Sorry, I meant to say "fraternal twins" and not "identical twins" when discussing the process for forming chimeras.

HH

I suggest that you look at the definition of innate(instead of capacity), which by my understanding is natural or inborn. Thus, a human embryo with a genetic defect that results in a human being without the capacity for abstract rational thought does not have an innate capacity for abstract rational thought.

Perhaps the discussion would be clearer if a human were defined as a genetically human organism, a human being were defined as a conscious human organism, and a person were defined as an organism capable of abstract rational thought. By this distinction it is clear that a human is present at the point of conception, but a human being or a person is not.

Human embryos are far more complex than drops of water, as gametes are when compared with hydrogen and oxygen, but it is a useful analogy. In the creation of a person, surely the fundamental step would be the creation of the unique gametes that would fuse to create a unique embryo, just as the creation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms is the essential precursor for the creation of water molecules? Human beings or persons clearly they are not, but that they are the fundamental building blocks of all human beings is undeniable.

My schema is simple: Human gametes(are they not human?) are formed, they fuse to form human embryos, and the embryos then differentiate and grow into what we recognise as human beings. With the capacity for abstract rational thought, the human beings can function as persons. My interest is in understanding the qualities that make all humans unique when compared to other animals, hence my questions pertaining to anencephalic babies and innate capacities. I am also interested in understanding why some give such great significance to the fusion of gametes in contrast to the significance given to the creation of the gametes themselves? My own view relates to the decision of the mother to have a child and the stage of development of the embryo.

How does destroying a gamete or embryo make a difference when the result is identical?

Fester, They're not identical ...
' ... What the researchers found, in essence, is that a person's DNA does not contain just two sets
of genes, one from each parent, but also on occasion multiple copies of one or more genes and some
that are missing altogether. These extra or missing parts of the genome are called "copy number
variations," or CNVs. While that analysis confirmed that humans share much of the same DNA, it also
found that the amount of variation among humans is "huge" - an estimated 12 per cent of any person's
genetic material. ... '
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/061122/x11229A.html

Chris

Let me clarify. Your concern seems to be about destroying potential persons. Now imagine a time line over which a human being is created and ultimately dies. My point is that if you were to prevent this person from existing, whether you destroyed the embryo or one of the gametes that formed the embryo, you would still be destroying the potential person. The difference is that you are acting one step earlier in the process. I would ask you and HH why you would see a difference between destroying a single celled embryo and destroying a sperm just before it is about to fertilise an ovum? Would you and HH with your reasoning see one act as murder and the other not murder?

Fester, as a matter of beside the point, I'd like to congratulate
you on your great questions !

I get the distinct impression that you are running rings around
these people and that they cannot answer many points, but sorry,
thats just me and my 5c worth from the cheap seats on this forum :)

"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."

Re your comment above Cris, that is what I see as the problem
with your philosophy. You are promoting ever increasing populations
of humans, without giving a thought to the long term sustainability
of future human populations, by your present actions.

What we know from nature is that if its not sustainable, it will
inevitably crash with a bang, just give it time. Thats all very well if its just some
little island ecosystem, but putting our only planet at risk
in the name of philosophy, is extremely dangerous to the future
of mammals as a whole and humanity in particular. Personally
I regard it as quite foolish and short sighted