I can’t think of any case where using violence would help, for teachers it forces them to think of better, cleverer ways to control and discipline kids.

I can’t say I ever got into fights at school either, despite being basically as nerdy as they come.  I guess I was somewhat likeable and anti-authoritarian which kept me out of the bullies eyes until my middle teens at which time I took up Taekwondo.  Still never been in a physical fight of any kind, and have no intention of doing so.

Your point about physical violence against adults compared with children has a lot of merit.  Franky, I cannot see any logical reason why we should treat them any differently.  To state “we turned out alright” misses the point – even the most hardened prisoner may eventually make that claim as it dismisses the journey for the destination.  This is flawed thinking – the ends do not justify the means in this case (maybe any case?).

We should have kept away from politics – especially foreign politics.  As you can tell, we are not Americans, nor have a sep understanding of the intricacies of the American political system or its flaws, and we sure as hell don’t know anything about the clandestine aspects within the system.  In future we shall refrain from speaking out of turn.

As for corporal punishment, how is saying to a child “Violence is bad. If you are violent, I will punish you with violence.” not sending mixed messages? Violent punishments for adults is looked down upon as barbaric, I’m pretty sure the podcast has discussed individual cases of corporal punishment in Islamic countries and rightly condemned them. How then is it better to do it to kids, even if the punishments aren’t nearly as severe.

In short Oliver, you were wrong, the knifing anecdote was a great example of how even skeptics can get fooled by confirmation bias.

As for your (all of you) naive attempts at Obama apologetics, why did he make it legal for him to have American citizens assassinated without trial? He had the power to stop it becoming law and if you think of away of making that sound not so bad in your head, what about the fact he actually used the new power? And the war in Iraq is not over, now it’s being fought by mercenaries who aren’t accountable to anyone. The mercenary company was called ‘Blackwater’ they changed  their name to ‘Academi’. Erik Prince who co-founded the company has said some creepy shit, which makes it obvious he thinks the current middle eastern wars are crusades.

Anyway I digress, many of Obama’s high level officials are former ‘Goldman Sachs’ employees,  Despite his campaign promise to limit the influence of lobbyists, he must have changed his mind after G.S. gave him buckets of money. All the stuff I have mentioned so after could not have been influence by how hostile and many the republicans were and are. And the thing is the republicans don’t need to be hostile to him because he gives them everything they want anyway.

There is something that can be done, one word: Occupy! They are the only way America is going to get a good president. And no, “Not as bad as the others” isn’t a synonym for good! The reason is Occupy is fighting to get money out of politics, otherwise US politics will stay a debate between one side who doesn’t like poor people, LGBT people, not white people*, atheists and women, and the other side who hate poor people, LGBT people, not white people, atheists and women.

*Obama’s policies hurt the black and latino communities for example his drug policy and healthcare policy.

Nice post – agree with everything said about the pagan traditions. Indeed – Syncretism is something which has often destroyed the church. That being said, Christians are to “become all things to all peoples”, while preaching them Christ crucified. There are some good examples around the world where Christ is preached faithfully, while some cultural elements have been integrated into the outpouring of spiritual behaviour, all without the compromise of the Gospel.

You are assuming by extension to science, and even if true you are assuming also that he refers at all to science as some kind of heartless entity. He does not state this at all only that the way religion carries out some of its tasks could be well used in a more secular/atheistic way. And no where does he ever say that everything religion does is correct.

He does not say a religious sermon he says a sermon in itself. The association you give it is your own, and one that he does not give himself during the speech.

Also I don’t believe he argues that science has all the answers either. What he does is take from one subject matter, and outlook if you will, some of the points that could be used to benefit another subject matter and outlook. He never claims that science has all the answers, that we are children in need of guidance or that we never need to question or be skeptical about anything any more. The closest he gets to any of those points is his outlining of the need for calenders and what they can or could possibly represent. Again another use of something for which we probably don’t utilise all that often.

Ollie :)

The idea that anything can be both all merciful or loving and all just is inherently contradictory.  Justice is the metering out of punishment whereas mercy is the abstaining from punishment.  In addition, judges do not create the laws they are enforcing but interpret them; I am not sure how this could easily translate to a deity who does both.

