Senator Harradine puts his finger on the issue of scientific integrity in the debate over cloning - science misrepresented for purposes of political persuasion.

In the weeks since the Korean cloning experiments, here and overseas, a rhetorical battle has been waged to dehumanise the embryo created by cloning, and therefore make it fair game for destructive research. In Australia a professor of genetics has misled the public by saying, “the intermediate cellular products should not be called embryos, because they were not formed by the union of egg and sperm”. The national broadcaster regurgitated this nonsense, reassuring us that “the announcement from the South Korean scientists is a breakthrough without an ethical dilemma because the researchers did not use a fertilised egg to create the embryonic stem cells. So a human embryo was never actually created.”

As the Senator points out, an embryo is an embryo no matter how it is made. Cloning is simply one way of making an embryo; uniting egg and sperm is another. In the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 the definition of “embryo” clearly also includes those made “by any means other than by the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm”, specifying cloning techniques as one such means.

In the US this abuse of biological truth has been so pervasive that the head of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Leon Kass, weighed in a couple of weeks back with a serious and professional plea for intellectual honesty: "If we are properly to evaluate the ethics of this research and where it might lead, we must call things by their right names and not disguise what is going on with euphemism or misleading nomenclature. The initial product of the (Korean scientists’) cloning technique is without doubt a living cloned human embryo”. (NY Times 29th May)

We can only echo his plea for scientific integrity in the Australian debate

I agree... a spade should be called a spade (or in this case, an embryo an embryo). But that's where the agreement ends. I don't think playing around with stem cells cheapens human life. I don't see why gaining a greater understanding of the very stuff of life, or the process (eg cloning and experimenting on human embryos) would suddenly make people think less of humanity, or treat people any differently. In fact, if anything the sheer complexity and wonder of it all could make us appreciate our humanity more. The potential that exists in this research can indeed enrich human life - growing new organs to replace old dying ones, curing diseases and whatnot (I may be incorrect here, I'm not intimately familiar with this field). I think what really cheapens life is being seen as pawns and commodities in the power games of politicians and businesspeople, and what really cheapens life is locking up indefinitely people fleeing oppression despite world condemnation and despite doctors saying that being locked up is making them sick and despite the fact that these are HUMANS we're talking about and you wouldn't want to be locked up if you were in their position, or giving tax cuts for the rich and welfare cuts for the poor, and destroying vast animal habitats and turning it into paper which is then used once and thrown into landfill, and putting God knows what in the atmosphere that will stay there doing God knows what for hundreds of years without any regard for the people who have to breath it, or clubbing the dog next door to death with a baseball bat because it barked at you, or throwing away enough food to feed the whole world while half the world starves. No, there are *plenty* of more important things to worry about than scientists playing with embryos, and quite frankly it's bloody ridiculous to say that it's fine to oppress, starve, poison, kill our fellow full-blown self-aware human beings, but it's not ok to research on these "little people" that don't know they exist.

I believe the real issue here is that when scientist perfect human cloning it will be a serious body blow to religion. Would a cloned human have a soul for instance. I say push ahead the good that can come from this research far out weight any potential bad.

I looked very hard in Senator Harradine's piece for a cogent reason why he is so against the practice of stem cell research, but couldn't find a single one. He speculates at length over whether one of the Korean ova donors had actually done so, whether such donations are voluntary or whether there are "subtle pressures", whether the procedure might be potentially life-threatening, and whether doctors should be obliged to warn their patients against it. His only contribution to the debate is a - highly equivocal and "non-binding" - United Nations declaration that was "negotiated by a working group" and passed with only 84 out of a possible 191 votes.

Perhaps others on this board can help me out. What exactly is the problem here? It seems to me that waffling on about abstract notions such as "human dignity" is just as much a semantic game as that with which those Korean researchers stand accused.

I agree wholeheartedly with you there. There is no problem (in my humble opinion, of course) with doing stem cell research on human embryos. If there was, the good Mr Harradine would have mentioned it/them. Simply saying "it cheapens human life" isn't good enough. With that being said, I would welcome anyone who agrees with Sen. Harradine to argue their point of view.

Pt 1
Pericles and Albert I’ll have a go. Being a secular humanist strong atheist ethical relativist , though I’m not saying either side is right or wrong but can see both of your positions, but I can talk about their viewpoint and whether each side is being consistent in their moral foundational beliefs.

Basically, I put it down where the two groups set their boundaries, defining and valuing -and all negative rights that go with it- a member of our social group that has equal moral consideration.

For the Pro-Life it is the human life not personhood that is the defining criteria for a membership in our group that has equal moral consideration.

For the Pro-Choice it is when personhood is reached along the developmental cycle of our species that sets membership in our group that has equal moral consideration.

The problem Pro-choice group has-notice I’m not using the potential human argument- that they think that this criteria is as arbitrary as race or sex, as even the zygote is a unique human life at the earliest stage of the human lifecycle. (this differentiates from even a skin cell or sex cell as they are part of an unique individual not a unique individual in itself which the pr-choice accepts as well)

Now given the Pro-choice have set personhood for thsoe we grant eqal moral consideration, we find inconsistencies in their position. Currently in Western societies who allow abortion for non-life threatening cases, they give personhood rights to infants, the mentally handicapped and some of the elderly who have age related cognitive problems, even tough they do not have a fully functioning ‘personhood’ or in some cases self-awareness. BTW more rights and better treatment is afforded to non-human animals than is granted to humans in the early stages of development.

