News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

It is rather humorous that creationists refuse to believe that human life evolved from a single cell, while every single human alive on earth has developed from a single cell. They also seem to get in a knot over aborting a single cell life with the "morning after" pill. This comes down to a question of what is "human" -- a single cell or a fully formed multicellular organism

First let's review some definitions of what is a "human life."

Arbitrary Standards for defining "Human Life"

In one sense, once you start arguing about "when does life begin" you need to take the argument to it's logical conclusion - the very first single living cell, some 3.5 billion years ago or so - based on what the evidence shows. "Life" is not a stop and start process, and there has been a continuing transfer of living material from original life (whatever that was) to every living thing in existence today. THAT is when {life} began. This also does not differentiate human life from other life. When people say "life begins with conception," or "life begins with birth," or some other definition, what they are really talking about when a distinct human life begins.

The problem with the "life begins with conception" (zygote formation) argument, is that not all zygotes naturally survive to become a fetus, to say nothing of reaching the ultimate maturation of the process to produce a living breathing thinking laughing human being. The zygote definition it is a poor predictor of the successful production of a living breathing thinking laughing human being, the desired (usually) product.

Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (see Human Development Chart). From the chart (italics mine for emphasis):



With the failure of 55% of zygotes to implant in the uterus, and then the miscarriage by week 12 of 15% of those that do implant, you are down to 85% of 45% = 38% "success" to that point. This means 55% + 15% of 45% = 62% failure due to natural causes by week 12.

Miscarriages and death continue to occur naturally right up to birth (and beyond), but the rate of loss decreases as each stage of development is completed.

From Patient information: Miscarriage:



At 20 weeks the rate of miscarriages is 31% - of the 45% zygotes that implanted long enough to affect the hormone production (a reaction to the implantation process). That means we are down to 69% of 45% = 31% success and 55% + 31% of 45% = 69% failure due to natural causes by week 20.

After about 20 weeks it becomes possible for premature births, either spontaneously or artificial (cesarean sections) -- however the success rate for such early preemies is low. Again we see that the rate of fetal death drops as each stage of development is completed:

From Table 23. Infant mortality rates, f...e: United States, selected years 1950–99 we can also see the effects of medical improvements:



This would include premature births that survive in the live births and those that don't survive, even with medical care, in the fetal deaths (the reduction from 1950 to 1998 is likely due to higher survival of premature births). So we still see 1 to 2% fetal death with good medical care. It is much higher when there is no medical care, which would represent a more 'natural' state.

A fertilized egg often passes completely out of the uterus without implanting on the wall, sometimes it implants within the fallopian tubes (and causes death if not removed), frequently a (uterus) implanted blastocyst will become detached or rejected, and miscarriages are common at all stages of pregnancy. Thus there is over a 70% failure rate for normal pregnancies due to natural causes, even with good medical care, while with no medical care the rate would be significantly higher.

Again, from Patient information: Miscarriage:



None of these instances of failure result in "human life" -- most such failures (over 55%) are not even noticed, and most of the remainders do not produce an embryo or produce one that is so abnormal that it is not able to live.

Over 70% of zygotes are not capable of producing a living breathing thinking laughing human being.

In another sense, the material that makes up every living thing is in a constant state of being replaced. People have an entirely new skin every 2 months or so. Other parts take longer to be replaced, but every part that forms a living adult human being today was not a part of that individual when they were a child. The molecular and cellular material that makes up a living {being} today was not what made a living {being} in the measurable past. If all life is in a constant state of flux then how can one say where it "begins" (or ends)? It is not logical to define life, especially human life, based on the existence of one or even a few cells.

This process occurs from the start, with dead cells shed by the zygote\blastocyst\fetus into the amniotic fluid. From Fetal cell Shedding:



Thus of the original material from the original cell that grows and divides, about half becomes the placenta, chord, etc, and half of becomes the embryo, which sheds dead cells and the waste products of internal cells (like urea) into the amniotic fluid. Thus the original cell material could easily be completely discarded in waste materials (including ultimately the placenta) and dead cells long before the birth of the fetus. A baby that is born after nine months of this process thus would not necessarily contain any material at all from the original cell.