The timing of this punishment is largely irrelevant.  Whether it occurs after the destruction of the universe and rapture or before makes little difference in my eyes. The key message is that Yahweh will slay those who will not worship him.  This creates something of a contradiction for me as I could not admire (let alone worship) any King who would do such a thing.

I just found this article today, so sorry for the year+ comment lag

We are human for our entire life cycle. We are whole and complete in form and function at every stage of our development, for that given developmental stage. The prepubescent child is fully human, even though they lack the capacity to execute all human functions, such as abstract reasoning, or reproduction.
In the same way, the early embryo is alive and fully human, though it has not yet executed all human organismal functions.

This gets to what @askegg:twitter is on about, because he wants to take certain characteristics which are not necessarily present across all stages of life development and use them as the defining characteristic of being human (which, as I’ve pointed out, is essentially what Singer does in defining ‘personhood’). But this is arbitrary – why those particular criteria? And what would stop someone taking certain characteristics that only adults had (such as those mentioned above) as the defining criteria, thus rendering all other stages of human development ‘not fully human’.

If there are inalienable human rights, then they belong to all humans at whatever developmental stage they’re at.

If a foetus is a member of homo sapiens and homocide is the killing of a member of homo sapiens, then strictly speaking abortion is homocide (though not all homocide is murder, nor necessarily immoral). The question is whether this form, abortion, is morally justified or not. We can only answer that by first recognising the reality that it kills a human life. We cannot dodge that reality because of how that might impact our moral perception of the action. As David Boonin admits:

In the top drawer of my desk, I keep a picture of Eli. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point

Again I come back to Singer – he agrees (with science) that a foetus is a human being and abortion kills it. Where we differ is that he thinks it’s morally permissible to do it. 

Simply declaring it “human” because biology says so, and afford it all the same rights as fully grown adult, borders on an appeal to emotion.

PZ Myers said roughly the same about his position that it’s sometimes ok to kill newborns. He and Singer both recognise that there’s no ontological difference between the unborn and the born, though they see this to mean that if abortion is ok, then killing newborns is no different, and thus, sometimes ok. After all, a newborn is not an adult either.

While a foetus may be a member of the human species according to biology (DNA), it can hardly be called an “individual” unless you’re equivocating.  

I suspect you’re the one equivocating. I’m using it in the sense I have from the start – i.e. a foetus is an individual being, not part of the mother – a new individual created by the fertilisation of an egg. You seem to want it to mean ‘independant’ (which, as Singer points out in the link I gave, is a bit of a misnomer anyway).

Again, Andrew, it’s a biological fact that you appear to be trying to wriggle out of, that a foetus is an individual human life, and an abortion kills it. If self-styled ‘militant’ pro-abortion lobbyists recognise this, why can’t you?

A foetus does not have a nervous system or brain, it cannot sense anything, it cannot experience anything (let alone pain or suffering), it cannot think

Wrong. The brain starts developing within the first 3 weeks (and indeed, continues for a year after birth for all key areas to be developed.  source), and brain activity is detectable around the 6th week, when the heart also starts beating. It’s still an embryo then, btw. Foetal stage is at about 8 weeks, by which time development of all essential organs has already started. 

There is a lot of uncertainty in regards to foetal pain:

It is not possible to measure pain directly in the fetus. Studies of stress responses can be used to give an index of the degree of trauma induced by different interventions, and also the response to analgesia or anaesthesia, but they do not indicate what the fetus actually experiences. The assessment of whether or when the fetus is likely to feel pain has to be based on an evaluation of the available anatomical and physiological evidence. The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage. The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain. Thalamic fibres first penetrate the subplate zone at about 17 weeks of gestation, and the cortex at 20 weeks. These anatomical and physiological considerations are important, not only because of immediate suffering, but also because of possible long term adverse effects of this early experience.

– source

Furthermore, I’m not even convinced that the ‘if they can’t feel it, then it’s ok’ argument is still valid – actions are not right or wrong based on whether the other person is aware of it happening to them or not.

 it cannot survive independent of the mother.

Neither can a new born. When a premature baby is born alive at 20 weeks, does that not mean a 20 week foetus is somehow different?