Pt2
To be consistent the pro-choice group if they use personhood with a combination of not causing pain, could kill, experiment, make use of this group for whatever purposes was thought beneficial, if it was done without causing pain. Say we painlessly kill and make use of the body parts for those with severe mental handicaps or experiment on unwanted new born babies after they have been lobotomized.

Now I imagine most if not all Pro-choice would find this repugnant, well that is the where the Pro-Life people are coming from. They see those from the Pro-choice making an arbitrary decision for inclusion for equal moral consideration, excluding a section of humanity based on developmental and cognitive criteria which they are inconsistent on anyway. But not only that, they see human lives albeit at the earliest stage of development, being used as spare body parts and experimentation material.

While there are subgroups on both sides, the consistent Pro-Lifers would still allow life-threatening abortions, but others especially when the adoption option is so under promoted as a viable alternative would be outlawed. (To be consistent IVF would be heavily curtailed)

So I think it can be argued at least on this subject Pro-Lifer’s are morally consistent whereas the Pro-choice are inconsistent and hypocritical

Neohuman does a pretty good job of explaining what is basically the "ends justifies the means" dilemma. This research is merely comodifying humans - the same problem IVF presented 25 years ago and continues today.

If I could find a universal cure all for humanity from the spleen of sperm whales, would we see opportunistic people killing them all while others howl "save the whales?" Too right we would.

If we could prevent whales from total destruction by transfering their offspring into tanks and implanting their cells into surrogate women's ova I wouldn't be surprised that the argument that we are abusing captured whales (to get genetic material) would be louder than surrogate egg donor's rights.

Human life is cheap & dispensable when the 'ends' blocks the problem of seeing the wrong of the 'means.'

Thankyou Brian for a marvellous career in politics.

You will be sorely missed.

PT1
While I’m at it I’ll pre-empt the it’s a females reproductive right/her body, the we are not made to give blood or organs to strangers and the surgically attached adult that would die if removed arguments.

No we are not made morally or legally to give blood or organs to others who would die without the donation.

Well that goes for our children as well but most parents will readily do this because of the fact they are related and wanted and that even goes for children that have limited or no personhood. But what does this say that we only value a life that is related to us only if it is wanted?

Remember Pro-Choice has designated a inconsistent personhood as the criteria that regardless of whether the child is wanted or not we give it equal consideration. So we cannot once a child is born neglect it or kill it. But why not, it is not yet have personhood like a zygote or foetus, so to be consistent we should like the Ancient Romans and other past societies be able to kill them if they are unwanted by the parents or experiment for that matter, it would be a simple matter to do it without them feeling any pain.

Society is also inconsistent on the pain inflicted on the pre-born as well, by a quick Google late tern abortions would certainly feel pain and some indications that as early as 8 weeks a foetus feels pain. What does that say when we have laws concerning pain related abuse of farm animals and pets but we can cause pain to our own family members if they happen to be pre-born?

This is also shown in the ambivalence on whether a assault leading to a miscarriage on a pregnant woman is just assault or manslaughter, you cannot have it both ways.

PT 2
The surgically attached adult argument is flawed as is the my body/reproductive right.

In all cases except rape in the surgically attached argument the woman isn’t a innocent party as she willingly participated in a activity that she knew could lead to the creation of a life that would be related to her.

As far as the my body I can do what I want, well we have a limited right to our body that basically says you do as long as you don’t adversely effect someone else’s body. From the moment of conception the zygote is a unique human life inside her body, not the egg that was part of the female’s body. By consenting to take part in an activity that could create a unique human life that is not part of you body they have taken duty of care for this life. To correct the surgically attached adult analogy the female has directly consented to the possibility that the adult may be attached and must bare the responsibility for that action.

If we are looking for a situation of equal consideration of all parties then this is not it. We have in most cases two of those parties consented to participate but the third party is excluded for any consideration unless on totally arbitrary grounds on whether it is wanted or not. The male is given no right in the consideration of whether the human life continues but is expected to take responsibility for his participation by financially contributing whether he wants it to continue or not.

The female’s consideration –and we are no longer talking about life and death for her- is placed above all the others and is allowed to avoid any responsibility for her participation and is given the right which no other member of our society gets- in an society that hasn’t got capital punishments- to end a healthy human life

BTW also to give equal consideration fathers either get a say in whether the foetus lives or the woman gives up her right to child support.

"The problem Pro-choice group has-notice I'm not using the potential human argument- that they think that this criteria is as arbitrary as race or sex, as even the zygote is a unique human life at the earliest stage of the human lifecycle. (this differentiates from even a skin cell or sex cell as they are part of an unique individual not a unique individual in itself which the pr-choice accepts as well)"
I'm having trouble parsing this, but my guess is that "they" refers to anti-abortionists and I gather the potential human argument means a pro-choice view that a fetus etc, are currently only potential lives?

The corresponding problem with the pro-life position you outlined occurs when the zygote/embryo/fetus will not develop or when there is no chance of cognitive ability. (This may bring up issues of your potential human argument- but I'm not sure what you meant by that.) Taking the not uncommon situation of an embryo implanted in the fallopian tubes: it will never develop but will probably kill the mother. Or for the liberal anti-abortion position, what about a hypothetical freak zygote that never develops but is self-sustaining within the womb or elsewhere? Or a human that will not develop anything other than a brain stem?

