Saltpetre, "When might a human foetus reasonably qualify to be considered a 'human being'? Well, when it is reasonably assessed as being capable of surviving outside of the womb. Until that time it may only be a 'potential' human being"

When it is necessary to rationalise and protect women who desire abortions that definition may be used. Although there is an Australian ethicist who argues for abortion right up to the moment of birth. Also, using Singer's spin (are philosophers just more skilled in crafting an argument?), the status of a human infant is no better than a dog. Singer would have us believe that it may be more morally reprehensible to extinguish the life of a dog that has been around long enough to appreciate the world than a human infant with the limited knowledge of (say) a month of life.

Ultimately all reach for the rhetoric that justifies their unique blend of morality and pragmatism. Morality exists on a continuum.

The law when it chooses reverts to the 'traditional' view of life that supporters of abortion usually revile but choose to also accept where 'women's rights' are concerned. Should anyone outside of the mother (a word used in this circumstance) accidentally or deliberately interfere with the foetus without the mother's consent that person could be found to have committed a crime for which there are serious penalties.

So the foetus is human and a child where the mother regards it so. But that choice and labelling of the foetus (and infant?) can swing back and forth. She can also choose to make the donor of the sperm responsible for the her choice in continuing with the pregnancy and the independent life created even if he was unwitting and unwilling. That IS enormous power on both counts.

to be continued..

continued..

It is done and dusted that legal abortion should be available.

Where the law has not caught up however, is to recognise the emancipation of women and their responsibility for their own decisions, freely taken.

That is also where the same feminist 'ethicists' who would allow abortion up to the moment of birth, and some might legalise infanticide for some time later on the same rhetoric (posing as logic), always do a back-flip to make the man accountable for life for the decisions they say he has no right to participate in or even comment upon, at all.

In fact in some situations a man can be held responsible for a life he didn't even have a part in creating, the sperm wasn't his anyway and the woman likely knew that and chose not to inform the luckless nominated 'father' of her sexual indiscretion at the time.

Equality requires individual responsibility and accountability for one's decisions too.

Dear david f,

I know you have said you will make no further comment on this difference of opinion, but I can only contend that your view is at best opinion, and very far from fact.

A slough of my skin may be a human 'product', and therefore 'human' in nature and origin, but there is no way it could be considered a 'human being' - and it is a diploid cell, and therefore far more closely related to a living human being than a haploid sperm or ovum, albeit that these latter may be 'alive' and viable, and therefore having capacity to participate in the formation of a living diploid human being.
'Potential' does not automatically equate to 'outcome', and millions and billions fall by the wayside without ever realizing such innate potential to form and constitute a 'life'.
Building blocks, yes; but 'life' (or 'being'), no.

> I see them all as equally human as I have not created such a hierarchy.<

Neither you nor I have a say in the relevant 'hierarchy', for it has been determined by natural forces, by evolution (or possibly, for some, by 'design'), and 'it' is the reality, and not anything which others may seek to conclude, infer or confect.

Dear onthebeach,

You make a valid point, if I read you correctly - since woman alone has the right to determine whether to proceed with a pregnancy, it is 'logical' that she then take sole responsibility for the outcome, for the 'product'.
However, that is not the 'human' way - which from our tribal origins has been for 'community', fathers and potential fathers included, to participate in the upkeep and rearing of the clan's or tribe's children, and which has 'morphed' in our society into the welfare state.
Additionally, since woman has by far the greater burden in both incubating a child and, predominantly, in the rearing of the child, it is also logical that she have the greater say in whether to proceed with a pregnancy.
Further, it is a reasonable social objective that fathers take appropriate responsibility for their actions and for any progeny resulting therefrom. The idea that pregnancy is a woman's 'problem' and her 'fault' is archaic, and has no place in a progressive society.

So, one has to take responsibility, or 'keep it in your pants'. No 'free' rides.

As for the 'cheaters', I can only say 'buyer beware'. (And, fundamentally, what's good for the gander should also be good for the goose.)
'Liberation' has its rewards, but also its pitfalls and potential 'penalties' (if that is how one cares to consider the propagation of their 'genes').

Saltpetre, "You make a valid point, if I read you correctly - since woman alone has the right to determine whether to proceed with a pregnancy, it is 'logical' that she then take sole responsibility for the outcome, for the 'product'"

What I am suggesting is that both parties have a right to some say in what will be a life-changing event for both of them. That is to have a say in their own lives. If the woman wants to reserve all information and decision-making to herself and convert what many here refer to as a bunch of cells and over time convert them into a child then so be it, her choice.

By saying there is no free ride you are holding the man's wallet hostage. That is the goal, isn't it? Except it isn't about a ride. It is about deliberate, unilateral action by one of the parties to incubate, deliver and raise an infant to make a human. Feminists do contend that women are the people makers, right? Men's role is unnecessary except as a source of income.

No-one would seriously suggest that the man should have any control over whether the women wants to go ahead with the pregnancy. If you are to be 'progressive' as you put it, why shouldn't the man be able to opt out, full stop?

Dear Saltpetre,

I am posting again because you haven’t even read what I wrote or apparently didn’t understand it.

You wrote: “A slough of my skin may be a human 'product', and therefore 'human' in nature and origin, but there is no way it could be considered a 'human being' - and it is a diploid cell, and therefore far more closely related to a living human being than a haploid sperm or ovum,”

I had previously written: “One of the cells of my liver is part of me. However, a sperm is not only a human cell. It is an entire individual. It is an one celled individual and not part of a larger assemblage as a liver cell is.”

I specifically did not maintain that every cell is a human being.