2

June Maxwell

The law as it stands, allows any woman access to this medication for the purposes of her personal medical management: If some people find the law not to their liking, then their remedy is to campaign for it to be changed: Until that time, everyone must obey the law whether they like it or not: Shop assistants cannot act as moral dictators to those who happen to come into their shop for the pharmacy services they purport to offer; if this shop assistant’s faith (that is, her beliefs that have no evidence to support them) conflict with the job she is paid to do – the solution is clear, she ought not to be in that job:

Report abuse

4

Adrian

I believe the issue is one of ethics. When is a life a life? I believe it is when the sperm fertilises the egg. Any termination after this time is an abortion as far as I am concerned.

June I find your comments that people must obey the law as a bit disingenious as does it not depend on whether that law is ethical or not?

To take your comment to its logical conclusion you would have agreed with slavery because it was legal had you been around at that time.

This person shouldn’t be hounded because she feels the law is ethically wrong. Religion shouldn’t come into it as the basic question is is this cause of action ethically correct? Then you should ask what effect does this have on others (the potential baby) and do does anyone have a right to terminate anyone else’s life because they feel like it?

Just because a woman has made a mistake why should her rights to do as she wants outweight another’s? I am always of the opinion that prevention is better than cure. No one knows if abortion will prove to be the right course to take as some women regret their decision in later life. Maybe more emphisis should be put on not getting pregnant in the first place and what to do if you should become pregnant instead of trusting to luck?

As per religious beliefs or any other beliefs no one truely knows what is correct so they shouldn’t attack other because they believe something is wrong. What happens if they are proved right at the end of the day? Its a bit late to say sorry isn’t it?

Report abuse

6

Adrian

June human rights either exist or they don’t. I believe they cannot be altered to suit.

Does a human being have rights? I think you will find that everyone agrees they do.

What is the definition of a human? You have by default accepted the 24 week rule. I ask the question why is abortion legal up to 24 weeks but illegal the day after. This is but an arbitary line drawn by mankind. I believe that the beginning of life is where human rights begin not at some arbitary age after conception. Also why should one person’s rights over ride someone else’s?

What difference is there between a baby at 23 weeks and 6 days and 24 weeks 0 days in real terms? Nothing but one can be got rid of and one can’t. Why should rights become effective at 24 weeks for the baby and not before?

Terminates are done for every reason under the sun some will be because someone “feels” like it.

As per slavery there were laws making it legal
Would I be right to say you view slavery as ethically unsound or wrong but not abortion?

I can’t see how a humanist would support abortion as it upholds the right of one individual to terminate another. This is why I believe it is flawed to offer women this pill as a contraceptive as it is not.

I think it is dangerous to make human rights age dependent because they can then become open to abuse.

Report abuse

8

Adrian

Sorry to hear that June.

As per slavery unfortunately you were incorrect it was enshrined into law in the 18th century just look at American history and you will find it there. Therefore since it was legal under law I would take it you wouldn’t have opposed it then, as you would have been following the science and laws of the day?

As per science and laws you also realise these are flawed? The abortion law is a good example of this. So your whole argument as far as I am concerned is also flawed but you are entitled to your beliefs just as is everyone else to theirs.

Since you are a humanist you will recognise that everyone should take responsibility for their own actions and base their ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfillment for themselves and others. Note the word others.

Finally is it ethical to demand human right’s when these human right’s cut across another’s human right to life? I don’t see how it can be. But there’s the difference between you and me.

At the end of the day there can only be one correct answer. Once we leave this life we will find out.

One thing I believe in strongly is that we are here for a reason and it isn’t down to luck or a fluke of nature as most seem to believe today.

Report abuse

10

Adrian

Reg it is up to people to believe in their own religion. No one has all the answers because if they did they wouldn’t be here would they? I have never claimed I have all the answers or even very many, however I question everything and don’t believe things because the scientists or anyone else tell you. You obviously believe science is correct but I differ. There are many holes in their theories unfortunately, but people blindly go along with what they are told.

It would be interesting to see what happens when life is found on other planets etc. This will affect many of a religious and scientific belief as well.