"Currently in Western societies who allow abortion for non-life threatening cases, they give personhood rights to infants, the mentally handicapped and some of the elderly who have age related cognitive problems, even tough they do not have a fully functioning 'personhood' or in some cases self-awareness."
I don't see the inconsistency here, if personhood is atributed to some stage of development, for arguments sake birth, then the three examples listed would be people with full personhood rights and so would a brain dead person. Not the best position, but it does remove that inconsistency. Now if the status of personhood depends solely on normal levels of mental ability then there is an inconsistency. That can be resolved simply by reducing the standard of mental ability required. Even though there is a gray area, that doesn't mean that action can't be taken

when the possibility of thought can be entirely ruled out. Eg. current organ donor programs.

"But what does this say that we only value a life that is related to us only if it is wanted?"
Firstly, I would say that there is a moral obligation to give blood and also organs upon death, and in the latter case I think the obligation is strong enough to warrant a legal presumption. Value is not binary; we value other animals less than humans, plants are generally considered to have no inherent value. Situations must be balanced against the societal benefits of protecting personal integrity.

"So we cannot once a child is born neglect it or kill it. But why not, it is not yet have personhood like a zygote or foetus,"
Using your definition with birth as the point in the developmental cycle that attracts equal moral consideration, it would have personhood. If it is a level of cognitive ability that occurs after birth, then it might be justified by again balancing the needs. If raising the child would cause another to die, or the child would suffer in the long term, it may well be necessary to do so. It is not necessary in our society.

"What does that say when we have laws concerning pain related abuse of farm animals and pets but we can cause pain to our own family members if they happen to be pre-born?"
But is a fetus able to understand pain, moreover is there a subject capable of feeling pain or is it only a nervous response. I think it would also be difficult to include an unwanted zygote or embryo within any non-biological definition of family. I could just as easily ask: What does it say when we do not intervene to save the lives of the majority of our family members? (Refering to those that do not implant in the placenta.)

I would consider knowledge of the pregnancy to be an aggravating factor in the assualt. Higher penalty, but not manslaughter. More tomorrow.

With the greatest respect, Neohuman, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs, I think you may have overstated your case a little.

You postulated:

"Say we painlessly kill and make use of the body parts for those with severe mental handicaps or experiment on unwanted new born babies after they have been lobotomized."

And then used this as equivalent to:

"[pro-choice] see human lives albeit at the earliest stage of development, being used as spare body parts and experimentation material."

...from which you draw the conclusion that:

"Pro-Lifer’s are morally consistent whereas the Pro-choice are inconsistent and hypocritical"

Presumably by "inconsistent and hypocritical" you mean that some people can discern a difference between a mentally handicapped person and an unfertilized ovum, while others cannot, or will not. However, you do not even have to be as in anti-abortion to see that there might be some different issues in play here, for example a consideration of the potential benefits of the research, against the unfertilized - i.e. without-a-future-of-any-kind - bunch of cells.

None of this addresses the issue I raised earlier, which is where exactly does "human dignity" enter the equation?

Deuc
>I'm having trouble parsing this, but my guess is that "they" refers to anti-abortionists and I gather the potential human argument means a pro-choice view that a fetus etc, are currently only potential lives?

From past debates Pro-life advocates argue that the fetus while not a human being it is a potential human being because pro-choice have argued the fetus isn’t a person & therefore doesn’t deserve equal moral consideration I simply ignore that argument & say human life should be used not personhood.

>The corresponding problem with the pro-life position you outlined occurs when the zygote/embryo/fetus will not develop or when there is no chance of cognitive ability……. a human that will not develop anything other than a brain stem?

I acknowledge your point using a human life also carries it’s problems, maybe a combination of the two is warranted a human life that is capable of developing personhood/self-awareness free of extreme genetic defects.

Sorry for being obtuse but could go over your organ donor and why we cannot kill non-personhood infants point again I’m finding it hard to follow your reasoning?
(BTW I’m not sure of the legal argument why a newborn is given legal status and a pre-born not, can someone fill me in?)

Understand pain maybe isn’t a good choice of words, whether they experience pain is more relevant, from a quick reading, to my knowledge they do from 8wks on.

>think it would also be difficult to include an unwanted zygote or embryo within any non-biological definition of family. What does it say when we do not intervene to save the lives of the majority of … those that do not implant in the placenta.?

If the child was wanted and we had the technical means to monitor & to save it I’d guess many parents would want the zygote saved as they treat the zygote/fetus as a wanted life. Then it comes back to, can the question, is that life wanted or not be morally relevant when it cannot be used after birth but before personhood/self-awareness

Pericles
>With the greatest respect, Neohuman, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs, I think you may have overstated your case a little.

NP

>Presumably by "inconsistent and hypocritical" you mean that some people can discern a difference between a mentally handicapped person and an unfertilized ovum, while others cannot, or will not.

No I mean simply this they have picked a criteria which they use for members of our fundamental social group, but include some humans who don’t match the criteria(handicapped etc) but not others who also don’t match(pre-born). Not only that but if we treat this other group the handicapped the same way we treat the-born many would find this unacceptable-therefore inconsistent/hypocritical- when the major difference is an arbitrary developmental one.

>However, ….example a consideration of the potential benefits of the research, against the unfertilized - i.e. no future bunch of cells.

Using utility to break negative rights that we grant ourselves is fraught with danger. I could think up of myriad benefits to society if we used the handicapped as body banks, euthanased the elderly, lobotomized serial criminals for medical research, sterilized the poor, the list could go on.
BTW where am I objecting to the use unfertilized cells?

>None of this addresses the issue I raised earlier, which is where exactly does "human dignity" enter the equation?

