Summations Only

Hi shadow71,

quote:

---

Legal Death, Legal Life

​

The real question is when does this continuum of life begin to be a distinct living breathing heart thumping thinking human being. On common moral grounds, it is important to be consistent at both ends of the spectrum of life. Thus the concept of beginning needs to be consistent with current medical practice in determining when a human life has ended. This criteria has been developed over a significant period of time with a lot of ethical input from all sides into the specific ethical considerations involved.

​

Legal Death

​

The legal standard of death is very clear - from What is the medical definition of death? (click):

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

​

That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of {heart\lung} system or total brain failure. Any person with either of these failures is universally and legally considered to be dead.

​

The word "irreversible" is used to refer to common medical practical limits to resuscitation.

​

Legal Life

​

When considering this in terms of beginning rather than end, the same conditions should apply. Where the irreversible failure of either system qualified for death, the irreversible instigation of both is logically necessary for life to legally begin. Likewise "all functions" would become "any functions" of the brain. This could be reworded in a format similar to the death act above as follows:

​

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

​

Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death.

---

See Message 25 for a slight modification that is a little less stilted.You can also review the Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion thread (now closed) on the issue of personhood.Enjoy.

I appreciate your post but it does not answer the question of this OP namely when does human life begin. Your are discussing quality of life not the beginning of life.
An answer to the OP I just found can be found at this the link below, by Maureen L. Condic a Prof. of neurobiology and Anatomy.Her answer supported by scientific research is that human life begns at the moment of the sperm-egg fusion or the formatin of a zygote. This formation of the zygote initiates a sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions that are required for the continued embryonic delevopment.Westchester Institute.

Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of other anti abortion sites that will give you other similar answers "supported by scientific research". Most of the answers here have been supported by scientific research. The fact is that scientific research doesn't definitively answer the question because the question hinges upon an arbitrary judgement, of what constitutes a person or what constitutes a human life.Why even start the thread if all you want is some tenuous argument to act as a fig leaf so you can pretend science falls in line with your already held beliefs?Could you not just google 'pro-life science abortion'? Here.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

What is your opinion as to when human life begins? You get all upset because I present a qualifed scientist's opinon as to when life begins supported by scientific studies and opinions.Is this paper uncorrect?
What does science say as to when life begins?
If it doesn't agree with your findings is it pretend?Here is a quote from Alan Guttmacher. Is he all wet and pretending science falls in line with his already beliefs? "A facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant...The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell." - Dr. Alan Guttmacher, ardent proponent of abortion, in his book Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962) He was the president of Planned Parenthood and fought to make and keep abortion legal.I think you should attack the paper upon it's scientific findings instead of rejecting it out of hand because of the philosophy of the group presenting the author.Edited by shadow71, : spellling

Hi shadow71, That it began around three and half billion years ago.The issue is not when life begins, or even when an individual life begins. It's when person-hood begins and that must always remain a somewhat arbitrary judgement. Just as WK says, it's not a question to which science can give us a definitive answer. As such, the question of when an individual life begins is not relevant to the abortion debate.Mutate and Survive

But that is the problem that I have been trying to point out. It is not the presence of a brain that defines personhood. Most of the graveyards world wide are chucked full of people who were buried with a fully intact developed brain. What was missing upon the pronunciation of their death, was that body or brain's ability to either repair or reproduce the brain. It was when it was determined that there was no longer any brain activity and that there would never again be any brain activity that they were declared to no longer be a person.Therefore personhood is not just about the presence of a brain, it is about an individual with the ability to gain brain function. Most fetus' posses this ability.

