and tied into a central processor in order to function as an integrated whole.

The organ harvesting industry uses a protocol that measures this integrated functioning by subjecting the body to various stimuli; noting the non-responses to these stimuli (no completed feedback loop of stimulus, primitive brain registering the nerve message, message returning for a response at the location of the stimulus) verifies that the individual who inhabited the body is no longer with the body; the organism is defined as dead when the feedback system is no longer working.

While the older individual has a central processor through which to measure the feedback loop of an alive individual, the ‘integrated whole’ status of the individual was not always dependent upon the primitive brain. Indeed, even before there is an organ called brain, it can be demonstrated that the integrated whole is operating coherently.

There is a time during the earliest age of an individual’s lifetime when just having a central processor working the nerve feedback loop is not sufficient to define the organism as alive in the air world because until approximately 20 to 22 weeks following the beginning of the individual’s lifetime, the organs called lungs are not complete enough to sustain respiration, even with the central processor working perfectly. That’s what is meant by an integrated whole, each organ is tied into an interdependent system of forms tasked to do special jobs for the functioning of the organism, and once born and into the air world the primitive brain is the director. But prior to birth some other central director achieves the integrated whole.

The transition from one directing system to a later one is gradual, with portions of the tasking transferred little by little, to achieve a seamless transition. It is because of this gradual transfer that a baby may be born alive very prematurely, at perhaps 21 weeks, yet that alive individual will remain alive as the body finishes building and completing the forms that will be integrated into the whole organism’s aliveness for the continued survival of the organism in the air world. It is the already alive individual that builds the sub-units necessary for survival as the environment changes. Going backward along the timeline, we will see how this transition is accomplished.

At 18 weeks from the beginning of a lifetime (for instance), the organism is clearly alive, the central processor of brain stem is functioning to maintain the feedback loop, but the organism has not completely transitioned from some other director for the integrated whole, to the primitive brain as director of the integrated whole.

For a human organism to be defined as alive, the parts will be functioning as a coherent whole organism, with the purpose to maintain the life of the organism, not just the organs of the organism. The brain is sufficiently developed by week three to four that some electromagnetic waves may be detected, generated by the connected feedback loop of body nerves and central primitive brain. But the organism is not yet in the air world so the additional form of lung is not yet vital to the functioning of the integrated whole, yet the individual is clearly alive and functioning as an integrated whole. At first, that may sound contradictory, but it’s not, because coherent functioning of the integrated whole shifts as the organism grows older.

Throughout an individual human lifetime, the parts of the organism will be functioning to accomplish in a coherent fashion the survival of the individual. Before direction of the integrated whole shifts to primarily the central processor (almost exclusively, but never entirely), the genes are controlling the form and function of the individual’s life begun at conception.

During the most active development age, as organs are being formed and integrated into the whole, to spread out the life functioning tasks across a more complex system, the individual’s DNA is a blueprint for forms to be built, and the special characteristic of a ‘surviving organism in action’ directs the integrated whole. At molecular and cellular level, the ‘design’ functions as the central coherency for the forming sub-units as they are built and integrated into the whole. Even when the organism grows old enough to live in the air world and enough organs are integrated into the whole system, there remains that original molecular driven design, functioning within the organ systems of the alive individual. As the organism grew, the cells being built became more specialized, to take on the function of specialized tasks within the organs of the integrated whole organism.

The already alive organism builds the organs that will accomplish viability in the next environment in which the organism will exist. Every alive individual human being began their human existence at the embryo age as evidenced by their first act of cell division. New cells were tasked to build the increasingly complex form for the already alive individual, to survive while in the womb and when exiting that realm. As the organism spreads its functioning out over a more complex integrated whole, the forms to support that complexity must be made up of more and more specialized cells, more differentiated cells.

At the age of embryo, the individual has stem cells that are less differentiated, and as the being builds organs, the newest cells are more differentiated, more specialized, but the organism is not ‘more alive’ just because cells it is making are more specialized. The argument can be made that the first cell of conception is the most alive cell of an entire lifetime, and that the organism spreads this ‘aliveness’ out over more and more forms, to accomplish more complex functioning as the organism ages.

