Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 2:55AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

All of the relevant points have already been made upthread, so what follows here is just a potted summary.
I still cannot accept the label "a baby" for early stages of pregnancy. Such a label displays arrogance because it assumes the user has perfect knowledge of the future. To show that such a label is inconsistent with general usage, one need only ask any parent how old their baby is. They will measure that age from birth; not from conception. Which is to say that in general use, birth (and not conception) is the reference point for the label "baby". Before birth, "a baby" -- if we were to term it such -- would have a negative age: a logical impossibility. You might call it a "proto-baby" or "pre-baby" perhaps (though then "foetus" is more exact); but not "a baby" tout court. However many times you repeat it, "a baby at conception" is a nullity.

Still, moving on to personhood:
Personhood is the result of:

(a) cell differentiation into many specialised types of tissue

[BTW, this is one reason why "human DNA sequence" and "living cell(s)" are insufficient to define an entity as "a human". The 3-dimensional structure of DNA in a specialised cell is different to that in an embryonic stem cell -- as it must be, because different areas of the sequence are being exposed and activated. Even for the same DNA sequence, a conceptus's DNA structure is not exactly the same as that of any cell of a newborn baby. It is possible to claim that the conceptus is, in a very exact sense, not genetically human.]

Differentiation results in an organism that is
* recognisably "human-shaped"; and (eventually)
* viable, i.e. capable of continued life independently of a host organism.
I think we can agree that appearance probably should not be used as a defining criterion.
The "independent viability" criterion is probably not central to "personhood", but is fairly important for many medical applications. (Please note that it is not simply a matter of physical "location", but also complete biological dependence.) Deborah suggests that "independent viability" makes a useful practical cutoff for moral purposes if we also lack indicators of "personhood".

A far more important criterion for establishing "personhood" would be that the organism has (as a result of differentiation):

(b) a nervous system of some critical size (in terms of number of pathways), that allows it to (i) perceive its environment, and (ii) remember those perceptions.

The conceptus has, by definition, no separate nervous system, and no way of amassing conscious experience. But once condition (b) is met, there is potential for learning, and thus this marks the beginning of the development of a unique personality reflecting the interaction of genetics (some basic personality traits such as introversion/extroversion result from details of brain chemistry that are fairly clearly genetic in origin) and environment.

It is debatable exactly when the neural network develops into something functional. (We can conduct measurements of nerve responses; but it's less clear how we are to interpret those measurements as indicating "perception" or "memory".)
But it is clear that, at some time prior to birth, the nervous system has reached the critical mass allowing perception, and probably also allows some kind of memory retention. There is some evidence that foetuses already recognise the intonation patterns of their mother's voice several months before birth. (One anecdote earlier in this thread, of one baby's favourite song apparently being established before birth, is consistent with this.)
So if we're going to take (b) as some sufficient threshold for "personhood", then infanticide doesn't seem supported; but conversely, early-stage abortion is not morally prohibited.

Other worthwhile criteria for "personhood" that have been mentioned in Deborah's posts:

* emotional responses (which may be seen as a way of confirming the existence of perception and memory). Deborah singles out the response of "valuing the continuance of one's own existence" as a moral touchstone; without wishing to put words in her mouth, perhaps this is equivalent to "having the potential to feel happy".

* formation of relationships with other persons. (The recognition of the mother, as already mentioned, seems to start being established before birth.)

Posted at 3:11AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I just know someone is going to leap on this, so to clarify: it became apparent after its birth (hence I can properly use "baby" here) that its favourite song had been established by exposure before birth.

Posted at 3:36AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Linger I'm not gonna argue on the baby thing, but will point out different cultures tell age in different ways.

Those that developed counting without zero start at age one from birth, and others still don't care about the day.
If you're born in that year you are x years of age, new years day and you're another year older.

"Deborah suggests that "independent viability" makes a useful practical cutoff for moral purposes if we also lack indicators of "personhood"."

This is why I asked about euthanasia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

I think I am in four catagories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Posted at 4:06AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I don't believe i have supported someone committing murder, as you said Grant

Killing is not necessarily murder.

