The e-mailer’s statements that 1) a brain-activity criterion for definition personhood serves to “fetishize the brain,” and that 2) brain activity is not “what really matters about human beings,” just go to show how wide the gap can be between people of (presumably) good faith on this matter. Frankly, I can’t conceive of a meaningful definition of human personhood that does not involve the existence of a functioning human brain. It is impossible, indeed, to “fetishize the brain” when talking about human beings. If we could fast-forward to some Asimovian future where artificial, positronic brains can be implanted in human tissue, would the result properly be called “human”? Where is the self?
Quite apart from my puzzlement, I would submit that as a political matter (which is what I was addressing in the first place) such an odd definition of humanity will never make any sense to the vast majority of your fellow citizens. They most assuredly associate the existence of a brain with the existence of a person. Of course, many people will associate the soul with humanity, too, but that again takes us out of the realm of science and law.
In keeping with today’s Corner theme, I’d tie all this in to the “Spock’s Brain” episode of the third season of original Trek, but two sci-fi references seems excessive.