By MODERATOR
Added: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:47:01 UTC

Removed from a thread where the comments were off-topic. Feel free to continue the discussion here.

Comment 87 by spmccullagh My own 2 cents worth on this. Elisabeth - the issues you're describing seem fairly limited to the US in terms of lobbying etc. which doesn't apply in the UK - that said, in all my years as a Catholic and a voter not once has a Priest ever told a congregation how to vote and instead ensure we each make ourselves aware of where each party / candidate stands and to vote with our consciences. To get to your point, I think that in a democracy we each have the right to put our opinions to our government representatives so as to ensure participation in the democratic process. To come to the more recent comments, I have to admit to being slightly dismayed by comments suggesting that religion has no place in government - that'd be like me saying that only religious people should be in government - something I'm sure you'd be quick to shoot down. The reality is that government should uphold the will of the people and act according to the majority - that's what a democracy is. Further, that means that it's only right that those who are religious have every right to represent their town, state, county, etc. There are laws we all disagree with, but I've resigned myself to that being unlikely to change. I still ensure I make my candidates aware of my position on issues that concern me in the hope of influencing their position. I think that some of the comments on freedom and well made - within the law of each country we should have the ability to act in a manner we see fit, and to practice whatever religion we follow or to be athiests, or whatever variant in between. Finally, I have to admit to being slightly bemused by the vociferous decrying of how JW's, for example, deny blood transfusions to their children yet many of these same people laugh off comments from pro-lifers about abortion...Such a narrow view of human rights....

Comment 88 by Cartomancer spmccullagh, Finally, I have to admit to being slightly bemused by the vociferous decrying of how JW's, for example, deny blood transfusions to their children yet many of these same people laugh off comments from pro-lifers about abortion...Such a narrow view of human rights.... Will you PLEASE stop rehearsing your ridiculous and demonstrably absurd delusion that insensate blastocysts deserve human rights. They don't. We've been through this many times. You lost the argument. Please have the good grace to admit as much and move on.

Comment 89 by spmccullagh @Cartomancer - I don't believe I did - that's your own personal delusion. You say blastocyte, I say life - these are arbitrary definitions of human invention so technically we're both right and both wrong. Further - when you lot keep ranting on about how the Pope's visit to the UK will cost £20m, how about considering for a second that there are c.200k abortions in England and Wales each year, and that they each cost in the region of £400 - 500 to the NHS. By my calculations that's a whopping £80-100m per year. On the basis of reason surely you'd appreciate that if people don't want children they shouldn't have sex instead of further burdening the NHS with an unnecessary cost. Was it you who said that abortion was a perfectly acceptable method of contraception? Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 1:14 AM | #513431

Comment 90 by Cartomancer @Cartomancer - I don't believe I did - that's your own personal delusion. You say blastocyte, I say life - these are arbitrary definitions of human invention so technically we're both right and both wrong. First of all, yes you did lose the argument. In fact you lost before you even made your case, because you are trying to support a demonstrably flawed and unsupportable argument. By any rational appreciation of the facts, uncoloured by dogma, the so-called "pro-life" position is incoherent and indefensible. Second, it's blastocyst, not blastocyte. -cyst is a biological term for a sac or swelling, derived from the Greek kystis - a bladder or pouch. -cyte, by contrast, is a term for a type of cell, derived from a different Greek root, kytos - a basket or bowl. Third, the fact the blastocyst is alive is irrelevant. A tumour is alive also. Fourth, the important definition is not arbitrary, but based on objective evidence as to whether the entity in question has sentience and can suffer. So, fifth, we're not both right and both wrong, I'm right and you're wrong. There is no parity between our positions - mine is based on evidence, yours on misinformation and prejudice. Further - when you lot keep ranting on about how the Pope's visit to the UK will cost £20m, how about considering for a second that there are c.200k abortions in England and Wales each year, and that they each cost in the region of £400 - 500 to the NHS. By my calculations that's a whopping £80-100m per year. On the basis of reason surely you'd appreciate that if people don't want children they shouldn't have sex instead of further burdening the NHS with an unnecessary cost. Was it you who said that abortion was a perfectly acceptable method of contraception? Abortion is an expensive method of contraception, yes. But it is still perfectly acceptable. Especially considering it's the only method that works once the active period for the morning after pill has elapsed. Abortion actually benefits British society and improves the well-being of thousands. The pope's visit merely shores up an evil, anachronistic and damaging institution responsible for millions of deaths in Africa and the perpetuation of life-destroying anti-human bigotries the world over. And heterosexual people who don't want children but do still want sex have plenty of options - condoms, contraceptive pills, non-vaginal sex etc. These are all preferable to abortion, both in financial and hassle terms, but they don't render abortion obsolete.

