Moral Behavior should be advancement or downgrading?

Philosopher always emphasized that only human has the moral issue. Human who has the following characters as defined as human. The fetus does not have the following characters, which means it does not category as human beings.   

(1)   " consciousness (of objects and events external and /or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;

(2)    reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)

(3)    self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genstic or direct external control);

(4)    the capacity to communicate, by what ever means,  messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely man possible topics

(5)    the presence of self-concepts, and self awareness, either individual or racial, or both. "(By Mary Anne Warren)

  

 If human following these characters to define that fetus is not a human beings. It is kind of Anthropocentric, although fetus has the potentials to become the human beings.

 As human are chasing for the higher moral rather than lower. If a person who does something really bad, for example, killing the people crucially, people would say that this guy acts like an animal. Why he did like that? Even though, people kill an ordinary dog, it will be disliked by other people in the modern society. As the moral keeps going to chase for the better not worse, this kind of activity would treat as bad behavior. Human is chasing for the higher moral, the fetus is chasing for the becoming the completed physical body. If human is advancement, the concept of moral is higher. In the meanwhile, killing the fetus in order to personal reason, this activity is morally downgrading.   

How do you determine the humanity of a being?

Noonan is a professor of law at the University of California Berkeley. He has some persuasive points to state that abortion is immoral. Most of the points are based on the view of theology.

Human always defined a person who is rational. In the words of rational, theologian called ensoulment. Theologian can be analyzed as a refusal to discriminate among human beings on the basis of their varying potentialities. Once conceived, the being was recognized as man because he had man’s potential. The criterion for humanity, thus, was simple and all-embracing: if you are conceived by human parents, you are human.

The law in US stated that the abortion is illegal if the fetus is older than 8 weeks. But mere length of life is not an exact measure. The reason is different racial groups with different ages at which their fetuses are viable. Some evidence, for example, suggests that Negro fetuses mature more quickly than white fetuses. In additional, Humanity depends on formation by experience. At an earlier stage the zygote is certainly alive and responding to its environment. It is not clear why experience as such confers humanity.

Fetus has sentiments of adults. When movements in the woman womb manifest a vigorous presence demanding joyful recognition by the parents. Yet feeling is notoriously an insure guide to the humanity of others. Many groups of humans have had difficulty in feeling that person of another tongue, color, religion, sex, are as human as they. Nor can touch provide the test; a being confined by sickness, out of touch with others, does not thereby seems to lose his humanity.

Human defined that fetus does not have the social visible. Excluded from the society of men, the fetus is excluded from the humanity of men. This distinction is to be rejected. If humanity depends on social recognition, individuals or whole groups may be dehumanized by being denied any status in their society. For example, in the Roman empire, for example, condemnation to slavery meant the practical denial of most human rights. In the Chinese communist world, landlords have been classified as enemies of the people and so treated as nonpersons by the state. Humanity does not depend on social recognition, though often the failure of society to recognize the prisoner, the alien, the heterodox as human has led to the destruction of human beings. Anyone conceived by a man and a woman is human. Recognition of this condition by society follows a real event in the objective order, however imperfect and halting the recognition. Any attempt to limit humanity to exclude some group runs the risk of furnishing authority and precedent for excluding other groups in the name of the consciousness or perception of the controlling group in the society.

Philosopher is to ask how he reasons about moral questions without supposing that there is a sense in which he and the other to whom he speaks are human. Second answer is to ask if he does not believe that there is a right and wrong way of deciding moral questions. He stated that moral judgments often rest on distinctions, but if the distinctions are not to appear arbitrary fiat, they should relate to some real difference in probabilities.

The total inability of the fetus to speak for itself and the fact that the right of the fetus regularly at stake is the right to life itself. The principles of double effect was no doctrine fallen from heaven, but a method of analysis appropriate where two relative values were being compared.

 In Catholic moral theology, as it developed, life even of the innocent was not taken as an absolute. Judgments on acts affecting life issued from a process of weighing. In the weighing, the fetus was always given a value greater than zero, always a value separate and independent from its parents.  Even with the fetus weighed as human, one interest could be weighed as equal or superior: that of the mother in her own life.   

Potentiality Is Irrelevant

According to Tooley, the potentiality of the fetus or infant to become a

person is irrelevant. He seeks to show this irrelevancy by the example

of a kitten that is injected with a special serum developed by scientists

to enhance and develop super-feline rationality (Tooley 1972, p. 60).

This serum can turn any young Boots, Whiskers, or Snowball in your

neighborhood into a being as rational as Salem the talking cat from the

TV show

available and you also have your three cuddly kittens nearby.

Would you have an obligation to turn Boots, Whiskers, and Snowball

into talking cats? It might be quite kind to do so, but you certainly would

not be obliged to do so. You have no duty to chase around the entire

neighborhood collecting all stray kittens and changing them all into

rational cats, even though (after the invention of the serum) all kittens

are potentially rational.

To see how the kitten example is relevant to the potentiality of the

fetus and newborn, Tooley introduces a distinct consideration which he

calls the “symmetry principle.” The symmetry principle is, “if it is not

seriously wrong to refrain from initiating such a causal process, neither is

it seriously wrong to interfere with such a process” (Tooley 1972, p. 58).

Similarly, consider two cases (Rachels 1975). Smith enters the bathroom

of his young nephew and drowns the child to get an inheritance. Jones

has exactly the same plan, is going into the bathroom to drown the child,

but watches with delight as the child hits his head and begins to drown

right in front of him. Jones could easily save the child but doesn’t lift a

fi nger, and the young nephew drowns. Jones and Smith are equally at

fault, even though one did something and the other did nothing. One

man performed an act of commission, the other man an act of omission;

but there is no important difference between the two.

Similarly, if you do not inject the kitten with special serum, a functioning

rational animal, a talking cat, will not come to be. If you have an abortion

or destroy a newborn, a functioning rational animal, a human person, will

not come to be. Not injecting the kitten is an act of omission—the failure

to start a process that will have as its end the existence of a functioning

rational animal. Having an abortion or destroying an infant is an act of

commission—interrupting a process that will have as its end the existence

of a functioning rational animal.

