HH, the Catholic dictionary tells us that Boethius’s definition of person
“can hardly be considered a satisfactory one”. Once again, please
explain to me how a person can exist, without a human brain.

On the one hand you tell us that animals are neither innocent nor guilty,
as they have no moral responsibility, on the other hand you tell us
that Jack is innocent, even if he only has his brainstem functioning,
so clearly cannot claim moral responsibility of any kind!

If “a rational being” is your definition, then in fact many primates
would qualify as persons. Experiments with various primates can
clearly show that they are very good at solving problems, where
deduction and rational thought is required to solve them. Not only
humans have a neo cortex, ours is just a bit larger then theirs.

HH, as to your question, your heart can be replaced by a pigs heart,
or an artificial heart, it pumps blood, you will still be you.
Meantime if we replace your brain with a pigs brain, you won’t
be you anymore, you will be a pig with a human body.

A zygote is no more a person, then are the blueprints to build
a house, an actual house. Given the right environment and
ingredients, they have the potential to become a person or
a house, they both have potential, no more.

Cris, there are people far more qualified then I am, to pass
judgement about the brain and its parts. My point is that
if you are basically brain dead apart from your reptilian
brain which keeps you breathing, you are being kept alive
artificially etc, with no hope of your rational centres ever
recovering, what about you, apart from he fact that
you have human dna, actually makes you a person?

Thanks for the clarification HH. I had thought that your concern for the zygote related to its ability to develop a consciousness, hence my question. So if you had the choice to bring either an anencephalic or normally developed child into the world from their respective embryos (but not both), would you flip a coin?

Yabby,
I – along with many others, follow the Thomistic interpretation of Boethius’ classic definition, which actually is the most natural reading anyway. I respectfully disagree with the Encyclopaedia’s verdict – B. has given us a very good thumbnail definition. The great Australian theologian Frank Sheed thought so too.

If a separate entity (individual substance) can reason and choose (rational nature) then it’s a person. Angels, Martians with reason and will, and so on, are persons. In that He has Knowledge and Will, God Himself is a personal Being. When someone says “Do you believe in a personal God?” they don’t mean, “Do you believe in a Supreme Spirit with a human neocortex?”.

Animals don’t have abstract reasoning. They don’t think in concepts or work with universals and particulars which is the hallmark of rationality. Neither do they have free will. If someone were to find an animal that did have these attributes, then we would have another kind of person.

Jack, we’ll assume, is not a wicked criminal on death row for some past crime. And we agree he can’t exercise his rational nature right now (ie learn things or choose them). So in the sense that he is a rational creature who isn’t now deserving of execution, he’s innocent. The zygote is a human being that hasn’t yet developed the means of exercising choice or thinking conceptually. Again, it’s a rational creature not deserving execution. So it’s innocent too and will be until sometime after birth (at least). Animals, I contend, don’t have rational capacities by nature, so it’s meaningless to speak of them as innocent, except in an analogous fashion.

I entirely agree with your statements re hearts and brains but not because of your definition. If you simply DEFINE a person as “someone with a human brain” it’s easy. But I could define “person” as “any three-storied building”. Why is that wrong?

Blueprints aren’t self-existent entities that grow into a house. Your car/engine analogy, also fails. What if cars had the ability, engine removed, to grow back their engines? Compare an embryo assembling its own brain.

Dear Sir, I object to the very name of this thread “The slippery slope to reproductive cloning”. There is no “slippery slope”. Reproductive cloning, once it has been demonstrated to be safe and efficient, offers the possibility that people suffering from various forms of infertility can conceive a biologically related child. This would be their reproductive choice and no third party should be able to stop them conceiving a genetically related child.

Regards,
Roger Moorgate, PhD
Administrator, The Reproductive Cloning Network
http://www.reproductivecloning.net

HH

As well as looking forward to an answer to my last question, I would also be grateful for your indulgence in further clarifying your definition of a person. You state that non-human beings capable of abstract and rational thought would also be persons. If so, would it be true that all examples of that species, including anencephalic and undeveloped (but capable of development) examples, should be accorded that same rights as persons?

RTRL

First, I agree that we are ignorant of much to do with the brain, especially at the extremes of life. Respect for human life entails that in cases of doubt, we give the patient the benefit. Death is only certain when all vital functions have ceased and decomposition begins. Until that time, the patient should be given all normal support – warmth, comfort, and (where possible) food and water. Extraordinary means to keep the patient alive are not necessary. What is important is that any treatment withdrawn or denied is not done so with the intention of killing.

Until Jack is dead, he's a living human being, even if there's no evidence of brain activity. I don’t think it matters that he once was conscious: if someone were in a coma all their life, would that justify us refusing to treat them as I suggest we treat Jack? [To sharpen the point: imagine that they were certainly about to become fully conscious for the first time. Would their coma up to this point justify us killing them?]

Once Jack’s brain is removed or completely destroyed, he dies, or ceases to be a living human being. But the ends of life are not symmetrical as some believe. An adult human deprived of their brain is not directly analogous to an embryo which is brainless but in the process of growing its own brain. Suppose that adult humans, deprived of brains, were naturally able to grow them back. Would we permit ourselves to lethally harvest their organs while they were temporarily brainless? Would we regard them as corpses? Would we regard them as not human beings until their brain grew back? This situation is a much closer analogy to that of the embryo.

Not having a brain (but building one) is a normal, healthy situation for the human being at the embryonic stage. That tiny human individual deserves our respect just as do all others.

Steve – yes I’m opposed to IVF. Several reasons.
Fester – Give me a while – it’s not an easy question to answer quickly.