Christianity Today Op Ed

[Sparko]

Thank you -- this is why "nit-picking" terminology is important.

You say a brain-dead patient is "still a human being". However, we do not require the consent of a brain-dead patient to terminate life support. We do this because we recognize that brain-dead patients no longer possess the qualities that confer the rights which demand a person's consent. So there must, by necessity, be some other factor that confers personhood and rights than the property "is a human organism".

aaaaand we are back to talking about legal terms.

The brain dead "patient" is still a human being. And his unplugging does require someone with the legal power of attorney to disconnect him. If he were just an object at that point, no permission would be required. They could just chop him up for parts without permission. And again, a brain dead person is someone who can't recover. So not like an embryo.

Stem cells can, in fact, grow into a human organism -- we've already done so with mice.

Only by taking the DNA from the stem cell and placing it into an emptied ovum. At which point it becomes a clone zygote and again, a distinct organism that can grow into adulthood.

It has the same "potential toward personhood" as does a zygote.

No it doesn't. It take intervention and a lot of twiddling to do so. But once it does become a zygote, then it is no longer potential, it IS an organism of whatever species it came from. Just like a sperm or an ovum. Once fertilized as a zygote, it becomes a distinct individual. Nothing potential about it. It might be a potential adult, but then so is an infant.

If your distinction is "natural environment" then you concede that some external factor, not an inherent property, separates the potential between a zygote in utero from a zygote in a dish or, indeed, a stem cell. And, that being the case, means that the quality of personhood (or "being") is not found inherently in a zygote.

again, no it doesn't. The inherent quality that makes it a person or being is that it is a distinct and full member of the human race.

This is all complicated stuff and it's going to necessarily involve getting "nit-picky" with precise concepts and terms if one wants to have a good, rational argument. It's also why very few people bother with getting that far into the real debate.

--Sam

No, it is just a debate strategy with some abortionists like yourself who want to muddy the waters with various detached terms, so you don't have to admit that you are killing a human being.

[Sparko]

I would say that just because aborting the fetus prior to it having conscious awareness does not make it right or good. This forming child will be a human person, of infinite worth and value, and stopping that process for trivial reasons is wrong.

You may find that 'weak', but a lie is never a strong defense. And telling the person this 1 month old fetus without a brain or any level of conscious thought is the same as a 6 month gestation fetus with a brain and some rudimentary level of conscious thought and perception of its world is simply a lie.

As would be saying an infant has the same level of conscious thought and perception as an adult. Doesn't mean it is not just as valuable a member of the human race.

[Sparko]

That is just poor logic. Saying the zygote is a (1) human being when it may well become two or three DIFFERENT human beings is simply incorrect. At that point it is not yet a human being. And in fact, it is not fully determined what human being it will become - physically or mentally. The 'mind' and the personality is not just the physical mass of neurons in the brain, but rather both how they interconnect and how they interact and respond to their environment. (note that in the case of twins or triplets they are DIFFERENT human beings not because of any significant difference in their DNA but because the way the brain forms and how the neural nets develop - which is not controlled solely by the DNA but rather - and by design - in significant part a response to the environment)

Jim, if I had a transporter like on star trek and it malfunctioned when you went in and duplicated you, you would become two people. Identical at first but as time went on, more and more individualistic. You would be two different human beings. Twins. That doesn't mean that before the malfunction you were not a human being.

One human being becoming two doesn't negate the fact that it is still one human being before the split.

[oxmixmudd]

I am not going to nitpick terminology with you Sam. We both know what we are talking about, despite your desperate hand waving. We are talking about an individual HUMAN LIFE. Humans are "beings" are they not? Even a brain dead one is still a human being. Even a corpse is still a human being, albeit a dead one.

A new human organism begins with fertilization. And yes it is still a human being in a petri dish. It is not in it's natural habitat, a womb, so while it can still grow for a bit, it will eventually die if not implanted. That doesn't mean it isn't a human. A stem cell can't grow into a human organism. At best it could be made to grow into some tissue or an organ (they are still working on that)

Sparko - this is not a simple discussion and you can't reduce it to simple terms beyond a certain point. Sam is doing a good job of defining the necessary distinctions. A human person is more than just a few human cells. A zygote becomes a human person.

Consider if the brain never forms in the developing zygote->fetus. A fetus without a brain is not a person legally or any other way. Yet you define it a person before it has that which is necessary for personhood! Would you then confer 'provisional personhood' on it, then take it away because of what never was? That is convoluted and irrational. Logically, the zygote can't be what it is not yet. And without a brain, it is not a person. No human body sans a brain is a human person. Take my brain out and you've killed me. My body is no longer a person. OTOH, given some future technology if you clone my body with everthing except the brain and then put my brain in there, now that new body is me! The person is in the brain for as long as the brain lives. No living brain in a body, no person.

[Cow Poke]

aaaaand we are back to talking about legal terms.

