Re: New Abortion Quiz

That was an intersting link, thanks.

As you can imagine there is much debate, about what it is
to be alive, and what it is to be human.

Joseph Fletcher, has written a lot about this. He is
admittedly a rationalist/naturalist. He has 15 positive
criteria and 5 negative criteria about what it means to be
human.

The Harvard Medical School Ad Hoc committee on the
definition of brain death has come up with a definition of
death based on when the brain has irreversibly lost its
ability to "integrate" the functions of the body.

There have been other definitions proposed about what it
means to be alive, or a person, such as loss of
neocortical function. This would make the definition of
death such that those in a persistent vegetative state,
could be said to have died.

As far as what ethicists have to say about abortion. I
think that it centers a lot around the concept of how
egregious an act has to be, in order for outsiders to
intrude upon a persons right to self determination to
prevent that act from ocurring. Until the fetus has a
status as a person it is really the woman's choice.

Of course our society really has no consensus about when a
fetus becomes person, or when a severely neurologically
injured person loses personhood. This is why cases like
Schiavo, and the abortion debate are still so divisive.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:39:01 -0700
  "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>Wow, Jack. I had never heard of HeLa cells. What a story!
>[ http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html
><http://www.jhu.edu/%7Ejhumag/0400web/01.html> ]
>Thank you for mentioning them.
>
>Could you talk a little about what positions the medical
>ethicists do take?
>Thanks!
>
>JimA
>
>jack syme wrote:
>
>> There are many medical ethicists that would strongly
>>argue against
>> your conception of what human is. And they may not be
>>correct either,
>> but you cannot solve the abortion debate, by just
>>claiming that a
>> fertilized egg is HUMAN.
>>
>> You have to be more convincing. What is your basis for
>>this claim?
>> Is it that the egg has become heterozygous? But, any
>>part of our body
>> that we cut off has heterozygous cells. So, unless you
>>want to claim
>> that using a loofah is killing a human, you need to be
>>more precise.
>> ;) HeLa cells are a heterozygous human cell culture
>>that has been
>> perpetuated for many generations, and no one claims that
>>these are a
>> person.
>>
>> But seriously. If you want to use biblical evidence
>>about when you
>> think "humanity", or perhaps personhood as the
>>rationalists would call
>> it, begins, feel free to do so. This may not convince
>>unbelievers,
>> but I would listen.
>>
>> Think of this, whatever your definition of human is, it
>>will have
>> implications at the other end of the life span. And, as
>>a
>> neurologist, I have a lot of experience with the other
>>end, and I
>> agree that whether or not an entity can sustain its own
>>life is not
>> required of being a human. At least that is my opinion
>>on the matter.
>>
>> Dont just make a claim of what it is to be human, prove
>>it to me.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Yates"
>><billyates@billyates.com>
>> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: New Abortion Quiz
>>
>>
>>> George--
>>>
>>> Essentially your argument says it's OK to extract stem
>>>cells since we
>>> don't know yet if we're killing one or two or more human
>>>beings.
>>>
>>> But, I will modify my sdtatement to:
>>>
>>> * The fertilized egg is HUMAN, one or more human beings
>>>(to account
>>> for the possibility of multiple births), albeit in a
>>>very early stage
>>> of development.
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>>
>>> --Bill
>>>
>>> George Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Yates"
>>>> <billyates@billyates.com>
>>>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:14 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: New Abortion Quiz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let's get down to basics...
>>>>>
>>>>> * Humans begin as the union of sperm and egg.
>>>>> * The DNA of the fertilized egg is human DNA, a
>>>>>combination of the
>>>>> parent's DNA.
>>>>> * The fertilized egg is HUMAN, a human being, albeit in
>>>>>a very
>>>>> early stage of development.
>>>>> * The fertilized egg is ALIVE. It takes in energy from
>>>>>the mother
>>>>> and grows.
>>>>> * Therefore, we can accurately describe the fertilized
>>>>>egg as a
>>>>> LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>>> * We apply different terms to the developing human being
>>>>>depending
>>>>> on its stage of development.
>>>>> * Despite the different terms--blastocyst, embryu,
>>>>>fetus, baby--the
>>>>> developing human being is STILL A LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>>> * At the earlier stages of development, the developing
>>>>>human being
>>>>> is incapable of self-sustaining its life.
>>>>> * The fact that it is incapable of self-sustaining life
>>>>>does not
>>>>> negate or invalidate its essential character as a LIVING
>>>>>HUMAN BEING.
>>>>> * At various points in the human life span--infancy,
>>>>>accident,
>>>>> illness, during surgery--a person may be incapable of
>>>>> self-sustaining life.
>>>>> * The fact that one may be incapable of self-sustaining
>>>>>life does
>>>>> not negate or invalidate one's essential character as a
>>>>>LIVING
>>>>> HUMAN BEING.
>>>>> * The fact that one may be less capable than another of
>>>>>performing
>>>>> certain acts, ranging from cognition to ambulation, due
>>>>>to birth
>>>>> defect, accident, or illness, does not negate or
>>>>>invalidate their
>>>>> essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>>> * Human beings are intrinsically significant and of
>>>>>value, not only
>>>>> to other human beings, but even more importantly, to
>>>>>God.
>>>>> * Therefore, the taking of any human life is an act of
>>>>>great import
>>>>> and not to be taken lightly.
>>>>> * There are very limited circumstances when the taking
>>>>>of human
>>>>> life is allowed: self-defense and war.
>>>>> * The taking of a human life for the convenience of
>>>>>another is
>>>>> immoral as it reduces the victim to the role of
>>>>>commodity for the
>>>>> pleasure of another and denies their essential worth as
>>>>>a human being.
>>>>> * Abortion, from sacrificing a fertilized egg for its
>>>>>stem cells,
>>>>> to "partial birth abortion", is the taking of a HUMAN
>>>>>LIFE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill -
>>>>
>>>> One thing that is problematic about your argument is
>>>>the
>>>> apparently innocuous little word "a" as in "a living
>>>>human being."
>>>> The reason that that's questionable is that for a few
>>>>days after
>>>> conception (I will let the embryologists try to say just
>>>>when) it is
>>>> possible for the conceptus to develop into _two_ - or
>>>>even more -
>>>> living human beings. Thus one cannot speak
>>>>unambiguously of _a_
>>>> human being at such early stages of development. This
>>>>suggests that
>>>> one can take a strong position against abortion of a
>>>>fetus at later
>>>> stages of development and still hold consistently that
>>>>destruction
>>>> of a conceptus at very early stages, for stem cell
>>>>research or other
>>>> reasons, may be legitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Shalom
>>>> George
>>>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --Bill Yates
>>> --mailto:billyates@billyates.com
>>> --http://www.billyates.com
>>> --CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
>>> --Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
>>> --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 14 15:33:44 2004