According to the moral symmetry principle, there is no important

moral difference between act and omission, between not starting a

process and interrupting a process. We certainly do not seem to have

an obligation to make all kittens rational, thus we have no obligation to

let all human fetuses or all human infants develop into rational animals

(Tooley 1972, p. 62). Since the human infant and the human fetus have

at best the potential to become functioning adult persons (some of course

never make it), the right to life position fails if based on the potentiality

principle.

In sum, there is no duty to turn potential rational beings into actually

rational beings. Further, there is no moral difference between not starting

a process and interrupting a process that is already started (the symmetry

principle). So, since there is nothing wrong with not making potentially

rational beings (the kittens) into rational beings (Salem), so too there

is nothing wrong with interrupting the process whereby a potentially

rational being (the fetusSabrina the Teenage Witch. Let’s imagine such serum is readily

An Attempt to Provide Coherent Arguments and Answers to the Questions Raised under the Italian Case in Abortion Group 2’s Blog, by SWAN = Stephen Wan

An Attempt to Provide Coherent Arguments and Answers to the Questions Raised under the Italian Case in Abortion Group 2’s Blog, by SWAN = Stephen Wan

We may take reference of legal issues of abortion when we focus on the moral issues of abortion. On moral ground we look into aspects including but not limited to the legal. If there is a realistic case as introduced by Abortion Study Group 2, we may apply some contemporary and legal rules, examine the moral standpoints and rationales (if any), and provide arguments and moral justification for application of such rules, if possible. Let us try to make use of the reference materials already discussed in our recent new blogs, and start our ethical studies and analyses as follows:

[Thanks for Abortion Study Group 2’s Italian case as copied fully below in blue]

Our comment and opinion are typed in green. The author never assumes the viewpoints and moral discussions below should be absolute without alternatives, but will try to maintain consistency in argumentation.

 

Complexity of the moral and legal issue of abortion

This is an excellent case which demonstrates the complexity of the moral and legal issue of abortion. [Excellent, yes, agreed. Thanks.]

In April 2010, an Italian pregnant woman committed herself to abort her 22-week infant after being acknowledged that her baby was disabled.

[Within the first 24 months, even a normal healthy foetus may be aborted under absolute discretion of the mother with doctors’ certificates to support the operation, as permitted by UK law.

Reason: 

(a)   From "neurological" view of life, life only begins on acquisition of brain wave pattern between 24-27 weeks of embryo development. In the first 22 weeks, no EEG brain wave pattern, the foetus may not be taken as a person.

(b)   The mother actually need not give any reason to justify abortion at this moment of time. The foetus, being disabled if born, helps to give better excuses.

(c)   As there are so many perspectives about when the life in the womb can be regarded as a person, if no brain wave is accepted as “no person”, then such intended abortion cannot be rejected. There is no murder for there is “no person” to be killed.]

Leave alone the question of whether this act was itself moral, but as stated by the Italian law, women had the right to choose an abortion on the condition that the going-to-be aborted infant did not have a possibility to live separately from the mother.

[Italian law is similar to UK law under EC law together, I suppose.

The mother appears to be sensible and reasonable, making decision only after obtaining full diagnostic report and understanding from the doctors.

She has fulfilled the expected requirement of due diligence and care, and considered the “expected future hard (but is it a sufficient ground? Some critics may demand. But as said above, the mother actually need not justify the abortion in week 22) life of her disabled baby without dignity.

Her decision to abort the foetus should be brave and sound. (We should assume all mothers are caring mother.)

She cannot just hold wait and see attitude causing delay and facing more risks and danger.

She has committed to a pre-term abortion, better than a late-term abortion.

She should be pitied rather than condemned.

She can only rely on doctors’ assessment and judgment that the “baby at birth” will not be capable of leading an independent life.]

What made the case more entangled was that the infant miraculously survived after the abortion procedure yet was left by the doctor and other hospital staffs to die! Not until a priest went to pray beside the baby was this mishap noticed by anyone.

[(a) Either the doctors might have made wrong assessment and judgment, or this particular foetus’ physical development is exceptional- a deviation from normal.

(b) If it should be the former, the doctors might be liable to conviction of murder NOT BECAUSE OF LETTING DIE but in view of the fact that such abortive medical act aims at causing death of such foetus inside the womb has become unsuccessful in failure, and a birth ensues, yet the neonate lives awhile but dies as a result of injuries sustained in the earlier attempt to destroy it, a verdict of murder or manslaughter may ensue.

(c) The moral ground for such severe accusation of the doctors is the non-acceptance of failure in handling an abortion of a pre-term child being born alive outside from the womb, and such a child should become a person, and its destruction may be regarded as destruction of a person, and that means homicide or murder.

(d) Therefore we do not even need to ask whether “letting die” should be the ground for conviction of murder or manslaughter. In fact we should not take “letting die” as the ground in confusing with involuntary passive euthanasia, which is legally permissible.

A number of controversial arguments should be considered in this case, and they are:

1)      The infant who was aborted evidenced that it could literally live independently from its mother (outside her womb) for two days, should it then be regarded as, although premature,  a ‘real’ human being?

[Yes, it is thus defined as a person having independent respiration for 2 days. BUT the doctors can also defend that it is NOT a person because there is no EEG brain wave pattern. Human Being real or NOT is the issue. Arguments only restrict to perception of “person and personhood”.]

2)      If so, should the operation decided by the mother and performed by the doctor be considered as Intentional Murder instead of an abortion?

[Definitely NOT an intended murder because there is no person in the womb. The intention is merely abortion within the normally accepted first 24 weeks. BUT there might have been professional negligence during operation for the abortion.]

3)      Once born alive, the infant was officially an Italian citizen and should be entitled to all of the citizen rights.

[Not really as the “so-called person” outside the womb actually has no EEG brain wave, no personhood and rationality so the status as a “person’ is unsafe and in doubt.]

4)      Was it morally or legally justified for the doctor to simply walked out of the door and leave it to die?