During pro-life/pro-choice discussions, the notion arises that the early individual human being (at embryo age, for instance) is not yet fully an individual human being, that somehow there is a moment or time period when ‘a pre-human awakens’ to become a full human being. When pressed to defend this, the pro-choice advocate cannot name a specific moment as the time slot in which this magical ‘awakening’ occurs.

In the past, the notion of quickening (when the preborn individual could be felt moving) was used to define when an alive individual was present in the womb. As science has progressed, we’ve found that the only reason the woman begins to feel the movement is because the individual within her body has become large enough for its actions to be recognized. The little one has been moving and active for a long stretch prior to being felt.

There is no moment or window of development when the individual begun at conception is more alive. The functions of integrated whole organism (the definition of alive) change gradually, as forms are built to take on specialized tasks for maintenance and functioning of the whole organism. The individual human being is alive from the first time following conception, even before the first evidence of the individual’s survival actions occurs. Survival is begun with the first cell dividing to begin the specialization process, whereby necessary complex survival tasks, first in the water world of a placental bag, and then in the future air world, will be handled by organs that may have only limited functional necessity, dependent upon location of the individual being.

Many believe that the development of internal body organs is the first construction project the newly alive individual accomplishes, but it is actually the construction of its own ‘space capsule’ to be filled with fluid that is the first major building project the individual human being undertakes. It is this space capsule--the placenta--that acts to protect the new, separate individual being from tissue rejection assault by the woman’s body (tricking her immune system to identify the growing life as non-alien), and acts as the means for nourishment to arrive from the woman’s life supporting more specialized organ filled body. As soon as conception occurs, there is a separate, alive, new individual existing in time and space, no matter where that new individual is located, whether in a woman’s body or in a lab dish where in vitro fertilization was accomplished.

Even if the new individual is conceived in a dish, by bringing sperm and ovum together artificially, the new, alive individual builds its own organs for survival. The embryonic individuals an in vitro technician tries to insert into a woman’s uterus have already begun building their own sub-units necessary for survival. The technicians look for embryonic individuals who have built the first form of the placenta they will occupy during pregnancy, the outer barrier that will be necessary for attachment to the woman’s uterus. The placental sac is actually a very special first organ for survival, built by the tiny embryonic individual, as the tiny human being makes new, more and more specialized cells that work as a coherent whole of separate but integrated parts working to accomplish continuing survival of a new human being.

When the issue of ‘viability’ arises, it should be noted that to be viable in the air world requires functioning lungs, a blood circulator, and a central nerve processor of at least primitive brain. To be viable in a water world of the placental sac doesn’t require functioning lungs (for instance) but does require a different set of functioning parts, yet the whole organism is coherent, acting as an integrated whole.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Free Republic
KEYWORDS: embryo; humanbeing; intergatedwhole; prenataldevelopment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
This essay is the second in a series addressing the biological reasons to be pro-life. The first essay is still up under one heading or another on the right hand margin of the browse page.
1 posted on 06/13/2003 9:59:39 AM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

The first essay is HERE, titled 'Using the Word LIFE'.
2 posted on 06/13/2003 10:02:07 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Sacajaweau; cpforlife.org; hocndoc; Coleus; rhema; Polycarp; Mr. Silverback; ...
ping
3 posted on 06/13/2003 10:05:37 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Excellently reasoned argument. However, the pro-muder crowd only cares that an unborn baby doesn't meet the arbitrary definition of "personhood".
4 posted on 06/13/2003 10:09:11 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
In the movie "The Man Who Faced Southeast" there is a scene where the scientist/doctor has the brain itself over the dissecting sink and is washing pieces of it down the drain. He asks various questions as each piece goes down. 'Is this the appreciation of art'? 'Is this love of family'? 'Is this the business entrepreneur'? There is some doubt that the brain is in fact the seat of the soul, although it is certainly part of the control system of the body, and not just through the nervous system but also through chemical systems. There is a lot of reference in poetry to 'heart and soul' and it might be that there is a closer correlation there than followers of the 'material man' believe. So we should think twice about cloning to produce organs for transplant if we have some uncertainty about these other questions. Do we know enough about what we want to do?
5 posted on 06/13/2003 10:52:31 AM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The question of when life begins is a false one and is not really what is under debate. We can be certain of few things as that the human embryo is life. It is life that in somewhere over 90% of conceptions will progress toward birth unless other "functioning, integrated, whole human beings" undertake to destroy it.

