The Right To Life?

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Far rom evading the issue, I've addressed the "naturalistic" argument. There is no point in repeating it. You'll find it above.

You’ve not, you simply repeated your original point without addressing my rebuttal.

Of course refusing to write you a long essay is an easy way out. I did, however, ask if you agreed with my point about respect being due to all persons. If you had said, yes, it would obviate any need you might have of my argument.

Respect to all persons is a very flexible concept. To begin with even if we accept that principle we may judge that some are not persons and thus not afford them respect. Additionally we may argue that the rights of some may supersede the rights of others, even if they are persons worthy of respect.

So when discussing the moral argument it is not simply a case of “reaching a conclusion on the age of the foetus after which it must be protected” as you suggested, but potentially far more complex.

If you had said, no, I would have stopped talking to you!

You really do like looking for these easy outs, don’t you?

I simply said that SPUC originated the Pro-life amendment and were responsible for it. Would even SPUC dispute this?

I am challenging your original assertions that the present legislative ambiguity is entirely down to SPUC. It is your interpretation that you need to back up and simply because they may have originated the Pro-life amendment and were responsible for it does not do so.

I'm relying on my memory of events in which I took part to tell you that the Labour Party did not entertain the SPUC initiative.

I’ve already said that the Labour party’s reaction to the SPUC initiative is pretty irrelevant. The Labour party was no more going to support them that the Socialist Workers party would.

I've no particular expertise when it comes to establishing a point up to which abortion is permitted. I would listen to arguments and assess information. I'm not unwilling to enter the debate. I am persuaded that the present British limit should be lowered.

You’ve already entered the debate, you stated your position that viewed the foetus as being a person after a particular period and I asked what were your criteria for judging this period is? You’ve been avoiding further debate ever since.

Yes, I'm offering opinions, informed opinions. Isn't everyone.

You began by stating facts - are they simply unsubstantiated opinions now?

Have you a view on the whether a right to life exists from conception?

Of course I have a view. Actually a few of them, but I think you should answer what I asked you before I allow you to sidestep any further.

Het-Field

Remeber te right to life overides all in this country except the welfare of the moter. Inthis case the womens life is not at any pysical risk, so draw your own conclusions

Jackie laughlin

Yes, Corinthian, I am quite fond of an easy life. I debate only with those who interest me and challenge my thinking.

You merely obfuscate. The moral issue is indeed simple. We have no option but to decide an age at which a foetus is accorded a right to life.

I would refuse to debate with someone who does not respect all persons. Indeed I wouldn't stay in the same room.

You're running scared. I'm convinced you believe in protecting human life from conception. Go on, confirm or deny.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Yes, Corinthian, I am quite fond of an easy life. I debate only with those who interest me and challenge my thinking.

TBH it looks far more like you avoid debate with anyone who challenges your thinking. I’ve challenged you repeatedly to back up what you’re saying and you’ve repeatedly sidestepped doing so.

You merely obfuscate. The moral issue is indeed simple. We have no option but to decide an age at which a foetus is accorded a right to life.

There’s nothing simple about ethics or morality. Indeed, it is the need to accommodate your type of simplistic ‘black and white’ reasoning that appears to have gotten us into this mess in the first place. What you call obfuscation is challenge - I’m simply pointing out where your logic is faulty.

I would refuse to debate with someone who does not respect all persons. Indeed I wouldn't stay in the same room.

Yeah. Whatever. Get off your high horse. You look silly.

You're running scared. I'm convinced you believe in protecting human life from conception. Go on, confirm or deny.

Is that the best you can come up with? “He’s against me so he must be a pro-lifer?”

Perhaps it hadn’t occurred to you that I might consider it human life from conception, but still not afford it a right to life? As much as I envy the simplicity of the World you choose to live in, my purpose in challenging you has nothing to do with being either pro life or pro choice, but more as a result that it irritates me to hear people pontificate on things they’ve not even thought through (or perhaps lack the capacity to do so).

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

Yeah. Whatever. Get off your high horse. You look silly.

Careful, now.

Jackie laughlin

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life. You imply that that might be your position also. Is it?

Who ever said that moral debate was simple? We are faced with a simple OBJECTIVE: to decide on a number of weeks. The moral debate preceding that decision will be complex and fraught.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

You’re very thin skinned if you consider that abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life.