We also saw above that "in 1/3 of miscarriages occurring before 8 weeks, there is a pregnancy sac but no embryo inside. This means the egg was fertilized and the cells began to divide, but an embryo did not develop." In these cases none of the cell material of the zygote was preserved in the organism.

There is nothing special about the cell material of the zygote that would cause it to be preserved in the organism.

The "life begins at conception" argument is an arbitrary standard that does gives us a totally inadequate measure of when a human life begins. Thus to state that life "begins" when an egg is fertilized or at some other point in the cycles of cell division and growth is just as arbitrary as saying it is when a child is born, or even, say, reaches the age of ten years old.

Such an age criteria for "human life" could be arbitrarily based on when an individual is capable of survival on it's own, or when it becomes an adult capable of reproduction. The Human Development Chart put those ages at 8 to 10 years old and 18+ years old. Using, say, the tenth birthday as a standard for achieving human life would give us an arbitrary standard that does result in recognizably human life, it also is inadequate for defining the human life of children under 10: it errs on the conservative side.

It used to be a fairly common practice to leave babies unnamed until they had survived for a year, as high infant mortality was so common. Infanticide was also a common way to deal with any unwanted children in the past. For the cultures and societies that used this fatalistic approach, the definition of "human life" would be that it begins after they have reached their first birthday. In some places this is still so, but medical improvements have made this uncommon in the more developed cultures. It was also common in many societies for a baby to go through a religious ceremony (like baptism) before it was considered a person.

A dead skin cell is not a dead human being even though it has human DNA, so DNA alone is not enough to qualify as "human life" - a living breathing thinking human being, a person. A stem cell has the capability to become an organ, like a liver or a heart, but a liver or a heart is not a living breathing thinking human being, and thus having stem cells is not enough to qualify as "human life." A fetus that dies due to abnormalities that prevent it from being able to live is not able to qualify as a living breathing thinking human being, so just being a fetus is not enough to qualify as a "human life."

The real question is when does this continuum of life begin to be a distinct living breathing heart thumping thinking laughing human being - with the qualities that separates human beings from other kinds of life: what is the quality that we, as (egocentric) humans, consider important for determining when and if a "person" exists, and when that starts or ceases to exist?

From wikipedia: human life:



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. These latter criteria have been developed over a significant period of time with a lot of ethical input from all sides into the specific considerations involved, and a look at them is instructive.

There are usually two levels considered. One is the legal concept of clinical death where doctors unequivocally declare a patient to be dead. The other is the concept of brain dead, where the body can continue to breath and circulate blood as long as nutrients are supplied, but there is no conscious brain activity or capability left that is in control of that life.

Legal Death

The first legal standard of death is very clear - from the Legal Definition of Death (click):


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. 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:



Thus according to the legal definition of death, anything that has not developed to the stage of having a functional respiratory and circulation system AND a functioning brain cannot be considered a human life.

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.

The heart and circulatory system begin to develop first, followed by rudimentary activity in the brain stem, then upper brain areas, followed last by the development of the respiratory systems, however there are changes in the heart and lungs that don't occur until birth. Typically the limit to saving premature babies depends on the level of development of the lungs - before a certain point the lungs just cannot be made to function. This point would have to be determined by professionals in each case, based on the actual level of development the fetus has reached.

Note that this would in effect make the point of "uniform life" to be {not birth so much as} the earliest possible point at which {assisted premature} birth would be medically feasible without causing significant effect on the end result.

This would be consistent with many cultural definitions of when life begins, while taking into consideration the current and increasing medical ability to sustain premature births.

If a fetus does not meet the criteria to pass this "uniform life" test then it legally could be declared non-living (medically dead), a simple legal procedure similar to the declaration of death used in hospitals, etc, and the legal issue of abortion would no longer be a question. In my opinion this sets a latest possible limit on the question of abortion to the point where legal life cannot be ruled out, and anything after that cannot be justified from a legal or moral standpoint.