 During development these attributes will appear; rather like a light bulb slowly brightening; there is no definitive point in which we can suddenly declare “ah hah! NOW it has sensation, thought, experience, memory, and pain!”

I agree that development is continuous and gradual – indeed, it continues after birth – the development from infant to adult, for example, is also equally gradual, and they don’t necessarily share all the same attributes. But where your analogy lets you down is that a light with the dimmer-switch on 1 and a light with the dimmer on 10 both have electric current running through them. They are both ‘on’. So too, a foetus and a new-born are both living beings, with slightly different levels on the human development ‘dimmer switch’.

 Simply declaring it “human” because biology says so, and afford it all the same rights as fully grown adult, borders on an appeal to emotion.

No, it’s an appeal to biological definition. To say that a mother’s ‘emotions and feelings’ trump the right to life that we afford all others by virtue of being a member of homo sapiens is an appeal to emotion.

Give me your definition of what you think science says about being “human” and I’ll see if I agree that it applies to developing foetuses. 

You’re equivocating – you trying to use Singer’s criteria for “personhood” as the criteria for being “human”. You keep dancing around the biology, one minute saying ‘yes but so what’ then the next minute adding further criteria for being ‘human’. It’s biological.
What is the scientific defintion of being human (a human being)? Being a member of homo sapiens. A foetus patently is an individual member of homo sapiens.
The real question, therefore, is: When is it justified to terminate the life of an innocent human being?

You seem to say that it’s ok if they’re not concious and can’t feel anything, and reliant on another’s body for survival.

That (non)argument is that yes religious sects are whipping eachother up into a frenzy, but the non-religious are just another sect in this holy war. Absurd. The secular are not sectarian at all.

Moreover, those explicitly calling themselves atheist are informing the non-religious that they are correct about religion, and that therefore this incendiary frenzy over the God of Abraham needs defusing FAR MORE than their God of Spinoza needs defending!

I didn’t mention DNA, though, of course, a foetus will have its own DNA. The point is, a foetus is an individual member, a being, in the human species. It is a living, individual human being according to standard biology.

 
We’re going round in circles.  While a foetus may be a member of the human species according to biology (DNA), it can hardly be called an “individual” unless you’re equivocating.  A foetus does not have a nervous system or brain, it cannot sense anything, it cannot experience anything (let alone pain or suffering), it cannot think, and it cannot survive independent of the mother.  During development these attributes will appear; rather like a light bulb slowly brightening; there is no definitive point in which we can suddenly declare “ah hah! NOW it has sensation, thought, experience, memory, and pain!”
 
I think we should leave the decision to terminate with the mother, who would weigh her very real sensations, emotions, and feelings against those of the developing (and totally unaware) foetus.  Simply declaring it “human” because biology says so, and afford it all the same rights as fully grown adult, borders on an appeal to emotion.
 
 

“But why? Why should that be in addition to the scientific, biological status? You didn’t answer my point about the subjectivity of ‘suffering’ btw.”

 
Are you suggesting pain and suffering cannot be measured scientifically?
 

You might well disagree, but only because you’ve shifted the posts to say that being human is identified by certain other attributes and NOT the standard scientific defintion. Very strange for someone who claims to be led by science.

 
Give me your definition of what you think science says about being “human” and I’ll see if I agree that it applies to developing foetuses.
 
 

…and it is a biological fact that an unborn foetus is a living individual human….

 
Depends what you mean by “individual”, now doesn’t it?

more is required than simply the correct DNA

I didn’t mention DNA, though, of course, a foetus will have its own DNA. The point is, a foetus is an individual member, a being, in the human species. It is a living, individual human being according to standard biology.

I propose the ability to survive independently is required

Seems reasonable.  Independently of the mother?

You just quoted and replied to yourself.

I have already proposed that the ability to experience pain and suffering should be included.

But why? Why should that be in addition to the scientific, biological status? You didn’t answer my point about the subjectivity of ‘suffering’ btw.

They also meet other criteria such as the independence, the ability to think, act, and experience

Not if they’re unconscious they don’t (though we seem to have moved to a different meaning of ‘independance’ now… )

Yes, adoption is an option which must be weighed with the emotional affects on the mother bring a baby into the world into to give it to a stranger and never see it again, and the emotional impacts on a child who grows up knowing their biological mother did not want them (although this is not alway the case). 

