<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Proper Thought About the Unborn Child</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/proper-thought-about-the-unborn-child/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/proper-thought-about-the-unborn-child/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: R Hampton</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/proper-thought-about-the-unborn-child/#comment-4632</link>
		<dc:creator>R Hampton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=2912#comment-4632</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I venture to think that one&#039;s soul is still with the body even if one is &quot;brain dead&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Of course there is no way to prove this, so you err on the side of caution -- understandable. But then logically you should also believe that most organs used in transplants are taken from the living. As one woman put it: &lt;i&gt;Bernice Jones came to Rome last week to tell the world that doctors killed her son by removing his organs. &quot;Brain death is not death&quot; and &quot;organ donation is very deceptive,&quot; the bereaved mother told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Thursday.&lt;/i&gt;

And that leaves us in a moral quandry. Gilbert Meilaender, a Valparaiso University bioethicist and member of  the President’s Council on Bioethics, explains: &lt;i&gt;One is faced with a choice of saying that the notion of brain death doesn&#039;t work, and since you&#039;re not supposed to take organs from a donor until they&#039;re dead, we have to stop doing a lot of transplantation — or you can find a better explanation for why total brain failure constitutes the death of an organism. We offer a better philosophical explanation.&lt;/i&gt;

The explanation follows: &lt;i&gt;The brain is important not because it controls physiological processes, but because of what these processes represent: engagement with the world ... Engagement, takes three forms: openness to the world, an ability to act on the world, and the need to do so. These abstract requirements can be met by something as basic as breathing — but they are not met by physiological activities that continue in people who have lost all neurological function&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I venture to think that one&#8217;s soul is still with the body even if one is &#8220;brain dead&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Of course there is no way to prove this, so you err on the side of caution &#8212; understandable. But then logically you should also believe that most organs used in transplants are taken from the living. As one woman put it: <i>Bernice Jones came to Rome last week to tell the world that doctors killed her son by removing his organs. &#8220;Brain death is not death&#8221; and &#8220;organ donation is very deceptive,&#8221; the bereaved mother told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Thursday.</i></p>
<p>And that leaves us in a moral quandry. Gilbert Meilaender, a Valparaiso University bioethicist and member of  the President’s Council on Bioethics, explains: <i>One is faced with a choice of saying that the notion of brain death doesn&#8217;t work, and since you&#8217;re not supposed to take organs from a donor until they&#8217;re dead, we have to stop doing a lot of transplantation — or you can find a better explanation for why total brain failure constitutes the death of an organism. We offer a better philosophical explanation.</i></p>
<p>The explanation follows: <i>The brain is important not because it controls physiological processes, but because of what these processes represent: engagement with the world &#8230; Engagement, takes three forms: openness to the world, an ability to act on the world, and the need to do so. These abstract requirements can be met by something as basic as breathing — but they are not met by physiological activities that continue in people who have lost all neurological function</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blue Collar Todd</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/proper-thought-about-the-unborn-child/#comment-4623</link>
		<dc:creator>Blue Collar Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=2912#comment-4623</guid>
		<description>@R Hampton,

Not sure if you are making the point to justify abortion before four weeks? 

Most mothers do not find out they are pregnant until they are four weeks pregnant.  I am a bit leery about tying personhood to brain function.  I venture to think that one&#039;s soul is still with the body even if one is &quot;brain dead&quot;.  The the developing unborn baby has all the capacities for being a human person, even if those capacities have not been realized.  Just because the unborn baby happens to be located inside it&#039;s mother and dependent on her body for growth does it mean that such a life ought not to have value and be defended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@R Hampton,</p>
<p>Not sure if you are making the point to justify abortion before four weeks? </p>
<p>Most mothers do not find out they are pregnant until they are four weeks pregnant.  I am a bit leery about tying personhood to brain function.  I venture to think that one&#8217;s soul is still with the body even if one is &#8220;brain dead&#8221;.  The the developing unborn baby has all the capacities for being a human person, even if those capacities have not been realized.  Just because the unborn baby happens to be located inside it&#8217;s mother and dependent on her body for growth does it mean that such a life ought not to have value and be defended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R Hampton</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/proper-thought-about-the-unborn-child/#comment-4621</link>
		<dc:creator>R Hampton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=2912#comment-4621</guid>
		<description>A woman can not argue with her husband (brain dead but on life support following a car accident) over their respective rights. The husband is legally, medically, (and at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church) spiritually dead. Thus we can infer two important criteria: 1, for a human to be a person, they must have a brain; 2, their brain must have some measure of electrical activity.

So when are the unborn capable of &quot;arguing,&quot; that is, thinking? The brain does not begin to form in the fetus until the neural tube closes which doesn&#039;t happen until some time in the fourth week after conception.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A woman can not argue with her husband (brain dead but on life support following a car accident) over their respective rights. The husband is legally, medically, (and at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church) spiritually dead. Thus we can infer two important criteria: 1, for a human to be a person, they must have a brain; 2, their brain must have some measure of electrical activity.</p>
<p>So when are the unborn capable of &#8220;arguing,&#8221; that is, thinking? The brain does not begin to form in the fetus until the neural tube closes which doesn&#8217;t happen until some time in the fourth week after conception.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
