EDIT: Please read the whole post before replying point by point, it's easy to miss the big picture if you focus on refuting all the tiny details...
That "interest" is just as much "interest" as a fetus has. The possibility of sentinence, which in the case of the fetus is many times more probable.
If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that I said the comatose has an interest
before becoming comatose. We (sentient human beings) all have this interest - an interest in living out the life we are currently living.
I agree with the statement that the comatose do not have interests while they are in their state of coma, however, as I said before, they had an interest in living out their life before losing awareness, and, if they have a decent chance of regaining conciousness, that interest in living the person had prior to losing awareness is certainly worth something.
A zygote/young embryo
does not have and never had an interest in living out its life yet. It
was never self-aware. The fact that it will have these things in the future doesn't negate the fact that it doesn't have them
now.
It has no previous life. And? Eventually, the comatose person might become sentinent. The zygote probably will.
What, exactly, interests do you think the adult comatose have? You would have to be sentinent to have interests and preferences. Unless, of course, one's interests are not basic to one's awareness, but a basic right common to all human life by virtue of being alive, exclusive to sentinence.
I am going to skip this for now in an effort to focus on other areas of the discussion...
You are sidestepping here. I am not speaking about dismembering the comatose after death.
I am speaking about a living comatose person, who is no more sentinent, and has less prospect of being so in the future than a fetus. Feti are alive and hacked to death routinely by abortion clinics. If one applies the sentinence standard consistantly, it is OK to hack a living comatose person to death.
Let me be more clear then.
If the comatose person has a chance for recovery, then their life should be protected by virtue of the fact that although they are not sentient now, they were in the past, and have built a life, and have (or had, depending on your viewpoint) an interest in continuing their life. Their lack of self-awareness can be seen as a temporary condition.
If the comatose person has zero (or close enough) chance for recovery, then they are effectively dead, and should be given whatever rights are afforded to people after they are dead. (not sure what that would be)
You can see where getting at - the difference between a zygote that is a a few days old to someone in a coma is that in the comatose, the condition is temporary, and before becoming comatose, the individual was already a person. The only thing that can revoke personhood is brain death, or a condition that is equivalent to brain death (in a coma, with zero chance of recovery)
A zygote's case is different. I don't see the formation of a human being as a black and white, binary event, like one second, you have a sperm and egg, and another second, you have a person. I think this is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In my view, Human development is a continuum.
A few seconds after fertilization, the new life isn't too far from what is was before fertilzation, just like a 17 year old 30 minutes from his 18th birthday isn't too far from what he/she will be when the clock strikes 12 and the minor is now legally an adult. As a society, we place arbitrary lines to divide between two stages of human development.
Of course, you know that my argument is that personhood is developed, and it's not developed until some time after fertilization. This brings us to discuss... what is it that makes a a living human being
a person?
An organ is a structure of tissues that will never mature into a distinct organism. The same with cancers. They will not mature into a distinct organism. Your thumb is human tissue, but it will never become a separate and distinct human being. A human is a specific living organism. No one has suggested that individual tissues should be accorded the status of a human being in this debate, unless I missed something.
So, do you agree with me that it is not sufficent for an entitiy to be merely alive and human in origin to be a person? You allude to a third criteron, "potental to mature", but I'd like you to expand on it a little. When you say "they will not mature into a "distinct organism", what excatly do you mean?
It is true that an organ, as a whole, is dependant on other organs to serve it's purpose, so in that sense, my example was bad. However about an individual cell? Human cells can live out their lives in a petri dish, and can reproduce, so biologically, they can be viewed as organisms. Organisms that happen to be part of a larger organism, sure, but organisms nonetheless, just as bacteria. Now, they do have the same DNA as the person they came from so you could argue that they are not distinct, but not in the case of cancer cells.
So, cancer cells are organisms that are alive, human in origin, and genetically disctinct from any other human entity. Cancer cells are clearly not persons. What makes a person a person, then?
Choices, not "our social policies," are what bring about the majority of pregnancies, be they wanted or unwanted.
There are many resources availiable to the pregnant woman in the form of housing assistance, financial support, health care, assistance in finding employment, assistance in obtaining schooling, assistance in obtaining schooling or training, assistance in obtaining child care, the whole spectrum. There are numerous right to life organizations who will make sure the pregnant woman has the resources she needs, whether she keeps her child, or gives the child up for adoption.
The poor and destitute have many prolife organizations eager to help them. Women with an unwanted pregnancy need only pick up the phone book and call for help, and it will be found for them. They have to pick up the phonebook anyway to call for an abortion provider. Abortion alternatives are right next to abortion providers. Usually on the same page.
And it isn't just the poor and destitute aborting their children.
Generally speaking, I agree with you. Still, there is much more we can do as a society to reduce the abortion rate, even while it is still legal. Wouldn't you agree?