Isn't giving or granting human dignity like saying a human life is something worth respecting, allowing it some semblance of self-respect, and not being made a means to an end?

To the Pro-Life a unborn human life has the same value deserving of human dignity that we grant our lives and the lives of the impaired elderly, the disabled and infants that don’t have full personhood/self-awareness or social interaction. In the same way some now bury miscarriages, as like our post birth humanity dead they shared that fundamental commonality of human life and so deserve human dignity even in death.

By doing the reverse you make a human life a means to an end and that robs it of it’s dignity/value.

"To correct the surgically attached adult analogy the female has directly consented to the possibility that the adult may be attached and must bare the responsibility for that action."
Not quite, how's this: You're grabbed, drugged and a device is implanted in your foot that would require amputation to remove. The device has a transmitter in it that sends a signal everytime you walk, but the signal is weak. You can try to stop the signal but it doesn't always work. A reciever is attached to a small bomb hidden somewhere near where you live. By walking there is a chance that a signal might reach the bomb and someone might be injured. You didn't consent to the device, it might not cause an explosion and even if it does someone might not get hurt. Should the government have the power to force you not to walk?

But the analogy really fails because it's not a person that is attached.

"[T]he third party is excluded for any consideration unless on totally arbitrary grounds on whether it is wanted or not."
When those two consented to participate there was no third party, even afterwards there is only the possibility of a third party. The party that can make a choice is free to consider the possible third party.

"The male is given no right in the consideration of whether the human life continues but is expected to take responsibility for his participation by financially contributing whether he wants it to continue or not."

Often a contribution is needed. There are three options in these situations: the community pays, the father pays or the child suffers. If the community wants to encourage child birth then it should front the cost, or it can discourages it by selecting one of the other options. Currently it seems that it wants to encourage child birth in one situation, discourage it in another & not have to pay for any of it.

"The female... is allowed to avoid any responsibility for her participation"
One way or another the woman takes responsibility.

"I simply ignore that argument & say human life should be used not personhood."
But that leaves unanswered the fundamental question of why the test should be human life or human life capable of developing personhood/self-awareness free of extreme genetic defects. And if the latter combination is the test, then you are effectively adopting a potential human argument since that is the only distinguishing feature. I do not claim that a potential person is without value, just that the value is lower than an actual person, subject to a need for the person.

"Sorry for being obtuse but could go over your organ donor and why we cannot kill non-personhood infants point again I'm finding it hard to follow your reasoning?"

I wasn't trying to explain so much as refute, so I wasn't very clear. My main premise is that value attaches to thought, and secondly that a balancing of need, desires & value must occur. We could kill infants, just as we could invade another country and kill thousands, if there was a sufficient need. Potential people have value, which must be considered against an act of harm. For infants (assuming they're not people), there is no need to kill the child, destroying its value, and there is an additional benefit to keeping it. The protection of individual freedom has great value for society, and to individuals in general, which is a counterweight to organ donations from living people, but not the dead. It's possible that there may be a need so strong that completion of pregnancy should be enforced.

"Understand pain maybe isn't a good choice of words, whether they experience pain is more relevant, from a quick reading, to my knowledge they do from 8wks on."
But again, I think the real issue is whether "they" exists yet. It is possible for a person with just a brain stem to respond to "pain", even though no consciousness exists.

Legally: because it lacks a seperate existence; I don't know the foundational legal reasoning. Re: aggravated assault, that's my view of how it probably should be, not necessarily reality

Deuc PT1

In your bomb analogy you are still innocent, to correct it you agree for some benefit to have the device, also there is only a probability that the bomb will arm itself. But because you want some benefit that goes with it say money/holiday, you have it implanted even though you know it will effectively incapacitate you for 9mnths if it arms itself(as you don’t want to kill people.) Now say like in the case of rape and the person has the device implanted without consent, is the price of 9 months incapacitation worth more than the chance that you kill someone by walking?

Since he like the couple consented to the action, knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it they must bear the responsibility whatever that is for that action.

Knowledge + Consent/Participation = Responsibility for actions and their ramifications

This is one foundation of our social moral contract. Why should we throw it away in this case; because they aren’t persons? But we don’t do that for all non-persons as I have already shown.

You think well someone has to pay, well first I’m talking about equal consideration even if only between the man and woman, fine make the man have no choice but to take the consequences of his actions and contribute financially but conversely the woman to be fair should give up the exclusive right to choose to keep the child or not.

Equal consideration, both pay financially, both get a choice in the life of a child.

>One way or another the woman takes responsibility.
What responsibility if she chooses an abortion?

For arguments sake –& for now not talking about genetic defects- why not be consistent on human life as the criterion –so we treat birthed non-persons the same as unborn non-persons-why is adoption not a viable alternative when couples are going to IVF for babies?

Pt2
>But that leaves unanswered the fundamental question of why the test should be human life or human life capable of developing personhood/self-awareness free of extreme genetic defects.

Because if it is the basic fundamental feature we all share. The reason racism and sexism is arbitrary is because there is another criterion which all races and sexes have in common, belonging to humanity, and not personhood, which has been shown before. For equal consideration equal/treatment to operate when a group shares such a commonality, excluding a section of that group on other non foundational criterion eg race sex age -and I would argue personhood-it breaks this equal consideration/treatment rule.

>And if the latter combination is the test, then you are effectively adopting a potential human argument since that is the only distinguishing feature.

The human life is still the overriding criterion, genetic defects does not necessarily lend itself to the potential human criterion as you can have serious defects that still leave a human with personhood. But it still leaves you with the which defects dilemma.

