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.

Hi again shadow71, thanks. Actually it addresses minimal elements that are necessary to qualify as human life.It addresses when a distinct human life ceases to be a distinct human life, and then it applies the very same criteria to see when a distinct human life begins to be a distinct human life.There are two questions here: when life began, and when that life becomes human.Life began some 3.5 billion years ago, and has continued to this day, in an unbroken chain of living cells and cell matter. Likewise the DNA is not created anew with any new offspring but inherited from parents. Life forms a continuous thread from start to now, with many branches - some human and some not human.When it comes to defining human life, however, there are criteria that are used that are distinct from the issue of life: what makes us human.According to the universal definition of (human) death one ceases to be human when there is a cessation of brain and respiratory function (there are other elements that qualify the person as human that are not included here, and come under the category of "personhood").Logically, then, at a minimum, one cannot become human until the brain and respiratory functions begin.Certainly there are fundamental objective differences between a fetus and a baby, not least of which is that the baby breathes and the fetus does not. Another is a change in the heart where an opening is closed so that the baby can pump blood on its own. These are some of the reasons that premature births are kept in the intensive care units on life support systems until the fetal development is complete and the transition into an autonomous baby is made. Even with all the advances in medical knowledge there appears to be a limit (about 24 weeks iirc) to how early a premature birth can occur without extensive developmental abnormalities or incomplete brain development.We can also compare a human fetus to a chimpanzee fetus and ask what the difference is. We can also look at the ability of some chimpanzees to surpass the abilities of some humans in cognitive skills. At what point does a human child have characteristics that would qualify it as human vs non-human (ie that a chimpanzee does not have)?One argument I have seen is that a human offspring is not able to function on its own until approximately 9 years of age, and will die without assistance.Another argument is that a human offspring is not able to reproduce until about 13 years of age, and another argument I have seen is that a human offspring is not fully cognizant for making behavioral decisions until about 21 years of age, and that the brain is not fully developed until that stage is reached.Should we make an argument that you need to be fully developed to qualify as a human being, then these arguments are as valid as any others I have seen, and more than some because they are based on actual empirical evidence.This takes us into the question of personhood - and the distinct objective characteristics of the individual that qualify as a particular human being: what makes you you and me me. One can lose the elements characteristic of their individuality by loss of some brain function, and still be a breathing heart pumping individual with just enough brain function to maintain respiratory and circulatory function. Are they a human individual or just the mechanical shell of one? We don't debate here by posting bare links. We debate by posting the salient points and citing the link as a reference to check the accuracy of the points made.I do note that the end of your link it says:

quote:

---

The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person is a research institute conducting interdisciplinary, natural law analysis of complex, contemporary moral issues as yet unresolved among Judeo-Christian scholars.

​

Anchored in the classic perennial and Catholic view of the human person, our moral inquiries are first and foremost of a scholarly nature. However, we pursue answers to disputed questions with an eye toward enriching the quality of contemporary moral discourse and fostering sound prudential judgment in cultural and political matters.

---

This is a religious and ethics publication, not science. Scientists are free to have personal opinions on ethics and religion. And yet some 55% (or more) of zygotes die in the dark damp wilderness of waste disposal systems unheralded and most often unknown.Of those that actually do implant on the uterus wall, some are not necessarily destined to become a human being either: many spontaneous abortions occur due to malformed organs and vital systems, and many babies are born with birth defects that medical practice is currently not able to repair. Even babies that get past this barrier are subject to sudden infant death syndrome.One frequent cause of many spontaneous abortions are due to empty sac development - the zygote implants on the uterus wall, the blastula develops and the embryonic sac is formed, but nothing else. There is no rational argument that I can see that an empty embryonic sac is a human being. The formation of a zygote (B) does not mean the formation of a human being (A), because there are too many ways a zygote can fail to become a human being. B does not predict A.Edited by Zen Deist, : 24 weeksEdited by Zen Deist, : 55%

Hi again shadow71, If you would read through the Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion thread you would have most of your answers.

quote:

---

Message 45:

​

Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis):

day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)

​

{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12

---

There is a gap in the mortality information between day 9 and week 4, where logically we can assume spontaneous abortions occur, meaning that the numbers of successful pregnancies are even less. At least 55% + 15%x45% = 62% of the number of zygotes formed end in failure to develop into a human.Many other posters on this forum have already read that thread.Enjoy.

Hi shadow71, I just have a couple of questions to add. Aside from the issue of not being able to show that "soul" exists, I have a couple questions:(1) does this apply to empty embryonic sacs? These are fairly common products of zygotes, but not one of them has ever become a fetus.(2) if empty embryonic sacs have souls, then does any living organism with similar or more complex structure have a soul? Such as a sponge (a group of cells forming a sac)? (3) If an empty embryonic sac has a soul then it would seem to be a property of living cells rather than specifically human cells, yes? (4) Why would the zygotes from induced abortions be any different from those that spontaneously abort?(5) If we discuss the "morning after pill" for instance, the effect of the pill is to ensure that a spontaneous abortion occurs, is it not? Would we not be safe in saying that 60% of the time this is just assisting the natural process, yes?(6) So if 60% of the time it is okay to assist nature, then what is wrong with the remainder? (7) Science has done extensive work on assisting people to become pregnant so it is easy to create a viable fetus and baby so why should science work on something that is easily resolved by the people involved: if they want a baby they can try again, can't they?It only becomes a problem when you use an untenable definition of human life.My personal opinion is that a human life begins when a baby takes it's first independent breath, pumps blood through it's heart without medical assistance, and shows brain activity. Reaching this point may be assisted by the use of medical procedures to provide intensive care for premature babies or by the natural "intensive care" provided in a womb environment, but the line is simple: breath+heartbeat+brain activity.Enjoy.