//A whore like society feeding the male's unending lusts is part of the problem. A culture shift to encourage to abstain from sex until there's stability in the relationship can curb the whore like nature that many here are arguing for when the topic of sex is brought up.//

Wow, sounds like somebody's got a bit of a fixation with whores ;)

Anybody else reminded of Norman Bates' mother?

Still not sure what's wrong with cunnilingus. I mean, I'm pretty sure saliva and sperm aren't the same thing. But hey, what do I know? Apparently I don't have any morals or good sense because I take an interest in moral philosophy. Or something. I dunno... NNS was as incoherent as usual and I doubt I'd be able to get any more sense out of him even if I could be bothered.

I don't think it's OK to kill ET. He's definitely not human - for all we know he doesn't even have DNA, the movie didn't really go into the hard sci-fi side of things. And I'm not sure if he had a soul or not; again, the movie didn't really cover that. But still... it'd be wrong to kill him. Human or not.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« How can it not be considered a biological fact that killing an unborn baby is killing an innocent human being? »

The OED definition of a human being is :

« A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance »

Obviously, an “unborn baby” does not quite correspond to that definition – a foetus during the first two trimesters of its development, even less so – it cannot survive independently of the woman that bears it – it has no life of its own. It is not yet a human being.

Also, in my previous post to you on page 18 of this thread, I noted : “…as I presume from your previous remarks on this forum that you are a Christian, am I not right in thinking that you believe that all babies are born guilty as per the Christian doctrine of original sin ? As a foetus is not baptised, do you not consider that it is guilty ? ”

As, once again, you qualify “an unborn baby” as being “innocent”, should I understand that you are not Christian or, alternatively, that you reject the Christian doctrine of original sin ?

With regard to the fundaments of the question, innocence or guilt can only apply to a being endowed with consciousness. A chair can be neither innocent nor guilty. A foetus does not acquire consciousness until the third trimester of pregnancy which begins at the 27th or 28th week. Therefore it can be neither innocent nor guilty before that :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
.

You then indicate :

« Medical pictures instead of illustrations … determine when the fetus resembles a baby … Between week six and eight … where I think the fetus shows characteristics of a living baby instead of cells reproducing and tissue forming »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In my post on page 12 of this thread, I indicated, as regards the foetus :

« According to the experts, its development is both structural and functional. An important element is the human brain, which is particularly complex. Recent research reveals that the brain does not reach full maturity until the new individual or “person” reaches, at least, his or her mid-20s »

The medical pictures you are looking at are not the foetus – they are images. They represent the form (and, possibly, the movement) of the foetus. What you see are images of the structured elements (cells, organs and human tissue) that, assembled together, constitute the foetus.

Almost all organs are completely formed by about 12 weeks of pregnancy. The exceptions are the brain and spinal cord, which continue to form and develop throughout pregnancy (roughly 9 months).

So much for the structural (visible) aspect – but then there is the important functional (non-visible) aspect. For a foetus to become a baby it has to become fully functional. It not only has to look like a baby – it has to breathe like a baby breathes, think like a baby thinks, feel like a baby feels, cry like a baby cries, feed like a baby feeds, … in short, it has to be a baby.

For a baby to be a baby, it has to be able to survive independently of the woman that bears it. It must have a life of its own. That is usually not possible before the 24th week of pregnancy.

That said, strictly speaking, to ask a woman when her baby is due is correct when referring to the foetus in her womb but, to say that the foetus in her womb is a baby girl is incorrect. It is a female foetus. Only when it is born should it be called a baby girl – but, logically, not if it is still-born.

At least, that is my understanding.

.

The one who knows best how a continuing pregnancy would affect her is the woman who is pregnant. I think it is great that she can have access to a legal abortion by a doctor. Nobody who does not know her has any right to interfere with her getting an abortion. Who in hell are all these ignorant yahoos who want to decide for her whether or not she should terminate her pregnancy? I think of my sweet cousin who was pregnant and committed suicide because of that. Somebody in her situation now with access to a legal abortion could get one and live on. It is much better now than it was then, but some want to turn the clock back to those bad days. The one who knows best how a continuing pregnancy would affect her is the woman who is pregnant. Think of her as an actual human because that is what she is. She is not a potential reasoning creature. She is one now, and she has a right to decide for herself whether she wants to continue a pregnancy..

Dear Banjo,

«The OED definition of soul is...»

Sloppy.

Humans/animals are pure matter and have no immaterial parts, so if this is your understanding of "soul", then I can understand very well why you believe that it does not exist.

However, souls do not depend on material bodies, they only use them.

«Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why you believe the animal kingdom (including us human beings)[» (Ouch! We are not human beings) «]must have one of these in order to be capable of moral behaviour.»

1. I did not claim that animals are capable of moral behaviour (likely most aren't).
2. As above, humans/animals do not "have one of these" - rather it's the "one of these" that can have a human/animal.
3. Obviously, if moral behaviour does not exist, then neither humans nor animals, nor even angels or gods are capable of moral behaviour...
Now if there are no souls to experience pain, suffering and loss, then there cannot be moral behaviours either, then all is matter and for the pun, nothing matters.

«Might I just point out that morality is, of course, not only a concept but also a regular practice. – should I say a way of life.»

100% agreed!

«By the same token that I do not know what you believe a soul is»

Phew, this would take many pages and the details may vary anyway from what I personally believe/think and are not crucial for this discussion. In extreme brevity, "A subtler body of consciousness", but what is important here is that it is SOMEONE rather than SOMETHING, subject, not object.

«I do not know exactly what you refer to as a baby (in the context of this discussion on abortion).»

I was not referring to a baby in the context of abortion, I just happened to mention 'baby' as an example of one who feels pain despite having no concept of pain - sorry about the confusion. In fact, I haven't even discussed abortion as such here, but am only laying some groundwork for this discussion.

To Banjo Paterson.

You asked if I am Christian and on my thoughts of innocence. I am Christian, and I try to let my understanding of my faith influence many of my perspectives and behaviors. Sorry that I didn't reply to that question. As for guilt or innocence. I think of babies as largely innocent. They are in their parents care to teach them right and wrong, and to instill values in them like to share, and to not hit. At this stage in life yes they can do wrong, but because of their age and their dependance on their parents to care for them and teach them, they are innocent. Unborn babies are in the same boat on the rationale of their innocence.

On that note though, many of my points can be addressed and scrutinized or agreed with without this turning into a focus on religion. David F already tried to change the focus away from the points being made to a Christian versus an atheist kind of thing. I don't see the merit in this kind of approach, and I hope you don't try to divide the issue towards that kind of direction. (I don't expect you to, but I just wanted to voice my concern for that direction).

The point on an unborn baby being innocent for instance can be a continuation of the perspective of babies being innocent. Which as far as I'm aware is not a view solely held by Christians, but held by many people regardless of religion.

(Continued)