>We could kill infants, just as we could invade another country and kill thousands, if there was a sufficient need.

With due respect are you saying in everyday life, utility or the doctrine of necessity overrides the Golden rule and negative rights?

>For infants ….there is no need to kill the child, destroying its value, and there is an additional benefit to keeping it.

Replace unborn with infants and repeat the above or conversely there could be the exactly the same sort of needs/benefits accomplished if a child is killed as happens when a unborn to is killed ie economic, social, life saving etc

The problem with sentience is if you are consistent in you treatment of all non-persons you could use all non-persons as a means to an end as long as you don’t cause pain.

I think you misunderstood the analogous features of the bomb scenario; walking *is* the benefit. There are possible undesired consequences, just as there are possible undesired consequences in having sex - you have a choice, but that choice was forced upon you. For pregnancy, it was forced by biology, for the device it was forced on you by some mysterious stranger; either way you are forced. Should you choose to walk, you do so "knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it".

"But we don't do that for all non-persons as I have already shown."
I'm not sure what you are referring to, so I suspect that is still in contention.

"the woman to be fair should give up the exclusive right to choose to keep the child or not."
This is all predicated on the mother having custody, which means that the mother will be contributing both financially and non-financially, ie. there already is equal consideration if the pregnancy continues. The woman shouldn't financially benefit, the funds are for supporting the child, they don't have to come from the father.

"What responsibility if she chooses an abortion?"
That of having the abortion. Any responsibility that exists is an obligation to deal with the situation. An abortion is one way of dealing with it. If there is anything other than personal accountability, it would presumably have to be based on the embryo/fetus being something with an interest, which I am rejecting.

"why not be consistent on human life as the criterion"
What is the significance of having similar DNA? It's not limited to genetic defects, any individual organism with human DNA is a human life. The ability to reproduce doesn't make life valuable, nor do our chromosomes.

"so we treat birthed non-persons the same as unborn non-persons"
They have the same value, but the situations are different, in the latter case there is a person with her own personal sovereignty. Adoption is a viable *choice*.

"Because if it is the basic fundamental feature we all share."
A feature we all share. What about another intelligent life-form or a

true artifical intelligence? All we would share with them is thought, are they not worthy of equal moral consideration? You, I and Mr brain stem all share DNA and existence as organisms-- we are all human life.

"The human life is still the overriding criterion, genetic defects does not necessarily lend itself to the potential human criterion as you can have serious defects that still leave a human with personhood. But it still leaves you with the which defects dilemma."
Clearly not overriding but initial. You brought up the defects, I noted And I think that if you play the defect game long enough you'll end up with a test of whether it prevents abstract thought or the like.

"With due respect are you saying in everyday life, utility or the doctrine of necessity overrides the Golden rule and negative rights?"
My statement contained a bit of snark directed at the Bush administration; justified self defence or an extreme set of cirumstances would be required. The golden rule and rights apply to people. But I do not think rights stand on their own-- they are justified by other ethical, social rules and as a result most negative rights are subject to some notion of necessity or reasonableness eg. right to practice your religion that involves sacrificing virgins.

"Replace unborn with infants and repeat the above or conversely there could be the exactly the same sort of needs/benefits accomplished if a child is killed as happens when a unborn to is killed ie economic, social, life saving etc"
Need wasn't the best word, try benefit. Moral calculus exists independent of utilitarianism, my position is that people have significant value and rights, but non-people (non-thinkers) do not.

"The problem with sentience is if you are consistent in you treatment of all non-persons you could use all non-persons as a means to an end as long as you don't cause pain."
You could, but that doesn't make it a problem. Everything is a means to an end, what matters is whether the method is warranted. Protecting non-thinking life does not warrant mandatory pregnancy.

Duec
>For pregnancy, it was forced by biology, for the device it was forced on you by some mysterious stranger; either way you are forced. Should you choose to walk, you do so "knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it".

Forced by biology? Last time I checked apart from the Virgin Mary no one spontaneously becomes pregnant.

I’m having trouble thinking of a real life situation where we do and are legally allowed to act –apart from sex- that we partake in an activity that may result in an act -that while still a probability- and when the chance result occurs we are not responsible for that an action if it in the end result in the loss of life. If I have sex while HIV+ there is still only chance that the partner will catch it and then go onto die. The result is ‘forced by biology’ so I’m not responsible for her getting AIDS?

"But we don't do that for all non-persons as I have already shown."
I'm not sure what you are referring to, so I suspect that is still in contention.
We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact.

>This is all predicated on the mother having custody, …..

Custody is after the fact she still gets to choose the father doesn’t and therefore ad hoc.
If being fair both parties are made to pay, and both get a choice, the party that overrules the other in saying they want to keep the child then accepts the responsibility and burden of duty of care. To me that is again fair, we have plenty of precedents in social interaction for that.

>That of having the abortion. Any responsibility that exists is an obligation to deal with the situation. ....If there is anything other than personal accountability, it would presumably have to be based on the embryo/fetus being something with an interest, which I am rejecting.

No it doesn’t have an concrete interest, but nor do other non-persons. I don’t want to care for my sick aun

with dementia is my killing her mean I’m taking responsibility for my actions if by my initial actions I’ve brought about her dementia?

>They have the same value, but the situations are different, in the latter case there is a person with her own personal sovereignty.

Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue- they would be in different situations & no these are non-persons they’re granted personhood and personal sovereignty so why not unborn persons?