This is a very good question. I love this stuff. Let me answer your question with a question. I have to answer it this way because intellectually, people will tend to give all sorts of answers until you make them face it this way.Suppose you were walking along and came across a building that was burning and you heard cries coming from inside. You muster up the courage to dash in and try and help whoever is crying out. Upon entry you hear a cry coming from a hallway to the left, and a cry coming from the hallway on the right. You also observe that the support beam in the center of the structure is about to collapse and so you only have one chance to save one of the cries for help. Glancing down one hall you see an old woman trapped under some debris and glancing down the other hall you see a trapped dog. Here is the question. "Which living entity are you going to attempt to save?" Of course it would be the dog... just kidding.Seriously though, we humans place the higher value on our own species and would 99% of the time try and save a human over any other species. My suspicion is that this would also be the case (after all the shock and "new" wore off) if we exchanged the dog with ET in this analogy. I think we all know what this means. The problem is deciding when it takes place. I think if we examine exactly what happens at the end of life it wont help solve the problem, but it will help clarify it. At life's end a doctor determines brain death. It is not just the absence of brain activity that declares they are no longer a person, but rather it is the absence of brain activity with the prognosis that there will never again be any brain activity. In those cases where the doctors believe the patient can recover they are not considered non-persons. Most fetus' do have the ability to gain brain function, therefore we can't disqualify them as persons simply because they currently are lacking it.This puts us back where we started. Neither religion nor science can tell us when it is a person. The prognosis is the doctor saying, "I'm sorry, he's gone." The doctor is saying his brain is no longer functioning and will never function again. It is that "never function again" part that is key to the prognosis. The doctor would never say, "I'm sorry, he's gone, but in about 9 months he'll be just fine." The "cases" I was referring to are the many people who were actually declared clinically dead but did come back.

Mistakenly concluding that an existing brain has died (and the person with it) is hardly the same as concluding that a brain which has never existed doesn't exist. And as long as there isn't ever again any brain activity this assessment would be correct wouldn't it? But still any unexpected recovery in brain activity that this person might miraculously undergo is dependent on them possessing a physical brain. Has anyone ever recovered personhood after their brain has been removed? The presence of a brain is absolutely fundamental to personhood existing in the first place.

If that is the definition you want to apply then are you back to square one in failing to address all of the problems pointed out to you right at th beginning of this thread: Look Shadow I know that for religious reasons you need there to be a "moment" at which soul imbued human life springs forth. But the fact is that biology doesn't work that way. And furthermore the "moment" you have decided to pin your hopes to results in 60% of all souls never making it past the conceptus stage anyway.How are you going to reconcile your definition with these facts? Are you really suggesting that over 60% of humans have never even physically existed beyond a cell or two?

I've read the paper. Her conclusions are philosophical and arbitrary, not scientific. She concludes that a zygote is a human organism/being because it "initiates" the process (all being well) of forming into an embryo. On the same basis, a likely potential pre-solar nebula would be a solar system (although it isn't one), a small growing storm would be a hurricane (although it isn't one), and the first small ridge caused by two colliding tectonic plates would be a mountain range (although it isn't one). I don't think that's what you meant to ask. Her conclusion doesn't follow from her technical description.

I was discussing human life and that was the topic of this tread.I respectfull disagree that the question of when an individual life begins is not revelant to the abortion debate.
I think all agree that the intent of abortion is to eliminate a human life. See Planned Parenthood.How would you define "personhood"? Is threre no human life until personhood?
That's, in my opinion, a pretty dangerous moral slope to stand on.

Weird.How is not creating a life the same as eliminating a life?

That may well be true, I can't answer that question. I have expressed my opinion based on my moral essence. I then linked a biologists who is of the scientific opinion as to when life begins. I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs.
The purpose of the thread was to disccuss whether there was a scientific consensus as to when life begins.
It appears to me that that consensus is either at conception or shortly thereafter, but I may be wrong.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well of course you are wrong and the scientific and legal consensus is that human life begins around the third trimester. Even at that point there may not be human life.

I meant human life, the subject of this tread. That is your opinion and she obviously disagrees with you. I don't know your qualifications, but do know she is a qualified biologist. If you are also qualfied to give that opinion then there is disagreement.
That's part of life, no pun intended.