Hi Fester,

An embryo is not a single celled organism but a human in their earliest stages of life. The same cannot be said of a sperm. I therefore don't have any problem with someone acting one step earlier in the process. (I think there's even some obscure terms for those acts already in use - abstinence, contraception, containment, and self-control.)

For those caught in unfortunate circumstances there's adoption.
For those with no desire to share their lives with children there's hysterectomy and vasectomy.

In all of these options not one life is experimented upon or destroyed.

"In all of these options not one life is experimented upon or destroyed."

Cris, I remind you that what you say might be your particular
philosophy, meantime the world population keeps growing by
about 80 million a year, mainly in the world's poorest countries.

These poor women don't have the options that you suggest and
the Vatican, who might have lost power since the Inquistion,
nevertheless still has alot of power to influence, in the
third world. They don't have your options, they are victims
of flawed philosophy, all very sad really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

I suggest that your read the transcript download of that
programme, its eye opening stuff about the power of religion
over the poor and unfortunate on this planet.

Fester,

The logic of your first para. is “X doesn’t own a car. Therefore X doesn’t own a red car”. This is certainly a valid piece of reasoning, but not very helpful, and, moreover, assumes what has to be proved. Our dispute is over WHETHER “I OWN A CAR” IS TRUE OR FALSE: or, in our terms, whether there can be a human being without the capacity for rational thought.

I think you’re conflating current ability with capacity. “Jack can’t do Y, so Jack hasn’t the capacity to do Y.” Jack may have the capacity to Y, but be impeded by some factor. Our violinist has the capacity to play, but doesn’t have a violin handy. Even if his arms are chopped off, he still can be said to have a capacity. We say: “he can’t play now, but if he had arms and hands, he’d play beautifully”. This is capacity. Anencephalics can’t think. But that’s because of a defect in their biological apparatus. Fix that and they would be able to think. This is NOT (to revisit a question of yours) the same as tooling up a bonobo for rational thought. That’s adding to a bonobo something ‘supernatural’ – ie beyond what by nature it was due. An anencephalic is a DEFECTIVE member of the species. Do we say an ordinary bonobo is defective for lacking the ability to think abstractly in the way of humans?

Suppose there is a blind woman with every part of her sight system perfectly in order except of one cell in the nerve on the way to the brain which is incurably defective. We can reasonably say that that woman has the capacity to see. She’s all geared up for it except for this one pesky cell. Fix that and she’s right. Agree? Now, cell by cell, imagine worse & worse cases. At what point do YOU say “this person doesn’t have the capacity to see?”

(Please excuse shouting capitals – there’s no other way to emphasise.)

Fester,

Human gametes are not human beings. (Another example; your liver is human but not a human being.) Neither are gametes organisms in the sense of being separate individuals. They are cells – part of a whole - , though of a special kind – parts that are perhaps destined to participate in the creation of another whole of the kind of which they are a part. [It’s ‘my sperm’ and ‘my ova’, but ‘OUR baby’, and even then the possessive relationship is not quite the same.]

From what point of view is the creation of the gametes the ‘fundamental’ step? Why not go all the way back to the creation of the world? On the other hand, as opposed to the creation of the gametes, with conception we have you as an INDIVIDUAL entity for the first time. This is like the seed which Yabby can’t see is in fact the same individual as the oak tree it grows into. But even he gave the game away when he said “when you were conceived”. See, our ordinary, commonsense, unselfconscious discourse trips us up.

“What WE recognise as human beings” (emphasis added)

?? Again, aren’t there assumptions here? I’m recognising zygotes as human beings. They’re the same individuals as the Ivy League professors they (may) grow into.

P.S. There’s a certain unreality about this whole conversation (I don’t mean yourself necessarily). Original question: can embryos be killed for research? Original worshipful drawing of line in the sand: “Yes, but only until they have a brain.” Subsequent disclosures: It doesn’t matter a toss whether they have a brain or not. Abortion’s fine – brain or not. And anyway, morality is just about being “practical”. So kill anyone if the survival of the species depends on it. So abortion, infanticide - heck, killing anyone’s OK for a good enough reason. “Oh, but you pro lifers - how DARE you exalt the zygote when when self consciousness is the gold standard which WE so highly reverence!” Cut the cr*p!

Yabby,

A judge must have an appreciation for life.

They must have this appreciation because if they did not, they wouldn't have the capacity to reconcile the value of what has been lost against an appropriate ruling - therefore, justice can never be served by a judge who has no appreciation for the value of life.

You've stated repeatedly you have no appreciation for the value of life.

If someone has no appreciation for the value of life they have no capacity for fairness when weighing life and death decisions, and therefore are not qualified to play the part of 'judge'.

Cris, a good judge is one who can see the big picture and look at things from various
perspectives. If your philosophy happens to be that you insist on sitting on railway
tracks, a good judge would point out the extreme risk of you being hit by a train,
despite your philosophy.

In a way I value life more then you do, as I insist that it is sustainable, not just
about today.

HH, you clearly missed the point of my argument. Yes the dna stays the same,
but we are made up of more then dna. If it was only about dna, then identical
twins would be exactly the same, which they are clearly not, even if similar.
Read up on some identical twin studies.

Nutrition matters, environment matters, experiences matter, in making us whom
we are. I repeat my Osama argument, think about it.

Human reason I think, as has happened in Western society, has in fact come up
with quite reasonable moral standards, once we got rid of the religious dogma.

We differentiate between people and beings. We accept that a person is somebody
with a human brain. We generally accept abortion in the first trimester, after that
it needs some very good reasons. We accept that killing other people is wrong.
We think that suffering is a bad thing and attempt to reduce it. We accept
that sex between two loving people is quite natural and normal, nothing evil
about it. We generally agree that we should live sustainably and that the future
of the planet matters, for the benefit of our children and their children, etc.
More of are starting to accept that the suffering that many people go through,
as we wait until they slowly and painfully die, is in fact cruel and inhumane,
we would not even put our dog through that experience