 
Right, so abortion is also an option which should be considered; not unilaterally removed from the table.

You just quoted and replied to yourself again.

In any case, who are you to say that all parents must carry a pregnancy to full term regardless of the consequences?  It’s not your life.

Who is anyone to end the life of another innocent human? It’s not their life they’re ending.

You have already conceded that point by allowing “hard case” abortions.  In other words, you would allow the killing of “an innocent human life” under certain circumstances.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I said there are cases that require more consideration. Furthermore, the issue is not about me “allowing” anything, it’s simply whether it’s moral to terminate the lives of foetuses. I concede that there are cases which are unpleasant and evoke sympathy, and that certainly calls for consideraton. I am presently thinking through issues of concessions where no option is necessarily ‘good’. But I’m also not convinced that empathy and utilitarian equations negate the fundamental human right to life. I also have to take into account the testimony of people who I’ve heard speak who are the product of such unfortunate circumstances, and their rights must come into it to.

The pre-natal foetus and the post-natal newborn are both, according to biology, human beings, and should therefore have the same fundamental, inalienable rights that all human beings have.

 

I disagree, and we have been over this.  The post-natal newborn has attributes the pre-natal feotus does not (and cannot) possess.

I’m confused. You said you disagreed with Singer that a foetus is human, and then complained when I took you at that, now you say it again…You might well disagree, but only because you’ve shifted the posts to say that being human is identified by certain other attributes and NOT the standard scientific defintion. Very strange for someone who claims to be led by science. You haven’t showed why the standard biological definition ought not be used, nor given any support for WHY your further criteria of being able to feel pain (and this paragraph of yours could be taken to imply that only newborns and later are human?! surely not?). By all means disagree – but as you like to say, you can have your own opinion, but not your own facts, and it is a biological fact that an unborn foetus is a living individual human, simply earlier on the development spectrum to new-borns, children, adolencents and adults.

You are arguing down the very same line as Peter Singer in what he refers to as personhood (a line of argument that I don’t think is justified.. not least because of the historic cases where ‘personhood’ was denied because of the lack of certain attributes, if you can say why your criteria are more justified, let’s hear it!) – the biological status as a member of homo sapiens is scientific fact, he agrees.( see here)

Even self-described ‘militant’ pro-abortion lobbyists recognise this:

human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy…
We must courageously face the fact–finally–that human life of a special order is being taken

See the rest of Nathanson’s article as he, as a pro-abortion lobbyist, argues against your ‘between the mother and doctor’ position as well.Ultimately, as I think these two also point to, it comes down to whether it is ever justified to take the (human) life of a foetus. I’m not yet convinced it is, for the same reason I’m not convinced it’s right to take any innocent human life. 

Yes, it’s absurd, and largely equivocal. Yes, skin cells are ‘human’ but they are not unique individuals in the same way a foetus is.

 
As I said – more is required than simply the correct DNA, or you would also be against IVF which routinely and knowingly results in the death of zygotes.
 

I propose the ability to survive independently is required

 
Seems reasonable.  Independently of the mother?
 

In what manner, though? we could say that a newborn cannot survive independently, too. along with the ability to experience pain and/or suffering

 
I have already proposed that the ability to experience pain and suffering should be included.
 

I still think this is far too arbitrary. Further, taken logically, any individual who was rendered unable to feel pain (suffering is far more subjective) might then be on the wrong end of your utilitarian stick, might they not?

 
They also meet other criteria such as the independence, the ability to think, act, and experience.
 

Yes, adoption is an option which must be weighed with the emotional affects on the mother bring a baby into the world into to give it to a stranger and never see it again, and the emotional impacts on a child who grows up knowing their biological mother did not want them (although this is not alway the case). 

 
Right, so abortion is also an option which should be considered; not unilaterally removed from the table.
 

Interesting that you see adoption as being a negative thing that causes pain.

 
I said it can, not that it must.
 

Abortions based on (in many cases, possible) disability is social darwinism (aka eugenics) and sends a terrible message to the disabled who weren’t killed in the womb

 
Perhaps, though I think it sends a message about the parents more than the disabled.  In any case, who are you to say that all parents must carry a pregnancy to full term regardless of the consequences?  It’s not your life.
 

