Yabby,

Ever heard the expression “with child”? Also 4th definition at dictionary.com : “a human fetus”. (PS this is a side issue for me – I’m not arguing “fetus = person”)

It’s you that’s lost me re. morality. Are you saying that our morality is centred on the survival of our species? If so, then, were it necessary for the survival of our species that we kill one or more brain-possessing humans (the ones that count in your book), wouldn’t that be moral? & if so – what's happened to that line in the sand you drew?

I’m not speciesist: if for the human species’ survival it were necessary to kill an innocent human, I’d say this was still morally impermissible. What’s gone wrong - does this mean I’m not a human?

Bonobos etc don’t have the kind conceptual reasoning/self consciousness I’m talking about & which humans either have or can in principle develop.

A sperm is a human cell, but not a human being. A zygote is a cell which is also an individual human being – the earliest form. Your expression “As YOU grow from zygote to person” (emphasis added) captures this nicely.

Your argument was that the seed is not a tree. I argued that it is in the sense that it is the same individual. This distinguishes it from the gamete cells from which it came. The issue is identity over time. I am the same individual I was when 3 months old even though there is no matter that remains from that individual and I’m much more developed (though alas less innocent). Ditto when I was 24.9 weeks in the womb, and ultimately, when I was a zygote. But before my conception there was no me. I did not exist. The sperm and the ovum, that admittedly produced me, weren’t me. This is why conception is the line.

Any thoughts on the frozen adult case?

You imply that neanderthals didn’t blog! I find that highly unlikely: how otherwise did they fill in the day ?!?

HH

Your comments raise some questions. You consider Bonobos not to qualify as persons on the basis of their lack of abstract rationalism. Yet they are more mentally capable than anencephalic babies: So, are the superior rights you would accord to anencephalic babies over bonobos in deference to humans with abstract rationality, or because the anencephalic baby has a more intrinsic quality shared by all humans(and others defined and undefined) apart from abstract rationality?

Fester,

Anencephalic babies and zygotes and pre-brain embryos are in essentially the same category. They're human beings who, either because of immaturity or biological dysfunction aren't able to manifest their innate rationality.(cf the violinist sans functioning violin.) Bonobos and even lower species show a much higher level of actual mental functioning than these humans' actual functioning. But Bonobos, etc simply aren't, I think, beings that in principle are able to rise to the level of self-consciousness that these humans by nature are capable of. There's a big & fascinating debate about what the complex mental behaviour of non-human primates actually signifies (though note: the debate is among humans, not these primates - a telling point, I think.)

As I say, if a bonobo or whatever can demonstrate the highest mental capacities (both in reasoning and will) - eg by blogging! (ps:perhaps Yabby is a bonobo?) then I'm prepared to regard them on the same level as humans and accord them similar rights from the moment of conception.

It's humans' capacities which entail the dignity and rights we accord them. Not - note - whether they're exercising those capacities here and now. So, their dignity doesn't diminish whilst fast asleep, or in a coma, or whilst an embryo - even though at all these times they're less mentally active than a healthy, alert, awake adult bonobo - or even a crab, perhaps. As my example of a frozen adult human shows, even no mental activity whatsoever (& that's surely less than even the most severely deprived anencephalic) doesn't gainsay the dignity of a human being, as long as they're not dead.

Yabby,

There are people in this world who develop realistic solutions and act to address inequity - they do what they can with the resources they have at their disposal - they try to level the scales.

Your point was not clear. Are you suggesting they should all stop because contributing something back to society makes them feel good? Societies the world over would collapse in chaos within a week.

Circumstances do change for people when others reach out. Circumstances do change for people when they're treated equitably - and as a side benefit somewhere, someone's suffering is eased - but to gain a deeper understanding of this ripple effect and its incremental benefits, you need to step outside of self.

Suggesting altruism has less or no value to society because it might make someone feel good is a narrow perspective. The value of altruism goes beyond self and beyond insular to the bigger picture. One example of this is portrayed in the movie 'Pay it Forward'.

I agree we should not ignore nature - but I go further and suggest we should not detrimentally interfere with nature - no peril involved in maintaining the balance.

To be human is to understand we must protect every stage of human life, most especially when it is at its most vulnerable. If we don't we are no more than opportunistic wild beasts, akin to the less-evolved that prey on the vulnerable simply because they can.

Yabby, both you and I, and every other person on this planet share a similar history. We experienced the early stages of human life as unique, rare, one-offs from the moment we were conceived (fertilized). We were very fortunate. We were given an opportunity to grow, to experience life and make our own choices.

No-one arbitrarily usurped our right to grow and experience a full and rewarding life or our capacity to contribute something worthwhile back to our communities.

How can we not recognize our equitable obligation to provide the same opportunity we were afforded?
How can we, in good conscience, not 'pay the same opportunity forward'?

HH-what I am saying is that the basics of morality evolved in various
social species, as its been beneficial to their survival in evolutionary
terms. Solutions to incest, altruism, empathy, food sharing, not killing
your own, etc, are all quite common in the animal world. For a number
of years I’ve had an interest in primatology. Frans De Waal’s books
like “Good Natured” or “Chimpanzee Politics” are real eye openers
and anyone who bothers to inform themselves soon realises that its
humans who are the ignorant ones :)

I’ve often had do smile at humans who keep shifting the boundaries
as to why humans are different. I’ve heard a whole list of claims,
only humans use tools, only humans are sentient beings, only
humans feel empathy, etc. As each of these claims is proven wrong,
humans feel they need to move the goal posts. Like only
humans can blog!

Fact is that the smartest non human primates are smarter then
the dumbest humans. Your reason for declaring sanctity for those
humans thus has to be speciesist!

But lets look at the reality of claims about the sanctity of human
life. Many claim it so, but lets judge them by their actions,
rather then their words. The reality is that most people act out
of self interest, but are great at telling others what they should do
with their lives and their resources. The reality is that there
is lots of rhetoric about it, but people don’t live by what they
preach.

The Catholic Church, who preach it the loudest and who try
to force women into having children that they do not want,
do not live by it. They could easily sell their pomp and splendor
in Rome and feed some starving babies in Africa. But they don’t,
so clearly their pomp and splendor matter more then babies.

Similarly, you could sell your computer and send the money
to Africa, to feed another couple of starving babies. But your
own self interest comes first, you’d rather argue with me on
OLO, then save starving babies. That’s the reality

HH

How can an anencephalic baby have an inate rationality without a cerebral cortex, and when what exists of its central nervous system is a disorganised mess at the cellular level? And if it is the case that an anencephalic baby has the same rights and capacity for abstract rationalism as all other humans, then how is it an evil act for a scientist to alter a mature cell and transfer the nucleus into an ovum such that the resultant embryo would grow into an anencephalic baby? Do you believe that the resultant baby would be any less a human or less deserving of a life?