Here’s one for you, different racial colourings, do you believe that we have all come from black people in the Kenyan Rift Valley, and changed colour as we moved northwards?

As I have mentioned before there is no difference between an abortion just under week 24 and one just beyond and that both are classified as living is beyond doubt. However one is legal and one isn’t. Ponder on that.

I have only tried to get answers from others as to what defines a human being, no one really has answered this. Upon this definition the whole apparatus of law making hangs. I am sure you are well aware that nothing is cast in stone and errors do occur in understanding, and therefore the laws. This is what I have been trying unsuccessfully to get across to people.

Report abuse

12

Adrian

Basically anyone who isn’t free is a slave. Since most people are not economically free they fall under this heading well done Islander. Change the Great Master to the Rich and Big Business and you have grasped what is going on.

It is good to see you follow the “science religion” and all that it entails. You have fallen into the trap of believing that science knows the all the answers when it doesn’t. It is just another control mechanism like religion.

However you are right in the fact that the world is over populated. What happens when any population gets to big? If you know anything about Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus you might be able to take a guess.

Report abuse

14

Michael Neal

#5 June Maxwell

‘Regardless of what you or any individual believes, two individuals cannot compete for the same set of human rights: Before 24 weeks, these rights belong to the woman and not a group of cells that may (or may not) develop into a human’

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Legally, a woman is able to choose to have a termination up to 24 weeks unless the foetus suffers an abnormality or the woman’s life in endangered in which case the woman can choose to have a termination any time up to term. But then, from a legal perspective, a foetus is not a ‘person’ until birth. Hence, someone who harms a pregnancy woman and kills the foetus cannot be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

The key question relating to termination of pregnancy is: when (if ever) does the foetus have the same rights as a human being living outside a uterus? The conventional approach taken by ethicists is that to look at the qualities that make humans what the philosopher Kant would call ‘objects of moral concern’. Such qualities might be sentience, autonomy, etc.

It is then possible to argue that, once the foetus has developed the same qualities as a humans, it should also be considered an ‘object of moral concern’. The philosopher Peter Singer has said that it is morally inconsistent to terminate pregnancies of foetuses with genetic disorders close to term because they possess the same qualities as babies.

The usual difference between people who are are pro- and anti-termination are that the latter believe the foetus or embryo becomes a subject of moral concern earlier than the latter, in some cases, at conception.

My feeling is that termination of pregnancy is about the rights of the foetus and the conflicting rights and duties of its mother.

Report abuse

16

Reginald Le Sueur

Adrian, You seem not to want to learn, only mock. I suggest you take the trouble to read a book instead of expecting me to do it for you; however, against -my better judgement:
1. Science works,–therefore its theories are correct enough in practice.Obviously one theory does not decribe the whole of reality. Science builds and flies aeroplanes; have you tried building a Boeing by prayer? Science flies you to the moon,–religion flies you into buildings.
2.It has been estimated that it would take 10,000 years(approx) for a black African tribe to turn Nordic white if they could adapt en route to the poles (ie by slow migration (not by Boeing)). I have explained the Darwinian mechanism;–Natural Selection of genes and phenotypes which have slowly changed by random mutation, sexual recombination, random genetic drift, and epigenetic switching on and off of genes; (work that lot out). Your criticism does not take into account the difference in times of adaptations between recent and far distant migrations; eg Inuit are of Mongol stock, while North Europeans have a more directly African migration pattern; Finns are of the same stock as Hungarians, and racially different from Danes, Swedes, Norwegians who went through a Germanic ancestry, rather than a Turk-Mongol one. Greenland is inhabited by mongoloid Inuits, and Iceland by blond Danish colonisers.
Everybody is mixed up. Native Americans are mongoloid and Siberian colnisers. White Americans are from Europe.Native Australians ander all over the land, going-walk-about, and are mainly in the very hot (like Africa) Northern territories. If you read a bit, you will learn that it is not “my position”, but that of the world scientific community. Whereas your unsupported “belief” is yours alone, apart from that of crackpot Creationists.
Anything else I can help you with?