[Yes, both morally and legally. The foetus outside womb is definitely pre-mature for further healthy development outside mother’s womb. There is NO potential, capacity and prospect of successful growth development, no hope, and a desperate case. What’s wrong is not “letting die” as it might have been regarded as “dead” without EEG brain wave. so “letting die” is a wrong  impression as there can never be “letting the dead die”.

5)      And was it morally right for its mother to abandon it?

[Yes, sorry about that. She cannot keep the “dead” forever and make it alive again.]

6)      Undoubtedly that every couples prefer their children to be able-bodied and healthy for reasons like, being healthy leads to a more satisfactory life, having a disabled children would increase the burden (mental and financial) on the couples etc, but was it a strong enough reason for the mother to abort the infant just because it failed to attain her expectation?

[Sorry, but the questions appear unfair to the mother, being just an outsider’s own speculation and private query unrelated to the mother’s own perception, feeling, and personal ground for discretionary decision. The mother has sole discretion.]

7)      If so, would it be justified for a mother to abandon her child who has experienced a tragic accident and was subsequently disabled?

[They are different. To distinguish the two scenarios is simple: that the week 22 foetus is not just disabled but arguably a recognizable “person” who is already dead without EEG brain wave despite 2 days of “independent living with heartbeat and/or respiration”. A living child after accident is still a living child if he is saved alive despite disability after the accident. The child is a living person no doubt. Of course the mother should not abandon the child morally and cannot abandon the child in breach of laws.]

CONCLUSION:

(a)   If we accept EEG wave pattern as the sign for “person” and a recognized life, yet the above tragic happening may arise and becoming disturbing, we may have to ask again whether EEG brain wave should be a reliable test for existence of “person and personhood”.

(b)   If not, then the permission for abortion within the first 24 weeks should be pushed back further to an earlier date and a shorter period after conception.

(c)   Certainly up to now, no theory on definition of “beginning of a person and personhood” is absolutely free from any flaw.

(d)   Abortion should neither be promoted nor prohibited unless there is truth in flawless theory on either side pro-life or pro-choice. So far, it appears nil.

How UK Laws may consider death of babies in- or out-side the womb pre-, or at-birth , and post- natal deaths

Information from SWAN = Stephen Wan
Subject: How the laws take care of controversial death of foetuses in UK
(Indirectly provides us some realistic frames of reference for our discussion on moral grounds for abortion):-


Starting from a case A-G's Reference (no. 3 of 1994), the HL confirmed, obiter, previous understanding that to detsroy a viable foetus, however late in term, would not constitute any form of homicide.

(a) This is so whether the life of the foetus is destructed in the womb or whether the foetus is to be stillborn (i.e. dead at birth, NOT dead after birth).

(b) To attain personhood status, the live foetus' whole body must emerge into the world and at once sustain an independent existence from the mother no matter how brief the time is. [a test of independent respiration is favoured as reliable]

COMMENT:
(i) Of course, the pro-life anti-abortionist group will find this legislation horrible that even the foetus is a life but it never attains personhood until after birth with immediate independent respiration for existence.
(ii) And inside the womb, such a foetus life is NOT a person, and any treatment causing its death will not be regarded as murder or homicide (reason: no "person", no murder).
(iii) In other words, even though we know that as late as the 8th month (as long as the foetus is inside the womb), the foetus is pretty much the "same " as a neonate (a baby less than one month old after birth) - no further metamorphic development, recognition is given only to the baby after birth as a person in disregard of its health or physical fitness. That inside the womb, no matter how healthy, is given no such recognition.

(c) Therefore the legal confernment of personhood reflects a societal perceptions which are not underpinned by biological data.

(d) As a result, no murder, but only child destruction or unlawfully procuring miscarriage may be charged against a defendant whose unjustifiable or inexcusable act causes death of the foetus as long as the dead foetus remains inside the womb.

COMMENT:
The penalty on sentencing under such charges would be not be as severe as that under charge of murder.

(e) BUT if such act aims at casung death of such foetus inside the womb but has become unsuccessful, and a birth ensues, yet the neonate lives awhile but dies as a result of injuries sustained in the earlier attempt to detroy it, a verdict of murder or manslaughter may ensue.

(f) BUT please also note that a LAWFUL abortion may be allowed normally within the first 24 weeks . Cases when the babies should be born with serious deformities and handicap but only found out after the first 24 weeks, special permission shall have to be applied.

COMMENT:
Therefore, abortion purely can be decided even without the husband's consent, if the pregnant woman herself thinks fit. The foetus belongs to her alone for its fate. Under UK law, nobody can interrupt her decision, but a doctor can refuse to carry out abortion for her. She still needs two doctors' certification, both physically and psychologically fit for aborting her child foetus.

(g) a pre-term child born alive outside from the womb should become a person, and its destruction may be regarded as destruction of a person, and that means homicide or murder.

(h) A Late-term child birth in death due to infliction of pre-birth injuries still would not amount to the killing of a person (as firmly held by HL). But if it has been alive for even a short while (has become a person), then there is an offence (murder, manslaughter, child destruction...)

COMMENT (quoted from **):
It is believed that the receptuion of a child into the world after the point of birth is an event of enormous culturla significance, laden with symbolism. These social facts receive more weight than biological data facts when resolving the parameters of the law of homicide.

[** All the above points (except seveal COMMENT)  AND  the last COMMENT with (**) are extracted from Criminal Law: theory and doctrine, by A. P. Simester & G. R. Sullivan, Oxford- Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2000, page 321]

HL stands for House of Lords

Phased & Substance Sortals: Existence and continued existence

When we discuss and argue about moral possibility of toleration or acceptance of abortion, we should learn the divergent opinions on concept of identity, existence and continued existence in order to hopefully grasp some clearer understanding of a life, person or person and personhood, and a thing, and whether a life is a thing or beyond a thing.

To gain more fruitful discussion, we should learn logician's concept of sortals:
(a) phased sortals,
(b) substance sortals

and try to understand statements like:
(a) A phased sortal designates a kind to which an individual may belong through only part of its history.
(b) A substance sortal designates a kind to which an individual necessarily belongs throughout its entire existence.

and
(i) If "x" is a substance sortal, there are criteria for being an "x" that any "x" must satisfy as long as it exists.