Comment 93 by spmccullagh @Cartomancer - The issue you're glossing over is that you've decided that because something does not yet suffer, is not yet sentient, and cannot yet sustain itself outside of the womb that it does not have the right to life - on what scientific basis are you asserting that? Like I said - the decision not to afford a foetus human rights is a decision based on no real basis other than "cos we said so". How exactly does abortion benefit society? It is a barbaric practice that has no place in a so called enlightened culture. Imagine this... Tomorrow aliens land on earth and we start explaining to them about how we live - can you honestly say you'd be proud that we destroy human lives in the womb? Clearly these people who don't want children aren't as careful as you'd hope - the solution is not to perpetuate this act by giving a way out. Further - the Catholic Church is NOT responsible for millions of deaths in Africa. African people are responsible for their own deaths. If they purport to follow Catholic teachings they should not engage in any sexual act that could spread AIDS to another person if they are infected - to take such a narrow view of this situation is convenient on your part.

Comment 97 by Cartomancer The issue you're glossing over is that you've decided that because something does not yet suffer, is not yet sentient, and cannot yet sustain itself outside of the womb that it does not have the right to life - on what scientific basis are you asserting that? What it might become in the future is IRRELEVANT. I might become a world-class physics professor in the future, but should I be treated as one now, paid a handsome salary and invited to opine at top physics conferences? My dinner will become inedible if I leave it for three weeks, should I therefore avoid eating it now? Does a flatworm have the "right to life"? Does a bacterium? Does a tumour? Because they're all exactly the same sorts of things as a blastocyst with regard to the moral decisions we must make about suffering. We don't attribute entities with rights based on potential characteristics they do not yet exhibit. How exactly does abortion benefit society? By relieving the very real harm caused by unwanted pregnancies. can you honestly say you'd be proud that we destroy human lives in the womb? Yes, I can. Because it relieves very real suffering and harm. Clearly these people who don't want children aren't as careful as you'd hope - the solution is not to perpetuate this act by giving a way out. Obviously it is advantageous to promote other forms of contraception first, but the final resort is vital in cases where accidents occur. Since contraception effectively removes the consequence of pregnancy, sex thus becomes much freer of unwanted risk. And I'm all for letting people enjoy sex. Further - the Catholic Church is NOT responsible for millions of deaths in Africa. African people are responsible for their own deaths. If they purport to follow Catholic teachings they should not engage in any sexual act that could spread AIDS to another person if they are infected - to take such a narrow view of this situation is convenient on your part. The catholic church is DIRECTLY and knowingly responsible for the millions of AIDS deaths, because TEACHING ABSTINENCE ALONE DOES NOT WORK. And spreading malicious lies that condoms either don't work or somehow carry with them a burden of "sin" is doubly pernicious. The human brain evolved to want sex very much. It is not very good at celibacy to put it mildly. The sex instinct in humans is often much more powerful than any attempt to control it, and so in all societies people will have sex. Pretending that simply saying "don't do that" is enough to absolve oneself of all responsibility when people do have sex is palpably ludicrous. All the evidence shows that condoms WORK and abstinence teaching alone DOESN'T. It is recklessly and criminally irresponsible to ignore this fact of human nature and stick with demonstrably inadequate solutions solely because they accord with anachronistic irrational dogma. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 2:03 AM | #513455

Comment 98 by spmccullagh @Cartomancer - your argument is a non-sequitur as you have still completely failed to explain why a foetus does not have human rights. The reason you cannot is because the definition of "life" is a human construct that people bend to support abortion. So. just because abstinence does not work, does that make it a flawed teaching? Or is it humanity that is flawed? Consider this for a second...if money was to be used for contraception, that would mean taking money away from others where it may be used for water and food - you honestly think that pandering to people who cannot control their urges is the way to go? That'd be like saying "the prison system doesn't stop all people re-offending, so therefore let's ditch prisons". If "I might get AIDS" isn't enough to stop people having sex, I honestly don't know what is...

