Among its many howlers, the problem with this article, and the writer virtually admits it, is that he is struggling to find an ethical base. He asks the question, when does the soul begin? But he can’t find an answer or even a method for coming to an answer.

Along the way he flounders with various possibilities. He has 90% the same genetic make up as dog. He has 50% the same genes as a tomato. So what? If he eats a tomato does that make him 50% a cannibal? He tosses around the idea that “Thinking like a human” might make someone human. This brings to mind horror stories of someone deciding whether others are fit to live by whether or not they agree with their reasoning processes. Don’t anyone say it could never happen.

To his credit, the writer dismisses these possibilities. But without a firm ethical footing, you might soon be going down the slippery slope. Today, 'my belly, my decision' as one poster said. Tomorrow, 'what came from my belly is my domain' (infanticide).

Then the writer says, “It would never be acceptable to pro-choice people…”

One wonders how he is going to finish such a sentence without making a sweeping generalisation. Can he speak for all pro-choice people? Are they all such a unified bunch that they agree on everything?

“… that a new-born baby could be put down if the mother, who could not get access to an abortionist during her pregnancy, still did not want the child.” The pro-choice philosopher, Peter Singer, would disagree, especially if the baby was handicapped.

At conception, an embryo is genetically and uniquely as human as it will ever get. When most abortions occur, the heart is beating. They have fingerprints at 12 weeks. I’ve held my 24 week old son that my wife miscarried. He was quite well developed including family resemblances.

If we searching for a good ethical base or starting point, it is hard to go past this one,

“Thou shalt not murder”.

Col Rouge says, ‘[The foetus] is dependent, it is not individual until the moment of birth.’ Comparing the foetus with other situations of dependency, Col says, “any number of different folk can offer care to separate individuals who are incapable of looking after themselves. An embryo .... is exclusively dependent upon the pregnant woman within whose uterus it is developing.”

This doesn't help determine what a human is. You end up saying, “If you are in a situation of dependency, then it’s the number of people you are dependent on that determines whether or not you’re a human being. If several, then you’re human. If only one, then you are not – especially if that one happens to be your mother. A strange outcome?

The alternative argument seems to be focussed on location. “If you’re in, you’re not a human; if you’re out, you are”. So, it really comes down to geography?

Col, I don’t think this is necessarily a matter of a “minority faith” being imposed on others. The ethic against murder is not a religious idiosyncrasy. It’s just a matter of working out who the humans are so we can all take care not to kill them. Suppose we’re not quite sure, or not in full agreement (not really a matter of “supposing”, is it?), the question becomes:

“Which risk will we take?

i) The risk of killing something/someone who is, after all, a human; or

ii) The risk of allowing to live something/someone who is not a human but who indisputably becomes a human later”.

Yabby, you say, “So what is right is not that obvious, that’s why we debate about it.” I agree. Perhaps we have been at cross-purposes. My point has not been that I know what’s right (and am good enough to edify you!), but that there is a right answer (somewhere) to this and other moral questions. On particular issues, even abortion, I too am happy to learn.

Pax,

Mick V “If we searching for a good ethical base or starting point, it is hard to go past this one,
Thou shalt not murder”.

How about the moral merits of “humility” and recognition that someone else might know what is best for themselves, based on their knowledge of their circumstances, regardless of what your ethical base might have decided for them?

I would note the terms “abortion” and “murder” are mutually exclusive (check the dictionary).

Prior to the early / mid 19th century abortion was not a crime. The criminal deterrents were introduced primarily to stop the activities of nefarious quack doctors offering dangerous procedures and had nothing to do their any notion of the foetus being a “person”.

I believe we should accept that other people have rights to determine how their bodies will be used and if they decide not to be pregnant, that is their right and our moral duty to respect their choice.

Better that someone makes their own decision and lives with the consequences than a decision, with which they disagree, is forced upon them and they are stuck with the consequences.

To address Brian Holden's points:

1. Prolifers don't "froth at the mouth". I suggest spending an hour nearby a major abortion clinic observing peaceful prolifers praying or courteously offering women help ... and their snarling, spitting, blaspheming, cursing pro-abortion adversaries.

2. The new human being looks and is exactly the right shape and size for the person at the beginning of his/her life. This amazing little creaure organises its own environment and simply needs to be left in peace to grow. Brian Holden was himself as a zygote, not something or somebody else!

3. To argue dependency as a criterion for killing means none of us deserves; we are all dependent on others for our food, clothing and shelter.

4. If Brian can't tell the difference between himself and his dog, then I address my comments to Fido.

5. A human reaching viability when the mother falls in love with him/her? Oh, please! Post abortion grief demonstrates with crystal clarity that the woman who desperately wanted not to be pregnant knows sadly too late that she had bonded deeply, albeit unconsciously, with her unborn baby: if this were not so, she would not be suffering so profoundly from the loss of her child. Google "post abortion grief" and then argue that women don't bond with their babies until "later". The great evil of the pro-abortion ideology is to pit the mother against her child and declare a pregnant woman's body a war zone.

6. Those who deny the humanity of the unborn child seem to have sheltered themselves from looking at pictures of dismembered 8-week-old foetuses. Little heads, arms, legs, torsos, abdomens.

7. Abortion is never a private, autonomous event. The abortionist, clinic staff, the woman, usually her partner, sometimes family and friends, the government, the media and socialist ideologues all contribute to the death of a small, helpless, innocent human being.

Pro-abortion people refuse to look at the evidentiary arguments against abortion. Please look at the websites of abortiontv.com and afterabortion.org and also (to read the posts of women who have had abortions) afterabortion.com.

Perhaps we need to recognise that there is no right answer to this question. The answer lies with the individual, based on their beliefs and values. How to combat the concerns of both sides of the debate? Make the compulsory conselling session prior to abortion a dual one, where moderate members of each persuasion both sit with the woman to discuss the issues. If one gets too rabid, the other can report them and request someone else. Its a reasonable way of ensuring that the woman gets informed information about both options and other support that may be available, and also make a choice that based on her circumstances (after discussing these with the two counsellors). It is the way that she is least likely to be pressured into a particular choice, and both lobby groups get to have their opinions represented.

Maryse, my first question would be, what on earth are prolifers doing,
praying outside abortion clinics? Can't the Almighty hear them from
their homes? Why harrass these women, even if in a peaceful way?

A corpse looks exactly like a person, but its not a person, as it
doesent have a functioning human brain. Its the same with embryos.

Yup, various hormones are triggered by pregnancy, all evolutionary
traits. The largest aborter is in fact Mother Nature herself.
Some women grieve over misscarriages, some suffer from post natal
depression. Some will grieve over an abortion some won't.

Fact is any decision which involves emotion versus reason, can be difficult
to weigh up. The only person who can make those decisions, is the
person herself. All we can do is provide information and choices,
the rest should be their choice!

At 8 weeks, an embryo is not a child, thats just emotive language.

Look up the definition of a "being" Basically its any creature
which can move about. A human being would thus be a being with human
dna. All those billions of sperms, flushed down life's toilets, are
in fact, by definition, human beings! Should we share a tear or
two over them too?

At some point we have to accept the laws of nature, as was wisely
pointed out by Charles Darwin. Far more beings of any species will
be created, then can ever survive. Lets face it, most women shed
around 400 eggs in their lives, all which could be cute babies.

Personally I am more concerned with the suffering of living,
thinking people, then I am about organisms and a fetus is not yet
a person, its still an organism.