(ii) The criteria given by the substance sortal appear to state only a NECESSARY condition for the continued existence of an individual of the kind "x". It is not always SUFFICIENT for the continued existence of an individual "x" that, beginning with that individual, one can trace the continuous presence through space and time of an "x".

The above relates to the problem we come across when we face diffculties in agreeing on personal identity over time and ask what is necessarily involved in our continued existence. For one could cease to be a person without ceasing to exist, just as a child  may cease to be a child without ceasing to exist, [for example].

[The above are extracted out from J. McMahan's The Ethics of Killing: Problems at The Margins of Life, Oxford: OUP, page 6 & 7 (2002)]

Concerning the physical criterion of personal identity, at least 3 important questions have been asked by D. Parfit in his book: Resons and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon (1987) , page 202:-
(a) What is the nature of a person?
(b) What makes a person at 2 different times one and the same person? What is necessarily involved in the continued existence of each person over time?
(c) What is in fact involved in the continued existence of each person over time?

Please do not just limit oour thoughts on abortion when we read and re-read the above questions.

Please also think about whether there are contradictions, dilemma and paradoxes already "built-in" or concealed behind the questions that even Parfit, and later, McMahan, may have missed out in their discussions.

The above questions, no matter what, do open up our visions and at the same time, define more clearly some crucial points and scope that we should not ignore when we try to justify the pro-choice or pro-life positions on the topic about abortion.

The above questions help us check whether we may come into agreement on what we mean by "organism", "human", "human organism", and "human being".

Later, I may try to provide some more details on sortals and recognition as part of my studies about "stages, sortals and possible world" as written by A. Brennan

Arguments for or against the 4 Points of Time for Commencement of a Person

(1) At fertilization (conception in human beings):-
Yes, there is a zygote and then embryo, a new genome, and a strong argument from the potential perspective, to hold it as the commencement of a living human person, to many theologians and ethicists.
BUT

(a) 59-60% of all human embryos conceived (WITHOUT induced abortion) still cannot survive but 'miscarried" before th 8th week of pregnancy 'naturally'.

(b) Science at the moment perhaps still cannot answer for sure that fertilization (conception) as the meeting process of two cells (sperm and ovum) must be the sine qua non (an absolutely indispensable thing) of personhood.

(c) The essential discovery is: In marmoset monkeys, parthenogentic embryos can develop and successfully implant in the uterus. (i.e. need no sperm)

(d) Hence science cannot claim that creation of a new genome as a result of conception must be the absolutely indispensable point of time for commencement of personhood, and cannot even claim that conception is the sine qua non of development of the new individual organism.

(2) Acquisition of an Individual Physical Identity:-
An embryo may develop into twins within 14 days of fertilization (gastrulation), and if that does not happen, then it normally will be growing up into a single person, and so also may be supposed to be the start of personhood. In favour of this view, there are-

(a) scientists doing biomedical research on embryonic stem cells critically take refernce of this very important time slot.

(b) theologians talk about "ensoulment" during the short period  within 12- 14 days of fertilization by the obvious assumption that souls must be unique and separate to individuals including twins, and the time of souls entering the body as a metaphysical event must not be earlier than the first 12 days and not later than the 14th day.

(3) Acquisition of the Human EEG (Brainwave pattern):-
From "neurological" view of life, life only begins on acquisition of brain wave pattern bewteen 24-27 weeks of embryo development. Why?

(a) Actual connection between nervous system and the cerebral nerves only start in significant numbers from 7th month onward.

(b) Such synaptical connections allow communication and then coordination of neural activities  facilitating conscious awareness which to some ethicists, defines  personhood (only from this stage onward), as supported by this neurological view.

(4) Life begins at Birth:-
Why?
(a) Basically, the new genome (DNA) with the embryo alone cannot form the blue print for personhood. as the individual's trait and characteristics.

(b) There must be interaction of genetic DNA with the environmental variables throughout the process of development in the mother's womb that results in human characteristics.

(c) Therefore mother's womb is not a vessel, and the mother's body is a participant to help form the personhood of the baby during the full period of pregancy.

[The above discussions are mainly extracted and/ or paraphrased out from Alton, Althea K's "Staying Within an Understanding Distance"- One Feminist's Scientific and Theological Reflections on Pregnancy and Abortion]

Scientists' View: The Point Where Human Life Begins

According to Gilbert et. al. (2005) Bioethics and the New Embryology:-
There are at least 4 stages of human development that different scientists have asked us to consider as the point at where human life begins-

(a) Fertilization (the acquisition of a complete and novel genome)
(b) Gastrulation (the acquisition of an individual physical entity)
(c) EEG activation (the acquisition of the human-specific electroencephalogram, or brain wave pattern)
(d) The time of, or surrounding, birth (the acquisition of independent breathing and viability outside the mother)

Do classmates agree on the above, and know about the days or weeks after conception for reaching the above stages?

There are other more detailed sub-stages to be discussed later.

性愛的義務（如果有的話）

當人享受性愛帶來的快樂的同時，究竟人又有沒有必要為這與生俱來的權利去履行一些義務？

必須呈清一點，這裡所指「性愛的義務」並不是說「性愛是男女伴侶之間的義務」或「性愛是女人對丈夫 / 男朋友履行的義務」這類意思。一如開宗明義所說，是針對純性愛活動內參與者的權利與義務來提出討論。

在墮胎網誌中提出「性愛的義務」很明顯地讓人聯想到懷孕與生育。的確，本文想探討的正是這老掉牙的題材。從自然界法則去看，性行為之後繁殖下一代是正常不過的事情，為什麼今天人在享受性愛的同時，卻爭取不履行生育的義務呢？甚至試圖把這種免疫制定為一種合法權利？