Life? A life? The practice of placing the indefinite article before the noun is linguistic sleight of hand. Now the question becomes not when does life begin but when does a life we value begin. Honesty in the debate about life founders here and is unrecoverable unless we agree that life and a life are not equivalents for the purpose of debating abortion or other destruction of embryonic human life.

6 posted on 06/13/2003 11:03:35 AM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Thank you for reading the essays, RW.

There are several points in the Bible (OT and NT) where reference is made to body, soul, and spirit. In a recent Catholic homily, the Priest refers to the soul wrapping the body, not the body wrapping the soul. This leads me to understand that it is the soul (and spirit) that is not locked in time and space, but the body clearly is.

I've attempted, with the entire series of essays, to approach the realities of the organism from a biological perspective, avoiding the religious aspects as best I can. The series is offered for folks already pro-life to one extent or another, in an effort to give substantial reason why current biological understandings underpin the pro-life position. In subsequent essays, the notions of legal positions (abortion laws, the Roe, Doe and Casey decision, embryonic stem cell proscriptions, cloning regulations) will also be addressed but the addresses of same underpinned with the biological realities.

7 posted on 06/13/2003 11:11:51 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Havisham
Yes, it is the central connundrum to agree upon when an individual human being is worthy of protection, hence the effort to expose the biological realities of prenatal life. The issue bears also upon how our society will deal with embryonic exploitation and cloning.
8 posted on 06/13/2003 11:15:00 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Too many "n's" in conundrum. Sorry.
9 posted on 06/13/2003 11:16:36 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
^
10 posted on 06/13/2003 11:17:59 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Which is why the idea that someone can sell their Soul to the Devil is silly. One can no more sell their Soul than a dog on a leash can sell their owner.
11 posted on 06/13/2003 11:20:26 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I have an engineering approach to body/soul concept. It is not religious at all. It's more along the lines of Freud and the super-ego or Teilhard de Chardin and the noosphere. That is, there are three levels, two of which are invisible yet just as real as the material body. The mid level would be the soul or spirit and it is that part that is the function of the mind, the 'I' inside the body. The higher level is the functioning within nature and society, operant behavior or the ability to modify the enviroment. We might draw an analogy, imperfect as analogies always are, to (1) the computer hardware, (2) the software [which includes any necessary data] loaded in the CPU , and (3) the functioning of the program.
12 posted on 06/13/2003 11:22:47 AM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
You might find it interesting to read a book by James Kennedy, title (I think) Teaching Through The Tabernacle. In this book, Rev. Kennedy parallels the construction of the Tabernacle to the way God constructed humankind, with the outer court representing the body, the inner sanctum the soul, and the Holy of Holies the spirit. The furniture in the Tabernacle has interesting parallels ... the showbread table, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense, etc., found in the inner sanctum.
13 posted on 06/13/2003 11:28:06 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; backhoe; Woahhs; Victoria Delsoul; William Wallace; f.Christian; Bryan; aristeides; ...
^
14 posted on 06/13/2003 12:59:25 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; Remedy; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

15 posted on 06/13/2003 1:25:14 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
BTTT!!!!!
16 posted on 06/13/2003 1:28:27 PM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
When Is There A Functioning Integrated Whole Human Being?

Women: Age 24

Men: Age 30

17 posted on 06/13/2003 1:34:22 PM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Quite utilitarian! I've a 19 year old stepchild still at home. Ahh, the comfy nest.
18 posted on 06/13/2003 1:37:20 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
read later
19 posted on 06/13/2003 1:42:48 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The functions of integrated whole organism (the definition of alive)

The author reaches for such a broad definition of life that he ends up including unfertilized eggs. An unfertilized egg is as "integrated" of a "whole organism" as an fertilized egg. Thus a "human life" means a live egg than has been turned into a live human being by the process of fertilization.

embryonic individuals who have built the first form of the placenta they will occupy during pregnancy

The author seems intent on personifying cell specialization and other genetic processes. These exist throughout nature and in no way imply consciousness or survival instinct. They are simply predictable, predetermined actions.

When human form and human functions develop (I believe 8 weeks or so), then there is certainly an argument to be made for intentional actions by the individual. Otherwise I don't see how it is any different from what an unfertilized egg does, or for that matter an organ.