If you reread, you'll find I never said i supported someone commiting murder, You should keep your reading glasses on at all times, and really make an effort to stop putting words in my mouth, when possible.

"**You** said you believe it is murder. " I see it as killing a fetus, a stage of personhood as you like to put it. Though i stressed I don't really like to put it in any such keyhole,

You believe my justification is not acceptable, but i feel I am justified in supporting someones' right do as they want with their body. Under better circumstances, that's where you step away from the computer, woken to the relativity of justification.

But then we are not living in a society that bases its legal system on what you think is OK.

Yeah well OK Grant. What is the law with regards to abortion?
your arguing about relative perceptions, it's a dead end street,

<quote>A murderer clearly is not justified. A soldier clearly is.<quote>

in your mind

clearly

I disagree with this generalization on the grounds that i haven't heard the specifics. Is the killing by the soldier justified to this allies and enemies alike?

I think you need to use a dictionary before you use any more words.

dictionaries are maps Grant, to some people dictionaries are the gospel, to others, dictionaries are old dogs that refuse to keep up. To people that can read, dictionaries are very convenient things, and to people who can feel the language, dictionaries are well trained butlers.

You've tangled yourself up in words.

am i justified in saying that?
i feel i am
my justification is that you are a twit
murdering the language.

Posted at 4:12AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Fair enough Shep, but I'd guess those other cultures would also use other labels than the English word "baby"!

Actually, after putting all of those criteria in one place and comparing them, I may have to modify my usage description slightly, namely: "baby" may be used even before birth, at a time when birth is a realistically possible event (so: normally, and hopefully, after the point of "independent viability"). Nevertheless, the more general point stands -- the term "baby" is licensed relative to the event of birth.

In her blog post, Deborah suggests euthanasia shouldn't be exactly parallel to abortion because, unlike an early-stage foetus, a comatose (etc) individual has previously established relationships to others, and has some continued status of "personhood" by virtue of that fact. I guess the practical effect of that is that, for euthanasia, we have to presume "personhood" until we have direct negative evidence (such as some medically-defined "brain-dead" state), whereas for early-stage abortion we would normally presume "non-personhood".

Posted at 4:46AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

An involved and polite response, Linger. Thanks. I'm just going to assume it was aimed in my general direction :)

You cannot accept a label of baby based on general usage. I can understand that, but the idea that my usage of that term (correctly or incorrectly) has any impact on the facts is nonsense. I am grateful we can move on. Again, thank you.

I believe personhood is an abstract term. I.e. I do not hold any definitions or requirements other than the good judgement of those capable of expressing good judgement. You seem to have a more scientific scheme for determining who is and who is not a person. Allow me to use this difference between our approaches as the basis for exploring further. Feel free to point out if I have judged your position incorrectly :)

On your requirements for personhood:

(a) cell differentiation into many specialised types of tissue
Is it your opinion that personhood a gradual process? For example a baby at conception is not a person. After a time and cell divisions they are a little bit a person. After a few weeks they are half a person and then at some stage they are a full person? If this is how you see it then you might be interested to know that women would not be considered 100% human until they have become pregnant as it is the arrival of a new person that sets off a unique and the final event of cell differentiation in women.

I know you do not believe that women who have never been pregnant are lesser persons, but if you are going to use cell differentiation as a determination for personhood then it is a perfectly rational conclusion to arrive at.

Are you willing to agree that cell differentiation is evidence that we have a person, but is not a determining factor?

I agree that appearance should not be used as a defining criterion. :)

You also seem to discount viability as a determining factor which I agree with as well. I see no difference between a baby being dependent on mother for nutrition, air and a comfortable environment inside the womb or outside. Neglect or abuse of a baby will result in his death regardless of location.

(b) a nervous system of some critical size (in terms of number of pathways), that allows it to (i) perceive its environment, and (ii) remember those perceptions.

I do not consider the ability to perceive or remember defining in terms of who is and is not a person. As I explained earlier I believe personhood can only be recognised by good judgement. I do agree that the ability to perceive and remember should give us ample evidence that we have a person.