Fair enough. Then are you accepting a more utilitarian moral framework than the more traditional Judea-Christian one? That is to say that rights are afforded to the more valid person rather than equally and indiscriminately.

You imply that that might be your position also. Is it?

Did I? Maybe. TBH, I don’t really have a personal position on it.

Who ever said that moral debate was simple? We are faced with a simple OBJECTIVE: to decide on a number of weeks. The moral debate preceding that decision will be complex and fraught.

Hold on - you admit that the moral debate is not simple, and then skip over said debate and boil it all down to a simple question?

The very premise that one may set arbitrary conditions for someone to be considered worthy of life in the first place is a pretty complex and dangerous one even before we consider what those arbitrary conditions are. Of those, all you’ve presented is the rather thin argument of nature, which if followed to its conclusion would see most of us, and our mothers, naturally dead.

Additionally we must consider then the moral principle set - which some humans are, for whatever reason, without right to life. No doubt there are plenty of other wasteful eaters we could identify in society armed with such an ethic.

So, not simple at all.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps it hadn’t occurred to you that I might consider it human life from conception, but still not afford it a right to life? As much as I envy the simplicity of the World you choose to live in, my purpose in challenging you has nothing to do with being either pro life or pro choice, but more as a result that it irritates me to hear people pontificate on things they’ve not even thought through (or perhaps lack the capacity to do so).

It has occurred to me. Do you consider a fertilised egg as unborn life?

It you do then the constitution actually says that it has a right to life. If you don't then please tell me when unborn life begins.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life.

If unborn human life exists from cinception than the constitution says it has a right to life whether you think that right is warranted or not! You may also think if you wish that some people at eighteen are not entitled to vote but the constitution guarantees them this right. You might think that people of sixteen should vote or should have sex with people twice their age but again the law says that they cant do that without breaking the law.

If it is unborn it has a right to life under Irish law.

Crucifix

I read the husband was suggesting the embryos be anonymously donated. If this is indeed the case it shifts the issue a bit.

jimmycrackcorm

This is obviously one of those case that should have gone straight to the Supreme court.

Jackie laughlin

The sooner this reaches the supreme Court the better.

Isaw,
I don't think we are in disagreement.

The pro-Life amendment began the creation of a constitutional mess.

My point is that human life begins at conception but that says almost nothing: just that life begins at that point and it couldn't be other than human. It's neither practical nor morally justified to consider this life a person and to confer rights. At the other end of pregnancy no one thinks that it would be right to kill an almost full term foetus. Thus we arrive at a simple, clearcut problem. We must decide on an age up to which killing a foetus will be permitted. Reaching that decision will involve complex moral argument and the outcome will be provisional and need to be constantly addressed. It's far from simple, the arguments will be fraught and people of goodwill will be required to stay calm.


Corinthian,
I'm not greatly upset by abuse. However, since you regard what you said as mild, would you oblige - for the sake of interest - by giving an example of real, thoroughgoing abuse. Don't hold back; I'm fine, honestly.

I'm very familiar with Utilitarian philosophy especially the work of J.S. Mill but I don't understand your question.

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Corinthian,
I'm not greatly upset by abuse. However, since you regard what you said as mild, would you oblige - for the sake of interest - by giving an example of real, thoroughgoing abuse. Don't hold back; I'm fine, honestly.

TC, if you want to reply to this, feel free to do so by PM. It's off-topic for this thread.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm very familiar with Utilitarian philosophy especially the work of J.S. Mill but I don't understand your question.

Because you’ve essentially applied utilitarian moral thinking to this question. Your objection to conferring rights to foetuses is based entirely upon what you would consider ‘practical’. Trying to save every foetus would thus be ‘impractical’, there would be too many and/or would result in too extensive a drain on resources and by extension the happiness of a Society. For you this is immoral because the consequences would be detrimental to the happiness of Society.

That is classic utilitarian philosophy.

This is, of course, is a perfectly valid position however I have two problems with it. Firstly you’re stating it as a moral starting point which, given not all would concur with your moral framework, it cannot be. So as much as you’ve claimed that the question is “far from simple, the arguments will be fraught and people of goodwill will be required to stay calm”, you’ve done so from a starting point that you’ve failed to debate and seem to simply assume is accepted. It’s not.