當然，避孕已經成為「普世價值」的今天，來討論「性愛的義務」是否太落伍？太費時失事？不過這裡必須強調，如命題所示討論重點是「性愛的義務」，而不是「生育的義務」。

關於墮胎這個題材向來正反意見充斥，各有各的論點亦各自捍衛不同而一樣可貴的人類精神價值，而本文的目的是，當各種正反價值都無法在理性上凌駕對方的時候，嘗試回到最基本，甚麼前人定下的倫理價值都撇開不談，都不計算在內，只單純去看性愛活動，試圖從中找出性愛行為與墮胎的關係，從中找出結論。

簡單一點說，如果一個人只追求性愛的快樂，以此為其生存的重要目的，其他精神價值他都不在乎，在這樣的假設下，是否她（或他）就可以理直氣壯的進行墮胎？

蜜蜂的理性決定

花吸引蜜蜂來採花蜜，從而讓花粉散播，從而達到繁殖的目的。有一天蜜蜂說，我只想採美味的花蜜來吃，但不想再碰那些花粉，並想盡辦法不去碰他們，也為這種行為想出很多符合理性的理由（例如地球上太多花的話就沒有樹立足的地方），從而讓不碰花粉這種行為合埋化。

這個例子會令人聯想到什麼呢？可能有些人會想：「好呵，我不跟你辯，你們確有這個自由，又看看將來會如何（廣東話：我放長雙眼睇你將來會點）。」心裡卻想，你們這麼自私看看會嘗到什麼惡果。

如果每隻蜜蜂都這樣做的話，雖然花還有其他自然方法繁殖，但沒有了蜜蜂的途徑，而蜜蜂

不斷採花蜜，像蝗蟲一樣，不停掠奪別的生物的成果，而沒有貢獻，總會供不應求，密蜂最後也享受不到花蜜了。

一些人不想生育，卻想一直追求、一直享受性愛的快樂，會否又是另一種蝗蟲表現？性愛行為由人促成，沒有人自然就沒有屬於人類的性愛活動的出現。如果你有 100 歲命，贊成墮胎的你又會否擔心，到老時再難找到新「對手」呢？

事實上，從這角度出發，贊成墮胎的想法會否是一種反對性愛的表現？如果你喜歡性愛，理性角度看你絕不應該贊成墮胎，因為這是最基本的市場供求關係法則。

（代續）

Repost: The Judith Thomas’s Burglar Analogy

“If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, “Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.” It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.”

“Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not—despite the fact that you voluntarily open your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won’t do—for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a army.”

The Burglar analogy pointing out the parents should not have responsibility for their own children to those “violinists”, “burglars”, or “person-plants”. Does the parents haven’t any responsibility or duty to their children even they have already taken precaution to avoid pregnancy? Since the World haven’t prefect contraception methods, or even those men and women think that coitus interruptus (體外排精) be avoiding pregnancy. It does not mean that they do not have any responsible for the foreseen results of actions. Abortion seems not a reason for relieving their responsibility.

Cars are vehicles that you normally should have control over. Imagine that car is becoming fully automatic control by artifactual intelligence technique or computer. You are the owner and driver of this car, and it hit a truck. I think that you still have some kinds of responsibility for this accident. Based on this thought experiment, I think that Judith Thomson’s Burglar Analogy is not strong enough to convincing me to accept abortion. 

Repost: The bodily integrity objection against the Violinist Analogy

In violinist analogy, unplugging that caused a separation between the violinist and you. If we considering the “unplugging” was replaced by freeing yourself from the violinist by poisoning him or putting him through a powerful suction machine like a jet engine. Thomson’s violinist analogy might not simply separating themselves or cutting a cord that links victim to the violinist. So the methods are actually used for abortion might eventually affecting our decision. The most commonly used methods of abortion like suction curettage, dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction or partial-birth abortion and induction, those methods killing the fetus by mangling or poisoning in order to remove it from the uterus. Based on consideration of administration method of abortion, the violinist analogy may fail to criticize under the situations of (1) direct intervention against the body of the fetal human, and (2) the death of the human being in uterus is directly caused by this intervention.

If pregnancy is an accident, who own it, why, and what may be implied?

SWAN = Stephen Wan's View:
________________________

One cannot have sex with oneself. In normal sex intercourse, there must be one man and one woman. (In this discussion we do not include orgy, gay or lesbian sex.)

Nowadays:
(a) a woman may want to play multi-roles: wife, mother, career woman...
(b) Some may want to be wives only without children, and prefer to work as career women.
(c) Some may want to be just career women and never get married.
(d) Some may opt for other plans but never want any children no matter what, etc.

In (b), (c), (d) above and even in (a) above if the mother does not want any more baby, pregnancy must be avoided in sex intercourse. If there is pregnancy, it becomes an undesirable outcome of an accident.

Instead of seeking abortion as the only feasible solution to deal with such accident, we should ask a question first. Whose accident is it?

Since the man and the woman (2 persons) together in sex and then the accident happens, so the accident happens because of 2 persons, NOT the woman alone. At least we must say the accident belongs to 2 persons (man and woman), and in fact, should be PLUS such accident also belongs to society if the baby can be allowed to be given birth as well as if the baby is not allowed to be given birth under abortion. Why? Because both involve tax payers' monies for provisions of  hospitals, and schooling (if there is birth).

Therefore, the argument that abortion is the pregnant woman's own private business is NOT valid. It is NOT her own private accident. It is also NOT the 2 sex partners' own private accident. It is a PUBLIC accident!

Because PUBLIC expenditure for provisions of medical asistance and facilities are involved, how to deal with outcome of such an accident becomes a PUBLIC issue, NOT a private business or issue at home. The pregnant woman alone has NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT to claim that she alone and only she alone has the authority to deal with the outcome of such accident.

On surface, the accident happens in her body in the uterus. This is not totally true as such accident cannot be separated from the context of society in which the 2 persons live.. The accident happens because of joint actions of 2 persons (man and the woman) in sex intercourse. The accident happens in the community and society where these 2 persons are members. The pregnant woman has no absolute right to ignore her sex partner and the community when she is seeking abortion or other way to deal with the outcome of such an accident.