>Adoption is a viable *choice*.
Not for the unwanted fetus or the male when the female wants an abortion.

>All we would share with them is thought, are they not worthy of equal moral consideration? You, I and Mr brain stem all share DNA and existence as organisms-- we are all human life. .. if you play the defect game long enough

True this is the same problem that I came up with a paper on the rights of sentient animals for equal consideration. It is unavoidable but you have to draw the line somewhere. Some are less inclusive racism, sexism others are more inclusive. To me the only sticking point is that that born non-persons are given rights that unborn ones aren’t, that is the inconsistency.

>But I do not think rights stand on their own, they are ……are subject to some notion of necessity or reasonableness .

:)
BTW I believe reasonableness is socially and non-rationally constructed, that’s why sincere moral people can condone slavery or think human sacrifice is acceptable.

>Everything is a means to an end, what matters is whether the method is warranted. Protecting non-thinking life does not warrant mandatory pregnancy.

Fine but warranted & reasonableness can be very plastic and mean different things to different people. I just want to see consistency applied.

Using your argument some one could say protecting non-thinking life does not warrant –from the benefits gained and the inherent plasticity of reasonableness- punishment for killing infants, the mentally handicapped or incapacitated elderly.

I think you are still misunderstanding the distinction I am trying to make with the analogy, and I should note first that this argument isn't conclusive. My point is that the choice was forced, not the result. Another situation: deranged guy takes a Koala hostage, has knife to its throat, says to you "hand over all your money or the Koala gets it." Now if you happened to be carrying your life savings, you might let the Koala be killed. He had no right to impose that choice on you, and you aren't as culpable as if you had say, recklessly poisoned the Koala by feeding it some pizza.

"We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact." Accepted.

Giving the father a right to choose regarding whether an abortion occurs, (not just financial) would be unworkable, artifical equality contrary to biological fact, and involves subjecting the mother's body to the will of another. In the alternative, who is the mother meant to pay? Child support doesn't go to the Government, it goes to the custodial guardian. It is necessary because the child needs to be supported. It's after the fact, so what? I don't understand your line of reasoning.

I would not think that dementia takes away personhood. As a person, you aunt has a right to life.

"Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue- they would be in different situations & no these are non-persons they're granted personhood and personal sovereignty so why not unborn persons?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

"To me the only sticking point is that that born non-persons are given rights that unborn ones aren't, that is the inconsistency."
And I think this is a societal/practicality issue, we don't have to give them equal rights but there is no downside to doing so and it is not possible to empirically determine personhood. If a law required all viable fetuses be removed by caesarian if possible, rather than abortion, my only difficulty would be that women would be unable to experience natural childbirth. I agree re:reasonableness.

>My point is that the choice was forced, not the result.

Yes but the choice is forced upon you through a choice you made. You try to make out well this is a natural want/need like walking well there are other ways of reaching sexual gratification oral, anal, masturbation that does not result in even the possibility of pregnancy .

& again this new analogy involves the guy with money being innocent, & secondly using a Koala tries to artificially distance the relationship, instead use the man’s child and that he actually handed the child to the extortionist knowing he may do what he did.

"We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact." >Accepted.
TY

>Giving the father a right to choose regarding whether an abortion occurs, (not just financial) would be unworkable, artifical equality contrary to biological fact, and involves subjecting the mother's body to the will of another.

Back to a basic precept of social interaction we take responsibility for our consent & participation in actions taken.

Also this wouldn’t be done just by the stroke of a pen in isolation, to be fair to all parties resources would be given to-promote sex education, promotion of alternative ways to enjoy sexual gratification without the risk of pregnancy, counseling and compensation for the mother having the child, greater enforcement of fathers paying maintenance –since they now have equal consideration- resources for teenage mothers single parents, resources for assisting adoption.

>In the alternative, who is the mother meant to pay?
If she wants to have exclusive right to the choice and if we as a society wish allow that exclusive right choice than it is beholden for us to be fair to the father who didn’t want the child and pay the father’s share.

>It's after the fact, so what? I don't understand your line of reasoning

I’m talking before custody, that there is no equal consideration for the man anything that doesn’t deal directly with that point is ad hoc.

If there is to be fairness in this equation and the man’s -

- then in the case when the woman wants the child the man is absolved of financial responsibility and again we as a society should pick up the tab.

>I would not think that dementia takes away personhood. As a person, you aunt has a right to life.

The late stages of dementia a person effectively loses the ability to function as a self-aware ‘person’ we continue to grant them personhood just like infants and the mentally handicapped even though they don’t have functional personhood.

"Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue-…….
>I don't understand what you're trying to say.

If they the unborn and born were valued the same way they would be treated the same way.

>And I think this is a societal/practicality issue, we don't have to give them equal rights but there is no downside to doing so and it is not possible to empirically determine personhood

If we killed or experimented on the born non-persons there would be no downside, in fact using them for experimentation and body parts would benefit society greatly.

>If a law required all viable fetuses be removed by caesarian if possible, rather than abortion, my only difficulty would be that women would be unable to experience natural childbirth.

I’m assuming you are talking about ones that lodge in the fallopian tubes, given the advances in keyhole surgery in may be possible to extract it without sterilizing the mother. We don’t know.

I agree re:reasonableness
That is something :)

I do wish though we weren’t limited to the number of words and posting in this forum and that at least on this thread others would contribute as it’s very hard to gauge the strength and consistency of a debate just between two people. I’m somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest in this thread but have enjoyed the fact they even though we disagree on some things I can see that you are rational in your responses not like some on the forum.