Comment 101 by Cartomancer A blastocyst does not have human rights because it is NOT THE SORT OF THING TO WHICH HUMAN RIGHTS MEANINGFULLY ATTACH. Biologically it has exactly the same capacity for suffering and sentience as a tumour or a flatworm. That is what is important here, that is how rights are apportioned. You keep harping on about the irrelevant "is it alive?" question. Of course it's alive. That's not the point. That doesn't matter. A tumour is also alive. So is a flatworm. Those don't get what we call human rights either. So. just because abstinence does not work, does that make it a flawed teaching? Or is it humanity that is flawed? Yes, humanity is flawed. That's the point. Humanity has acquired many dangerous and self-destructive behaviours in its evolutionary history. People don't just do what might, theoretically, be best for them. That is why it is a silly and flawed idea to assume that just preaching abstinence will work. It won't. All the evidence shows that it won't. Uganda is a good case study. The workers on the ground are reporting a rise in HIV infection rates following the abandonment of the promotion of condoms in favour of abstinence-only programmes funded by the US, where before there was a massive drop during the 90s thanks to programmes which did promote condoms: http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm Consider this for a second...if money was to be used for contraception, that would mean taking money away from others where it may be used for water and food Contraception SAVES LIVES. Ergo it is just as important as food and clean water. In fact, given that overpopulation is easily as big a threat to African well-being as AIDS, contraception is vital in helping to solve many problems on that benighted continent. you honestly think that pandering to people who cannot control their urges is the way to go? Given that the vast majority of human beings cannot control their urges very well, it's the only way to go. People WILL have sex, whatever you do, and however often you tell them not to. That fact cannot be overlooked, and all we can realistically do about it is to make that sex much much safer. Especially as, unlike pregnancy, the spread of HIV works on epidemiological models. If "I might get AIDS" isn't enough to stop people having sex, I honestly don't know what is... Precisely. It isn't enough to stop vast numbers of people. The human sex drive is that powerful. That's what we've got to work with, and that's why promoting safer sex with condoms is a positive moral duty. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 2:38 AM | #513468

Comment 102 by spmccullagh @Cartomancer - You're still not getting this... To quote you directly; "...that is how rights are apportioned" - according to whom? Wait, that would be humanity making it up as we go along. "Of course it's alive. That's not the point. It's not important" - according to whom? Again, that's humanity. Further - a flatworm would never get human rights because (shock horror) it isn't human - a complete non-sequitur. A tumour would never get human rights because it is not a separate biological human entity that will ever be capable of sustaining itself - yet another non-sequitur. A foetus on the other hand is both human, and within a short period of time will be able to self support outside of the womb. A decision to deny it that right because it cannot yet do so is a human decision. The fatal assumption with the contraception argument is that people will use it. If we take the UK's abortion rate as any kind of parallel of people engaging in an activity that will lead to an undesirable outcome for them and their regard for this, surely we'd have to conclude that contraception in Africa would have a limited affect at best. Then by your own rationale we should ditch that too because it's not entirely effective Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 2:39 AM | #513474

Comment 103 by Cartomancer In case you hadn't noticed, the whole concept of "human rights", so called, IS a human invention. That's because EVERYTHING in our culture and society is a human invention. There isn't any other source of culture or social phenomena. Humans do make these things up as we go along. But that's not the point. "human rights" is a concept designed to ensure consistency and equality. It is NOT arbitrary, but based on the real differences between entities in the real world around us. Justice is about consistency of outcomes and apportioning appropriate treatment to appropriate recipients. There is no consistent way to interpret "human rights" so as to afford them to a blastocyst but not to a tumour also. The arbitrary, make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach is your approach, and fundamentally inconsistent. The criteria you suggest - is it alive, does it have human DNA, and will it eventually become sentient - are criteria under which you will have to admit an awful lot of other silly things to this circle of "human rights" - everything from tumours and flatworms to sperm cells and even corpses. These criteria lead to ridiculous inconsistences. Furthermore, the issue of "human" rights is really just the issue of rights for sentient creatures. Animal rights stem from the same font. Why is it that we would decry the murder of gorillas, for instance, but not of amoebas? Really, lets just ignore all the talk of irrelevant criteria and go down to the fundamental point of why we feel we need such things as rights in the first place. The whole point of the entire enterprise is to reduce suffering. That's it. We feel that entities which can suffer deserve protection from that suffering. That's it. That's what rights are all about. What else could they be about, and still meaningfully be called as such? It is fairly self-evident why suffering is a criterion that matters. You have made no case, and there really is no case to make, as to why anything ELSE you bring up matters. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:05 AM | #513477

