(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]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
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）
Sunday, March 4, 2012
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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
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!
________________________
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!
Monday, February 27, 2012
"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.
__________________________
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)