Yabby,

According to Desmond, Morris, at birth the human brain is only 23 percent of its final adult size..."Rapid growth continues for a further six years after birth, and the whole growing process is not complete until about the twenty-third year of life.

Poirot, size is not the issue. Its having the bits that actually
can let it function. The neocortex develops very late. Its also
responsible for sensory perception. To cut a long story short,
no neocortex = no human brain.

BTW here is a website that may interest you, all about brains.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

.

Mishka,

I never suggested that it is moral to kill babies (born or unborn) - quite the contrary! All I wrote is that it should be LEGAL to kill babies who are not yet introduced to society.

I never suggested that children are pets. All I wrote is that their LEGAL status (those who were not introduced) should be similar to that of pets
(and there are both advantages and disadvantages in having that legal status).

Legality and morality have very little between them.

The only justification for having a state in the first place, is of people freely joining together in a contract to collectively defend each other. The state as such, is a mundane rather than a moral body, and it is immoral for the state to force its protection on anyone who has not asked for it, be they adults or children. As babies are too young to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have anything with the mechanism of the state and be protected by it, it is up to those who by nature love them most to make this decision for them (until such time that they grow and may choose otherwise).

As for the supposed "inalienable right to life", there is no justification apart from human-chauvinism to limit it to humans and fail to include animals as well. Even if such right exists, it is not for the amoral institute of the state to enforce it - or would the state protect the animals in the same way?

Yabby, the example Mishka Gora gave in her article was of a 32-week-old child, so I don't see how your argument regarding brain development and pain is relevant.

GlenC, I have to wonder if you're putting words into Mrs Gora's mouth. She mentioned moral principles and even natural law, and merely said that ethics and religious instruction were compatible. I'm quite a fan of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, for example, and I rather think that the Christian writings (e.g. Gratian and Aquinas) on natural law only enhance rather than detract from our understanding of it. I object to indoctrination in schools, but I don't see why there need be such antipathy towards teaching Christian thought in context.

Yabby,

It's not only about size, it's also about brain development.

Neoteny - the retaining and prolonging of infantile characteristics into adulthood - is what makes our species so brainy.. A chimpanzee has completed its brain development twelve months after birth - a monkey, within its first six months.

So is this as much a question of potential? Should we consider a newborn less human than an adult because its brain development and size is less, or do we accord it the potential it promises?

This 'conscience' attribute, which our author lauds and implores us to employ more extensively, proves to be a rather slippery customer to pin down. Praiseworthy though the acquisition and exercise of a sound and well-developed conscience may be, this thread has already identified problematics regarding its origins, development, and universal efficacy - subject as it is to the individual's environment (culture, religion, family, education and life experience).

'Conscience' appears in fact to be a continuous work in progress, incorporating mores, norms, morals, morality, emotiveness, empathy and compassion, abhorrence and love, ethics and religion. A complicated construct of many vectors, including being subject to societal consensus and debate, and particular context - of war or peace, of feast or famine, of freedom or repression.

Foyle posted early on "Conscience is developed through the granting and witholding of love in childhood..." I consider this proposition to be incorrect, even though Yabby appeared to concur in his subsequent post. I consider alternatively that it is not 'love' but guidance and example which sets the 'initial' path to conscience, with love providing the relevant environment conducive either to belief or to distrust of those early teachings. And interestingly, learning starts in the womb.

The abortion debate gives us a good example of the 'living' nature of conscience. Our law now allows legal abortion, and it appears that a majority of our populace accepts this as a woman's right - even despite the possible contrary view of an individual spouse or biological 'father'. However the debate continues, some favouring pre-conditions, and others outright rejection irrespective of circumstance. No perfect moral, more, norm or morality. In some other cultures there would be no debate, just widespread acceptance of the norm - probably with occasional dissenters. Therefore, should a consensus 'norm' or 'more' determine the exercise of 'conscience', or can it be deeper than that? Given that reasonable dissent is healthy. (Incidentally I agree that the author's example was infanticide.)

I agree with ethics teaching and ethical conduct. Not keen on philosophy though.