Comment 104 by Cartomancer The fatal assumption with the contraception argument is that people will use it. The evidence bears out that people will use it. Where condoms are promoted, HIV infection rates fall. This is not an assumption, this is a fact. If we take the UK's abortion rate as any kind of parallel of people engaging in an activity that will lead to an undesirable outcome for them and their regard for this, surely we'd have to conclude that contraception in Africa would have a limited affect at best. If you think that the abortion rate in the UK and HIV infection rates in Africa are at all comparable, you're sadly deluded. As I said before, one is a personal thing, the other an epidemiological phenomenon. Abortion in Britain is a minor surgical procedure, and a bit of a hassle. It is nowhere near in the same league as contracting an incurable, and most likely untreatable, deadly disease in a third-world country. And I repeat, the evidence is in - people DO sit up and take notice. Condom use DOES reduce HIV infection rates. Then by your own rationale we should ditch that too because it's not entirely effective Where did I ever say anything of the kind? Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:01 AM | #513480

Comment 105 by spmccullagh The point though is that not all humans agree with your definition above - me being one of them - deciding on a consistent approach (as if that makes it okay) is insufficient. There really is no way of resolving that though - assigning some criteria to it doesn't actually help. You say blastocyst, I say life. On the basis that human rights are based upon human decisions I refer to my previous statement that we're both right, and both wrong since by your own admission human rights are based on our own decisions - the point I was trying to make all along that thankfully you've now admitted. Again, suffering is subjective - you seem to think that denying someone the right to life is not suffering - who are you or anyone to decide for someone else whether they have the right to life. "It wont know, so it's okay" is not a logical argument either - it's like giving someone a lethal injection whilst they're sleeping which will cause no pain - does that make it okay? They wouldn't know, and they wouldn't suffer. Clearly we both know that's not right, so your defence doesn't stand up under scrutiny and this "human rights" stuff is more complex than your little "consistency" or "suffering" argument can cope with. It's like a mother who has an abortion because her child will have some deformity - the point is she has no right to decide for someone else whether they should be allowed to live or not. We have no right to decide the fate of another no matter what state in their development they happen to be at. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:09 AM | #513483

Comment 106 by spmccullagh Cartomancer - By what percentage do infection rates fall? And versus what? (see below) Further, your basis for ditching abstinence was that it's not effective (stats please - baseline, abstinence promoted, and contraception promoted), so therefore if contraception is not effective either then it too should be ditched. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:14 AM | #513485

Comment 107 by spmccullagh Cartomancer - one more point... On your "yet" rebuttal you stated something about being paid a salary as a professor because you might become one - what you should be asking yourself is, how would you feel if someone decided for you that you'd never become one and stopped you without your say so? Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:17 AM | #513487

Comment 108 by Cartomancer This is not a complex issue at all. It is an issue of suffering and consistency of approach. You have made no argument for the relevance of any other criteria. If you wish to make such an argument, feel free, but until you have made a valid one you do not have a point. My definition is consistent, coherent and workable. Yours is not. Hence mine is superior by all objective standards. You say blastocyst, I say life. Then do you think that swatting flies is just as bad? Or treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics? Both are ending lives just as a assuredly. On the basis that human rights are based upon human decisions I refer to my previous statement that we're both right, and both wrong since by your own admission human rights are based on our own decisions - the point I was trying to make all along that thankfully you've now admitted. Qua phenomena of human culture, yes. Qua sensible moral and ethical policy, no. We could come up with any set of rules we wanted and it would be a legitimate cultural product. But the important thing here is what is morally and ethically valid, and for that we can't simply write it off as a difference of opinion. Again, suffering is subjective - you seem to think that denying someone the right to life is not suffering - who are you or anyone to decide for someone else whether they have the right to life. "It wont know, so it's okay" is not a logical argument either - it's like giving someone a lethal injection whilst they're sleeping which will cause no pain - does that make it okay? They wouldn't know, and they wouldn't suffer. Clearly we both know that's not right, so your defence doesn't stand up under scrutiny But there isn't really a "someone" to deny anything to where blastocysts are involved. There is a blob of cells that might one day become a "someone". It's exactly the same situation as condeming masturbation as murder, because it kills sperm cells. Those too might one day become fully grown humans. Just because the blastocyst is at a further developmental stage than the sperm cell, why does it get special privileges? The case of painlessly killing a sentient human being is entirely different, because there is actually a sentience there to end. It is not a case of stopping something before it gets started, it is a case of stopping something once it already has got started. In artistic terms it's the difference between destroying a statue and destroying an unworked piece of marble. You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is something to human beings other than the matter which makes them up in the state it is now in. There is not. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:25 AM | #513493