Secondly is that in starting without debate from such a utilitarian position you do not define why it is ‘impractical’ in the first place. This is not to say that your reasoning is not perfectly acceptable (from a utilitarian standpoint), but that it may then be equally applied elsewhere. Eugenics anyone?

oscarBravo wrote:

TC, if you want to reply to this, feel free to do so by PM. It's off-topic for this thread.

I’ve no intention of entertaining that request by PM or otherwise.

Jackie laughlin

Practicality is not the preserve of Utilitarianism. The first duty of philosophy is to be relevant. I am generally a critic of Utilitarianism.

Practicality must be discussed before reaching any decision. The truth of practicality itself must be part of the discussion; it is commonplace, for example, for neo-liberals to try to dismiss welfare arguments as "impractical".

In any event, I didn't say that guaranteeing a Right from conception was not practical. I said it was impossible. We are not even aware of the death of most fertilised eggs.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Practicality is not the preserve of Utilitarianism. The first duty of philosophy is to be relevant. I am generally a critic of Utilitarianism.

Then explain how what you argued was not utilitarianism and something else, especially as another thing that your position shared with it was consequentiality. And try to be relevant rather than simply saying that you should be.

Practicality must be discussed before reaching any decision. The truth of practicality itself must be part of the discussion; it is commonplace, for example, for neo-liberals to try to dismiss welfare arguments as "impractical".

Actually practicality is not always the first thing to be discussed, especially on moral issues. A lot of morality is not practical - for example, there is nothing practical about maintaining members of Society, such as the old, mentally or physically handicapped, who are a net drain on the resources of that society.

There we form our moral position first and then consider how to implement it in as practical a fashion as possible - not the other way around.

In any event, I didn't say that guaranteeing a Right from conception was not practical. I said it was impossible. We are not even aware of the death of most fertilised eggs.

Fallacious argument. Ascribing or ‘guaranteeing’ a right is a legal and moral not literal right. We can no more guarantee the right to life of adults who may (and mortality being what it is shall) die through accident, illness or otherwise. All we can do is ascribe or ‘guarantee’ this right, so that we can act to protect this right if another person threatens it.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
You are resorting to abuse again but this time it's a little more sophisticated.

Of course there are are Utilitarian and consequentialist influences on and aspects to my arguments - all of them! I use these terms/classifications as a tool to help my thinking. They are not labels to be applied to a person who must then stick rigidly within a school of philosophy - unless of course the philosopher accepts the label and wants to argue exclusively from that perspective.

I didn't of course say that practicality had to be the first and only consideration. I said that it had to be considered and debated.

A right does more than protect us from others who would deny the right. It obligates the state to intervene, to strive officiously.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You are resorting to abuse again but this time it's a little more sophisticated.

Again, stop exaggerating. Telling you to stick to the point is not abuse.

Of course there are are Utilitarian and consequentialist influences on and aspects to my arguments - all of them! I use these terms/classifications as a tool to help my thinking. They are not labels to be applied to a person who must then stick rigidly within a school of philosophy - unless of course the philosopher accepts the label and wants to argue exclusively from that perspective.

No one is accusing you of rigidly sticking to a school of thought, however you have given a classically utilitarian argument, as much as that label makes you uncomfortable.

I didn't of course say that practicality had to be the first and only consideration. I said that it had to be considered and debated.

Then why have you begun by discussing practicality before the initial moral principle? Did you think it a moot point?

A right does more than protect us from others who would deny the right. It obligates the state to intervene, to strive officiously.

How the State intervenes though is open to practical interpretation. Alcohol, Tobacco or cars all are harmful in differing ways, and were the State to truly strive officiously they would all be banned, but they’re not.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
Courtesy and civility certainly are appreciated by me.

Did you apply the Utilitarian label in order to make me uncomfortable? My position is not based on a greatest happiness calculation. I don't know from where you get that.

When you say that I'm placing practicality before principle, to which moral principle do you refer?

Though you express it obscurely, I take it you now agree with me on the nature of a Right.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My position is not based on a greatest happiness calculation. I don't know from where you get that.

You claim to believe that a fertilised egg is human life -a potential person. Therefore how is it not "unborn"?

My point is that human life begins at conception but that says almost nothing: just that life begins at that point and it couldn't be other than human. It's neither practical nor morally justified to consider this life a person and to confer rights.

