Thanks Yabby.
You make a fair comment – we can always be more constructive with our lives. Nevertheless it’s important for people who differ sincerely as we do on vital issues to have the discussion we are having. I don’t see this as an indulgence.

Now, could you answer the specific questions I’ve raised ? Your speech assumes key points that, it seems to me, you’ve yet to demonstrate.

Fester, it’s clear from your questions that I need to restate my position. The innate capacity of an anencephalic to reason and choose – something which will never (barring a miracle) be expressed - stems from their identity as rational beings. It’s analogous to the innate capacity of a man born without eyes to see. His lack of eyes is a defect, which means he will never exercise that capacity which he, innately, has. We can gain a clue to this is indeed a defect by noting the sockets where his eyes would have been, or perhaps monitoring the lack of characteristic activity in that part of the brain geared for sight. Perhaps if eye transplants or regeneration became possible (stem cell research – here’s where we came in!), he may one day yet be able to see. That would mean that his innate capacity would be activated.

The eyeless man also lacks wings. But this is not a defect (which it would be in a sparrow born without wings), as he does not, innately, have the capacity to fly. So this is what I mean when I speak of innate capacities. I do hope it’s a little clearer.

For all their defective bodies, anencephalics, like blind people, handicapped people, and so on, rank with luckier humans as innately rational, seeing, walking beings. When a scientist creates anencephalia - or blindness - in a human, he has not reduced their inherent dignity - radically inseparable from their being what in essence they are: his evil is simply that he deprives them of the means whereby they can flourish as human beings – in other words, to fully exercise their capacities.

HH, I see the world in such a different way then you do, that frankly
I can't make head or tail of your questions.

To me, us humans are just another of many species. All species
need a niche to make a living, our evolutionary niche has been
a slightly larger brain. Meantime other species run faster, are
stronger, etc. etc, areas where they make us look silly. If
I dropped you into the African jungle, frankly you would starve
where bonobos and chimps would thrive. Us humans have done well,
because as we became bipedal, an accident of that was the change
in our vocal chords, to allow consonants etc to be expressed, ie.
not just vowel sounds, like other primates. The net result was
language, which let us interlink our brains and knowledge. So
HH benefits from the brainpower of billions of other humans.
Taken individually however, we are only slightly smarter then
other primates. Big deal !

My concerns are frankly about the big picture, given the laws
of nature. If we humans do not live sustainably, then in the end,
this planet will be spinning with nothing but cockroaches, ants
etc, we will have ruined the place for other mammals and ourselves.

At our present rate, it kind of looks like that is where we are
heading. Why should I bother about the rights of organisms, based
on that big picture? As I say, ignore the laws of nature at
humanity's peril.

Planet earth was happily spinning for billions of years without
us mammals. It might well return to that, given that we are intelligent
enough to wreck the place, not intelligent
enough to
live sustainably. Fact is, without biodiversity, there won't be
a humanity. Now where does your morality come into all of this?

Yabby,

I appreciate that in the back and forth we can lose sight of the original questions.

This is how I see the discussion so far.

You drew a line in the sand as to which humans can be killed for research.
That line was: embryos without a functioning brain vs those with one (25 weeks).
[I had thought “awareness” was a significant factor based on one of your comments. I gather now that that isn’t an issue for you.]

I’m highly sceptical, so I'm interested to see why you think this line is a good one. I asked (inter alia):
well, why is it that only those
with human brains should not be killed and not other brained animals?
The answer was that we are speciesist – which, I take it, means we
do[should ?] care about the survival of our own species and not worry
about whether other animals have brains or not.

My next question was: well, if survival of our species is the great
goal, wouldn’t there be circumstances in which killing humans with
brains might advance that goal? If so, what happens to the line in the sand?

Of course, I have many other questions along the way,
but I don’t think you need to accept my particular world view,
in order to understand this line of inquiry.

[Is anyone else watching this thread? Are you mystified by my interrogation of this position?]

I agree wholeheartedly with the value of living sustainably, and with
respect for the world in all its amazing diversity. But I can’t see
how it can be used to justify this particular line in the sand.

HH-the line that I draw in the sand, is in fact pretty well now becoming
the accepted one in the Western world and for good reasons, it’s the best
outcome for humanity as a whole, for a number of reasons. Much the
same arguments apply in the abortion debate, for again the same
reasons.

Most people would like to see us live sustainably, with less hunger, less
suffering, more rights for people to determine how they lead their lives.
Most people would also agree that going around killing other people is
not a good idea, it makes for dangerous and unpleasant living for all
of us. So called morality is often based on self interest and the interest
of those close to us.

Most people accept that new life can be created quite easily, in mass
abundance. Most women have around 400 chances in their lives, yet
they are aware that they can realistically only feed and clothe 1-3.
So creating new life is easy, common and cheap.

They are aware that zygotes, embryos etc are simply clumps of dividing
cells, they do not suffer, they are not aware, they are not yet people.

If you had to make a decision, between flushing a 2 week old embryo
down the toilet and taking a knife and skinning a dog alive, what would
you choose and why? I would naturally flush the embryo, so would most
people I suspect, for pain and suffering is something that we can relate
to and do not like to cause, be that to people or other creatures.

So people base their morality on quite practical reasons of self interest of
themselves and their communities. If pain and suffering can be cured
by using embryos, again its practical reasons that drive people, not
deep philosophical navel gazing.

Sheesh, this stuff is not easy to explain in 350 words :)

Yabby,

HH has waited patiently for your responses to his questions - which were rational and formulated with a great deal of consideration and forethought. You've not answered his questions, neither have you made your case.

Here are just two of numerous examples why ...

**They do not suffer**
If someone were given an overdose of pain killers while they slept they would not suffer before they died - neither would they be conscious of what was happening to them. You cannot use this statement (or multiple variations thereof) to justify your argument for destroying human life.

**by using embryos**
For me, these three distasteful words sum up your position - your 'line in the sand' - your entire argument - your motivation.

HH

Can I now understand your argument to be that while humans might have defects, perhaps even bad enough to prevent them from seeing or having brain function, the fact that they are human leaves open the possibility that they may be repaired and/or upgraded (if their DNA is defective), and so function as persons? But wouldn't this then leave open the possibility that other species could also have their DNA upgraded and also function as persons? Would this possibility then give all species of upgradeable animals the status of persons?