Comment 109 by Cartomancer By what percentage do infection rates fall? And versus what? (see below) Follow up the link I gave to the Uganda case study, and the links on that for some evidence. Further, your basis for ditching abstinence was that it's not effective (stats please - baseline, abstinence promoted, and contraception promoted), so therefore if contraception is not effective either then it too should be ditched. Neither I, nor anybody else, suggested that one "ditch" promotion of abstinence, just that it is a very irresponsible and dangerous thing to promote abstinence ONLY. The most effective strategy promoted is what is called ABC in the jargon (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Correct use of Condoms), all of which play a part. We see the importance of this, clearly, in the Uganda example. And that's what the catholic church opposes. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:37 AM | #513495

Comment 110 by Steve Zara Comment 107 by spmccullagh On your "yet" rebuttal you stated something about being paid a salary as a professor because you might become one - what you should be asking yourself is, how would you feel if someone decided for you that you'd never become one and stopped you without your say so? Under what circumstances could one ask an aborted fetus several decades after it had been aborted what it felt about it's abortion? I believe you are missing the point here. Religious groups are incorrectly assigning personhood to a small ball of cells. It doesn't matter if the cells are human, and it doesn't matter what they might become. There is nothing in that ball that constitutes a person. It's not even brain dead, because it doesn't yet have a functioning brain. Arguments about what the ball of cells may become are meaningless. Every action we perform could influence the future in ways that prevent future persons from existing. I see Carto has already covered this! Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:33 AM | #513496

Comment 111 by Cartomancer On your "yet" rebuttal you stated something about being paid a salary as a professor because you might become one - what you should be asking yourself is, how would you feel if someone decided for you that you'd never become one and stopped you without your say so? But there actually will be a me to say so, to suffer the consequences. I am not a blastocyst. I am sentient and already have personality, feelings, desires and plans. In fifty years you could ask me how I felt about having my prospects curtailed - you couldn't ask the blastocyst, because it wouldn't be there to suffer the consequences. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:34 AM | #513497

Comment 112 by spmccullagh The point you are still not addressing is that the foetus will never become a life if we abort it such that we could ever ask if performing the abortion was okay - we have decided for it. Further, arguing that a foetus has no sentience, feels no pain, and therefore has no human rights is no more a valid basis for deciding human rights - because we have decided that's the criteria. All your arguments centre around a base assumption that your constructs are valid arguments, but these are constructs of your own creation - a self fulfilling prophecy if you will. "I decide that if something feels no pain, and has no sentience that it has no human rights, therefore abortion is fine". This is no more valid than anything I've said because you are using the construct to support the argument therefore it's circular. Regarding the consequences, you've just further enhanced my point - "it wouldn't be there to suffer the consequences" and that is exactly my point - you have decided the fate of another. Again, this consequences point is your own construct that says "if we cannot ask something about the consequences it's okay" this too has obvious limitations - next argument please. Further, at around 6-7 weeks a foetus develops a heart beat, what about abortions after that? At 12 weeks it has fingers, toes, a brain, lungs etc...yet abortions are permitted until almost twice that time. How does your "blastocyst" argument stand up to that since it has become something infinitely more complex than a "ball of cells"? Can't you see that arbitrarily assigning criteria to what constitutes life is limited at best no matter how we try and that ultimately, no matter how you decide to do that it ultimately comes down to humans making it up? How about this for something far simpler; A human foetus is afforded human rights at the point of conception Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 3:56 AM | #513500