But rights under law can be conferred on non persons for example limitied companies. Under what basis can you claim it is not morally justified to consider a form of life as a person? IT is a sound moral position though you may well not agree with it. when you say it is not "practical" in the same sentence you dismiss the moral argument and consider the consequences of the outcomes of having rights under law.

You also accept that people have rights. whether these rights are written down in the law is another argument but in this case the specific right to life of the unborn is written down in law.

Also it utilitarianism suggested may possible be closer to that of the father James rather than the hedonistic version of the son J S Mill.

When you say that I'm placing practicality before principle, to which moral principle do you refer?

Well I would leave that for corinthian since he suggested it but I would point out that there is a moral principal that life has a right to life. to address this by suggesting at aside for moral arguents it is not "practical" to conside a fertilised egg as a person is to address it amorally on the practical outcome of not bestowing a right to life.

One may also consider that a fertilised egg may be bestowed other rights such as the right to be disposed of in a certain manner, a right to storage, a right not to be property of any living person etc. These may actually be practical ways out of the case in point. So one could claim it is practical to bestow rights on a fertilised egg even if the right to life is not one of them!

Jackie laughlin

ISAW,
Together with so many people, I was convinced that the Pro-Life amendment would lead to a mess. I've never been happy with the noun "unborn". It always looks like an adjective and leaves one looking for the noun to which it refers. The clear implication and the declared intent of the movers is that we are to consider it an "unborn person"?

A fertilised egg is certainly human life. It is certainly a potential person. Indeed it is potentially more than one person. It is certainly, therefore, not a person. Should the state nevertheless confer a right on it, specifically a right to life?

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

ISAW,
Together with so many people, I was convinced that the Pro-Life amendment would lead to a mess. I've never been happy with the noun "unborn". It always looks like an adjective and leaves one looking for the noun to which it refers. The clear implication and the declared intent of the movers is that we are to consider it an "unborn person"?

That is a statement dressed up as a question? Yes I would think "unborn2 means "unborn person".

A fertilised egg is certainly human life. It is certainly a potential person. Indeed it is potentially more than one person. It is certainly, therefore, not a person. Should the state nevertheless confer a right on it, specifically a right to life?

Well a potential doctor is not a doctor. should we have ethics and rights for medical students. People think we should. Also there are non living entities which are given rights. Limitied companies are given the right to invest or hold money in accounts. Corporations are given the right to confer degrees or to enact laws for example.

Most people in Ireland do not believe in abortion on demand. Why? Because they believe that a foetus is an unborn child. they believe that unborn children have a right to life. Whether a a fertilised egg or a blastocyst is an unborn child is debatable, but that in itself is ot a good reason of depriving it of all possible rights.

Jackie laughlin

The question mark at the end of the 1st paragraph was unintentional. (Perhaps it betrays some fundamental doubts in my mind. Who knows?)

The term "right" is being flung about so much that it is losing its potency. I would say that the right of a person cannot be applied to other than a person.

Most pro-life people take up an unyielding position that a fertilised egg IS a person. I often suspect that this is not so much a belief as a tactic caused by fear of a "thin end of the wedge". My reaction is to some extent caused by their reluctance to campaign with any vigour against the morning-after pill.

I've never met anyone who favoured abortion on demand. "Rights talk" for embryos stymies debate. Perhaps we would be better to use terms like "interest" or "welfare" (I'm struggling to find suitable or agreeable terms.) when trying to decide between the wishes of a woman and the future of an embryo. At some stage debate will have to lead to a date. Then we can argue about increasing or decreasing it.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The term "right" is being flung about so much that it is losing its potency.

Not as far as the courts are concerned in this particular case. What a
"right" is is not in question.

I would say that the right of a person cannot be applied to other than a person.

One might think so but in fact a limitied cpmpany is a legal "person" i.e. the legal entity has rights which were formerly attributed only to human beings.

Most pro-life people take up an unyielding position that a fertilised egg IS a person.

So what? By stating "most" you are claiming it does not apply to "all" so it cant be a definition of pro life if it does not apply to all. In this case we are nt arguing about pro life groups or SPUC. We are discussing that YOU stated and YOU stated that a fertilised egg IS a person. That is YOUR position.

I often suspect that this is not so much a belief as a tactic caused by fear of a "thin end of the wedge". My reaction is to some extent caused by their reluctance to campaign with any vigour against the morning-after pill.