Premature Birth

A fetus is not an "unborn baby" as there are fundamental differences between a fetus and a baby, including some changes that occur shortly after birth before the baby is fully functioning as a living breathing laughing human. For instance, living breathing laughing human babies do not need a placenta and an umbilical cord to live, but a fetus will die without them. There are other necessary changes to the heart and the lungs and blood for a fetus to become a baby. These changes are part of the challenge in helping prematurely born babies to live (which they normally do not do when there is no treatment):

From Fetus - wikipedia article (click)



From Fetal Hemoglobin - wikipedia article (click)



These are substantial changes that occur at birth and transform a fetus into a baby. The term "unborn baby" is misleading, a false representation of reality, as it ignores these substantial differences. A fetus with adult hemoglobin will not get enough oxygen to grow and develop, and a baby with a fetal heart will also die. Death is not an insignificant difference.

There are also limits to how early a fetus can be removed from the womb and be kept alive by medical technology. This limit lowers steadily as technology and knowledge improve, but there appears to be a limit at which the result is less than desirable to many people.

From Premature babies' disability risk (click)



Notice that the parents have the right to turn off the life support machines for preemies. Parents have the legal right to terminate life support for their children if they feel they will not survive as a fully operational living breathing heart thumping thinking laughing human being.

These premature babies, "preemies," are not born fully functioning (mature) babies, they needed machines to replace functions of the natural womb to finish their development, and would have normally die without it. In one sense they are not fully "born" until they can survive off the life support machines, but it is normal social convention to consider them born as they have been removed from the womb (the same rational is used for the term "partial-birth abortion" although for different end purposes).

We don't know if the 400 preemies not admitted died before they could be, or if their parents decided not to use the services available, as was their right (the "no heroic measures" decision also common at the end of life).

Only 38.7% of the preemies admitted to the neo-natal intensive care survived, and of those only 50% did not have significant complications\disabilities. This is a 19.4% "success" rate at this point of development.

If we can remove a fetus and keep it developing and growing with medical procedures, but the result is not a fully functioning human being - due to mental or physical handicaps caused by the premature removal - then I would argue that a limit has reached regardless of whether the end result is living, a limit where the result is not desirable to everyone. This point appears to have already been reached in my opinion, as only about 20% of premature births born at 24 weeks are not permanently, severely, mentally handicapped. This gets up into the area of the second standard for life, the issue of "personhood" (see next).

Personhood

The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood. From Biology, Consciousness, and the Definition of Death (click):



This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" - in this case the family - can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulatory and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.

Certainly in cases where continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the doctors could perform an early-term C-section, and once the {fetus\premature child} was removed the family could direct that "no heroic measures" be taken to see if the {fetus\premature child} survives or dies a natural death on its own - this choice is currently legal, as there are people of certain religious beliefs that they would chose to let nature take its course and have insisted on their right to their beliefs. This certainly fits with the end of the material quoted above:

"Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life- supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful - including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients - can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead."

I submit to all for consideration, that any method that results in the removal of a fetus from a womb, but that does not harm or endanger the {patient} in any way except for the removal of life-support, and that only upon the request of the "appropriate surrogate" (here that would be the immediate family), results in a legal death due to natural causes.

The issue of individual rights is such that any standard which allows people to enjoy a right that does not inflict harm on other persons cannot morally be refused, and conversely, that any standard which tries to restrict such a right (that does not inflict harm on other persons) from some people is unethical. This holds even though some people may choose to live by what they view as a higher standard themselves (if they do not harm other persons by doing so). In this regard the concept of "personhood" shows where the legal choices should be allowed.

There is a sensible strict definition of when the limits of life are met, both at the beginning and at the end. In both cases there are groups of people that may wish to use a further definition of "personhood" to determine whether it is desirable to provide life support in the gray areas when the criteria are not fully or clearly met, and in those cases an "appropriate surrogate" - the immediate family - can make the decision to withhold life support to allow the process to reach a natural end.

Implications for Abortion

What is clear is that there has been a continuous transfer of living material from the point in time when life originated to every living thing in existence today, and that to state that life "begins" when an egg is fertilized or at some other point in the cycles of cell division and growth is just as arbitrary as saying it is when a child is born, reaches it's first birthday, or even, say, reaches the age of ten.

