.

As souls and gods, angels and devils are hypotheses to which I do not subscribe, if you don’t mind, I shall politely take my bow and let those who do carry on with the discussion.

Many thanks to Peter Sellick who raised the delicate subject of abortion. It allowed me to crystalize my thoughts and firm up my position more precisely in terms of morally acceptable legislation for society.

.

Thank you, Banjo, it was a nice discussion with you.

As for "morally acceptable legislation", how is this possible?

Legislation is a form of violence, imposed on us from the moment of birth. This is especially a point for thought for those who believe that babies are innocent.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Legislation is a form of violence, imposed on us from the moment of birth. This is especially a point for thought for those who believe that babies are innocent »

The OED definition of legislation is :

« Laws, considered collectively »

Despite the fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen of England being our head of State, it is, nevertheless, a democracy. The OED definition of democracy is :

« A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives »

The origin of the word democracy is the Greek word “demokratia”, from demos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’. The combination of these two ingredients means that it is the people who decide the rules to which they accept to submit themselves and therefore have a vested interest in those rules being implemented as equitably as possible.

The rules are derived from nature, culture, tradition, the predominant religious beliefs and morality, as well as from what has been termed the "social contract of human behaviour" as conceived by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau aimed at preserving individual liberties on an equitable basis and maintaining harmonious relationships within the community.

The objective of democracy is justice. Nothing is perfect but I know of no better system of government than democracy. If you do, Yuyutsu, I should like to hear about it.
.

With reference to my comment on abortion, you ask :

« As for "morally acceptable legislation", how is this possible? »

It is possible in the case where the pregnancy is no more than 22 weeks, for the following reasons :

1. The foetus cannot survive independently of the woman prior to that limit. It has no life of its own.

2. The stage of development of its biological structure does not allow it to feel pain prior to that limit

3. It does not acquire consciousness until the third trimester of pregnancy which begins at the 27th or 28th week

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Something that lacks consciousness (e.g., a chair) is neither guilty nor innocent. A foetus at no more than 22 weeks pregnancy is neither guilty nor innocent because it has not yet developed the faculty of consciousness.

For a foetus to become a baby it has to become fully functional and survive at birth. That is the point at which the foetus is no longer a foetus. It is a baby – and, in my view, a baby can be said to be either innocent or guilty.

I consider that all babies are innocent. However, according to the Christian doctrine of “original sin” all babies are born guilty. They only become innocent when they are baptised.

Babies are not the object of abortions. Only foetuses are the object of abortions.

I consider that legislation authorising abortions of foetuses at no more than 22 weeks pregnancy is morally acceptable for society for the reasons indicated above.

Babies cannot be aborted because a baby is not a baby until it is born. Before it is born it is a foetus.

The OED defines a foetus as follows :

« An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception »

The OED defines a baby as follows :

« A very young child »

I trust that these explanations are clear, Yuyutsu, but, naturally, I do not expect you - or anybody else, for that matter - necessarily, to share them.

.

To Yuyutsu. The idea of the soul being given to a person is not a common Christian belief. I had a hard time trying to understand it when I heard it. In the end I don't think that logic makes sence or fits the narritive of the soul as it's given in the bible. I meant to tell you that much, just so you were aware of the differing views of a soul and a spirit. It almost sounded like you wanted a Christian perspective to see if your assessment of the Christian perspective of soul and spirit was accurately represented.

To Banjo Paterson. Sorry to send you off because of the talk of religion. This was one reason why I didn't want to tie in a lot of religion into the subject of abortion. (Not for you specifically, but that the topic of religion would either turn people away from this conversation, or become the focus and abortion is no longer discussed.)

Thankyou for the links, the points to consider, and the civility of your end of the conversation.

Dear Banjo,

Democracy, including democratic legislation, is one possible way for a group of people to manage and organise their affairs. It is not wrong, but first there needs to be a group over which democracy is applied, and if that group includes non-consenting "members" then any laws imposed on them amount to bullying. If you want to have a social contract, then everyone included needs to sign it, explicitly or implicitly, but that never happened.

If we had a morally-constructed society (democratic or otherwise), which we don't, then it could issue moral laws. In its absence, people can still legitimately organise themselves to defend against external threats: if necessary, a society may even kill outsiders who pose a threat to its members, but it may not legislate for them nor interfere in what they do between themselves so long as it does not adversely affect the society's members.

As babies and fœtuses never consented to be part of society, the only rationale allowing a society to include them on its protection-list, is that due to their inability to speak for themselves, their parents who have their best interests at heart, represent them for the time-being and truly believe this to be their wish. This means that should the parents decline to include their children (born or unborn) in a society, then that society has no right to "protect" them.

Bottom line: it is immoral for a state to legislate against killing anyone who has not consented to be part of it, and in the case of babies and fœtuses, without their parents' consent.

Obviously, this doesn't render killing (including of animals) moral, but leaves it as a matter between the parents and God, not the state.

---

Babies and fœtuses never gain consciousness - rather, at some stage, probably gradually, consciousness gains them!

Babies are dead as a chair, thus neither innocent nor guilty - rather, it is the soul who identifies with them which is sinful.