I wonder if you might consider what a baby at conception must turn his energy to. At conception there is a single cell. This cell contains all the information required for that one cell to build a body for himself. I wonder if you would be willing to compare the wonders of a newborn's ability to perceive with a newlyconceiveds (to coin a term :) ability to build himself. I'm sure you will agree that the two capacities are at least equally magnificent. I would say the ability to build oneself is far more magnificent!

Of course this ignores your suggestion that memory or perception might define a person. In addition to the reservations you shared on the matter (that babies may be able to remember and perceive well before we are able to detect their ability) you might also consider a similar argument against it found in my response to your ideas on cell differentiation. I.e. is personhood a gradually acquired trait? Does the ability to perceive make one more of a person?

Again, I am sure you do not believe this, but it is a rational conclusion to make from what you suggest.

I agree with a lot of what you have said and feel that if the law were to reflect your ideas then abortion would well be defined as murder from a very early stage. Unfortunately this is not good enough for me. I believe that personhood is a trait conferred at conception and that termination of that living human is unjustified and murder. I believe I have presented a perfectly rational set of reasons why I believe as I do. I know many do not agree and I appreciate your attempts to discourse in a friendly manner.

Thanks.

Posted at 5:09AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I don't believe i have supported someone committing murder, as you said Grant

Well, like you say, "justification is relative". What you think has no bearing on what I think. Nor would what you think have any bearing on what the law says if you were to be charged for your crime.

If you reread, you'll find I never said i supported someone commiting murder, You should keep your reading glasses on at all times, and really make an effort to stop putting words in my mouth, when possible.

I agree, and I wear my glasses all day so I put no words in your mouth. It was me that said you supported a murder based on your own definitions and terminology. Perhaps if you do not wish people to accuse you of things you do not like then you should use words that do not contradict your standards. Or are you an idealist?

"You said you believe it is murder. " I see it as killing a fetus, a stage of personhood as you like to put it. Though i stressed I don't really like to put it in any such keyhole

But you did. The whole reason I said you supported a murder is because you said that the detection of a pregnancy is a determination for personhood.

You believe my justification is not acceptable, but i feel I am justified in supporting someones' right do as they want with their body. Under better circumstances, that's where you step away from the computer, woken to the relativity of justification.

I do not accept your justification for your actions just as every other person on Earth has standards by which they will not accept every action by other people. I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions. Let me clue you in - when your worldview can be dismantled in three words it is a good clue that perhaps you need to rethink what you believe...

Yeah well OK Grant. What is the law with regards to abortion? your arguing about relative perceptions, it's a dead end street

The law about abortion is bad. Almost everyone here agrees with that. What was your point again?

I disagree with this generalization on the grounds that i haven't heard the specifics. Is the killing by the soldier justified to this allies and enemies alike?

OF COURSE! If the situation is specified then judgement can be better rendered. If we find out that a murder accused acted to protect his family from an axe wielding maniac then we do not prosecute him as a murderer, we release him as a hero!

If we find a soldier is leaving camp at night to visit the local village and strangle people then we court martial and execute him and strip him of any awards he may have.

Your demand for specifics only makes more clear my point! We thrive on the ability to judge rightly! Justification is entirely not relative .. You only want it to be so because otherwise you would not have any (relative or not).

dictionaries are maps Grant, to some people dictionaries are the gospel, to others, dictionaries are old dogs that refuse to keep up. To people that can read, dictionaries are very convenient things, and to people who can feel the language, dictionaries are well trained butlers.

I think you believe that butler analogy too much. I think you've applied it to all the conversations you've had and given the lack of a solid rebuttal (hehehehe) have simply been encouraged to build a house without a foundation. Think about it, Mark! How much more satisfying if you actually had the ability to say I was wrong rather than only being able to whinge that I do not agree with you.

:)

Posted at 7:14AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I don't agree in principle with a criterion for personhood based on "good judgement", as I would like to be classed as a person regardless of who is observing or judging me. Hence my preference for an objective criterion.