Report abuse

18

Adrian

You believe in what you want to, that is your choice I have shown your flaws for what they are. Since the Aborigionals have lived in Australia for 60,000 years I would expect the ones living in Tasmania to be white wouldn’t you under your scientific remit? They have not mixed with anyone else unlike some other tribes you mention. They also don’t tend to walk all around Australia as you appear to think they have their own set areas for their own tribes.

If you want to carry this conversation maybe you could explain the pyramids then? The suppositions put forward for these defies believe yet Egyptologists swear blind their explanations are correct.

As I have said before science is but a control mechanism like religion that preceeded it. If you can’t see through this thats your problem.

Another obvious glaring problem is Newtonian science versus Einstein’s theories as well but I am sure you can easily explain that away as well.

Still no reply from June reference slavery being a law in the Americas. Obviously she made a mistake on that as well. As per the feotus it can survive pre 24 weeks so her analysis on that is also incorrect. To argue that because someone is dependent on others to live means that they have no rights is also rather an odd one to have.

My main point in all this is that it is difficult to define human rights if we can’t even agree on the definition of what constitutes a human being.

Report abuse

20

Reginald Le Sueur

Adrian. I deduce that you are a Creationist from your repeated irrational attacks on mainstream Science,–without evidence or justification,–eecept “belief”. If you are not one, then what is your agenda?
Native Tasmanians in fact colonised the island around 40,000 years ago, but were able to mix their genes with the Australian ones up to 10,000 yers ago, when the island became isolated from the rest of Australia. Tasmania is not as cold as the polar regions. I am not an expert, so why do you not consult experts instead of amateurs like me?
In your fiercely black and white view of the world, have you not considered the existence of “brown” people?–rather a lot of them. They can be considered to have acquired partial adaptation to climatic conditions,–which themselves are not constant anyway.
In Australia itself, I see no reason why the natives were not able to wander freely ,before arrival of the Europeans.
Are you now going to attack Egyptian archeology?–typical Creationist scattergun technique,–moving rapidly from one topic to another, before proper answers can be given to you. Science is a technique for investigating nature–that is all. Newton/Einstein is indeed easily explained,–you could do it youself if you took the trouble to learn about it. Newton is correct for subluminal velocities (substantially less than the speed of light),–but inadequate for relativistic speeds,–which were unmeasurable and unknown in Newtons day. So both of them are right,–in their proper domains. You could have Googled that yourself.–why so lazy? You should argue abortion with June,–it does not interest me so much.
As for absolute truths, I never claimed Science possesses it,-but only that we can get closer to some practical applications through using scientific methods. It may be impossible to ever observe ultimate reality–if there is such a thing. But as you are so contemptuous of rational methods, why don’t you explain to us in detail your method of arriving at your superior status over poor scientists. You can start with your own example, the Egyptian pyramids. Please tell us your detailed analysis of their origin; then we can all enjoy it, and put it up to critical analysis and peer review. You might even get a Nobel prize! So, I challenge you; tell us your explanation for the pyramids; we are waiting agog.

Report abuse

22

Adrian

I am not interested in Noble Prizes. I am interested in the learning and getting to the truth of things.

May I suggest a better title:-
Methods of Mass Control Down The Ages.

I do like your ready acceptance of theories that vary depending on speed! Maybe blue isn’t really blue either, it could change depending on its cordinates in the space-time continuum.

As per the pyramids and the Sphinx a simple question for you, which you can use Google for if you need to. Where both built in the same time period? If not why not?

Report abuse

24

Michael Neal

#17 June: to be equally brief, why does the foetus acquire rights only when it can survive independently?

Report abuse

26

Adrian

Reg are you saying they are to all intents and purposes the same age from what you have gleened by scientific fact?

Report abuse

28

Adrian

Reg I only asked a simple question. You went on about how marvelous science is at explaining things away didn’t you? You came up with a half baked solution as to why aborigonals aren’t white in Tasmania. 10,000 years as you say is plenty of time to go white isn’t it? In your own opinion do you think the pyramids and the sphinx are roughly the same age? You can look it up on the internet like you did last time if you want.

