Yabby,

The "functioning brain = person" equation isn't quite enough: one has to argue the case that all human beings without functioning brains don't have an inherent right to life. In other words that human beings don’t have a right to life – only human persons.

Certainly if someone has their brain completely & irretrievably destroyed then we view them as no longer as having a right to life. But is this because they are no longer a person, or that they are no longer, in essence, a human being?

Unlike this de-brained entity, a normal fertilized human egg is a human being with nothing essential missing for that stage of its development. At this stage it has the capacity to develop – and is in the process of developing - its own brain. Why should this human being in the process of constructing its own brain be considered as having no right to life?

To put the question in another way: compare the case of 30-year old Jack who’s in a very deep coma but who will come out from it in half an hour, with Fred, a 24.9-day old embryo who is half an hour away from getting his brain up and running for the first time. Both have the capacity to flourish as “persons” in the future. Do you think that Jack has a right to life? If so, why not Fred?

I submit they both do, since both are human beings. Human beings exercise, or have the capacity to exercise (in the future), personhood. The de-brained being is on this ground no longer a human being. Fred and Jack are human beings. Having the capacity to exercise personhood, they have the same right to life as humans actually functioning as persons.

HH, the moral question as to what has a right to life is a subjective one, as
we have no evidence of any objective morality. All we have is the
laws of nature to guide us. So where you draw a line in the sand and
what your reasoning is for that, is open to debate.

What we do know is that most women shed around 400 eggs in their lives,
all with the potential to become cute babies. Reality prevails, resources
are limited, we cannot keep them all. As Darwin noted, far more potential
individuals of any species will be created, then can ever survive.

An embryo of 24.9 days does not have a brain, it’s a bundle of dividing
cells, no more. Given the right circumstances, an egg can go on to become
a person. What is so sacred about an egg and a sperm? Given the right
circumstances, yes they can become people too. My point is that the
limiting factor in nature is neither eggs nor embryos, but resources to
take them further in their development, ie parents who will provide the
resources to feed them and nurture them until the point of their independence.

Given limited resources, I prefer to see those resources focused on thinking,
suffering people or other species, rather then potential people. In my moral
world, reducing suffering is more important then the rights of non suffering,
unaware organisms, who have no parents to provide them with resources,
as nature had intended, if they were to survive.

So give me a good reason why the rights of an unaware bunch of dividing
cells, should matter more then starving babies or suffering people, or
suffering individuals of other species for that matter. What is so moral
about your opinion? On what reasoning do you base that morality?

Yabby,

1. If there is no objective morality, then why are you putting up an argument, for sacrificing embryos? Why are you talking about your “moral” world and asking me to give a “good reason” for my position? What, moreover, counts as a “good reason”? Ultimately isn’t it based (according to you, anyway) on purely arbitrary personal preference? What if I said “Actually I’d prefer to see more suffering in the world” – you may not share that preference, but how could you, reasonably <i> argue <\i> against it if morality is a purely subjective business?
2. Eggs and sperm of themselves aren’t little humans – no argument there. But fertilized egg is. It is a self-organising entity with a genetic makeup independent of (though derived from) its parents – just like you and me. Of course a 24.9-day old embryo is a bunch of dividing cells. (PS in my earlier post I meant the example to be a 24.9 week old embryo – ie one with an almost developed brain.) You and me are bunches of dividing cells. So what? The fact is the embryo from day one is dividing – unlike, say, a tumour – in an ordered way according to information written into the organism itself by mysterious process we are only just beginning to understand. At a certain point the division process manifests differentiation. This is not an accident – it is written into the process from the moment of conception. It doesn’t happen to other bunch of cells.

"It doesn’t happen to other bunch of cells."

But it did happen this way for Dolly the sheep, and it seems likely that advances in technology will make it possible to create living, functioning organisms, including humans, from a single cell. Will this devalue human life? I would say it has no relevance, but with the almost limitless number of potential humans created hopefully the debate will change to a discussion of the rights of a woman in choosing or not choosing to have a child: Surely they amount to more than being a morally obligated incubator.

Now we're getting some interesting conversation...

I see your point HH, though I'd have to say I agree with Yabby's consensus - ultimately, you do have to draw a line in the sand. Problem is, nobody can agree where this line should be drawn.

I'd call the senate decision a compromise between morality and practicality, though the thing is, the practicality side of the equation is reasonably unquestioned. Here's my line of reasoning:

You can argue that adult stem cell research is yielding results where embryonic research is unproven. Fair enough, though it's difficult to argue that the potential for cures does not exist.
By the same logic that argues no research has happened, no definitive statements can be made regarding whether or not the research can yield results.

Now, as for my earlier statement: morals v practicality - it isn't that simple of course - matters like this never are.
Some view the notion that people are so vehemently protecting a bunch of cells as a fundamentalist kind of morality - on the fringe.
I'll admit I feel that way at times, but I can at least appreciate their concern is there for the right reasons, especially those concerned secularists.

Hmm... overall? I think the claims that this research is immoral are unfounded... I guess the practical possibility of cures to me, is the most concrete moral compass I can see.
Ironically, this practicality leading to morality reflects another one of life's little ironies:
The most extreme arguments for and against this research are also based on potential. Those concerned people are worried that it will lead to a 'slippery slope' of sorts - but again this is merely potential, much like the research.

Food for thought anyhow.

HH, questions of where to draw moral boundaries, come up in society
on a constant basis. Why is 16 the legal age for sexual intercourse,
why not 18 or 14? Society as a whole has drawn its line in the sand
and as with other moral questions, its based on many subjective opinions
to form an ultimate judgment, by which we live.

If you believed that more suffering was perhaps a good thing, as some
of the religious have tried to do, in our society you are free to do so.
However you will need to justify your reasoning to many others, to
gain their support for your belief. Convincing others of that belief,
might not be so easy :)

So lets take the point further. Lets say you had the power to help
one of two beings. One was a thinking, feeling person, writhing
in agony with ongoing pain, which you could eliminate if you
chose. Your other choice would be helping a week old, non
thinking, non feeling embryo, take another step in life towards
its potential future. Which would you choose and why?

Why do you draw the line as conception being your moral
boundary, after which some kind of sanctity should apply?

In nature conception is pretty common, abortion of the fetus
is also pretty common. Death off offspring for whom parents
don’t have the resources to provide them with, is also pretty
common.

As I believe that less suffering is a good thing, my moral
argument is that if we do things that reduce suffering,
that is morally a good thing. Why do you think it’s a bad thing?