HH- you are free to speculate about angels, martians and gods if you wish,
but if we look at a simple dictionary definition of person, it comes
down to “ a man, woman or child” That’s also how the word is used
by most people most of the time.

By your definition, various primates would indeed be classified as
people, for we can show that they can reason and choose. How much
or how deeply they reason is open to debate. That was not part of
your definition.

A zygote is by your definition not a person either, it cannot reason
nor choose. Just as a seed is not a tree, but has the potential to
grow into a tree, it simply contains the blueprint to grow into
a tree, much as the zygote has the potential to become a person,
given the right circumstances.

Perhaps I should just redefine my point to call it a “human person”,
if that keeps you happy.

What saddens me about this debate is that some religions have
drawn their lines in the sand, based simply on volume of life,
not quality of life, nor on suffering of living, breathing, thinking
people. To me that is highly immoral.

Yabby,

18 to 25 days following fertilization the 'zygote' you refer to has a heartbeat.

Analogies involving car parts, architectural plans, and the like therefore have no relevance.

Respect for life and compassion for the suffering go hand-in-hand - but no-one has the right to judge one life more worthy than another.

The line in the sand you refer to is one of humanity, not religion.

Humanity is the quality of being human (note - not the quality of being 'person').

Yabby,
I wouldn’t lean too heavily on dictionary definitions of ‘person’: on their score a “child” can also include a fetus, which need only be eight weeks post-conception (& brainless).

Nevertheless: you’re aware that my argument has never been that the zygote/embryo is a person, but that it’s a human being - which includes not only those humans presently manifesting personhood, but those too whose biological apparatus is currently too immature or defective for them to exercise their rationality.

My argument against the protective line you draw (functioning human brain) is this. On the one hand it’s arbitrarily narrow. Why is it that the only beings, with vegetative level brain functioning, that can’t be killed are humans? Isn’t this speciesism? Why not other beings with brains operating at equal or higher levels? Crabs, for instance? My own position is that no matter how aware they are, if these other beings are not BY NATURE capable of exercising personhood (reasoning/choice) – ie regardless of the immaturity or defectiveness of their bodies – then their rights are not the same as rational beings.

On the other hand, the line is not wide enough. There are examples beyond the severe coma case: We can posit cases of total temporary brain cessation. If adults could be successfully frozen/unfrozen (like embryos), with no metabolic function operating while frozen, on my criteria, it would be wrong to destroy them while frozen because, regardless of their current total absence of brain function, until they die, they remain human beings with an innate capacity for rationality. On your criteria, no brain function means they are not “persons”, and so can be killed. Are you happy with this?

A seed is the tree it matures into in some respects and not that tree in others. It is the same individual, but as that individual grows it develops more complex functions and “higher” powers. Likewise I am the same individual as the zygote I was years ago.

When non-human higher primates start blogging, I’ll defend their right to life from conception.

Cris, I remind you that the heart is a pump, no more. It can be
a pigs heart, an engineered pump, the function is much the
same. Big deal. So what?

Its all very sweet of you to feel compassion for the suffering,
but that does not help stop their suffering one little bit. Many
life choices involve choosing between the rights of a cell
and the suffering of a person. Are you telling me that given
that choice, your morality is such, that you would simply
accept suffering of people as a given, in order to defend
your ideology about the rights of a cell? What is humanitarian
about that choice?

HH, I have yet to see a definition of a child as being someone
who is not born yet.

A zygote might well be a human being, but by definition so
is a sperm. So what?

Well of course we are speciest! It’s my very argument that
morality evolved as part of social species living in cooperation
to survive. Many species fight over territory, but if a species
killed its own for food for instance, it would soon be extinct.

If we applied your criteria of reasoning/ choice, then bonobos
such as Kanzi would have far more rights then a great many
humans!

You have lost me on your seed/tree argument. Whats the big
difference? As you grow from zygote to person, you develop
“higher” powers, as per your dna. The tree does much the
same. Now what?

I’ll remind you that humans never blogged for 3.5 billion
years, they do since about yesterday. Are you saying that
if humans can’t blog, they should have no protection from
our line in the sand of the sanctity of human life? So why
discriminate against bonobos? You must be specist :)

Yabby,

** ... the heart is a pump, no more. It can be a pigs heart, an engineered pump ... Big deal. So what? ... A zygote might well be a human being, but by definition so is a sperm. So what?**

More irrelevant analogy, again with no basis in logic.

Yabby, postulating repetitive 'Hmm so what?' questions and variations thereof (with reference to the experimentation and destruction of early human life, at its most vulnerable) is flippant, dismissive, and offensive.

I have been very clear on this point: I have a great deal of compassion for the suffering. Any human who is suffering or vulnerable is deserving of EQUAL support.

Where we differ is that I do not believe 'support' should extend to sanctioning the sacrifice of one life with the intent of benefiting another. Tipping the scales for the benefit of one life over another is clearly inequitable.

Yabby, two wrongs will never make one right.

Cris, one of the interesting things about reality, is that it does
not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would! A recent
scientific study showed that when people feel altruistic, it in
fact is because it makes them feel good.

You may well feel good about your slogans of equality. That does
not help the people who are suffering, one little bit, nothing
changes for them.

The world needs solutions, not people feeling good about their
ideology, which helps nobody but themselves.

The reality is that there are limited resources, most women can
produce 400 potentially cute babies, not all can survive. Ignore
the laws of nature at your peril.

If a woman can only provide resources to feed a couple of kids and
society forces her to have 7-8 of them, clearly hard choices have
to be made. Equality becomes insignificant in comparison to suffering
that is experienced.

Idealogical slogans don't reduce suffering Cris, solutions do.

You might be in love with your ideology, personally I'd prefer to
see less suffering and more realistic solutions, which are there if
we bother to provide them.