In your scientific opinion are they about the same age within a hundred years or so would you say or not? Please check with the relevant scientific channels on the internet there is much about it out there. This is a straight forward question, does science say these two things are about the same age yes or no?

I find it funny that so called scienctific people soon back off when their theories are questioned. Why is this if they are so sure they are right? This is not the way to learn anything if this is the case.

You have given the inference basically that science is right and that religion is mumbo jumbo haven’t you from your previous posts, or is this not correct? You do believe the Egyptogists are scientists and not religious people making up things to fit?

Report abuse

30

Adrian

Reg said “You can start with your own example, the Egyptian pyramids. Please tell us your detailed analysis of their origin; then we can all enjoy it, and put it up to critical analysis and peer review. You might even get a Nobel prize! So, I challenge you; tell us your explanation for the pyramids; we are waiting agog.”

I have tried to reason with you and as I feared it was pointless. Go back to the comfort of your superstitous beliefs. Its amazing how people bottle it when certain things are brought up.

Report abuse

32

Michael Neal

#31 June. But that is the legal position and rights are an ethical concept. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical, though I appreciate that survivability was and is an important criterion in deciding the law. What I’m interest in is why survivability should be the sole criterion, as you appear to suggest.

Report abuse

34

June Maxwell

Michael, #32: Very quick reply, this conversation is endless!! Yes, that’s right and I don’t suppose it will ever be any different: Rights are concepts some of we humans have considered and decided for ourselves, as such, it’s improbable that we’d ever come to a perfect consensus on what constitutes a right: If you’re seeking my personal perspective on the issue of abortion (somewhat removed from our original topic), my answer is that providing the woman acts responsibly, I have no problem with it: I have far more concern about the ill-treatment of actual children living amongst us: Why the viability question is paramount is because in deciding the onset of personhood upon which to confer rights we have to draw a line somewhere: The RC argument ‘every sperm is sacred’ is just risible (as the Python team noticed) so is the concept of humanity as merely a live entity (cancer cells are also live) and I disagree with Reg that an early foetus is sentient: Obstetricians agree very few foetuses survive before 24 weeks: So, as I said at the outset, there cannot be two contending claims on human rights upon one body, and until a foetus becomes a child, I would always give preference to the woman’s health and well-being: But I feel this topic is much too sensitive and intricate to conduct a meaningful discussion of it through brief exchanges on a local media site:

Report abuse

36

Andy Jones

Advocate Peter Cushen

Peter, erudite as your letter is, quoting Lord Denning as any second year law student should be aware is fraught with danger to say the least. The great man was extremely fond of creating his own precedent and in the words of Shakespeare ‘The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose’.

It is more than arguable given Denning’s propensity for twisting both the law and logic to meet his own personal moral and religious agenda (Ward v Bradford Corporation 1972), that Denning’s opinion is no more or less valid than yours or mine or anybody else’s for that matter when it comes to the abortion issue.

Using your legal title to add weight to you personal views follows in the great tradition of Alfred Lord Denning, so trotting out the opinions of an octogenarian is really no great surprise.

Whilst I have every sympathy with your argument as to the creation of a child and when that takes place; we unfortunately do not live in a utopia, we live in an imperfect word which requires as you are well aware imperfect laws. Laws created by a society trying to make the best of very difficult issues; balancing rights, responsibilities and very importantly, practicalities.

Briefly; it appears that your argument is at least partly founded in the premise that the morning after pill (MAP) aborts a pregnancy however you then move on to argue the fallibility of the MAP in achieving this aim and I quote.

‘Moreover, it is important to realise that the morning-after pill is not 100% effective. Results from a clinical study in 2002 showed that the drug taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex prevented 84% of expected pregnancies.’

I have highlighted the words ‘prevented 84% of expected pregnancies’. here your argument fails as preventing the pregnancy stops the pregnancy taking place and does not terminate it as it would with an abortion. This is not really accounted for in your later referral to the MAP as an ‘abortifacient’.

