Yabby, it seems we’ve come full circle, so it’s time for me to leave.

Embryos are individual human beings, and were from conception, but not before – as numerous secular embryological textbooks (inter alia) attest. Unfortunately you don’t understand what I’m getting at here, and are not raising any objections that are relevant, so I’m not going to push it.

[For anyone else (?) reading this, note that I’ve disputed Yabby’s contention that perduring as an individual is linked with retaining DNA. I’ve argued that even if my DNA is altered, I am still the same individual which is the subject of the alteration and that that individual began with the act of conception, not before or after. Yabby doesn’t seem to understand the point of this argument – that I begin as an individual at conception and that subsequent changes, even alterations in DNA, let alone the achievement by that individual of the construction of its own brain, don’t compromise the fact that it is the same individual human being who experiences these alterations.

He further doesn’t understand the point that when a mature human being’s brain is irreversibly destroyed, that being ceases to exist; whereas that a young human being in process of developing a brain, and a human whose brain is not functioning very well, or perhaps not at all, but whose brain is not irreversibly destroyed, might have a different metaphysical – and hence moral – status. For him, this is a ‘non-issue’, not worthy of any discussion at all, simply because, for some reason, (not argued), he views the temporary non-functioning of a brain, however brief, as an empirical impossibility. He seems unaware that science is pushing empirical possibilities ever wider, and that responsible discussion of issues should take into account what is conceptually, not just here and now practically, possible.]

‘Subjective morality’ is incoherent, and just as the arguments of a solipsist or universal skeptic actually point to objective morality, so the very argumention of subjective moralists actually substantiate the objectivity of morals. But that is another story….

Ciao!

HH, many thanks for the discussion, it was always clear to me that there could
be no agreement, simply agreeing to disagree. Our view about morality is clearly
quite different.

Where we disagree fundamentally is that I have long ago accepted Darwin’s
observation, that far more individuals of any species will be produced then can
ever survive. The problem is not creation of new individuals, that’s easy, its
about providing the resources for their survival, as
Darwin correctly noted.

So we can never agree. You want to fuss over every human zygote, I think that
they are largely expendable, unless they have a family who is prepared to care
for them. Most women have to choose which 2-3 of potentially 400, that
they can provide for and want to provide for.

You want to occupy your time pondering about whether corpses brought back
to life by science, would be persons once again. Ok have fun.

I prefer to ponder about what I consider the immorality of some philosophers,
who focus on zygotes and corpses, but seem to forget the hungry and the starving
which their philosophies could be responsible for.

Unlike yourself, some out in the real world have little choice but to face
A or B. Recourses are limited, should they fuss about a zygote or
focus on feeding their present family? I don’t blame them for choosing to
reduce suffering and hunger for their families. I can empathise with their
situation.

Look around you. life is common and life is cheap. Many preach the rhetoric
about the sanctity of every zygote, whilst in reality their own wealth and
splendor are clearly their own first priority. Why should I take any notice
of them?

So I will continue to prefer my own version of morality, which accepts
Natures laws as observed by Darwin and focuses on reducing hunger
and suffering. People will have priority over cells and organisms.
Reducing hunger and suffering on this earth is a very moral position
to take, in my humble opinion.

Ciao!

Scientists seek eggs after stem cell vote - 7 December 2006

'Australian stem cell researchers will start negotiating with IVF clinics to access human eggs following this week's landmark decision to overturn a ban on creating cloned embryos specifically for scientific research. ...

But the first step for researchers like Trounson is to get hold of a ready supply of human eggs and he's not sure whether there will be enough. ... Neuroscientist Professor Peter Schofield of the Lockhart review agrees that finding eggs will be a key issue. "In practice we will probably find that eggs may be a limiting factor," he says. ...

There are typically 25 years between the first experiments to a clinical application, he says. And researchers are "at best" seven years in.'

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1806539.htm?health

The spiral begins.

PS

HH - Your posts were of exceptional quality.

Michael Rogers, found your comment on Crikey this morning - well said!
http://www.crikey.com.au/Comments/20061212-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html

HUMAN BODY PARTS

The BBC is reporting that evidence it has obtained suggests that healthy newborn babies may have been killed in the Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm

Stem cell baby deaths probe 'too close to the truth', claims investigator

Bojan Pancevski in Vienna, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 17/12/2006

' ... "Pregnant women, especially from rural areas, are very vulnerable targets as they will obviously believe whatever the doctors tell them. It's easy to take their babies from them and tell them they died or were born dead due to complications."

The Council of Europe is to investigate allegations that newborn babies, and foetuses, have been killed to provide stem cells and internal organs for controversial medical and cosmetic treatments. ... '

' ... In 2003 its head, Tetyana Isayeva Zaharova, gave Council of Europe investigators a video which was said to show babies' bodies partly dismembered so that stem cells and organs could be removed. ... '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/wbaby17.xml

The babies who are murdered to order

' ... Certainly, the Ukraine has become the main supplier of the global stem cell trade. ... '

Tatyana showed me the video she had been allowed to record of the post-mortem examinations that followed. The gruesome film shows the carcasses of babies, some of whom were full-term, with their organs and brains missing.

Neurones in infants' brain are a rich source of stem cells.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=423057&in_page_id=1774

DEAR READERS
first i express my honor to the people who honors existence of life.
a small question came to my mind .
as both the sperm and the ovum have life of their own and only one life is created after the formation of embryo where is the other life ? are we believing in destruction of life when we r suppose to support continuation of life?