The theological position of the Church on it is (AFAIK correct me if I am wrong) as follows: A person has a soul and that enters the body not before conception. It may enter sometime after but not before. So the only way to be certain when it is life is to assume conception as that point. If one does that then the morning after pill ios an abortificiant.

I've never met anyone who favoured abortion on demand.

You havent looked around very much then. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) some Labour party candidates for the EU Elections would hold to that position, particulatrly from a "woman's right to do with her body as she chooses"

"Rights talk" for embryos stymies debate. Perhaps we would be better to use terms like "interest" or "welfare" (I'm struggling to find suitable or agreeable terms.) when trying to decide between the wishes of a woman and the future of an embryo.

This isnt a bad idea in the "fertilised egg" case. When it comes to an implanted egg I think we move to a confilct of rights issue.

At some stage debate will have to lead to a date. Then we can argue about increasing or decreasing it.

there is a date. Time zero- conception. One can only increase it from there.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Courtesy and civility certainly are appreciated by me.

And your sticking to the point would be just as appreciated. Do that and you’ll earn your courtesy and civility.

Did you apply the Utilitarian label in order to make me uncomfortable?

No, but your need to distance yourself from that philosophy did betray it.

My position is not based on a greatest happiness calculation. I don't know from where you get that.

Actually it is. You repeatedly cite the practical consequences over principle - your aim is to maximize utility, not uphold any moral rights.

When you say that I'm placing practicality before principle, to which moral principle do you refer?

The principle of a right to life of a human being. You’ve accepted (in this discussion) that a foetus is indeed a human being; this, one would imagine, would imply equal rights to all other human beings.

Yet you would not do so on the basis of nothing more than practicality - utility, in essence. Indeed, nothing that you have said could not be applied equally to other impractical groups within Society, such as the senile or physically or mentally handicapped. Yet Society ignores the impractical burden of maintaining them and favours the principle of their right to life rather than humanly euthanasing them.

Though you express it obscurely, I take it you now agree with me on the nature of a Right.

No. I recognise that how you define a right is one moral position, but it is by no means the only one.

Jackie laughlin

I most certainly did NOT say that a fertilised egg was a person. This is precisely where I disagree with the "Pro-Life" position.

The church position on ensoulment, while speculative, is interesting. It seems to fall down when the development of twins enters.

Corinthian, I realise that you don't put forward your own views but ISAW, may I ask if you regard the morning after pill as the killing of a person?

I would support "a woman's right to choose". However, neither I nor anyone I've ever heard holds out for an absolute right to dispose of a foetus as a woman chooses at any stage during pregnancy.

When the debate about a time limit for abortion finally gets going in Ireland, I reckon I will find myself in the conservative camp. I sincerely hope you won't be in the wings talking about "ensoulment" at conception but rather in the thick of it supporting the likes of me.

By the way, Corinthian, surely courtesy and civility would be a right rather than something left to you to decide when someone has earned them?

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I most certainly did NOT say that a fertilised egg was a person.

I think you did above. Well you said it was human life.

This is precisely where I disagree with the "Pro-Life" position.

If you did not believe that a fertilised egg is a person (or if you believe that if it is a person and therefore has a right to life) then you are not in disagreement with the "pro life" people, but only with where you draw the line as to when life begins.

The church position on ensoulment, while speculative, is interesting. It seems to fall down when the development of twins enters.

How so?

Corinthian, I realise that you don't put forward your own views but ISAW, may I ask if you regard the morning after pill as the killing of a person?

If a fertilised egg is a person then it is. But I do not think a fertilised egg is necessarily a person.

Why does Corinthian not express his own opinion? Why does he not state what he believes? I don't either because I dont force my view on others just because it is my view. But if asked what I believe I wont equivicate and will answer honestly.

I would support "a woman's right to choose". However, neither I nor anyone I've ever heard holds out for an absolute right to dispose of a foetus as a woman chooses at any stage during pregnancy.

One can assert there is no such thing as an "absolute right". As regards the right to choose. If an unborn child is a person why should a pregnant woman
or anyone else have the right to end its life?

When the debate about a time limit for abortion finally gets going in Ireland, I reckon I will find myself in the conservative camp. I sincerely hope you won't be in the wings talking about "ensoulment" at conception but rather in the thick of it supporting the likes of me.