Neohuman, I still think your are misunderstanding my distinction. I'm not trying to say sex is a natural desire, I'm making a minor point not worthy of so many words, that culpability is reduced because the dichotomy of choices, ie. the requirement to choose itself, was forced rather than voluntary. (You did not choose to be born, neither the result nor the particular choice (option) is forced, but the choice itself is )

"Back to a basic precept of social interaction we take responsibility for our consent & participation in actions taken."

What exactly is the woman consenting to? I would expect that she wouldn't be consenting to give the man control over her body. She has to pay the father's share? If she could pay the father's share then child support isn't be required. Since she can't pay, someone has to or the child and/or the mother end up in poverty. Before custody support for the child is fairly unnecessary, so the man doesn't come in to it re:financial issues. But you also wrote this:

"If there is to be fairness in this equation and the man's - then in the case when the woman wants the child the man is absolved of financial responsibility and again we as a society should pick up the tab."
Which I already said I agree with, except that society trying to discourage child birth might logically adopt the position that the man should pay. (Even if that is unfair.)

"If they the unborn and born were valued the same way they would be treated the same way."
Valued after everything has been considered. I'm talking inherent value. Eg. a chocolate bar has a certain inherent value. If I'm in a chocolate store or I want to eat something else or I don't particularly feel like chocolate at the moment, then I would value it less than a starving person would. The abstract value of the unborn, born child are the same but in practice when everything else is considered they may be different.

"If we killed or experimented on the born non-persons there would be no downside, in fact using them for experimentation and body parts would benefit society greatly."
I don't know enough about dementia etc., but if the ability for abstract thought is totally gone and that is known for sure, then such experimentation may be fine. The downside is that grieving people would be distressed by it, emotions would run high. Emotions and psychological effects need to be considered.

"I'm assuming you are talking about ones that lodge in the fallopian tubes, given the advances in keyhole surgery in may be possible to extract it without sterilizing the mother. We don't know"
No that's not what I was referring to; its my understanding that inducing birth isn't possible in all cases of premature birth, but there's a good chance I may be wrong about that. If I'm not, then caesarian would be needed and I think that once you have one it is dangerous to have a subsequent natural birth.

"I do wish though we weren't limited to the number of words and posting in this forum and that at least on this thread others would contribute as it's very hard to gauge the strength and consistency of a debate just between two people. I'm somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest in this thread but have enjoyed the fact they even though we disagree on some things I can see that you are rational in your responses not like some on the forum."
Thanks, good luck with the scandal thread. I dunno, without a word limit I'd spend too much time here; and some people would post really long bits of glurge. I'm more interested in some font options and a quote feature.

Thanks Duec unless you want to take this to another forum -I have one in mind- that has no limits on words on posting- which seem to hinder us conveying what we mean to each other- i'll leave it there.

BTW I don't think Sells is any different from the CS fundies it just looks like he is using the 'open your heart to the holy spirit' garbage and thinks if it's dressed in complex philosophical language it will win the day.

Nah, I'd prefer not to head elsewhere. But what board where you talking about?

>the requirement to choose itself, was forced rather than voluntary

With due respect Deuc the original decision to have sex was voluntary, so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant.

>What exactly is the woman consenting to? I would expect that she wouldn't be consenting to give the man control over her body.

We have don’t have full ownership of our own body, we cannot sell our body parts for example nor can we use our body to inflict harm on other or maybe even our own bodies at least to some degree. So to me the ‘it’s my body’ argument is over inflated when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person.

So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that we cannot have a foundational moral concept –valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness. Oh I will value this unborn life I want but I won’t when it doesn’t suit me.

It would be like a racist saying well my criteria for personhood is being white and although I value 'white' human life, since blacks don’t fit that criteria I can blow thatb life away.

>except that society trying to discourage child birth might logically adopt the position that the man should pay. (Even if that is unfair.)

Sorry didn’t get this point?

>Valued after everything has been considered. I'm talking inherent value.
I think we could have a whole separate debate on inherent or constructed value.
I would not that from the traditional Pro-Life stance human life and therefore an unborn human life has an inherent value.

> The downside is that grieving people would be distressed by it, emotions would run high. Emotions and psychological effects need to be considered.

What about emotions and psychological effects of the father who wanted the child or his family?

>No that's not what I was referring to; its my understanding that inducing birth isn't possible in all cases of premature birth, but there's a good chance I may be wrong about that. If I'm not, then caesarian would be needed and I think that once you have one it is dangerous to have a subsequent natural birth.

Good point but consider many adults would run into a burning house to risk their lives for their children or even if it were only one child. If they are willing to risk that for a post birth life why not face a much lesser situation if it saved their child’s life. Would you run into a nuclear reactor to save your child even though it might mean you cannot father more children?

But what if they didn’t want the child? I must be a hard arse to me she again faces that risk if she has vaginal sex . But then I would allow an abortion for a severely handicapped child whereas a hardcore catholic would still allowed t even if it meant no more children. So I still don’t escape non-rational decisions.

But anyway since I think that when it comes down to it all ethics is the reasoning of both objective and non-rational factors you will never get a perfect complete system.

As to the forum I wanted to see the Sea of Faith movement (religious humanists) do a forum A guy from there suggested http://faithfutures.org

"so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant."
As I said it is non-conclusive point. Only relevant if blame, risk or responsibility is critical, but they presuppose that abortion is wrong.