20 posted on 06/13/2003 1:49:02 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You wrote, "These exist throughout nature and in no way imply consciousness or survival instinct. They are simply predictable, predetermined actions."

It was the intention of the author to purposely avoid defining these steps the embryonic human takes for survival as 'consciousness' in the sense that term is generally used. The term 'instinct' was also purposely avoided.

An unfertilized egg is a sub-unit cell of an organ. The conceptus, as it 'does' mitosis, fits the Dr. Condic assertion mentioned in essay one. The placenta is the first organ the newly conceived individual human builds. As to whom intended the placenta to be the essential organ for survival, I'll leave you to address that as you see fit.

21 posted on 06/13/2003 2:05:33 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You wrote (quite astutely), "When human form and human functions develop (I believe 8 weeks or so), then there is certainly an argument to be made for intentional actions by the individual."

The author is asserting that the placenta 'form' with its survival 'function', beginning as it does even before implantation, argues for the embryo at earliest age to be defined as a human being, a functioning integrated whole organism.

22 posted on 06/13/2003 2:09:50 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I've two boys 23 and 19.

Both came close to being aborted several times in the last few years.

Sometimes I think the 19 year old is only a clump of cells.

23 posted on 06/13/2003 2:11:50 PM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The placenta is the first organ the newly conceived individual human builds. As to whom intended the placenta to be the essential organ for survival, I'll leave you to address that as you see fit.

I don't want to get into a different debate, but the placenta is there so we can gain nutrients from our mothers that we need to grow inside them. Placental mammals have an important advantage over non-placental mammals in that the young can live inside their mothers until they are at a much later stage of development. Otherwise whether we build a placenta or grow a big yolk sack would not seem to make much difference.

24 posted on 06/13/2003 2:29:48 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: palmer
It is the form and function of the placenta to also prevent tissue rejection and/or harm to the woman and the little one while the little one resides within the woman's body.
25 posted on 06/13/2003 2:34:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The author is asserting that the placenta 'form' with its survival 'function', beginning as it does even before implantation, argues for the embryo at earliest age to be defined as a human being, a functioning integrated whole organism.

I assume that would require 100's of cells. That would seem to weaken your case for protection of single-celled humans. Furthermore, the placenta form is not going to resemble human form any more than any other placental mammal.

26 posted on 06/13/2003 2:50:46 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: palmer
At implantation the barrier has lots of cells in its structure. In vitro techs won't try to implant an embryo unless it evidences the barrier/encapsulation.

... the placenta form is not going to resemble human form any more than any other placental mammal. It is not shape that determines humanity. And even a forensic pathologist would be able to tell a human placenta from some other mammalian placenta.

You're givin' it that 'college try', but you haven't hit a good one yet. Keep trying ... the discussion is good for readers; if the author's assertion is not correct, then you may just find the flaw!

As to the first cell and the survival process inherent even with the first mitosis, an interesting aside regarding the fist two cells of mitosis might interest you (assuming you don't already know this): the first two cells will not divide in sync the next division, one will divide and the process of placental formation begins then, and all other forms of the embryonic individual's embryonic body will then form within the encapsulation, including a yolk sac.

27 posted on 06/13/2003 3:05:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
if the author's assertion is not correct, then you may just find the flaw!

I agree that there is a human individual that is alive and it immediately grows an organ for its survival. I don't think there serious flaws in his argument. But the author's implication of intent in the survival operation can be used to imply intent in any biological process, e.g. my milk doesn't sour, it intends to sour. The author's other implication that a coherent organism with these qualities and complete DNA is sufficient for legal protection means leaving out other moral considerations.

As to the first cell and the survival process inherent even with the first mitosis, an interesting aside regarding the fist two cells of mitosis might interest you (assuming you don't already know this): the first two cells will not divide in sync the next division, one will divide and the process of placental formation begins then, and all other forms of the embryonic individual's embryonic body will then form within the encapsulation, including a yolk sac.

Again, it's good to point out that "survival" qualities are inherent in humans from the beginning. It is not sufficient for a debate about the morality of early abortion because those "survival" qualities are nothing more than preprogrammed actions and are present in every other placental mammal regardless of the cosmetic differences in the placenta itself.

28 posted on 06/13/2003 3:38:24 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
When Is There A Functioning Integrated Whole Human Being?