Comment 113 by Steve Zara The point you are still not addressing is that the foetus will never become a life if we abort it such that we could ever ask if performing the abortion was okay - we have decided for it. Decided for what? Why are you trying to set up a moral framework that could only be justified using parallel universes and a time machine? "I decide that if something feels no pain, and has no sentience that it has no human rights, therefore abortion is fine". This is no more valid than anything I've said because you are using the construct to support the argument therefore it's circular. No. It's a straightforward position. Further, at around 6-7 weeks a foetus develops a heart beat, what about abortions after that? Haven't we been over this before with earthworms? They have heart beats. Why should a heart beat matter? Regarding the consequences, you've just further enhanced my point - "it wouldn't be there to suffer the consequences" and that is exactly my point - you have decided the fate of another. Why are you sitting here typing? By not going out and encouraging everyone you meet to have sex, you are deciding the fate of at least dozens. Morality gets very strange when it starts to involve time travel. How about this for something far simpler; A human foetus is afforded human rights at the point of conception Because that isn't simple. Have you any idea what conception consists of in terms of bits of cells mixing up? When are the rights assigned? When the sperm hits the egg? During the first division? Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:10 AM | #513501

Comment 114 by Cartomancer The point you are still not addressing is that the foetus will never become a life if we abort it such that we could ever ask if performing the abortion was okay - we have decided for it. That's precisely my POINT! It wasn't the sort of thing that had any kind of sentience before AND IT NEVER WILL BE. It was a blob of cells, and it will never get beyond that stage. All the world has lost is a blob of cells, and it's not especially difficult to make another like it. The moral situation here is entirely analogous to never having conceived it in the first place, or if it had been conceived but not taken in the lining of the womb, etc. What you're doing is getting all worked up about the loss of something so inconsequential that you sneeze out more complex entities on a daily basis. Further, arguing that a foetus has no sentience, feels no pain, and therefore has no human rights is no more a valid basis for deciding human rights - because we have decided that's the criteria. All your arguments centre around a base assumption that your constructs are valid arguments, but these are constructs of your own creation - a self fulfilling prophecy if you will. We decided on those criteria because they are workable, sensible and morally valid when applied to the situation of the real world as we see it - i.e. they achieve what we are trying to achieve with the idea of rights in the first place. If rights are not afforded to reduce suffering, what are they for? You talk as if there WERE a valid alternative interpretation of what rights are for. What is it? What ARE rights for in your world, entirely divorced from concerns of suffering? Regarding the consequences, you've just further enhanced my point - "it wouldn't be there to suffer the consequences" and that is exactly my point - you have decided the fate of another. Again, this consequences point is your own construct that says "if we cannot ask something about the consequences it's okay" this too has obvious limitations - next argument please. I have indeed decided the fate of another. In this case that other is a tiny blob of cells of no more consequence to the world than the sperm cells I kill when I masturbate. I sneezed earlier today too, thereby deciding the fate of innumerable thousands of bacteria. I killed a wasp on the weekend with a rolled-up newspaper as well, sealing its fate for good. None of this gives me the slightest moral qualm, and nor should the disposal of a blastocyst. Perhaps the sperm cells would become human beings if I donated them to the sperm bank, or the germs in my sneeze would have killed an old person had I not sneezed then but done so in her vicinity. Perhaps I have inadvertently saved someone's life by killing the wasp, if it had gone on to sting someone with a severe wasp-sting allergy. Further, at around 6-7 weeks a foetus develops a heart beat, what about abortions after that? At 12 weeks it has fingers, toes, a brain, lungs etc.. Late-term abortions are a tricky business to judge, and with them the health of both the mother and the foetus must be borne in mind. They present cases of genuine moral uncertainty. Which is precisely what we would expect. But the criteria on which we must judge them are the same - foremost among them, where is suffering taking place? But none of this affects the fact that early-term abortions, when we are just dealing with blastocysts, incur none of these moral qualms. Can't you see that arbitrarily assigning criteria to what constitutes life is limited at best no matter how we try and that ultimately, no matter how you decide to do that it ultimately comes down to humans making it up? As I keep saying, "life" is not a relevant criterion. And as I also keep saying, of course we come up with our own moral codes, but we do so with reference to the state of the reality in which we live. And in that reality a blastocyst is an insensate, unfeeling and inconsequential blob of cells that can be disposed of with no ill consequence beyond that entailed in any minor surgical procedure. How about this for something far simpler; A human foetus is afforded human rights at the point of conception Why then, and on what grounds? That is a truly arbitrary point to choose. Why choose conception? What's so special about conception? And why should how simple the rule is be of any consequence? Surely we should go for a rule which is the most appropriate, rather than just a rule which saves you from having to make difficult decisions in late-term cases? Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:28 AM | #513505