"We have don't have full ownership of our own body,"
You're going to need more than that if you want to justify giving the man control over whether the woman aborts, because this alone opens up the question of other forms of slavery. I think it is silly to assume an intention for her to accept anything other than that she might get pregnant.

Where we lack sovereignty it is meant to be for our own good, or as necessary to prevent coercion & harm to other people; either way it is restricted for the benefit of some person. I agree that you can't base a right to abortion solely on the grounds of personal sovereignty, but it is a valid interest, one which ordinarily outweighs any reasons to force a continued pregnancy.

"when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person."
Huh? There isn't an issue in this situation.

"So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that we cannot have a foundational moral concept -valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness."

If you claim that human life having great value is a fundamental moral rule, then you are assuming the result. (And it again raises issues of Mr.Brain Stem.) In its common usage I think "value for human life" is more of a shorthand/rhetorical/superficial statement than a literal rule, ie. equivalence to personhood, not all human life. Again, I don't claim that human life with potential has no inherent value.

I think you're reading in an arbitrary condition that isn't there, but that may be because of me trying to deal with multiple scenarios at a time. Normally the decision of whether it is morally OK to abort doesn't depend on whether a child is wanted except in how it affects

the choice made, but in exceptional circumstances (eg. survival of the species) there is arguably a moral obligation to give birth.

"It would be like a racist saying well my criteria for personhood is being white and although I value 'white' human life, since blacks don't fit that criteria I can blow thatb life away."
Well if you can show that *my* criteria for personhood is arbitrary, I'd be happy to change my position, but I don't think it is.

"Sorry didn't get this point?"
If the community can't afford to support population growth, then as a disincentive and necessity, it makes sense to require contribution from both parents.

"I think we could have a whole separate debate on inherent or constructed value.
I would not that from the traditional Pro-Life stance human life and therefore an unborn human life has an inherent value."
I think we're using different terms here, in my usage having inherent value doesn't mean it can't have additional, subjective value for other reasons. The potential for sentience has inherent value, but I consider it to be on a different order of magnitude compared to actual sentience.

"What about emotions and psychological effects of the father who wanted the child or his family?"
Mere emotional hurt isn't enough to force a 9mth course of action on a person. There is a world of difference between the likelihood and severity of psychological damage that could result from knowing research was being conducted on someone you knew closely and something that hardly developed and you never "knew" at all. Those that have significant psychological damage in the latter case would surely be abnormally vulnerable to such things.

"So I still don't escape non-rational decisions."
It's good that you can realise when you are doing this. For the burning house, experimenting on the brain-dead etc, what is happening is emotional attachment & response. Ethics/logical moral evaluation can't ignore that people have these feelings, but the extent of protection for them is hard to place; would you *force* a parent to run into the house/reactor?

Deuc sorry that I didn’t reply, too many things have been going on and to tell the truth I think we are on different wavelengths, without any indication from other posters to give us some sort of reference to gauge our arguments. I’m somewhat disappointed that the new thread has taken off where we have had this one basically to ourselves. You think it is too late to join in the other? Hate to think though that I’m on the same side as Aslan.
so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant."

As I said it is non-conclusive point. Only relevant if blame, risk or responsibility is critical, but they presuppose that abortion is wrong.
We agree to disagree (ATD)

"We have don't have full ownership of our own body,"
You're going to need more than that if you want to justify giving the man control over whether the woman aborts, because this alone opens up the question of other forms of slavery. I think it is silly to assume an intention for her to accept anything other than that she might get pregnant.

I drive home from the pub drunk I don’t intend to kill someone in a crash. Actions have consequences and we hold strong views on those that take or endanger other lives.

Where we lack sovereignty it is meant to be for our own good, or as necessary to prevent coercion & harm to other people; either way it is restricted for the benefit of some person. I agree that you can't base a right to abortion solely on the grounds of personal sovereignty, but it is a valid interest, one which ordinarily outweighs any reasons to force a continued pregnancy.

Some see the life a pre-born valuable enough to warrant no harm

"when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person."
Huh? There isn't an issue in this situation.
ATD

"So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that

we cannot have a foundational moral concept -valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness."

"If you claim that human life having great value is a fundamental moral rule, then you are assuming the result. ….. Again, I don't claim that human life with potential has no inherent value."

I’m looking at common usage but could be wrong. I think that again the terms and what it means are mixed and while using the same language mean and are valued by people in different ways.

"I think you're reading in an arbitrary condition that isn't there, ….eg. survival of the species) there is arguably a moral obligation to give birth."

"Well if you can show that *my* criteria for personhood is arbitrary, I'd be happy to change my position, but I don't think it is."

Any criteria is inherently arbitrary, some are just more inclusive than others.

If the community can't afford to support population growth, then as a disincentive and necessity, it makes sense to require contribution from both parents."

Didn’t see the relevance.

” in my usage having inherent value doesn't mean it can't have additional, subjective value for other reasons. The potential for sentience has inherent value, but I consider it to be on a different order of magnitude compared to actual sentience. "

From were I’m coming from by-in-large value or rights are human constructs and while the may have objective qualities mixed in are still largely subjective.

"Mere emotional hurt isn't enough to force …… Those that have significant psychological damage in the latter case would surely be abnormally vulnerable to such things."

Not to those who put a high value on it. Bit of a throw away, easy to use that on anyone who highly values what you don't value.

"would you *force* a parent to run into the house/reactor?"

No but wonder at one that would save one child but not his brother if that was at equal risk.

Should we leave it there, invite some from the other thread or should I just join in over there?