The real question is when does that continuous thread of life become a distinct living breathing human being. To be ethical this question needs to match the question of when life is no longer human - when legal death has occurred. The question, then, is when does "legal life" occur, and the standard proposed is developed from the legal definition of death:



Until life with human DNA reaches this point it cannot be considered "legal human life" even though living cells exist (just as they do in bodies that are declared "legally dead"). This would most certainly apply before cell specialization has occurred. Thus there should be absolutely NO QUESTION about the legality of the "Morning After" pill being as freely available over the counter to anyone as condoms are (and if anyone thinks that this would become the control method of choice has not been paying attention: I think one experience with it would make uncautious women much more cautious). I also think it is totally the woman's choice at this point whether or not to use this method.

After the point has been reached where the fetus has begun to develop the systems critical for life, sufficient time has passed that a decision, conscious or not, has been made to go beyond that point, and other ethical questions are raised. Certain experiments with music have shown that babies are able to recognize music that was played while they were in the womb (and this has also been confirmed for other primates). Many mothers will tell you that different children behaved differently before birth.

We can also look at the limited ability we have to preserve premature births (or early cesarean deliveries), even with extensive medical intervention, to bring the "preemie" to the stage of being a viable human baby that will develop into a normal human being. At the present state of medical technology we are only able to do this for less than 20% of preemies born earlier than the 24 to 25 week, so that would be a lower limit to fully realized personhood: in essence the end of the second trimester, week 26 or 27, where we have good success rates for premature births. This would argue that an emergency intervention cesarean delivery instead of an abortion would not be successful. This should set an upper gestation age boundary for the level of development where a declaration of legal life cannot be met.

Where late term abortions are considered, I think it would be more appropriate to do a "premature C-section" than any extraction methods. This would resolve any medical issues and leave the viability of the {fetus/child} up to the abilities of medical practice and the wishes of the "appropriate surrogates" on the extent of "heroic measures" necessary. The right of families to withhold extreme medical techniques and allow a natural death have been established and accommodate the beliefs of many people in the process, religious and secular.

This would have to apply for any fetus where prenatal medicine can assure a healthy and fully functioning child under normal circumstances, and as we see from current practice this is reached somewhere after the 26th week: certainly this would apply to all "third trimester" abortions.

Using the logic of the requirements for legal death to define the requirements for legal life first, and then on the judgment of the "appropriate surrogates" and their valuation of "personhood" to make decisions on the need to maintain life support systems when they feel it is appropriate, builds a framework in which the issue of abortion can be discussed on a rational medical basis while still allowing us, as a culture, to confront "the problem of value pluralism" - to adequately allow for the full diversity of beliefs that exist. (it's a values thing eh?)

Implications for Stem Cell Research

The implications for stem cell research derive from the legal definition of death and the issue of personhood as well, and the choices made by the family in regards to sustaining life support systems.

Again, looking to legal death for guidance, we see that families have a choice when they decide to terminate life support of a relative on whether to donate organs for other people or to donate the body to research. There has also been a survey of fertility clinic patients, Forbes article: Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research:



The Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research



The preferred alternative to keeping embryos forever, or disposing of them, therefore, is for them to be used for medical research aimed at improving human life.

Ethically there should be no question that allowing the use of cellular material from an embryo or a fetus is a question that should be left to the family to decide.

This holds whether the embryo or fetus is from an abortion, the medical death of a early C-section fetus or an embryo made during fertility procedures but not used. There is no ethical question on the use of adult stem cells for research, and with the ethical question of legal life being resolved, there can be no ethical question on the use of fetal stem cell research: in both cases the materials are donated to research by the "appropriate surrogates" - the families involved.

Conclusion

Using the definition of human life proposed here we can provide the same ethical treatment of life before birth as we use for terminal patients, and allow families to decide what is best for their families. This allows us to evaluate whether abortion and stem cell research are ethical based on this existing criteria.

Enjoy
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Upon reading your post, I have to point out that your very first sentence is a fallacy to the core. (...Not to mention the entire diatribe being nothing more than a well-written propaganda piece.)

In making your statement...

[color:"magenta"]"It is rather humorous that creationists refuse to believe that human life evolved from a single cell, while every single human alive on earth has developed from a single cell."[/color]

Your bold statement clearly makes the enormous assumption that there are similarities between the development of a baby in the womb and the by-chance evolution of a single-cell organism into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing, machine.

The fact is, there is virtually no relationship between the two, especially as it relates to evolutionary fables.

Here's why.

The information necessary for the development of a totipotent stem cell into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine is already present in the cell.

In a single-cell organism, this information is not present.

The difference between the two examples that you are proclaiming to be similar, is absolutely enormous. In fact, considering the relationship of totipotent cells to unipotent, they are considered opposites.

[color:"brown"]The realization of this fact alone (the one I am teaching you about) has been the reason for many biologists and highly-qualified scientists in other fields to convert to a non-evolutionary belief system.[/color]

As for myself, I have said many times, whether or not I had become a Christian, I would never become an evolutionist because evolution is simply junk science and myth composed to support a political agenda. It is an affront to science.

I mean no offense but I intend to speak the truth with accuracy:

This argument you introduced is one of a rank amateur. Professing yourself to be an intelligent evolutionist, you should certainly know better.

Truthfully, I'm not at all surprised that an evolutionist would rely on such an argument because evolution (1) is based on, and (2) can only survive in the mind of an intelligent person when vast assumptions and deep oversights are preset to support it.


[color:"brown"]"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."[/color]

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179

Thanks again Russ for your perceptive insight.

Of course - single cell organisms don't have a womb which is absolutely necessary for a mammal to reach gestation maturity.

The only difference inside the cell is in the DNA, and there are clearly many existing organisms alive on earth today that are intermediate in reproduction methodology from asexual single cell division to single cell sexual life forms and on up to human. The process of reproduction can easily evolve as the organism that are reproducing change from generation to generation -- after all that is what evolution is.

But there is no element in a human cell that is not in a single cell eukaryote organism. DNA has four (4) bases and twenty (20) amino acids and there are no special parts in human DNA that are not in the DNA of a prokaryote bacteria.

I notice that you do not talk about any part of the argument, but instead resort to the ad hominum attack. What was it you said about distraction and lies?

The "Russ Tanner Manifesto Lie Test":

Certainly you don't address the fact that over 70% of zygotes are completely unable to become human beings.


Clearly 70% of the zygotes did not have the necessary equipment in their cells. That's a 2 to 1 failure rate that kind of blows your argument out of the water, eh Russ? Especially those that divided and formed sacs but no embryo.


Then you will admit that 70% of zygotes do not, could not, become humans due to natural failure and in spite of medical intervention and the best science can do.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

This is a strange response in this context.

I am merely pointing out that a heck of a lot of information needs to be present in order for a totipotent stem to do its work. There is no logic in comparing this scenario to a single celled organism evolving into a human over eons (as you did previously). Your statement is nonsensical.




It looks this way to your eye; It sure feels this way in your heart, but it's a lot more complex than that friend.

It's like saying a house is an intermediate between a washing machine and a 747 because they both have doors.

There's a lot more going on than meets the eye or the heart. You're making a gross oversimplification. Again, this is often done to confuse people into believe evolution is possible.

We're talking about arranging information here (in this context). You're dealing with astronomical odds. You're playing on a roulette wheel the size of Jupiter and hoping for 10 million hits in a row. This is simply a mathematical impossibility without external intelligence.




No, it can't.

And this is one of the most consistently outrageously ridiculous things that evolutionists keep having this unspeakable faith in.

You're looking a television set and saying,

"Hey, it has:

(1) A knob, and
(2) A picture tube, and
(3) A Plug.

Turn it on it's side and it'll be a chair!"

You're conveniently forgetting about the other 10,000 parts that need to be perfectly arranged, except that were talking about something here with much, much more information to deal with.

You are omitting massive amounts of information that would need to be changed in such an exacting and coordinated way that it simply becomes a mathematical impossibility, so much so that this type of speculation (blind faith) is not in the realm of science. It's much more akin to a man-made religion.

Honestly, either you're believing in a gross simplification because you don't realize the difficulties here or you know about the difficulties and are trying to proselytize.




Just more of the same garbage buddy.

Yes, the world contains all the elements necessary to build something complex. Now what?

We're talking about processes here, not state.




What on earth does this have to do with my argument?

Were you in a hurry?


---

[color:"brown"]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."[/color]

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

Thank you Russ for your point of view.

So you say, however you have not provided any real evidence, certainly not anything that prevents this from happening. This would be an interesting topic to discuss, but it not the topic of this thread, which is the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions.

Feel free to start a thread on this issue and we can discuss it. Most of your post is simply the argument from incredulity as well as being off the topic of the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions.

Well for one it shows that the cell is not all powerful in becoming a human being, that there is substantial natural failure in the process that demonstrate that zygotes do not always become humans.

http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?file=pregnan/5386
Your "totipotent stem cell" was somehow totally incapable of developing an embryo in 1/3 of miscarriages occurring before 8 weeks, even though it developed a pregnancy sac with the rudimentary placenta attached to the uterus wall. Where's the human eh?

It is also related to the topic: the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions. It shows that a zygote is not the same as a human life. It's the same as the "all A is B, B! therefore A" logical fallacy:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wyjbammegu.jpg">
(relative size not to scale, sketch is to illustrate the fallacy)

Where "A" represents the zygotes that become human babies and "B" represents all the conception zygotes. Most of "B" does not contain any "A" and therefore you cannot say B=A.

The point being that if we are going to talk rationally about human life then we need a definition that does represent A. That is what this thread sets out to do.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Once we have a better understanding of the definition of human life, then we can discuss stem cell research rationally rather than emotionally. Here I want to draw the parallel between terminally ill patients and the frozen embryos left over from fertility clinics, when there is no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing artificial life support.

The definition derived above is a definition that is consistent at both extremes of human life, one before a conscious functioning individual human being has developed and one after a conscious functioning individual human being has ceased to exist. Both cases involve certain amounts of cell material that is still living, cases where families may need to make decisions whether or not to continue artificial life support systems. Certainly the legal and ethical basis for this type of decision has been developed for the termination of life, when tissue and organs can be transplanted for the benefit of human life. This same ethical and legal basis should apply at the other extreme, as should the abilities of families to apply their particular beliefs to the choices they make.

Fertility Clinics and Stem Cell Research

From Freezing of human sperm, oocytes and embryos:
Technically at this age these are blastula rather than embryos. Many do not survive the freezing process, but enough are processed that there is usually a large surplus. From In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) Clinics:
The question becomes what should be done with these surplus embryos once they are no longer needed by the families involved.

The implications for stem cell research derive from the legal definition of death used above and the choices faced by the family in regards to sustaining life support systems. Looking to the application of the legal death definition for guidance, we see that families have a choice when they decide to terminate life support of a relative on whether to donate organs for other people or to donate the body to research.

There has also been a survey of fertility clinic patients, Forbes article: Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research:
The Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research
The preferred alternative to keeping embryos forever, or disposing of them, therefore, is for them to be used for medical research aimed at improving human life.

Ethically there should be no question that allowing the use of cellular material from an embryo is a question that should be left to the family to decide, as this is the same as the situation at the end of life when there is no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing artificial life support.

There is no ethical question on the use of adult stem cells for research, and with the ethical question of legal life being resolved, there can be no ethical question on the use of embryonic stem cell research: in both cases the materials are donated to research by the "appropriate surrogates" - the families involved.

Conclusion

Using the definition of human life proposed here we can provide the same ethical treatment regarding the question of life and death for frozen embryos as we currently use for terminal patients, and allow families to decide what is best for their families.

This allows us to evaluate whether using surplus embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research is ethical based on the existing criteria: the same conditions apply, that families are faced with the decision to

• continue artificial life support with no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing such support,
• halting life support and letting the remaining cells, tissues, etc. that are being kept alive artificially to expire naturally, or
• donating material (cells, tissues, etc) for medical research or to use for transplants.

From the survey above we see that, just as we see with the end of life, different families will make different decisions.

Letting the families concerned make the decisions on what to do with the surplus embryos meets the needs for a plurality of beliefs to be accommodated within our society, in the same way that it is for terminally ill patients, and it meets the same ethical demands of each of those families.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]