I did not intend the "differentiation" criterion as any scaleable "amount of personhood", but as a precondition that is necessary (though not sufficient), because it produces (among other things) the neural network that is essential for the functions of perception and memory that serve as the main defining criterion. Any human "person" has to have undergone a certain critical amount of cell differentiation to produce this. (BTW your counterfactual seems a little skewed: surely by your argument, pregnant women would undergo more cell differentiation than other people, and thus would be measured as having more personhood than anyone else, rather than nonpregnant women being "inferior" as you suggested?)

is personhood a gradually acquired trait?

Actually, I rather think it is, apart from the "gradual" bit (I think of it more as an emergent phenomenon, which may not appear until certain abilities at a certain stage of development are combined in a certain way). As I said in my last post, perception and memory together are important because they allow learning -- which I would take as the process of developing personhood (including here Deborah's criteria of emotional responses and relationships). In taking "some capacity for perception and memory" as the minimum criterion, I am deliberately setting the bar for "personhood" rather low (there may be grounds for taking this level as showing "demonstrated potential to develop personhood" rather than "definite personhood").

Does the ability to perceive make one more of a person?

I wouldn't say that having more ability to perceive necessarily gives someone more personhood (possibly, they might be a more developed person, or a more valuable person... but those are different judgement scales!). As my answer above may suggest, it's what you do with your perceptions that counts.

Posted at 10:42AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is alive. It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is human.

This really feels like an argument about whether a tadpole is a frog, in 'modern day belief', whatever that means.

Posted at 10:57AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

This really feels like an argument about whether a tadpole is a frog

My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought. I can imagine her, this Everywomb: 'Hi! I'm over here! A person, any way you slice it! Remember me? I'll just be sitting quietly in this corner. Cool. Let me know what you decide, 'kay?'

Posted at 11:03AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Exacatamundo, Danielle (as they say on the Continent).

Posted at 11:45AM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

*blush* um. yeh. that's what happens when we focus on the small things... For the record, in case it wasn't obvious already, I'm trying to avoid imposing boundaries on what should ultimately be her decision.

Posted at 12:16PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Danielle - still backing Deborah's stand on the 'justification' on infantacide?

Posted at 12:20PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought.

If the baby is a tadpole/frog, then I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're a fishbowl/pond/creek. Feel free to choose what suits ;)

Posted at 12:35PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Danielle - still backing Deborah's stand on the 'justification' on infanticide?

I'm not sure what your deal is with that. She isn't saying she's pro-infanticide, she's saying her ethical/philosophical stance on abortion could also be used to justify infanticide. There's a huge difference.

I'm all about the simplicity, anyway: I'm not intelligent enough to have philosophical positions like that. Although I am a woman, I am also a person; I have a body attached to my personhood; until Foetus O'Shea becomes a Tiny Homeslice that can hang out and watch TV with me, I would like to have total control over what happens to that body, just as non-pregnant people do. My choice. My 'philosophy' is based around prioritising the personhood of the woman, not debating the personhood or otherwise of the foetus. (For all I know the damn thing is playing parcheesi in there with my left kidney and has a TV show on the Living Channel called Grand Designs: Wombs. Not my philosophical issue, I'm afraid.)

Posted at 12:42PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

What Danielle said, Shep, but also, I'm preparing an answer which I will put on my own blog, maybe today, maybe tomorrow. I don't particularly wish to engage with the medieval drum banger here.

Posted at 12:59PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

If I can help, might I say, that it is precicely your reasoning that the justification for abortion could be extended to infants that is wrong.

I'm not trying to wind you up, but if a better position is to be found it's not through opening the doors to Tiergartenstraße 4.

Posted at 1:15PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

How about the idea that I don't have to donate a kidney to anyone, even if my lack of donation may mean that person dies?

By the same logic, I don't have to allow a potential human to occupy my uterus.
Even if that means terminating a pregnancy.
You are allowed to not like that.
If you don't like that, I suggest you don't have an abortion.

Oh dear, I've just entered the fray.
I reserve the right to not respond to posters who don't accept my personhood as trumping that of a potential person.

Shorter me: what Danielle said. And word, Deborah.

Also, Kyle, girls don't usually like it when you compare them to inanimate bodies of water. Just a heads up ;)

Posted at 1:43PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Also, Kyle, girls don't usually like it when you compare them to inanimate bodies of water. Just a heads up ;)

What? First they don't like being seen as incubators, then they're anti being brood mares, and now we're down on the whole bodies of water thing?