I wont be out on the streets with Youth Defence thats for sure. But I will probably be similar to the vast majortiy of Irish people - against abortion. But I am not against it because the majority are. I am against it because I believe it wrong.

By the way, Corinthian, surely courtesy and civility would be a right rather than something left to you to decide when someone has earned them?

Having them moight be a right but not the thing in itself. Just as people have rights to own things but the things they own are not rights.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I most certainly did NOT say that a fertilised egg was a person. This is precisely where I disagree with the "Pro-Life" position.

I never suggested you accepted that a fertilised egg was a person; I said you accepted that it was a human being - and you did.

Thus you appear to classify humans as persons and non-persons (or whatever other term you prefer to use), where the former are afforded rights and the latter are not. To date you’ve not explained why such a distinction should be made, outside of practical expediency (and your ‘natural’ argument), which at best is a utilitarian one (which you deny).

I would support "a woman's right to choose". However, neither I nor anyone I've ever heard holds out for an absolute right to dispose of a foetus as a woman chooses at any stage during pregnancy.

Why not? Any and all criteria for personhood that you or others have presented are ultimately quite arbitrary and open to interpretation. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, and you’ve repeatedly failed to acknowledge, they can be applied to a myriad of other ethical issues; allowing for everything from infanticide to euthanasia.

So if you support "a woman's right to choose", then you should support her this right even at birth. Otherwise we end up with ridiculous arbitrary definitions, that would give a human being rights at, say, 24-weeks, but not at 23-weeks and six days. That’s not a reasoned argument, that’s a bureaucratic fudge.

So either you argue that it’s "a woman's right to choose" because her value is greater than the embryo / child / whatever (which on a point of absolute utility, is true) or you’re just trying to kid yourself, TBH.

I sincerely hope you won't be in the wings talking about "ensoulment" at conception but rather in the thick of it supporting the likes of me.

I sincerely hope no one would make that argument.

By the way, Corinthian, surely courtesy and civility would be a right rather than something left to you to decide when someone has earned them?

No; if that were the case, some would use such a right as a shield to mask their intellectual dishonesty. And we don’t want that, do we?

Jackie laughlin

I'm sorry if I've not made myself clear. I thought I had said somewhere above that to describe a fertilised egg as "human life" was to say almost nothing. It is unarguably alive; it is unarguably human life, as opposed to some other species. What I don't accept is that it is a person. Personhood, I would argue, develops rather than appearing suddenly and fully "formed". I know that I will never be sure that a permissible date for abortion is right in all circumstances but I'm prepared to try to face the difficulty. When the time of decision arrives, I'll be arguing for or against some suggested date and voting accordingly if a vote is necessary. What I oppose right now is a near total ban on abortion from conception.

People reach difficult moral decisions through discussion and reflection. This can't be labelled "arbitrary" for the purpose of dismissal. There is no other way. The erection of unyielding principles is a soft option leading to cruelty.

Incidentally, Corinthian, I've never associated courtesy and civility with hiding. I've never seen intellectual dishonesty; I would have no way of knowing it.

Victor

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Corinthian, I've never associated courtesy and civility with hiding.

If I may and no offence to you or the moderators, but harping on about your right to courtesy, etc. is off-topic.

---

I picked out a definition for 'conception' which would appear to be the legal one and that used by medics, based on discussion in the most recent referendum.

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

conception
n 2: the act of becoming pregnant

Conception occurs when the fertilised egg is implanted, i.e. mothers / women concieve, their .... 'offspring' don't. It is a stage separate to the fertilisation. Up to that point 'Conception' and 'fertilisation' were used interchangably.

It was this difference between fertilisation and conception that the Irish Medical Council used to allow making the morning after pill ethical and therefore (subject to the Oireachtas) legal.

ISAW wrote:

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The church position on ensoulment, while speculative, is interesting. It seems to fall down when the development of twins enters.

How so?

I think he is referring to identical twins, who come from the same fertilised egg, which makes the idea more complicated.

Jackie, I don't think anyone is suggesting saving every fertilised egg that fails to implant - nature takes its course. There are practical issue like knowing it exists in the first place, whether it implanted or not or where it is. Of course these are mostly practical considerations.

Morally we must define between what is natural and unpreventable, natural but preventable and unnatural, i.e. having human hand as its source.