HH, if Jack is in a deep coma, its a bit like Jack being asleep. He
has a human brain which is not functioning fully right now. His
human brain exists and it has not stopped functioning altogether, or
he would be a corpse.

We can show that primates can reason and that guilt is not an unknown
concept to them, species such as bonobos are not dissimilar to 3 year
old humans. Yet you try to ascribe innocence to embryos, even though
they clearly don't have the ability to reason, therefore be morally
responsible. Therefore applying the term innocent to them, sounds
more like emotional rhetoric to me, then reasoned argument.

Yes a zygote has the capacity to become a person, given the right circumstance.
So does an ovum and sperm. Umm so what?

Moral rights is something that you have decided should apply to
organisms from the moment of conception, that is your line in
the sand. Mine is from personhood, ie when a human brain is present
sufficiently developed to call it that, ie with a neocortex that
has the capacity to function. Sorry, but suffering people and
other species are more important to me then near unlimited amounts
of organisms who might have potential one day, given the right
cirucumstances.

Yabby,
1. In an earlier post you referred to “unaware” bunches of cells as if this lack of awareness stamped them as non-persons.

Is your assessment of Jack this: that Jack has, even in this deep comatose state, some level of awareness which characterises him a person? If so, could you explain what is this attribute of awareness he has in this vegetative state that separates him from, e.g., a crab, and marks him out as a person?

Or are you saying that, Jack is a person (or at least, should be treated as one) now, because he has a brain that at some future point will facilitate awareness? If so, your argument is that brain-possession is the line in the sand because you’ve just gotta have a brain to be aware - either now or - in Jack’s case - at some future point in time.

But this is not strictly true. You don’t actually have to have your brain now in order to be aware at some future point. You could just have to have the ability to grow your brain. How, then can we distinguish morally between an being that is unaware temporarily because its brain is recovering from injury, and another that is unaware temporarily because it has yet to exercise to completion its natural capacity to construct its own brain? In other words, between the zygote and Jack?

2. A sperm or ovum, as opposed to a zygote/embryo is not an individual that develops into an adult human. A zygote is not an older, grown up version of the sperm or ovum it was formed by but a new individual entity. But an embryo is the same individual as the zygote it was a few weeks back, and so on. We can envisage a futuristic but not impossible artificial uterus being developed by scientists which would, by supplying nutrition and warmth, etc, bring a zygote to term. We can’t envisage such a device bringing a sperm or ovum on its own “to term”

HH

I understand that you consider any human embryo capable of growing into a human being with the aid of the mother to have a unique quality. So if in future scientists are able to create a human being from a mature diploid cell without need for an ovum, would you agree that the embryo thus created should be accorded the same rights as any other embryo? And would you also agree that a scientist creating a human embryo by whatever means would have the moral obligation to then assist that embryo grow into a human being, as you believe a woman who falls pregnant is morally obligated to do?

Fester – thanks for the question.

The short answer is yes.

Longer answer: the embryo, I submit, is a human being from the moment of its creation – whether artificial or natural. It should be accorded the respect we give to any other human being.

So, if I happened across a human embryo in a petri dish unattended, my thoughts should be exactly the same as if I found a baby abandoned at my doorstep. IE, do what I can, subject to all my other obligations, to keep it alive and flourishing.

If I’m a creator of that embryo, or baby, then my obligations are even higher. Someone who deliberately or recklessly puts someone else in a precarious situation has higher obligations than someone who just comes across that situation.

Complicating factors: there is also a relation between the owner of the cell from which the scientist created the embryo – he/she is a parent of the embryo. So he or she too has obligations which arise from that relationship.

If a conception-to-term (futuristic) artificial uterus is available, the scientist should move the embryo into one.

Today there are no such devices. So an embryo of a few hours, days or weeks old is not viable. In these current circumstances, it is morally acceptable, I think, to let nature take its course and to respectfully allow the embryo to die. If as time goes on and viability for younger concepti becomes possible, then maybe freezing for a short bridging period would acceptable. Right now, that is a long way off, and so all frozen embryos should be unfrozen and allowed to expire.

The fact that embryos will die this way doesn’t give us the right to kill them for experimental purposes, any more than the fact that you & I will die someday gives anyone the right to kill us for science.

I don’t agree with other pro-lifers who think it’s moral to transfer the embryo to a woman’s uterus. But that’s another argument.

HH, a person is somebody with a human brain, a cell has no
human brain. When you are asleep, you are unaware, yet
your brain still functions at low level, you are still a person.

At the end of the day, its your brain that makes you a person.
We could transplant that brain into another body, different
heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, hands, feet, etc. etc. You
would still be you. Your mind is what your brain does,
cells don't have minds.

So cells are not people, no human brain = no person.

At the end of the day, a zygote is a cell that contains
a dna code. Umm so what? Nature can create those in
massive overabundance, the limitations will always
be on resources, not on limited numbers of cells.

Personally my morality is more concerned with suffering,
then with fussing about cells.

What are you going to do if a sperm meets an ovum down
a sewer, where they get flushed by the billions.
Cry out that murder was committed?

Yabby I’m trying to understand your perspective on the value of life which I understand to be:

1. No human brain = not considered a person.
2. Not considered a person = no value = no right to life.

I’m a little deficient in the brain department myself (and I suspect I’m not the only one) so it’s encumbent upon me to request clarification.

If our Australian politicians were to formulate legislation that defined the right to live - based on your human brain criteria - how would they define a human brain that has the right to live, and a human brain that does not?