Rhian – for what it is worth, here is the Oxford dictionary definition of embryo:
embryo (human)
- an unborn human, especially in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/embryo

No, I don’t think abortion is acceptable at earlier stages of pregnancy. (I am not Roman Catholic and for this discussion I won’t get into contraception.) A new human life begins at conception. (I would recommend you read this thorough article by the Chairman of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission: www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/embryology/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/ )

I don’t believe we should deliberately end the lives of fellow human beings, no matter how small or undeveloped they may be. Each one of us went through those stages as a normal and necessary part of our development.

You want to make a distinction between a human being and a person. I don’t think that can be done: where you have a human being you have a person, the two terms are interchangeable. After all, we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not Person Rights.

What in your view distinguishes a person from a human being?

Lastly, my point in my previous post about the Queensland Criminal Code referring to the entity carried by a pregnant woman as being a child, that applies right throughout pregnancy.

Dear JP

Thanks for your response.

I don’t think the terms “human” and “person” are interchangeable. “Human” is a biological description, “person” is a moral category. Someone who is brain dead but whose body is kept functioning through life support is a living human, but we consider it acceptable to turn off their life support because they are no longer a person. Likewise, doctors will try to ensure anencephalic babies have peaceful deaths but seldom strive to keep them alive.

I don’t believe that a cluster of cells with no brain or central nervous system, no capacity to think or feel, and no self-awareness, is a person. I’ll admit this makes personhood a grey area, but that seems to be reflected in how abortion laws operate in practice in countries that allow abortion. Access to early interventions such as the morning-after pill is usually easy and straightforward, and abortions in the first few weeks are typically fairly easy to access. But as pregnancies progress it is harder and more complex to access abortion, and late-term abortions are usually permitted only if the health of the mother is at serious risk if the pregnancy is not terminated. I think this reflects a perception that the moral status of the fetus changes during the pregnancy.

The fact that Queensland law describes a fetus as a child doesn’t really resolve the moral question of whether it is a person, and I think the apparent inconsistency between a mother’s right to terminate a fetus and a third-party’s right to do the same think can be explained and justified.

Thanks Rhian. I understand the distinction that is drawn as you present it but I think that it is not justifiable and ultimately is dangerous.

Whereas the definition of a human baby is relatively straightforward and objective – the offspring of human parents, the definition of a person is completely subjective and therefore open to abuse. We have seen that abuse occur historically with Jews and black Africans being effectively deemed non-persons by the Nazis and slavers, respectively. I would say the same abuse is being carried out against preborn humans today.

Yes, there are some marginal (and often highly contested) cases such as you cite, but as the saying goes, hard cases make bad law.

I don’t know where you live, but in Queensland, Australia, where I live (and pretty much in all the rest of the country), the situation with abortion and the law is not like you describe it. In Queensland the law allows abortion on demand, that is, abortion for any reason – indeed no reason needs to be given - up until 22 weeks, and then up to birth if two doctors are agreeable to carry it out. The fetus/child has no moral/legal standing right up until the baby is fully delivered.

You say that “a mother’s right to terminate a fetus and a third-party’s right to do the same think can be explained and justified” but you do not provide the explanation or justification.

Consider this scenario: a pregnant woman is walking down the street when she is violently assaulted. Her baby dies and the assailant is charged under s 313 (2) which I cited in my last post. The assailant is convicted and given life in prison.

It is only then revealed that the woman had been on her way to an abortion clinic on the day of the assault. So, there would have been the exact same outcome in both situations – the child would have been killed, but in one situation the person who killed the child goes to jail and in the other they get well-paid. A complete double standard.

There is a famous story in the Mahabharata about Ganga who married King Shantanu, then drowned their first 7 new-born babies and nearly drowned the 8th too.

The story is long - you can read an abridged version here: http://detechter.com/the-story-of-the-river-goddess-who-drowned-her-own-children or watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClRyHq2309c&t=386s

In brief, Ganga's babies who formerly were celestial beings, were punished and cursed to be born on this earth as humans. In compassion, Ganga promised them to be their mother and release them from this curse ASAP.

The problem with killing others is selfishness - otherwise, when no selfish motive is involved, there is nothing wrong about parents compassionately killing their children, already born or otherwise.

While human life is valuable, mainstream Christian culture exaggerates the value of biological human life due to the false and irrational doctrine or Biblical interpretation, as if we live only once. Further, by diverting judgement to civil authorities, this culture demonstrates its lack of true faith, for if indeed the mother has done wrong, then surely that could not escape God's eyes!

Had I been born into inauspicious circumstances (an American perhaps?...) and my parents decided to relieve me of this kind of life, then I couldn't be more thankful to them!

My God Yuyutsu you are radical.

What I find interesting is here on these pages, proposing to eliminate the good citizens of this country of their oppressive politicians by suggesting a bullet for them is unacceptable and cowardly, but your proposal of killing infants and the pre-born is acceptable.

We’ll see how long before sombody objects to your ideas here, and your post is deleted!

Dan

Dear Dan,

Not to worry, I estimate about 90% of abortions today to be of selfish motive - but that was not the case with Ganga.

The line is fine between thinking, for example, "If I have to pay for maintaining this child then I will not have enough money left to enjoy my life" and "This child would suffer poverty and their brain would not develop to its full potential due to malnutrition".

Or how about, "When my girl was conceived, I had no idea that my country would be run over by the Taliban, that she would suffer such terrible oppression and slavery if she lives".

How about, "My child would be born into a hellish digital jungle, where constant electronic stimulation, including digital devices inserted into their body and brain itself, would never give them relief to even think about God"?

The problem is that mainstream Christianity believes that one gets only one chance at life, thus even the worst and most degrading kind of life is worthwhile living. It doesn't find it palatable that for a particular lifetime one only needed to experience babyhood, where nothing beyond that was necessary for the fulfillment of this lifetime of theirs.

God sees to the heart and cannot be deceived or cheated to misjudge, thus man need not be concerned at all.