Does that mean I'll have to take this whole 'women as people too' thing seriously? Man.

Posted at 2:35PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought. I can imagine her, this Everywomb: 'Hi! I'm over here! A person, any way you slice it! Remember me? I'll just be sitting quietly in this corner. Cool. Let me know what you decide, 'kay?'

damn straight. I'm pissed off that where I live somehow makes me accountable to Mr Language.

Now Grant,

"Perhaps if you do not wish people to accuse you of things you do not like then you should use words that do not contradict your standards.

you are accusing me of supporting murder. I don't believe all killing is murder. and you backed me up on that.
I don't believe euthananasia is murder, i don't believe abortion is murder, i don't believe killing time on a wednesday afternoon is murder. You may believe all the above are murder, but it's still a long distance from me supporting murder.

It's like I support smoking, you could from that take, by the various logic you subscribe to, that i support suicide, but again i don't.

Your leap from me supporting killing to your assessment of that i am supporting murder, renders your dismissals of me/mine, inexact.

so i'll be clear, again, for you Grant. I don't really think in terms of personhood, as I said previously, over here it could be anywhere between conception and death, It's irrelevant to my perception, I support euthanasia, I support abortion. I see neither as murder, but i support them for what they are.

I do not accept your justification for your actions just as every other person on Earth has standards by which they will not accept every action by other people. I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions. Let me clue you in - when your worldview can be dismantled in three words it is a good clue that perhaps you need to rethink what you believe...

you do not accept my justification, just as you don't accept the reality that while your typing here you could be out trying to convince actual females to follow your own worldview of how to manage their bodies.
but my justification exists all the same.
you do not accept my idea that justification is relative, just as you don't accept the relativity of justification.

when my worldview can be dismantled in three words, it's a good clue that I have a very portable worldview. But for my money, I don't see my world view being dismantled or begging for a rethink by you: the confuser of murder and killing. As I said before, I am justified in supporting a woman's right to abort a pregnancy, regardless of whether you see me as supporting murder or not.

For my money I don't believe the law on abortion in NZ is bad, I suggested a tweek but on the whole I feel it allows freedom where due, I wasn't aware that almost everyone here agrees that it's bad.
I guess I'm in the minority, that feels ok, in that I still think it's better than calling abortion practitioners murderers. I support that law, and I support the people who are bequeathed the freedom to choose. Despite your assertions that they are murderers. You don't have to accept my justification, It's my justification, but regardless of whether you accept it or not, it's still a justification.

Basically Grant, much as you'd like to think so, there are no universals on this issue.

justification - dictionary.com

1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
2. an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.

justify

1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.

there is no mention of mandatory consensus in these definitions.

I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions.

my sympathies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justification

You can't keep backtracking like a blind orienteerer, to me it still seems like you're out of your depth with this word. Any murderer can provide justification for their actions, any murderer can justify their actions, no acceptance or agreement is required.Whether there justification is accepted, The state is still justified in sending them to jail. you don't have to accept my justification that justification is relative. denying my justification doesn't relegate it to being a 'nonjustification',

Murder is not defined as unjustified killing, it's justified as illegal killing.Not all laws are justified, not all justifications are legal

"Justification is entirely not relative"

to you

So careful now Grant, I'm not whinging about anything, I've been attempting to defend various charges you've laid on me including: I support murder, I have taken lives, i believe i have supported someone committing murder, etc.

these are serious charges, and I simply refute them Grant. I never made any of those statements. You are wrong in contending so.

"Mark! How much more satisfying if you actually had the ability to say I was wrong rather than only being able to whinge that I do not agree with you."

I'm not whinging that you don't agree with me. I'm defending myself.

As you are the type that equates telling someone they're wrong with satisfaction, I can only imagine that me telling you that you are wrong would be as satisfying as the satisfaction you would get from physically restraining and incarcerating a woman to prevent her from getting an abortion.

Posted at 2:37PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Grant, try validate, it may work better for you, use a little vindicate where necessary.