My wife asks the same question -- about me. She's hoping 50 is the right age.

29 posted on 06/13/2003 3:40:04 PM PDT by AZLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Havisham
The question of when life begins is a false one and is not really what is under debate. We can be certain of few things as that the human embryo is life. It is life that in somewhere over 90% of conceptions will progress toward birth unless other "functioning, integrated, whole human beings" undertake to destroy it.

I didn't think anywhere near 90% of fertilized eggs implanted successfully, even in healthy women. Certainly there are some women who, because of natural conditions, have much lower implantation rates. Should such women be forbidden from having sex, on the basis that it might fertilize an egg which might be unable to implant and consequently die?

30 posted on 06/13/2003 3:57:13 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You noted, "It is not sufficient for a debate about the morality of early abortion because those "survival" qualities are nothing more than preprogrammed actions and are present in every other placental mammal regardless of the cosmetic differences in the placenta itself."

Your first sentence addresses the 'intelligence of the design' (or designer). I'll leave you to address that further, if you wish. That this design characteristic is functioning doesn't detract from a definition of a functioning whole human organism. As to the second sentence, if one were to surreptitiously extract the embryos of endangered species for some personal gain or destruction motive, if you were caught, the law would prosecute for the actions, thus the law, at least, recognizes that with protected species the embryo is a distinct member of the species.

31 posted on 06/13/2003 4:53:13 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Your first sentence addresses the 'intelligence of the design' (or designer). I'll leave you to address that further, if you wish.

I can't say with certainty that there is a designer or there is not a designer. The elegance of the design may be enough to convince a person that there is a designer. Regardless of a person's beliefs, the design is an important part of convincing them of the value of human life.

As to the second sentence, if one were to surreptitiously extract the embryos of endangered species for some personal gain or destruction motive, if you were caught, the law would prosecute for the actions, thus the law, at least, recognizes that with protected species the embryo is a distinct member of the species.

True, I have never argued otherwise. The human embryo is human but it requires a technological apparatus to determine that fact because the differences from embryos of other species are small. It is much easier a short time later when the embryo takes on a distinct, visible human form.

Incidentally the law would probably punish that embryo thief while ignoring a killer of human embryos: part of the senseless legacy of liberalism. I can empathize with an actual member of an endangered species but not with the species itself. I'm not going to fry up an eagle's egg and will try to convince someone who owns an egg not to. But I'm not going to turn them in either.

32 posted on 06/13/2003 6:50:06 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Well said!
33 posted on 06/13/2003 7:01:50 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
When it's time to cut the grass on our spread, my wife wonders if my 57 years precluded my being so defined; when it's time for a golf round, I assure her I'm up for it.
34 posted on 06/13/2003 8:17:33 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thanks for the heads up!
35 posted on 06/13/2003 8:19:20 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The only fully functioning human being is one that is out of the womb and alive.

A fetus is human (if it came from a woman), but that does not make it fully functional.

While I am pro-life, I do not believe the Baby has 'life' until it breathes it's first breath, that is what it is designed to do.

Premature babies DO breath, so they ualify, but a baby in the womb does not 'have life' in the spiritual sense, i believe.

Don't misread me, this view does not justify elective abortions, it just does not agree with what many say as to when 'life' begins, for I do not believe that can be measured physically, it is a spiritual event, displayed as evidence in breath of the baby outside the womb.

The Mother is supporting the child, it is oxygen from the mother that is feeding the child, and it is the life from the mother that keeps the child alive, else, early born children would all live (so to speak(, right? If the 'life' was totally dependant on the child?

My reasons are based on Genesis
36 posted on 06/13/2003 8:51:27 PM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
There are many who believe as you do, RB.

GEnesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
    Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. NIV (my emphasis added)

When I read those words, I am drawn to believe that the man was a being, alive, but the breath of God is the Holy Spirt, according to other scriptures. When God breathed into the man's nostrils, God imparted spirit, into the special place that is the human soul, raising man above the other animals of the earth ... or so I believe. When man fell from grace, Adam's human spirit was no longer 'living'. Because Adam's human spirit was no longer 'alive', the Grace of God comes now to the human family through the Salvation offered through Jesus ... I am lead to believe.

But I won't argue these things with you, though there are some here at FR who will likely appreciate the opportunity to address these notions, and perhaps rebuke the both of us.

