Fester,

It’s not the fact that they could be repaired that gives impaired humans their dignity. It’s that they are humans even now, in their impaired condition. That is, they as humans will always have the innate capacity for rationality, even when this capacity will never be exercised. The genuis violinist remains one, even if he’s marooned on a desert island for the rest his life so that his capacity to play is permanently impeded.

And so, your second question can be answered. Let’s generalise and suppose that scientists have come up with a way of making a human being out of a non-human. So there’s a non-human – say, a pebble – at time t, and a human at t + 1. At time t, does the pebble have the innate capacity for rationality? I’d say no. It’s a perfectly well-functioning pebble. There’s nothing impeding any of its capacities. It’s not damaged in any way. It’s doing what the very best Mr Universe pebble does just as well.

In order for “it” to function as a person, “it” has to cease being a pebble – something with no capacity for human rationality. Another way to say this is that there is no identity-over-time between the object at t and the new human being at t + 1. [ The situation is very close to the lack of identity between the sperm and ovum and the human which is created out of their union.]

Until t + 1, then, we don’t have a human before us: ie a thing innately rational. We have a small rock. We treat the object at time t as a rock. And, should there be a human at t+1, we accord that new human the same dignity as all other humans.

Yabby,
I still have no idea about where you have drawn a line in the sand. If you’re saying that killing brained humans can sometimes be “practical” & so OK, then there is no line where you’ve previously asserted there is one.

HH

You argue that all humans have an innate capacity to be abstract rational beings(persons), and that it is this quality that makes humans special. But for a human with a genetic defect that prevents him from becoming a person, such a capacity cannot be innate: To claim as much would imply that such a human could self-correct his problems and become a person. A virtuoso marooned on an island might imagine playing or even fashion an instrument, but an anencephalic baby will not grow a brain by himself. Perhaps substantial genetic alteration and repair using technology far advanced from that available today might achieve this, but it would not happen innately. Yet perhaps with far less genetic modification and repair a bonobo might be created that would become a person.

In both cases the absence of intervention would result in beings innately incapable of being persons, so why would you give the human a higher status than the bonobo prior to the modification?

Re. the discussion with Cris. This is now a very similar discussion to the one we’re having, Fester. And the particular point I’d like to pick up on is the statement referring to a sperm as “fusing and growing into a person”. I suggest that this is not quite correct. A sperm goes out of existence qua sperm at fusion.(Ditto the ovum.) Some of its material is absorbed into the new entity. But this is not an entity “growing”. There is no longer a sperm upon conception, just as there is no longer any female gamete cell. You won’t find scientists referring to the zygote as a “mature sperm”, etc. There is a new being with a genetic makeup and capacities distinct from, but obviously dependent on, the genetic makeup of the gamete cells taken separately.

So yes, the genetic makeup of the being that is Rex was determined by the particular sperm and ovum involved in his conception. But I don’t believe there is any warrant in common sense parlance or in scientific discourse to say that Rex existed as the separate sperm or ovum that came together at his conception prior to that moment.

The alternative is to suggest that if an entity W is formed by the combination of other entities X, Y, and Z, then X, Y, and Z, uncombined, are W simply by virtue of the fact that their future combination results in W. Eg, 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom at 8 o’clock, before the lightning bolt (or whatever) that brings them together into chemical bonding at 9 o’clock, are properly referred to as “water” at 8 o’clock. Not that this is a definitive guide, but I’ve never heard any scientist talking in this fashion. I’ve never read a science textbook which says, “Water exists in one state as any particular hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are destined to combine. When they do combine, the water takes on new qualities.” Have you? Try putting that in the next chemistry or philosophy exam, and see what marks you get.

Cris no conflict at all, you should read the context in which they were
written. One was about the future of the planet, the other about a
few organisms. Given your interest in drugs and having never expressed
a view against vaccines etc, you clearly have nothing against interfering
with nature.

HH, where I think that you and Chris have it all wrong, you are totally
focussed on dna and overlooking the effect of environment on what is
to become a person and make them whom they are.

Look at identical twins, they have the same dna, but they are not the
same people, even if similar. Dna simply expresses potential, not
whom we turn out to be.

Lets look at a developing fetus, we know that small amounts of
testosterone can affect the masculanisation of the brain at about
6 weeks. Using that knowledge we can create homosexual rats in the
lab. There is much talk that the same work was done with humans
in East Germany, but it was never published for obvious reasons.
But the evidence does suggest that peoples sexual inclination is
influenced by these outside factors, making people quite different
to the genetic potential their dna might have expressed.

Lets look at Osama bin Laden. Would he be the same person,
if he had grown up as a Catholic schoolboy in Sydney? Methinks
not.

If HH had grown up in the hills of Afghanistan, fighting jihad,
his experiences might have led him to be a quite different person
then he is today.

So dna carrying human organisms are simply that, organisms with human
potential, but not a lot more. They just happen to be able to
have the potential to think a little bit more then bonobo organisms.
Big deal. Dignity applies to people, not to cells.

Yabby,

**Cris no conflict at all, you should read the context in which they were written. **
Yabby, you're correct. I did take the first of those three quotes out of context and I apologise for the oversight.
My position on the second two remains unchanged.

**you clearly have nothing against interfering with nature.**
My earlier statement **I go further and suggest we should not detrimentally interfere with nature** has not changed. The key words in the statement are 'detrimentally interfere'. So to clarify, if the interference is beneficial, not detrimental, to all stages of human life - I'm okay with that.

**Dna simply expresses potential, not whom we turn out to be.**
Trying to justify experimentation on and destruction of embryos by implying someone MIGHT later become a threat to society is clutching at straws and ignores the basic right of every human life to grow, to live, to make choices, to make of life what they will.

That you are here today is evidence you benefited from those rights. You might have become a terrorist but you didn't ... you think independently, you express your opinions, you demonstrate compassion for others. Why your don't believe others should enjoy the same benefits as you, or why your compassion doesn't extend to all stages of human life is still a mystery to me.

And herein lies the most puzzling aspect of this whole debate.

Those who argue for experimentation on and destruction of embryos are arguing that the same rights afforded to them should not apply to others. For me, this argument is inequitable and cannot be justified.

No puzzle about this debate at all Cris. I realise that I am here
by cheer chance. Had my mother had a headache, or had a cup of tea
before I was made, I would not be here. If she had aborted me I
would not be here. So what? I would not know about it. Instead
she might have had somebody else. Thats life, its a lottery ticket,
not a right. If a woman decides not to have another child and
flushes the egg down the toilet instead, should she feel guilty
that she has denied some other potential person a life? Of course not. How many kids
she can raise and wants to raise is her decision
alone.

Fact is that there is near unlimited potential for potential new
life, but only so many resources at one time, on a limited planet.
If we humans don't live on it sustainably, because of overpopulation
at any one time, what we put at risk is future generations of humans
and other species enjoying this planet too. If we push things over
the edge and it goes back to cockroaches and ants, how many humans
will then have lost their potential at life? Our species will simply
have gone extint.

Take a look at situations like Easter Island, when people lived unsustainably,
to see what can happen. Or Rwanda, what people do
when overcrowding becomes an issue. Its not a pleasant experience
and one would think we humans have at least evolved to have enough
intelligence to not repeat it.

My point about dna is that you don't stay exactly the same person,
unlikes HH's claims. Same dna, but different person, affected by
your environment as you grew. Is Osama bin Laden evil? Would he
still have been evil, if he grew up as a Catholic schoolboy in
Sydney?

My point again, I am here not because of rights, but because of
sheer circumstance. If I was not here, I would not know about it.
So there is nothing to miss.