Posted at 5:25PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Mark. Debating an issue with someone unwilling to accept that there are concepts such as judgment, right & wrong and proper definitions is like trying to wrestle a large amount of jelly. You're impossible to pin down on anything. You are wrong and according to you Ia m justified in believing that. You however cannot rationally claim that I am wrong because that would contradict your assertion that there is no right and wrong.

Posted at 5:52PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Two things in reply to all the other mail:

1: Personhood has not been categorised as belonging to a single characteristic or stage and never will be. This supports my assertion that personhood is a thing recognised with good judgment. It takes good judgment to recognise that memories and perception are important functionings of people. It takes good judgment to recognise that independence is a good thing in people. It takes good judgment to define what is acceptable when it comes to medical procedures and what is not based on the lives of people. There will never be a scientific test for what is a person. There will never be a set of data that can deny the right to life. There will never be a lab experiment that can detect self awareness or weigh the value of a human life. We have moved beyond what science can tell us explicitly into an arena where we have to decide based on good judgment.

2: Because we cannot rely on data to determine the value of a human life we are rationally and morally bound to err on the side of caution. We are rationally bound because all the data sets we might apply can be applied to a baby at conception. If we say that an adult has a beating heart then we can say a baby has a stem cell that can build himself a body. The ability to test for things must be applied in all cases if it is going to be used rationally. We are morally bound because if we are to say that murder is wrong at a certain stage in a person's life then we must say that it is wrong at every stage of a person's life. If we do not know if a person is present then we are morally bound to act in caution with a baby just as we are with an adult.

This standard seems to be unpopular because women demand the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. But this right is limited by the presence of another person. The right to choose a kidney is a right that definitely does not involve another person. The right to abort always involves another person.

I see no flaws in these simple truths. I realise they are difficult for people to accept and impossible to accept for those who have had an abortion, but I will not compromise what I believe to be true. If I am correct then from here the discussion will move onto a woman's role as a mother. For it is she that will be most inconvenienced by any law that functioned according to the truth of the matter.

In the meantime I am prepared to defend my assertion that personhood begins at conception based on the fact that his humanity and life is undisputed.

Choose well.
:)

Posted at 6:59PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I've never had a pregnancy termination but I did get my bitch spayed when she was very, very pregnant. It was a long time ago, and I still feel awful. However, I believe it was the right thing to do because 1) she would have been a dreadful mother 2) we were not ready for puppies and they wouldn't have had a great life. We had no-one who would have wanted bull terrier/whatever crosses. In my oh so humble opinion, the very problem with debate around abortion is exemplified by this thread. Dominated by opinionated men who are at one remove from the very emotional issue that it is, and arguing about things like when a baby becomes a baby, or the scientific definition of when cellular life becomes human. Chaps, I have news for you. It is not, in the end, for you to say. It is, in the end, for the women of this world. They may be in situations where consultation with their partners' is a suitable option. They may be single women who have to make the decision alone. Either way, it is their body. So it is up to them, ultimately. If you wish to make people feel guilty about choosing abortion, call it murder. Call it infanticide. Call it whatever you like. But remember, that ultimately, it is not your body. It is not your womb. It is not your call.

Posted at 7:36PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Jackie - I think I remeber correctly that you have no kids & you have stated here you have not had an abortion.

Following your arguement, why does your opinion count more than mine?

Posted at 7:42PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

It is the opinions of the women who may have need of this procedure that counts. That's all women of child bearing age. That includes me.

Posted at 7:46PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

What of the infertile - do they count?

Posted at 7:51PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I'll take that one, Shep. You see, I am infertile, and we have our lovely children through ART (assisted reproductive technology).

Let me endorse what Jackie said, hugely.

And back in the days when I was weeping because my arms were empty, it never, ever occurred to me that I should be forcing other women to go through pregnancy just so that I could have a baby to cuddle. Forced pregnancy is no happier a situation than infertility.

Posted at 7:55PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

I'ld like to apologise for that last question it was pretty ugly & I didn't want to go there (but I did).

Posted at 7:56PM on 16 Jun 08. Permalink.

Thank you, Shep.