Pro-abortionists' arguments, and Thomson's principles of arguments have assumed that the pregnant woman has absolute right to choose abortion her own way of dealing with the outcome of pregnancy as an accident. Such assumption has denied other owners of such accident- the man's right AND the rights of the society in which such accident happens. Such assumption is NOT appropriate. It appears 'kind' to the pregnant woman but actually 'extremely cruel and unreasonable' to the pregnant woman! By granting the pregnant woman the so-called right to her own body is actually pushing the responsibility to the pregnant woman alone. This is NOT fair to her. Neither is it fair to her sex partner and to the community.

Therefore the pregnant woman has no absolute right to proclaim, "It is my body. No one can interfere with my decison on how to deal with 'my accident'. I am my own judge to define what is right and what is wrong in the way dealing with the accident." No, she should not be allowed to claim sole ownership of such an outcome of pregnancy as an accident..

Since she shares ownership of such accident, she must share the views and opinions of others. All parties concerned should be responsible for offering help and assistance if the joint decision is to forbid abortion.

When the 2 joint owners (husband and wife) of a house have caused a fire of their house, such a fire as their accident also belongs to the neigbourhood and community. Why? Obviously because they cannot just choose their own way of dealing with a fire accident. They need firefighting services. They need post-fire assistance, and advice, etc. SAME with pregnancy as an accident, abortion may not be the only way or appropriate way to deal with pregnancy as an accident. The pregnant woman has no absolute right to insist upon solely on single option of abortion as the dealing method. Rather she has the responsibility to listen to other owners of such an accident. She has to take others' opinion and recommendation even though her body appears to be her own. Her body WITHOUT the foetus/baby may be her own, but her body WITH the foetus/baby may not belong to her alone anymore as soon as she becomes pregnant as an accident. There are other owners of such accident, as deducted above!

"Should one chops off a toe to avoid the lugworm?"

SWAN = Stephen Wan's Opinion:
__________________________

(1) In Hong Kong, we have a proverb laughing at people's ludicrous reaction in avoiding trouble-

"Chop off (get rid of) the toe to escape from the lugworm (a trouble)"

(2) If there is such a woman who really chops off her toe to escape from the lugworm, we will ask:-
(a) Is this woman crazy?
(b) Then some of us may say,
"Oh, the toe belongs to the woman. She can do anything she likes to her toe as part of her body. Nobody should interfere with her decision to chop off (get rid of) her own toe."

[President Bill Clinton once said that a woman should be allowed to get rid of ('cut-away'/ remove) her foetus/baby inside her womb, as part of her own body.]

(c) Some may add a further comment,
    "Well, the woman can chop off her toe by herself. She need nobody's help. She is really free to do that. Whether she is crazy or not, we should not query. She has her own autonomy. She is an adult who knows how to take care of her own body. She has personhood"

[In abortion, however, the pregnant woman does need medical help. Some may even need surgical operation depending on the stage of maturity of the foetus.]

(d) In the case with the woman chopping off her toe, we (100%) will say,
"This woman must be crazy.
Why?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (the trouble). We should never help her to chop off her toe.
Why?
Because we know this is torture. This is grievous bodily harm. Whoever helps her chop off her toe commits a SILLY crime.
WHY SILLY?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (trouble).
Why should she cut away her toe?
Why can't the woman be more sensible to her toe as part of her own body, be more creative to seek other solution, or to listen to other people's advice rather than getting her mind stuck in a dead end!"

(2) Thomson and pro-abortionists (president Bill Clinton for example) do talk in the same way:
"Because the baby/ foetus (a trouble) belongs to the pregnant woman, as part of her body, nobody but herself can decide how to deal with her own foetus/baby (trouble). If she wants abortion (cut-off/ remove the baby/ foetus), she must be absolutely free to do that. Medical help must be provided."

[BUT haven't we all agreed that it is crazy to chop-off the toe (as part of the body) to avoid the lugworm (trouble)?]

(3)We can find that the LOGIC of Thomson and pro-abortionists appear NOT sound:
(a) in the case with the woman chopping off the toe, the trouble is the lugworm;
(b) in the case with the pregnant woman, the trouble is the foetus;
(c) both women are free to remove their troubles;
(d) in the case with lugworm (trouble), the silly removal method is by chopping off the toe (as part of her body) by the woman herself;
(e) in the case with foetus/baby (trouble), the removal method is by cutting away (getting rid of) the foetus/baby (as part of her body) which is also the trouble itself. Is it silly too?
(f)So the BIG questions are:
- Why the healthy toe as part of the body should NOT be chopped off?
- Why the healthy foetus/baby( argued by Thomson and pro-abortionists) as part of the body should be allowed to be 'cut-away'/removed?
(g) Thomson and pro-abortionists may argue:
- The lugworm is a trouble the woman hates;
- The foetus is a trouble the pregnant woman hates;
- The woman is actually free to chop-off her toe when she hates the lugworm even when we find her silly.
- The pregnant woman should also be free to 'cut-away'/remove her foetus when she hates her foetus even when we find her silly.
(h)- Lugworm is EXTERNAL. The woman hates the lugworm (NOT part of her body). She does NOT hate her toe as part of her body. She only wants to avoid the lugworm. She chops-off her toe as part of her body. Of course we all laugh at her. She is silly!
   - Foetus is INTERNAL. The pregnant woman hates the foetus (BUT it is part of her body). SHE HATES PART OF HER OWN BODY. SHE wants to avoid the foetus. She ASKS DOCTORS TO DO THE JOB OF 'cutting-away' her foetus as part of her body.
(i) Why should we allow the pregnant woman to hate the foetus as part of her body?
We have already recognized that
toe (as part of the body) is NOT = lugworm
therefore we should NOT chop-off the toe to avoid the lugworm.
Is foetus = toe?
Pro-abortionists will have to say:
foetus = lugworm = trouble
(j) BUT lugworm is NOT part of the body
    Only toe = foetus = part of the body
  
    BUT a healthy toe is NEVER a trouble, so how can a healthy foetus be a trouble as part of the body?
    The ONLY possibilities are:
    (i) The pregnant woman sees the healthy foetus as an alien lugworm. Should we provide counselling services to help her and advise her to change her weird perception?
   (ii) The foetus is fatal to the pregnant mother. Only a sick (NOT healthy) foetus can threaten the health and life of the pregnant woman.