Comment 115 by spmccullagh Ah, Steve so sentience, suffering, and destiny are simpler bases for an argument? Give me a break. Further - I'd like an answer to abortions after 12 weeks when the foetus has fingers, toes, a brain, lungs etc and is therefore no longer a ball of cells. Actually Steve, by sitting here typing (even though it's 4:30am - ouch!) I'm allowing people to decide their own destiny - not deciding it for them - something abortion cannot claim. Oh, and time machines and parallel universes are not required - all that's required is non-intervention and let nature take its course. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:26 AM | #513506

Comment 116 by spmccullagh Cartomancer - because at conception it becomes complete in terms of chromosomes and has started on it's evolution to becoming a self sustaining human being. And since we're talking about human rights we can ditch the wasp, bacteria, etc arguments. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:30 AM | #513508

Comment 117 by mirandaceleste Is this a thread about abortion now? Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:32 AM | #513509

Comment 118 by Steve Zara Ah, Steve so sentience, suffering, and destiny are simpler bases for an argument? Give me a break. Sorry, but I did not mention 'destiny'. I didn't say they were simpler bases for argument (when should morality be based on simplicity?) I just showed that your "point of conception" position was not simple either. Further - I'd like an answer to abortions after 12 weeks when the foetus has fingers, toes, a brain, lungs etc and is therefore no longer a ball of cells. So just to get this clear, you are OK with abortions before 12 weeks? Actually Steve, by sitting here typing (even though it's 4:30am - ouch!) I'm allowing people to decide their own destiny - not deciding it for them - something abortion cannot claim. No, you aren't. There are perhaps hundreds of people who are denied a destiny because you aren't insisting that others have sex. They aren't going to be in this world because of you. Oh, and time machines and parallel universes are not required - all that's required is non-intervention and let nature take its course. Not if you are going to use the argument of denying a future to an as-yet non-existent person about whether or not they want to be aborted back in time. Then the wormhole to a parallel universe is going to be necessary. However, Miranda is right. It's not really the topic. I'll leave you and Carto to continue. Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:38 AM | #513510

Comment 119 by Cartomancer Because at conception it becomes complete in terms of chromosomes and has started on it's evolution to becoming a self sustaining human being. So? Why should having the complete complement of chromosomes be so special? One could write out a list of sufficient chromosomes, using the letters A,C,G and T, to make a human being on a piece of paper. Does that piece of paper then count as special? Furthermore, it hasn't "started" on its journey to becoming an independent human being at this stage in particular. Before conception the components of the human being were still in existence, and with the benefit of hindsight we can say with certainty that this particular ovum and this particular spermatozoon were going to come together, so we can trace the journey back further. Why not the formation of the parents' chromosomal make-up? Why not the origin of life itself, 4.5 billion years ago? And since we're talking about human rights we can ditch the wasp, bacteria, etc arguments. A chauvinistic speceisist imperative! Human rights are merely a subset of the rights we afford to all beings of some sentience. I repeat again, why do we condemn the murder of a gorilla but not of an amoeba? If we have to draw an arbitrary line to define "human", where does it go and why? Australopithecus? Neanderthals? Homo Habilis? Charles II? Updated: Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:40 AM | #513511

Comment 120 by Cartomancer Is this a thread about abortion now? That, I fear, is my fault entirely. And I should probably apologise. I have been incomparably frustrated and cranky today - spoiling for a fight even - and in my weakness I took the bait. I should probably call it a night myself, and try to regain some mental calm before visiting the site again. Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 4:45 AM | #513512

TAGGED: BIOLOGY, HUMAN RIGHTS