37 posted on 06/13/2003 9:29:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
The Mother is supporting the child, it is oxygen from the mother that is feeding the child, and it is the life from the mother that keeps the child alive, else, early born children would all live (so to speak(, right? If the 'life' was totally dependant on the child?

The unborn child actually does breath. He (or she) just uses some other organ to do it with (the umbilical cord). It doesn't matter where the air comes from (mother, open air, artifical respirator); it matters if the unborn child can take in good air, and expel bad air (respiration: breathing). The unborn child does do this. It's techincally inaccurate to claim that the mother feeds the unborn air. The mother provides it, and the unborn uses the umbilical cord to retrieve it. The unborn child may depend on the mother to keep the available required oxygen stable, but adults depend on gravity to keep the available required oxygen stable.. just in a different way. Outside or inside the womb, it's an environment, and we're all dependent on the environment.

-The Hajman-
38 posted on 06/13/2003 9:38:29 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

^
39 posted on 06/14/2003 10:42:39 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
The only fully functioning human being is one that is out of the womb and alive.

Even then, they're completely dependent if not on the mother, on someone else who'll bring them food, change their diapers, burp them and whatever else they need to have done. A newborn is only slightly more self-reliant than a pre-born.

40 posted on 06/14/2003 11:01:54 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: supercat
unable to implant and consequently die?

Some people die before they implant, some die before they're born, some die shortly after birth, some die before kindergarden, some before they turn 21, some before age 30.... natural death is just part of life but doesn't justify killing someone.

41 posted on 06/14/2003 11:05:47 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Well said ... I've been pondering how to say that to my friend, supercat. Your response was not clumsy the way mine would have been.
42 posted on 06/14/2003 12:19:56 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I didn't think anywhere near 90% of fertilized eggs implanted successfully, even in healthy women. Certainly there are some women who, because of natural conditions, have much lower implantation rates. Should such women be forbidden from having sex, on the basis that it might fertilize an egg which might be unable to implant and consequently die?

Although I cannot offer a citation for the 90% number, I believe it is essentially correct. Chemical birth control, the pill, and surgical birth control, abortion, are human interventions that destroy the embryonic person. By your rhetorical question, do you mean to equate human action to conceive a child with human intervention to prevent a live birth just so long as the outcome is same? If so, we are not having a serious discussion.

43 posted on 06/14/2003 12:56:44 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Yes, it is the central connundrum to agree upon when an individual human being is worthy of protection, hence the effort to expose the biological realities of prenatal life. The issue bears also upon how our society will deal with embryonic exploitation and cloning.

Thank you for your affirmative comment. Would you agree that requiring a life to be fully functional and whole has obvious implications for protection of the infirm and elderly?

44 posted on 06/14/2003 1:04:31 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Havisham
Please go to the first repsonse on this thread and click on the link to the essay that preceeded this one (more depth on the organ harvesting 'death protocol'). The elderly and infirm fit the clear protocol definition of functioning integrated whole for the title of human being. It is the author's contention that the same is fitting for the embryonic indiividual.
45 posted on 06/14/2003 1:08:02 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thank you for the tip. I did read the article, however, I recoiled at its complicating of the issue. Essays of this type are often overlong and wordy, which I believe repels the average person, whom I count myself among. Complexification of the truth of life only makes a rapidly approaching utilitarian future more likely.
46 posted on 06/14/2003 1:30:05 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

^
47 posted on 06/14/2003 6:02:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
A newborn is only slightly more self-reliant than a pre-born.

I agree with that. A human candidate does not really become a fully functional being until around the age of 32 years.

48 posted on 06/15/2003 1:40:51 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: supercat
When my wife was attending medical school 5-7 years ago the implantation rate was only 75 percent.

As far as integration of the entire organism, I am convinced that most Liberal Democrats are not there yet. Accordingly it would be legal to perform abortion upon demand at any time after their participation in their first election.
49 posted on 06/15/2003 10:49:49 PM PDT by donmeaker (Safety is NO Accident!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; AlbionGirl; anniegetyourgun; Aquinasfan; arasina; Archangelsk; A-teamMom; ...
ping...
50 posted on 06/16/2003 2:01:59 PM PDT by cgk (Bob Geldof: "President Bush is radical, in a positive sense. Clinton did f*&% all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson