Donating Bodies to Science

[Danieltwotwenty]

If I were a transplant surgeon, I wouldn't say, "All right, everybody, Mrs. Brown is almost dead. So let's take her heart now. We need to hurry, or it'll be useless." If I did that, I'd treat here as a mere tool, a mere commodity, not as an infinitely valuable person God created. Even if she signed knew that should need to be living when they took her heart from her body, that would still be murder, in my opinion.

While the body may be alive there is obviously no life in that body, it is just a shell and if that shell can help someone else I am all for it.
The person is the spirit/soul not the shell it inhabits while it is on this Earth, once that spirit/soul has left the body then it becomes nothing but matter.

Dan

[Callisto]

I think while we do experience a Resurrection, it's also written that those bodies will be new, entirely different from our old ones. So I think that implies that if something were to happen to it, God could and would put us back together again. People who get blown up by bombs, lost in plane crashes, drowned in the oceans, etc. don't go to hell just because their body was more or less pulled apart, molecule by molecule.

[Bill McEnaney]

While the body may be alive there is obviously no life in that body, it is just a shell and if that shell can help someone else I am all for it.
The person is the spirit/soul not the shell it inhabits while it is on this Earth, once that spirit/soul has left the body then it becomes nothing but matter.

Good job, Dan. Saints Thomas and Augustine would agree partly with you because the believe there's a difference between living and existing. People, animals, plants, bacteria, etc., live. Living implies existing. But existing doesn't imply living. Rocks, computers, corpses, houses, and other inanimate objects exist, but they don't live.

My body becomes a corpse when my soul leaves it. Why do I believe that? Because for me and for Saint Thomas, our souls animate our bodies. I'm a human person I'm composed of a human body and a soul. My body is a human body because a soul animates it. After I die, my corpse will be a human corpse because a human soul animated it when I was living. My corpse will look like me, but you're right, Dan: I won't be it.

I still need to disagree, though, with people who believe that they're spirits who live in their bodies in much the same way that I live in my house. Suppose we're spirits who live in our bodies. Dan and I agree that we're distinct from our bodies. The trouble is, for me, that if a baby is a spirit who lives in a body the way my friend Ryan camps in a tent, abortion supporters can say, "Bill, people are immortal spirits who live in their bodies. Abortion doctors free babies from their bodies when they abort the babies. But since the babies are immortal spirits, not body-soul composites, aborted babies always survive their abortions. When the fifth commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' It means 'Thou shalt not separate anyone from his body.' "

Holy Scripture warns me to fear people can kill the soul in hell, not the ones who can kill the body. The second death is the one that "kills" the soul. That death is damnation, in my opinion. You might tell me, "Bill, you see? The Bible shows that bodies can keep living, even after we leave them." Maybe they can do that. But the passage I'm talking about still suggests a difference among my body, my soul, and me when it tells me to fear the ones who can kill the soul, not the ones who can kills the soul. I seem to remember that some people believe that God annihilates the damned when they die. As St. Justin Martyr says in his First Apology, annihilation would be a boon for the wicked because they would never suffer again. They'd "sleep forever."

[Danieltwotwenty]

I still need to disagree, though, with people who believe that they're spirits who live in their bodies in much the same way that I live in my house. Suppose we're spirits who live in our bodies. Dan and I agree that we're distinct from our bodies. The trouble is, for me, that if a baby is a spirit who lives in a body the way my friend Ryan camps in a tent, abortion supporters can say, "Bill, people are immortal spirits who live in their bodies. Abortion doctors free babies from their bodies when they abort the babies. But since the babies are immortal spirits, not body-soul composites, aborted babies always survive their abortions. When the fifth commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' It means 'Thou shalt not separate anyone from his body.' "

My understanding of abortions is that the human foetus is a viable human life and if left alone it will grow into a human being. There is a big difference between a viable life and a life that is not viable in the case of a patient that is in a state of non-recovery and will hence remain until the life support is turned off. If you turned of the foetus’s life support you would be killing the mother and I am sure we both agree that is not moral.
The passage you quoted says “thou shalt not kill”, would you not be killing if you turned off life support? So what is the big difference between turning off a machine or removing an organ, absolutely nothing as both have caused the same effect just in different methods.
There is no killing when there is no life involved, case in example is one of my friends was trying for a baby and they succeeded but unfortunately the foetus developed without a brain and would ultimately die once outside the mother, they are good Christian people but on their doctors advice aborted the child as there was no life there anyway and could have been a risk to the mother during birth. Does this make them murderers, I don't think so.

Holy Scripture warns me to fear people can kill the soul in hell, not the ones who can kill the body. The second death is the one that "kills" the soul. That death is damnation, in my opinion. You might tell me, "Bill, you see? The Bible shows that bodies can keep living, even after we leave them." Maybe they can do that. But the passage I'm talking about still suggests a difference among my body, my soul, and me when it tells me to fear the ones who can kill the soul, not the ones who can kills the soul. I seem to remember that some people believe that God annihilates the damned when they die. As St. Justin Martyr says in his First Apology, annihilation would be a boon for the wicked because they would never suffer again. They'd "sleep forever."

Matthew 10:39 In effect I would be giving up my life (even though there isn’t any ) to help someone else for the glory of God. How is that evil, how is is that bad when this is what the bible teaches us to do. I am not committing suicide and the doctors are not killing me, I am already dead and in death I may be able to help another person with the gift of life.

Dan

[Ivellious]

If a fetus is already brain dead, I don't think it's technically an abortion, Dan. It's essentially an induced stillbirth (that sounds like you killed it, but I just mean you are removing a dead child from the womb).

As far as the stuff on removing organs before someone is dead, of course it's wrong to do that. Though I honestly don't think it's a big problem right now...Doctors cannot utilize your body as an organ donor until you have been declared dead. There might be extremely rare occasions where a "dead" person may come back to life, but in most cases organ donations are taken several hours after death. Likewise, a doctor can't wait 24 hours to make sure the body doesn't come back to life, because there is a strict amount of time before your organs become useless after death.

[Danieltwotwenty]

If a fetus is already brain dead, I don't think it's technically an abortion, Dan. It's essentially an induced stillbirth (that sounds like you killed it, but I just mean you are removing a dead child from the womb).

And you just made my point, it is dead lifeless and has no chance for survival so therefore there is no killing involved and that is why if there is 0 chance of recovery and there are only machines keeping you alive therefore no killing is involved.

As far as the stuff on removing organs before someone is dead, of course it's wrong to do that. Though I honestly don't think it's a big problem right now...Doctors cannot utilize your body as an organ donor until you have been declared dead. There might be extremely rare occasions where a "dead" person may come back to life, but in most cases organ donations are taken several hours after death. Likewise, a doctor can't wait 24 hours to make sure the body doesn't come back to life, because there is a strict amount of time before your organs become useless after death.

Of course it is wrong to harvest from people who are still alive, but that depends on your definition of alive.
If someone is brain dead with 0 chance of recovery are they really alive or are they artificially alive due to man made machines, that is the question here.
If that is the case I see no problem with taking the organs while the body is still warm, so to speak.


Dan

[Bill McEnaney]

My understanding of abortions is that the human foetus is a viable human life and if left alone it will grow into a human being. There is a big difference between a viable life and a life that is not viable in the case of a patient that is in a state of non-recovery and will hence remain until the life support is turned off. If you turned of the foetus’s life support you would be killing the mother and I am sure we both agree that is not moral.

What's the difference between a human life and human being, Dan? You seem to assume a distinction I read about when I was in graduate school, the distinction between a human person and a human organism. Each human person is, for the paper's author, a human organism, but some human organisms aren't, for him, human persons. You seem to believe that personhood depends on, perhaps, how thoroughly the brain has developed ,because you're telling us about a brainless aborted fetus.

I took a course from a professor who thought personhood depended on brain the degree of brain development who shocked me when she told us that there could be walking, talking human beings who weren't human persons because their brains were underdeveloped. Say she's right. Then does her belief imply that, if I kill a human organism who has an underdeveloped brain, the coroner will need to autopsy the corpse to tell whether I committed murder? I could be a mortician who cremates someone's corpse after I murder him. Can the ashes tell the coroner whether the victim's brain had developed thoroughly enough to make him a human person? Will I be a nonperson after a severe brain injury takes my cognitive ability away?

To me, functional definitions can seem arbitrary when we define human personhood. So do the definitions that some courts write. I think we need a metaphysical definition that says what human personhood consists in. After all, if a court rules that human personhood depends on, oh, fetal viability, there's a problem because fetal viability depends on technology. Scientists may invent a way to make even a fertile egg viable. Where do we draw the line when he define human personhood functionally? What can prevent a court from stipulating that, say, members of some ethnic group are nonpersons whether they're in the womb or outside it? For me, a human being's personhood begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg because that's when God ensouls the new human being. That's partly why I'm fully pro-life. Since I'm fully pro-life, I'm against every abortion.

The passage you quoted says “thou shalt not kill”, would you not be killing if you turned off life support? So what is the big difference between turning off a machine or removing an organ, absolutely nothing as both have caused the same effect just in different methods.

In my opinion, there is a difference, the difference is between killing someone deliberately and letting him die naturally when there's no chance that he'll survive. If I unplug someone's life support when I know that he'll die the moment the life support stops, I'm not unplugging the machine to kill the patient. I'm unplugging it to allow inevitable death when life support is futile. Killing someone differs from letting him die. Sure, I'm to blame when someone dies because I neglect him or because I shoot him in cold blood. But I don't see why anyone is blameworthy for an unpreventable death. Mere absence of brain activity isn't enough to show that the person with the inactive brain has died, since a brain might pause. I'm not a doctor. Philosophy and computer science are my fields, but it seems to me that we know that someone has died when his corpse begins to decay.

There is no killing when there is no life involved, case in example is one of my friends was trying for a baby and they succeeded but unfortunately the foetus developed without a brain and would ultimately die once outside the mother, they are good Christian people but on their doctors advice aborted the child as there was no life there anyway and could have been a risk to the mother during birth. Does this make them murderers, I don't think so.

Hmm, I wonder what Dan thinks human life consists in. I'm not going to judge anyone. But please remember the difference between an immoral action and whether anyone deserves blame for doing that action. It seems to me that women may be at worst accessories to murder when they have abortions because the doctor, not the mother, kills the fetus. I'd outlaw all abortions and punish blameworthy doctors who do them. I'd need to think hard, too, about why the mother had an abortion because she may have been coerced, innocently ignorant about the nature of abortion, lied to by medical professional who suggested abortion, too stupid to know whether there was anything immoral about abortion . . . I should reflect also on whether or how much, if any, blame the abortion doctor deserves. Whether anyone deserves blame for any particular abortion, I still believe that abortion is innately evil.

Some believe that abortion is morally acceptable after incest, rape, or both. I disagree, though, because the innocent unborn don't deserve to die for anyone else's crime.

[Ivellious]

How in the world do you consider a brainless fetus to be human, and thus removing it from the womb murder? There may have been living cells in that fetus, but I hardly can even call something missing its most vital organ to be "living."

In many cases, allowing dead fetuses to remain inside a mother's womb can be life-threatening. That dead fetus can become infected, begin to decay, etc. It is important to perform an "abortion" in these cases (though as I said above, in that case it's not even really an abortion). Are you saying we shouldn't allow abortions even if the mother's life is in danger if she goes through with the pregnancy?

[Ivellious]

Also, I think your prof may have been referring to the fact that severe brain damage or defects can remove the "humanity" from the mind. Essentially, that without proper brain function, in very severe cases, a person really in't a "person" per say, because mentally and emotionally they are not human. It's a heady question, but I think that to a degree your prof had a point. Now, do I advocate for taking away the rights of people like that? Of course not. It's a philosophical question, not a legal one.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I am leaving this thread now as it seems nothing new is being bought to the discussion and things are being assumed that just are not true, I have said my piece.


Dan

[Bill McEnaney]

If a fetus is already brain dead, I don't think it's technically an abortion, Dan. It's essentially an induced stillbirth (that sounds like you killed it, but I just mean you are removing a dead child from the womb).

But some supposedly brain dead people have revived, which may be why the doctor in the interview I posted told Randy Engel wasn't genuine death.

A literally brainless fetus, a fetus with no brain in it, probably will already have died, and I wouldn't leave any fetal corpse in the womb.

I've corresponded with some posters at other message boards who insisted that we are our brains. But that opinion implies, for example, that you don't hug other people. You hug their bodies instead. It suggests that since I can't see through my skull, I can't look at my reflection in the mirror. I see my body's reflection. It's as though I'm a merely material object who lives inside another material object. If I'm a material object inside another material object, maybe I'm my own body, and maybe I live inside another living organism, one that has arms legs, and so forth, that aren't parts of me?

I think we need to remember that from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, the new resulting organism keeps its own bodily continuity in the womb and outside it. Our bodies don't contain any cells we ere born with. But they last while cells come and go. My zygote's history is my history, too, because there's bodily continuity between my zygote and me. My body is the adult version of the body I always had in the womb. My brain developed along with my other body parts, too.

As I thought I told everyone, I'm against every abortion, even an abortion that doctor would do because the mother'a life was in danger. Say I'm with my mom in her car when I fall, hitting the steering wheel with my head. The car spins off the icy road, lands on its driver's side, and almost kills Mom. Do I deserve to die for what danger I didn't intend to cause? If she had died in the accident, should I have been prosecuted for manslaughter? If a mother's life is more important than an unborn baby's life, please tell me why. Normally, we think that a young person's death is more tragic than an older person's death because death deprives the young person of more than it would take from an old person: much longer life, many more good, enjoyable experiences, more opportunities to help other people . . . The deaths of the unborn may be the most tragic deaths because the unborn are the youngest human beings of all.

[Ivellious]

Excuse me for saying so, but any doctor that would not save a woman's life by providing an abortion is the murderer of that woman, straight up. Your analogy is ridiculous. Your situation implies no chance to save your mother, first of all. Secondly, I think that in a case where you have to choose between a living human being with a family and friends, and a child who is not even guaranteed to live, you pick the mother.