The brain dead "patient" is still a human being. And his unplugging does require someone with the legal power of attorney to disconnect him. If he were just an object at that point, no permission would be required. They could just chop him up for parts without permission. And again, a brain dead person is someone who can't recover. So not like an embryo....

Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

[Mountain Man]

I would say that just because aborting the fetus prior to it having conscious awareness does not make it right or good. This forming child will be a human person, of infinite worth and value, and stopping that process for trivial reasons is wrong.

So it's the "potential" defense. Saying that it will have value implies that prior to consciousness, it has no value, and a pro-abortionist will happily accept that premise and knock the legs right out from under your argument.

That's why I say that abortion is immoral not because of what the fetus will be but because of what it is from the moment of conception: an innocent human life.

[oxmixmudd]

Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

They were not dead because the brain was still alive. This does not change the fact that without a brain, there is no person there. This just says we may think a brain is dead when it is not. And that may well factor into how early we can consider a fetus a person.

But until there is a brain in there to start with, the argument is moot. There is no brain there. There is no person there.

[Sam]

No, it is just a debate strategy with some abortionists like yourself who want to muddy the waters with various detached terms, so you don't have to admit that you are killing a human being.

I'm pro-life and I'm pointing out matters that go directly to the constitutional limitations permissible on the issue of abortion and I definitely will not continue trying to explain important distinctions if you're going to falsely label me an "abortionist".

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

So it's the "potential" defense. Saying that it will have value implies that prior to consciousness, it has no value, and a pro-abortionist will happily accept that premise and knock the legs right out from under your argument.

That's why I say that abortion is immoral not because of what the fetus will be but because of what it is from the moment of conception: an innocent human life.

You are only wrong in that what you are not really applying innocent correctly, so your premise is false.

Innocence doesn't technically apply to that which is not conscious and has no capacity for consciousness. We can confer innocence on a rock if we want to. We can confer it on a fish too if we say being innocent just means never having done evil. But technically, it doesn't apply. Rocks and fish don't have the capacity to do wrong. Therefore they can't be innocent of wrong. Or conversely, you could reverse the logic say that the sort of innocence that applies to a zygote also applies just as well to a rock, or a fish.

But the potential to become a human being - that doesn't exist in a rock or a fish. And THAT is why abortion is immoral, even if in the early stages it is not murder.

[Cow Poke]

They were not dead because the brain was still alive....

First Things

legalities and ethics surrounding brain death

[oxmixmudd]

First Things

legalities and ethics surrounding brain death

Are you accidentally missing the point, or on purpose?

[Cow Poke]

Are you accidentally missing the point, or on purpose?

Just noting that science/medicine can be gravely wrong.

[rogue06]

Meh, even HuffPo cautions us about accepting "brain death" as a final and authoritative declaration of "it's over".

Even Evolution News carries this story, and suggests further research is needed.

In a previous discussion I noted that some patients in deep comas can have even less brainwave activity than an unborn baby at about 7 weeks. The former virtually flat lines though some recover. The latter continues to grow and develop.

"Meaningful life" is just claptrap that abortion supporter trot out to excuse their actions. Since brainwaves can pretty much flat line when someone enters the deepest type of coma (they "cannot process information or move in response to a stimulus") this means that you wouldn't consider them alive and euthanizing (killing) them is completely acceptable.

Source: From the Deepest Coma, New Brain Activity Found

Source

© Copyright Original Source

In contrast, since back in the mid-1950s and this has been confirmed multiple times since then. As Parents Magazine succinctly puts it in their series about the development of the baby at week 6 "brain waves can now be recorded."




Hopefully, abortions will soon go the way of slavery but I'm afraid it's going to take Christ's return to put an end to this scourge.

[Sparko]

Sparko - this is not a simple discussion and you can't reduce it to simple terms beyond a certain point. Sam is doing a good job of defining the necessary distinctions. A human person is more than just a few human cells. A zygote becomes a human person.

Consider if the brain never forms in the developing zygote->fetus. A fetus without a brain is not a person legally or any other way. Yet you define it a person before it has that which is necessary for personhood! Would you then confer 'provisional personhood' on it, then take it away because of what never was? That is convoluted and irrational. Logically, the zygote can't be what it is not yet. And without a brain, it is not a person. No human body sans a brain is a human person. Take my brain out and you've killed me. My body is no longer a person. OTOH, given some future technology if you clone my body with everthing except the brain and then put my brain in there, now that new body is me! The person is in the brain for as long as the brain lives. No living brain in a body, no person.

Actually no. I never said "person" - Sam did. I said "being" and said I meant it as "organism" - a separate and distinct organism. and in this case a HUMAN organism. Member of the Human Species.

Person is a legal term. There is talk of conferring personhood to apes.

[oxmixmudd]

Just noting that science/medicine can be gravely wrong.

They can be. But you can't be wrong about there being no consciousness in the fetus before it has a brain. Consciousness is in the brain. This is the real world, not Oz.