From a practical point of view living in the real world (where most of us abide) we have to look at the consequences of any legislative changes introduced. If we accept the argument that the child exists from the moment the sperm fertilises the egg; then we would logically have to introduce child protection legislation covering the gestation period. Introducing punitive controls on the actions of the mother prior to her giving birth. This would include controlling what she ate and drank, whether or not she smoked or took enough exercise. We would reduce the mother to the status of a mere host with all of her rights suborned to that of the unborn child.

Be careful what you wish for Mr Cushen

Andy Jones

Report abuse

38

Reginald Le Sueur

Adrian I hope you will view my comments constructively:
It is not necessarily fallacious to criticise the assertion that every sperm is sacred, and find it risible. Sperms consist basically of a half-package of DNA, (the other half supplied by the egg),- DNA is not a carrier of intelligence, especially only half of the package of chromosomes, (except in the limited sense of coding for the production of proteins that go to form the embryo). The assertion is somewhat risible when you consider the wastage of sperms in wet dreams, masturbation,coitus interruptus and reservatus (as practised by Onan in the Bible); as well as the deliberate flushing out of a previous male’s sperms from the female by a new rival male, (in some species). Then there is the fact that only one sperm is needed for fertilisation, and all the rest,–perhaps about half a million per shot, go to waste after coitus. Many sperms are mutants for various reasons, and not viable anyway. Sperms are of course alive,-so is the egg,–before fertilisation occurs.
Your quote: “Maybe others believe that until after birth a foetus/baby whatever they call it? isn’t alive. If this is so this is plainly an incorrect notion as premature babies can live independently of the womb.”
–I should just point out that of course a baby/foetus is alive all the way through pregnancy (unless it isn’t,- ie miscarried)), and after birth, (unless stillborn). Naturally, a live baby born prematurely, is alive from before the moment of birth,–and of it continues to live it becomes a new human being, with legal rights. Neurologists,(ie scientists) are of the reasonable opinion that sentience only comes with a physical brain,-which has to grow from scratch, and that consciousness and later, intelligence are proportional to brain development, beginning in utero and continuing after birth.
You are free to contest the findings of medical science,and poo-poo all of the above; but you can confirm at least some of it to your own satisfaction; have a look at sperms under a high-powered microscope; they are great fun.
Doctor (medical) Reg

Report abuse

40

Reginald Le Sueur

Hello Adrian, Nice to hear from you again.
I was going to add two further comments to my (38)
I omitted to comment on your opening statement in (37) above,–though it might be better coming from June.
You say: “June said “The RC argument ‘every sperm is sacred’ is just risible”
–”It would be if it was true”.
Does that mean it is not true? What about the line in the Monty Python song in their film “The Meaning of Life”, which starts off “Every sperm is sacred”? I am sure they are well acquainted with Catholic teaching on the subject.This line has also been used by “Pro-Choice” activists as a taunt against the “Pro-Life” people.
If, as you imply,the RC church says every sperm is not sacred after all, then surely they have no objection to the obstruction and mass-murder of billions of sperms, by the use of condoms, fem-doms, spermicidal creams and masturbation?–I don’t think you meant that.
To try and answer your other questions (I don’t claim to be a Guru),-first the sperm ones: Of course, both a sperm and an egg are necessary to fuse together to restore the full number of chromosomes,-and this then kick starts the fertilized ovum into developing into an embryo. Basically “embryo” is the term used for the earliest stage of development, and then “foetus” for the fully formed baby, after about 28 weeks up until term (birth),-and then after delivery it of course becomes a “baby”; though in loose language the terms can become over-lapped somewhat. Hope that helps.
I amused myself in the school library long ago by studying Egyptology out of hours.
Briefly, pyramids were constructed between 2700BC and 2100BC, mainly in the 3d and 4th dynasties. They “evolved” from “mastabas”,-which were simply mud-brick (at first), then stone block platforms, built over a burial site underground. Then someone, probably Imhotep, had the bright idea of putting more mastbas on top of each other, of diminishing size, thereby creating the “step-pyramid” of Saqquara,-the world’s oldest stone building (for Pharoah Zoser’s tomb). After that, it was a simple further step to just fill in the steps to make the true smooth-sided pyramids of Giza. The “Great pyramid” was built for Khufu(Cheops), the second for his son Ka-f-Re (Chephren), and the 3rd smaller one for Men-Kau-Re (Mycerinus). These were 4th dynasty pharoahs.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, there seems to have been a now lost pyramid of another of Khufu’s sons, Djed-f-Re, built near Giza.
As you can see, -these main pyramids were all built by members of the same family, and so were of the same period. The sphinx is thought to have been built from a natural rock, probably by Djed-f-Re. So they are all in the time period of approximately 2500 BC. Archaeological reseach goes on, and new information is regularly updated. Cheers, Reg

Report abuse

42

Adrian

Good to finally get an answer out of you Reg. Thanks for that.

