What Is Human Life?
Call For Papers for 2006 series

• Series Abstract
• Series potential perspectives
• Submission Guidelines
• Discussion

Series potential perspectives

This series looks for papers that communicate the author's opinions in a clear, concise, well-reasoned, and compelling way.

Various perspectives are invited, including but not limited to:

• Anthropological
• Biological
• Cultural
• Ethical
• Humanitarian
• Legal
• Medical
• Military
• Moral
• Personal
• Political
• Religious

Examples of personal views are: "What does a person who has been brain damaged find meaningful about life? What does the person's caregiver find meaningful about their care-giving experience? When is a human being unable to respond to life in a meaningful way, and is that important?"

Decisions about life aren't simply experiential - they are informed by other considerations. What considerations are important to know from other perspectives, such as religious and political perspectives?

Please note that submissions that are simply argumentative rhetoric, will not be accepted.

Some of the issues might be:

My role: Primarily organizational, introductory, and editorial, although I may fill in some gaps in the series. My bias, which should be known, is that we must have a strong reverence for all life, especially human life. Difficulties arise in the details and the implications of choices. I lean heavily in the direction of personal responsibility. For example, if someone begins a life, then I would see that the burden and responsibility is on him or her to sustain that life, and would find only the weight of a large counter reason compelling for any different action. I don't think and judge in absolute terms.

Submission Guidelines:

• Format: Please copy and paste your text into an email message (avoids viruses and difficulties with word processor formats). HTML email format is preferred for retaining the author's formatting. For requests for all other means of submission, contact the submissions link in the "Submit to:" paragraph, by email. (Article postings will only be in HTML format, but will be in printable format for reader convenience.)
• Submit to: Dorian Scott Cole (Click the text to start an email or put your mouse cursor over the text to see the email address.) If the previous address is unresponsive, use this address.
• Credentials: unnecessary. Please state in the submission why you have broad experience with this issue. Professional positions held may also be included, if significant to the information.
• Length: Prefer under 10 typewritten pages.
• Submission dates: Submissions are welcome through December 2005. The series will begin in early 1st. Quarter, 2006.
• Fiction: Please, no fictitious accounts, not even for examples or hypothetical situations. This is about real life. Fictitious names should be used for real people.
• Objectionable material: Expletives, descriptions of violence, and descriptions of sexually explicit material will be considered in context and compared to ICRA standards for a family oriented Web site (material for teen and above). Submissions may be edited, rated, or even not read, because of objectionable material.
• Copyright and legal: Submitters will retain copyright to their work, but submitters must include permission to indefinitely include their submission in this permanent series, or subsequent use. Applying formally for copyright is the responsibility of the submitter - if not, the convention in the US is that the named writer automatically has copyright (legal rights through this mechanism may be watered down, but still applicable). This Web site, and those people associated with it, will take no responsibility for any copyright issue or monitoring other than labeling the material to attribute the copyright. Copyright names will be in the form: First name, Middle Initial, and Last name, for copyright purposes.
• Plagiarism (copying): The submitter, by submitting, accepts full responsibility for guaranteeing that the submitter is the sole author of the material and any brief quotes are properly attributed to their author.
• Names and contact information (for security and copyright) must be included in the email, however this personal information will not be posted on the Web site. Names will be in the form, First name, Middle Initial, and Last name, for copyright purposes.
• The publisher of this Web site is the sole judge of what submissions are published on this Web site.

Discussion

Now in its tenth year, this Web site has asked the questions relevant to writers: "Why are things this way? Is there a better way? Can the old be improved?" These questions are about writing, and about the human condition that we write about, whether communicated in the entertainment medium or journalism. Writing and the human condition are the "how" and "what" of communications.

Some questions arise in the zeitgeist of things; their time has come to be asked. They will not be repressed. They will not lie dormant until a more opportune time. They force themselves onto the stage of human drama and demand attention. The progress of religion, science, and human development creates inconsistencies that challenge human understanding and create tension that strains the consequence of both science and religion. Such questions continually press for attention, like a sharp rock in a shoe, until finally something changes.

Today those questions arise regarding the nature of life. But some questions are beyond any one person to address. Those questions belong in the dialogue between people of diverse opinion. Thus, the call for papers.