In most cases, going through with a life-threatening baby is deadly to the child as well. So you are essentially saying that you would gamble both their lives on the slim chance that only the baby will survive. As opposed to almost guaranteeing the survival of the mother.

Second, you are saying that it is better for that child to grow up motherless than allowing the mother to live. What about the woman's family? What if she has children to raise still? What of the people around her? Are you seriously saying that you would have no qualms going up to the children of a mother and saying "I could have easily saved your mother, but I decided it was morally righteous to sacrifice her against her will. Oh, and I couldn't save the baby. Have fun at the orphanage!" That's just twisted.

Honestly, I'm frightened by that point of view. That's not "pro-life." That's "pro-woman-killing."

[Bill McEnaney]

Excuse me for saying so, but any doctor that would not save a woman's life by providing an abortion is the murderer of that woman, straight up. Your analogy is ridiculous. Your situation implies no chance to save your mother, first of all. Secondly, I think that in a case where you have to choose between a living human being with a family and friends, and a child who is not even guaranteed to live, you pick the mother.

I was talking times when pregnancy would endanger the mother's life. I didn't say whether pregnancy would kill her. I've read about women told their doctors that they, the mothers, would rather die than have an abortion. Are they murder victims when they die because they refused an abortion to save their babies' lives? Do you know of any loving, devoted mother who wouldn't die for her children after their births? Today, many radically individualistic liberals, including some who say that they're Christians, seem to dismiss self-sacrificial love, even when they know that Christ died for them.

Years ago, Janet Morana, the Vice-President of Priests for Life, appeared on that apostolate's TV program to tell viewers about a "pro-choice" panel discussion, where she asked they did to help women who already had abortions. What was the panel's answer? Silence. Tell me what the panelists what or whom the panelists probably value more: the women or the "pro-choice" cause. I wonder whether the panelists understand love for their "sisters" who suffer physically and emotionally both because they had abortions.

In most cases, going through with a life-threatening baby is deadly to the child as well. So you are essentially saying that you would gamble both their lives on the slim chance that only the baby will survive. As opposed to almost guaranteeing the survival of the mother.

Whether or not I would gamble, I won't deliberately kill the mother nor her baby. I would do everything I could do to save both lives. If either or both dies through no fault of mine, I haven't murdered either person.

Second, you are saying that it is better for that child to grow up motherless than allowing the mother to live. What about the woman's family? What if she has children to raise still? What of the people around her? Are you seriously saying that you would have no qualms going up to the children of a mother and saying "I could have easily saved your mother, but I decided it was morally righteous to sacrifice her against her will. Oh, and I couldn't save the baby. Have fun at the orphanage!" That's just twisted.

The baby's father can remarry. The baby can get motherly love from another woman in the family at least until the father does remarry. If the baby survives when his mother and father both die, he can get adopted. I've just been reading about the emotional trauma that people go through when their learn that their natural fathers are anonymous sperm donors. What do you tell children who grow up "fatherless" because their mother buys sperm from a sperm bank or "motherless" because a male homosexual couple bought a donor egg, got it fertilized, and let a surrogate mother carry the child who'll never know her?

Honestly, I'm frightened by that point of view. That's not "pro-life." That's "pro-woman-killing."

I'm frightened by any point of view that would allow any abortion. Please read or reread a first or second-century document called The Didache where its author forbids abortion. I would think the author knew what Our Lord thought about abortion.

What about orphanages? Well, an acquaintance of mine was a foster-mother to a severely handicapped boy she loved as though he were her own. I don't know whether she adopted the boy, but he didn't live in an orphanage. If his natural mother know that he would be as severely disabled as he was, she might have had an abortion because she thought his quality of life would have been terrible. My mother might have had me aborted if she had known that I'd have Cerebral Palsy from birth. I'm delighted that she didn't do that because I love life.

Besides, let's say aborted babies can't go to heaven. Then who's worse off, the mother who may still go there or the baby who never will? The Catholic teaching about Limbo tells me that, although unbaptized can't go to heaven, they'll enjoy everlasting natural happiness in the afterlife. Catholics distinguish among water baptism, baptism by desire, and baptism by blood. In baptism by desire, the desire for baptism substitutes for water baptism, even when the desire is only an implied one. Baptism by blood is martyrdom. Catholics baptize infants partly because they haven't reached the age of reason. As Our Lord teaches me, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned. But he's hardly going to damn anyone for innocent ignorance. The teaching about Limbo is not and has never been a dogma. But it gives me good reason to disagree with St. Augustine who believed that unbaptized babies would go to hell. Who's better off if some woman will go to hell because she has an abortion: the woman or the baby who goes to Limbo?