(4) (a) Therefore it appears unsafe to allow freedom to abortion to anyone with new law of encouragement. Sociologists should promote the requirement of more counselling services in societies to really help pregnant women in trouble rather than promoting the concept that a foetus is definitely a trouble as long as a pregnant woman sees it as an alien 'lugworm'.
     (b) The trouble is the mindset of the woman, never the healthy foetus, never the healthy toe, both as really part of the body ('part of the body' are words in description in Thomson's and pro-abortionists' arguments).
     (c) Pregnant women should be advised to love every part of her body, even a sick toe or a sick foetus, whenever possible.
     (d) Thomson and Bill Clinton should advise pregnant women to love every part of their bodies, the toes and foetuses alike. Indiscriminate cutting-away healthy toes or healthy foetuses are both silly and unnecessary.
     (e) There should be always other ways to solve problems and deal with troubles. Healthy toes and healthy foetuses cannot be troubles. Troubles always lie with the troubled mindsets of some pregnant women only, NOT all.
     (f) Such minority of troubled mindsets should be helped with counselling services, NOT to be presumed representative as norms for justifications at any time anywhere under all normal circumstances in all societies.

Is mother's life more important than fetus?

Before we discussed the problem of moral. Sometimes, it is difficult to be rational. It is because it always invloded feeling. Regarding the fetus, it can be treating as the potentials life when the couple wants to have the baby. They would expect the fetus becomes the baby. Then, the baby will grow up as the meaningful person in the society. Oppositely, if the mother would like to determined the life of fetus, the fetus would be treating as killing the animals for serving the meal. It does not have any value. In fact, the fetus which does not have any thinking until the baby is completely born. The concept of fetus existing is completely given by the mother or human being. As a result, if mother decision and life should be more imprtant than fetus.

Testing 1

Testing 1

Testing

Testing

A Less Than 28 Days' Old Foetus: a Thing or a Life?

Stephen Wan's Personal Understanding and Observation:

100 out of 100 women, on hearing the doctor's confirmation that they are pregnant, be they happy or sad, normally would exclaim:-
"Oh, really, my God, I am pregnant... I have a baby!"

Normally none would coldly respond and say, "Well, I have a THING inside me!"

Some pregnant women, when they calm down later, may consider their private situations (poverty, loss of love, being already separated from their boyfriends or husbands, or physical illnesses and weaknesses) and change their minds instead, then seeking the option avoiding the 9 months' burden of conceiving their babies. That moment on, they seek professional opinion and professionals all try to be scientific, talk about "right", personhood, autonomy, consciousness, etc. only to ease these pregnant women's psychological tensions, convince them finally that what there are inside wombs are just THINGS, not exactly true lives, not babies, and they are free to be determined, to look for doctors to move out their THINGS at their own discretion. Instead of helping the hesitant pregnant women to treasure lives (future babies inheriting their genes), these professionals handle their jobs purely as jobs only. They themselves have no motherhood and they talk as if there is no motherhood, no blood -tie intimacy, no value and no meaning for the process of conception, and meaning of life and the world only should base on so-called "right" (and "adult right only"), nothing else. Such absolutism itself is dogmatic, like any other dogma, becomes tricky trap against other alternative reasoning!

Please have mercy. It is against nature to say there is a THING (as if it is lifeless or malignant like a tumor or cancerous growth) inside the womb of a pregnant woman. "There is a baby!"

If a pregnant woman coldly demand: "I have a THING inside my womb. Doctor, please help remove it!" The problem lies NOT with the foetus. The problem lies with the woman who at that moment may have lost motherhood and at that moment cannot act as a true mother anymore. BUT can she be kind enough to let "her baby" come up into this world under her kind permission and perseverence in 9 months' time and then she can quit, proud of herself, leaving "her baby" to be taken care of in a foster home, rather than "killing her THING and then feeling guilty afterwards"?

Isn't it unreasonable and weird when you hear a woman shout with her finger pointing to her belly, "Oh no, I have a THING inside me. Please help. I want it out now. Be quick, please help!" Most pregnant women cry instead. What they need should be counselling and support, and social welfare, not a shortcut medical skill to kill a life- the baby or foetus.

Already an Era with Adequate Means to Avoid Pregnancy

Stephen Wan's Perception of Our Modern Age: An Era with More Than Adequate Means to Avoid Pregnancy under any Circumstances Whatsoever

(1) Nowadays, convenient access to obtain medications, preventive means and devices, contraceptives, condoms, before any act of sex intercourses, and even post-rape medications and drug formulations to avoid pregnancy immediately after the criminal case is reported, all imply that unwanted pregnancy actually are substantially reduced in civilized societies!

(2) (a)Therefore it seems that unwanted pregnancy becomes a problem, surprisingly indeed, and instead, to normal couples. There may be change in family's financial situations, change of mind simply because of change in the couple's relationship (no more love, say), or the unwanted pregnancy may be a problem outcome of casual sex intercourses between very young and immature yonths at puberty who are ignorant or who are afraid of reporting their problems to their parents early enough.
     (b) Problems can be solved, never should reach a dead end, but death of the silent foetus will be a dead end. Should adults' problems be excuses for aborting  foetuses to get rid of "lives in the wombs of mothers' inner bodies" so as to "solve the problems in the external irresponsible adults' world"?? We must not forget that all adults suffer in this world with never ending misfortune and problems of this and that everyday!
     (c) Adults need love and have sex intercourses when they feel depressed with problems. When they have babies in wombs after sex, they are depressed again with the foetuses in the wombs as problems. They do not blame themselves for abusing freedom but instead they further abuse their freedom by demanding abortion to kill lives caused by their prior sex acts in relief. How can they justify love between adults should bring forth death to a third living entity, the foetus, their invitee to this world, after their making love?

Personhood? Why not also define motherhood?