Reg said “I amused myself in the school library long ago by studying Egyptology out of hours.”

I to have also partaken of the study of Egyptology and it amused me so much I couldn’t stop laughing about it. It makes Monty Python look like a drama about one man and his missing sandal.

As per your answer I think you and science will find at some stage in the future that the Sphinx is older than the pyramids. Thus another incorrect scientific fallacy will be laid to rest. It is nice to know you believe in incorrect data and theories. No wonder there are so many problems in this world.

I believe it was only recently that science said yes it is possible for a bumble bee to fly.

Previously to this it was impossible according to scientific fact. Where do these sort of errors leave science in your honest opinion?

I presume you agree that the pyramids are the same age as the Sphinx as you didn’t really nail your colours to the mast there?

As per the great egg debate. My views are as follows. It is disingenious to say anything that hasn’t come out of the birth canal isn’t alive or sentient. I hope this is in plain enough English for you to understand even if you do disagree with me.

As regards “rights” I find it odd that these are selective. Surely they should apply accross the board to everyone? If not then surely there are different tiers of so called human, and some aren’t entitled to any rights whatsoever?

Report abuse

44

Adrian

Reg Funnily enough you were bored ref 29 (maybe your attention span is somewhat short) then you answered a question on behalf of June for some reason. I never asked you or expected you to answer but you kindly did in your own condescending way. Nevermind it is good to see you have finally given up in you futile quest to cover up the holes in the system known as modern science. You are no better than any others who peddle other false belief systems.

As you point out research goes on, and the lies as they become obvious to all and sundry, are altered to suit the newest hypothesis (guess).

If you are indeed a doctor there is no way I would ever consider using you as your ethics and understanding are too limited for me. Blind acceptance of “facts” is what keeps people in the dark ages and ignorant. It is only with the search for the truth that one becomes free from man made dogma whether from the old school of religion or its modern day replacement science.

Maybe you should ask yourself how come it has finally been recognised by science that indeed a bumble bee can fly? The facts of this have been evident before man even existed that indeed they could fly by observation. It was ashame the maths didn’t add up till recently!

What else in this belief system based on hunches and guestimates also don’t add up?

I do find one consistancy when talking to flatlanders as they tend to clam up at some stage due to “suspicions” of my true intentions when the truth of it is, I am only trying to learn what is the truth, as opposed to made up theories from the so called experts.

This is indeed a great get out line often employed by those on the back foot and it helps prevent them making a fool of themselves by being backed into a corner over their cherished beliefs.

Well done Reg for upholding the invincibiltiy of the colander that is modern science.

Report abuse

46

lula

Adrian – human rights do not exist for POTENTIAL human beings

end of story – now please get on with your life and stop bombarding us with never ending blogs which actually prove nothing more than your grasp for the english language.

Reg that goes for you too (although I agree with you)

In either case – you aren’t a woman – you have never been pregnant so you both can’t really comment on the physical side of pregnancy. It can be a joy to some people but to most it’s a burden – an impending doom AND having a child can cost the mother their life… if the child is unwanted and she is unable to get rid of it before it is a concious living entity then there is no human rights for the mother is there!

A ball of cells does NOT have human rights Adrian. Not all unwanted pregnancies are because of drunken night outs – some are because of rape, sexual abuse, even a drunken night out can mean the date rape drug where the woman has no control. At least by getting the morning after pill she is taking precautions that she COULDN’T have taken on the night. Legally the morning after pill is classified as contraception – if you don’t like this go complain to your local representative in the states

Report abuse