Yuyutsu – you say, “if one has no right to control one's own body, then surely others have no such right either over somebody else's body” – I don’t see why that should follow.

In an atheistic universe (I’m not inferring that you are an atheist as I don’t know where you stand, but many other commenters here appear to be atheists), I find it hard to understand how any “rights” can be justified. It is easy to claim any right one likes but to show that the claimed right has compelling authority is, I believe, not possible.

You make a number of value judgments such as, it is a more serious offence to eat meat than to have an abortion, on the grounds that the animal eaten “was more developed, more intelligent and more attached to their body than a foetus”. Why should any of those factors matter?

Stezza – I don’t dispute that you value your own life, but the issue as I see it is, why should anyone else care about your life? Why shouldn’t someone take what you have if they want to, and murder you in the process if they feel like it? You say that you value the lives of murderers less than the lives of non-murderers, but, without wanting to sound rude, so what?

You say that absolute right and wrong don’t exist – if you are correct on that then it doesn’t matter what I, or you, think about the value of murderers compared to small children. If all morality is relative and subjective then the notion of morality is essentially meaningless. Everyone can do whatever they like unless someone has the power to use force (for whatever reasons they might have) to stop them. Hitler wasn’t bad and Mandela wasn’t good.

Shadow Minister – I was asking how any “rights” can be justified? In an atheistic universe any “rights” can be claimed but how can they be substantiated?

JP,

Peter Singer's views are extreme because it is clear that a newborn baby is sentient. You are right about Australian law, but many countries do place restrictions on second trimester abortions. In any case, the overwhelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester. Even early abortion is likely to be distressing for all concerned, even if you don't regard it as tantamount to murder. Unwanted pregnancies are best prevented in the first place.

This article from Stanford Medical School in the US gives some idea of the percentages of zygotes that don't survive based on experiments on human fertilised eggs, not other mammals.

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/october/embryos.html

So far as chimeras, are concerned, just do a search on "human chimeras". In a chimera, neither embryo dies, they just give rise to different cell lines. See for example

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?pagewanted=all

"One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome."

WmTrevor, I did not want to start an argument with you about believing or not in God, and as I said I didn’t think the author wanted either. My reaction was about the sensitivity of your reaction to her sharing with us her life story, not about what or why you believe this or that.

No doubt with your form you are more than likely to change the meaning of 'covenience'. Why else in such a prosperous welfare hand out state would you suggest woman have their unborn killed?

Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 9:37:43 AM

Runner....Religion has killed tens of thousands of people in the name of god, is this the way you shed a little guilt?

I can pull up some interesting facts about it if you like:) and I'll show the links to the general public, you just say the word:)

...and every life matters.....what a joke....lol

Kat

Dear JP,

<<In an atheistic universe (I’m not inferring that you are an atheist as I don’t know where you stand, but many other commenters here appear to be atheists), I find it hard to understand how any “rights” can be justified.>>

True, but I wasn't claiming rights: I was pondering the issue of right-over-one's-body in the light of your challenging former post and I concluded that it didn't exist.

Am I an atheist? Perhaps in a very dry and technical sense because I don't believe in God's existence, but I aspire to love God with all my heart, all my mind and all my capacity, though I know that I fall way short of that. I would like to think of myself as a religious person, but do I really deserve it?

<<Why should any of those factors matter?>>

One who is more developed, has more intelligence and is more attached to their body, is more likely to suffer and lose as a result of the destruction of that body.

I believe in the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) as the very foundation of morality and religion, that it is wrong to cause suffering and loss to others.

Underlying this universal principle is our true identity as God, as opposed to the illusion of being a limited human. Truly, I am God, You are God, the animal is God and the foetus is God - there is nothing but God.

Thus, if I hurt another, I actually hurt God and I actually hurt myself. Since I don't like to feel hurt, I distance myself from the other whom I hurt, by that I distance myself from God, I distance myself from the Truth and instead I reinforce the illusion of being separate. That's how violence takes us further away from God, that's why I try my best to eliminate it from my life.

They say evolution takes a long time, I don't doubt it:)

Kat