Stephen Wan's Thoughts on Importance of Motherhood Before and After Birth of a Baby:-

(1) Should we consider the prospect- physical and psychological, for healthy development of foetus either with or without true mother's love and care, and in case "without", any other options or means to remedy the situation with help and assistance such as adoption, with foster home care and love, or improved orphanage care?

(2) In other words, should priority on saving life of foetus be always the rule, and all pregnant women without physical health problem must not demand abortion? And let society take care of the baby afterwards if the mother really refuses to act as the baby's mother?

(3) There are fosterlings who have lost touch with true parents, yet leading very successful life and demonstrating respectable personhood. Their achievement may never compensate their feeling of loss without true parents' love, but they may also have to admit that their foster homes may also have provided excellent care and love that even true parents may not provide or be able to provide the same as nice and as lovely. From this perspective, motherhood is not the monopoly of true mother and may be available should there be well educated and very kind foster homes.

(4) While we should pity a pregnant woman who has lost her interest in the baby foetus, or who has become pregnant owing to some accidental unplanned reasons, we should be also open minded to accept that such a pregnant woman may also have totally lost the expected attitude, psychological preparation, and clear mindset commonly found with true motherhood. She may turn out to be a threat to the new born baby if abortion is disallowed. BUT how can we base on this potential risk to justify killing of the foetus and get rid of a future baby? If she really may become a threat to her own baby, she can be either temporarily or permanently separated from her own new born baby! It seems there should be no justifiable ground for anyone to help "bully" and kill the foetus, a true living entity?

(5) Therefore it may be essential and critical that scope, meaning and implication of true, lost, and foster motherhoods, should be identified, studied, and defined if we would like to ask whether it is right or wrong to adopt abortion.

space-time-causality

Stephen Wan's Proposed Study about The Need for Consideration of Space-Time-Causality:

(1) Conception (why a foetus can be conceived)?

(a) Normally a possible outcome of sex intercourse, but sex intercourse can be a result of
-mutual consent bewteen wife and husband,
-mutual consent between a woman and a man without marital relation,
-rape and indecent assault,
-immature sex between a girl and a male and a female with a boy, or a girl and a boy intentionally or under confusion,

(b) accidental outcome even under normal sex intercourse with contraceptives and other precautions

(2) There are extreme views:

(a) NOT to consider any of the above causes, not to trace back why and how comes the foetus-
-let the pregnant mother decide, and nobody should stop her from saving or aborting the foetus. All decisions solely at her discretion with perhaps some medical advice only.
- or just the opposite, people try hard to list out virtue rules and universal principles or duties that no pregnant women should contravene, in other words, let society decide.

(b) MUST consider the above causes, and provide ethical criteria on basis of the various causes and then let society and the pregnant women to follow and comply with "reason" and "justification" in case by case method.

(3) There is also PRAGMATIC view:-
Whichever views above to be taken, priority is to consider the situation from the medical health perspective-
-physical health of both foetus and mother
-mental condition of the mother
-psychiatric consideration
-family and social welfare back-up and support --enough or not?

** No matter what, the "fate" or "status" of the foetus is actually worse than that of a tree or pet like a dog.
A tree or a pet dog can be loved or treasured for ecological, environmental protection or animal right reason, no matter how poor the economy or how poor the pet dog owner is. Therefore the BIG query remains: Why a valuable life in a foetus can be disposed like trash under abortion without the need for consideration of space-time-causality?

** A mentally sick man who likes to rape women can be jailed but not killed. He is definitely an enemy to all women, and a threat at any time. In so-called civilized society, he will never be castrated or imposed death penalty, and no one and no woman can claim that for self defence reason, we must kill him or castrate him. A foetus may irritate only the mother but never a threat and never an enemy at all to any other women and society.A living foetus is not a mentally sick man (even such a mentally sick man is protected in law under human right). Why can't a living foetus be protected for other sound reason if not human right? A dog is also not human, also no personhood but can be protected. A tree of lower consciousness is also protected. Why not a living foetus? Unless the pregnant mother is both physiologically and mentally sick, why a healthy woman should be allowed to get rid a life-- a future human life?

a baby is really a talent of your house ?

but he / she will be an owner after 10 months...

( testing sample 2b. post article by email )

no one has the right to terminate the other 's life

... though it happens everyday everywhere.

( testing sample 1 )

some possible key terms and questions worthy of consideration

Stephen Wan's suggestions to study some potentially relevant key terms and situations:

(1) Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness discusses about her concept of and opinion on:
-sacrifice?
-hierarchy of rational values
-selfless love?
-disinterested love?
-life the source of all values?
-situations such as emergencies

(2) Other than insisting on "right" to mother and/or to the foetus, what else and what other perspectives may be considered?
-choice only? whose choice prevails? private only?
-one's life, who owns?
-a foetus' life, who owns?
-should owner dominate and have final say without any constraint?
-what about if the foetus should be the owner but a silent owner at the same time who never can resist any violence? Then who decides? Should a distressed owner be free to "kick-away" a temporarily deaf, dumb and blind tenant (even if we take up Judith Thomson's owner-tenant analogy)?

(3) Death is a dead end without recovery. If in court, capital punishment (i.e. death penalty) can never be imposed on any murder defendant should there be any reasonable doubt, why then we should volunteer to kill helpless and crime free foetus by encouraging and accepting abortion when most people (men and women) still find a lot of doubt about such killing (capital punishment or death penalty on the foetus)?

(4) Is a foetus an attacker assaulting a mother? If not, how to come up with justification of mother's "self-defence"? If only the pregant mother finds the foetus irritating as a nuisance, the mother should seek counselling advice and help from social welfare department, rather than seeking assistance to kill and remove the life of the foetus. It should perhaps be the foetus to look for "self-defence", not the mother.

(5) A foetus may be a deformed foetus absolutely without potentially healthy and conscious development, and some may endanger the life of the pregnant mothers at the same time. Then such foetus becomes very much like a tumor or cancerous organ which must be removed by surgical operation at once. Then it should be classified as emergency surgical operation and probably should not be classified as abortion.