Do we relegate our decisions to interpretations of tradition? One need only reflect on traditions of the earth being flat to sense the dangers in that approach. People fear change and will call on religion to protect themselves from change. On the other hand, can we accept the responsibility for making decisions about starting life, maintaining life, and ending life? One need only reflect on the declining population of Europe, and the coming plateau in the US to know where that can lead. Is population plateau a bad thing? Do we know where our choices will lead, or is this the realm of mysticism and simulation games?

Where does personal responsibility lie, and what guidance is better left to questionable religious tradition? Perspectives and interpretations vary considerably, but one thing is certain. People have ultimate control over producing life. They can abstain from sex, avoid penetration, use natural methods of avoiding fertilization (rhythm method), or use birth control measures. Pregnancy is the result of an intentional act. Unlike animals that procreate out of instinct, whose inevitable act is modified only by selection, people have a choice. Religion may modify that choice, but it is still a choice.

Choice raises the issue of personal responsibility. Are we, as human beings, responsible for our actions? We are often asked to take responsibility for creating life, sustaining life, and making decisions about actions that may end life.

The stem cell issue raises many questions about what defines life and when life begins. Part of the stem cell research debate is over the status of cells in a petri dish that are undifferentiated. They may be multiplying, but haven't begun to form the characteristics of cells with specific functions, and are incapable of sustaining life independently. While a few may go on to be implanted as "Snowflake children," the majority of the cells will simply die in the dish. Is it wrong that they might die in research?

Regardless of their source, stem cells anywhere in the body, or outside the body, are capable of producing human life if placed in the right environment (in an ovum in the uterus of a woman). If they are not implanted, they may be used to create organs or heal disease.

Stem cell research that uses fertilized ova is labeled by some as "killing" innocent human beings? When is the death of any stem cell not killing a potential human life. For that matter, when does an operation, or any other medical treatment, not have the potential for killing human life? Even during a procreative effort, the egg and millions of sperm may die, and even a fertilized egg may die. Does reverence for life lose perspective and get in the way of saving life?

Creating a life potentially could be done from the DNA of creatures that lived long ago. Even a long dead organism could be the source of DNA. Human life potentially can be created from many of the building blocks of life. At what point are the building blocks of life (DNA, spermatozoa and ova, fertilized cells, multiplying [undifferentiated] stem cells, a forming fetus, a sensing fetus, a dependant baby) suddenly reverenced, or is it a continuum that grows stronger as life becomes more complex?

As we grow in knowledge, the capabilities of science become more complex, and the issues more tangled. We all seem to cheer when modern science makes it possible to make barren women pregnant or save the life of someone with a brain injury. We moan and decline responsibility when more difficult decisions come our way, such as use of the "morning after pill," discontinuing treatment of the hopelessly brain damaged and dying, and using stem cells for research and the potential healing of a myriad of diseases. Each situation asks us what our responsibility is.

From a religious point of view, why do religions take the views that they do? Are views supported by teachings from God's messengers, dogma, tradition, or culture, and will these points of view stand up to what we know?

- Scott

Some potential characteristics of human life

Viable - able to live and support itself. If this were true, a person who has been injured and is unable to feed and protect himself, even though conscious, would not be considered "alive." However, if something is fatally not viable, that is a different thing. That brings us to potentially viable.

Potentially viable. The organism that can develop into a human being (such as an embryo), or can at some point continue being a human being (such as an injured or diseased person). This potentially could include fertilized ovum in a tube or dish. at this point one gets to the point of intention. If the intent is to fully develop the cells (zygote), then it is potentially viable. If there is no intent to develop the cells, then one way or another it is not human.

Meaningful, purposeful, and responsible existence. If an organism can't be responsible for its actions, does it qualify as human? That would exclude many who are psychotic. We don't even exclude animals from living, even though they lack the capacity to control their behavior to human standards.

Does life have meaning and purpose? We sometimes can't even answer that for people who are fully functioning. But is there meaning and purpose for someone laying for months in a nursing home, barely conscious, unable to get out of bed or even feed themselves, hooked up to life support, the potential for being viable rapidly shrinking.

Able to think and communicate.

Able to relate to life in a meaningful way, react and accomplish.

Other distribution restrictions: None

Return to main page

Page URL:  http://www.visualwriter.com/HumanCond/WhatIsHumanLife.htm