I do grant that there are situations that require more consideration, and given that the majority of abortions are what you’ve called ‘voluntary’, I don’t think the hard cases can be used to justify the majority.

 
No, but the distinction was important.  There ARE cases in which abortion is a perfectly reasonable option, so you cannot really say you are anti-abortion (I have raised this point with others in debate in the past).  What many pro-lifers seem to really object to are the “voluntary” abortions, which is a different matter.
 

I don’t think anyone has the right to decide if another innocent human life should be terminated (aka killed).

 
You have already conceded that point by allowing “hard case” abortions.  In other words, you would allow the killing of “an innocent human life” under certain circumstances.
 

The pre-natal foetus and the post-natal newborn are both, according to biology, human beings, and should therefore have the same fundamental, inalienable rights that all human beings have.

 
I disagree, and we have been over this.  The post-natal newborn has attributes the pre-natal feotus does not (and cannot) possess.
 

However when you say that Christians are persecuting people you are leaving out the fact that it’s not just Christians that do these things.

So? That’s no justification for Christians doing it. In Pakistan, Muslims persecute Christians. But in Australia, Muslims are about 1% of the population and Christianity holds enormous power. The religious education taught in schools is overwhelmingly  Christian, as are the chaplains (95% from memory). Like Muslims, Christians are thin-skinned and take even minor criticism or insufficient respect shown as persecution.

A common tactic by Christians is to try to deflect criticism toward other religions. You’re doing it now.

However, Christians are just as imperfect as you are. We still fail and we still do wrong. The difference between Christians and the rest of the world however is we have hope.

Well, no. You Christians think your bad behaviour is forgiven by Jesus; that gives you license for it, so long as you are sufficiently contrite every Sunday.

[...] we have hope. We have something to look forward to after this meager and painful existence, what do you have to look forward to?

I have hope that the human race will continue to progress, move beyond its petty religions and nationalism, and continue to explore space and eventually spread out beyond this planet onto other planets and other star systems. I won’t see it, but I can do my part to make the world a better place while I’m here.

Your idea of “heaven” is dull and foetid compared to what our species can achieve in reality. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that what you believe is in any way true.  False hope is living a lie. Faith is gullibility. Atheists are people who live their lives according to our best understanding of the nature of reality, i.e. that there are no gods and there is no afterlife.

However I hope that Jesus will change your heart and you can see what true Christianity is about

I think both askegg and I have a more accurate understanding of Christianity than you. You decry the bad behaviour we report and call it “not true Christianity”. You redefine Christianity to include only what you think is the good stuff and exclude the bad. You are wearing blinders if you do not see that your religion is rotten to the core. Your god, if it existed, would be a monster. Your Jesus story is predicated on every human being punished for the acts of two original humans, for which the best solution your deity could come up with was to have his own son tortured and killed. But don’t be disturbed, the death was only temporary. Sometime in the unspecified future this god will return to destroy the planet, but in the meantime don’t fret; you have merely to believe this unlikely tale and all your sins will be forgiven. After imparting this gruesome message, the holy trinity disappeared leaving no trace of their present or former existence. What a class act that Jehovah is.

In one sense I agree that a “human” can be defined at that which has the correct DNA.  Taken to extremes this also means scrapping away living skin cells is a virtual holocaust.  This is obviously absurd, 

Yes, it’s absurd, and largely equivocal. Yes, skin cells are ‘human’ but they are not unique individuals in the same way a foetus is. A foetus is a being, one that is, as we seem to agree, human. Comparing a foetus to skin cells is spurious.

 I propose the ability to survive independently is required

In what manner, though? we could say that a newborn cannot survive independantly, too.

 along with the ability to experience pain and/or suffering

I still think this is far too arbitrary. Further, taken logically, any individual who was rendered unable to feel pain (suffering is far more subjective) might then be on the wrong end of your utilitarian stick, might they not?

Yes, adoption is an option which must be weighed with the emotional affects on the mother bring a baby into the world into to give it to a stranger and never see it again, and the emotional impacts on a child who grows up knowing their biological mother did not want them (although this is not alway the case).  

Interesting that you see adoption as being a negative thing that causes pain. How would you weigh the positive impact on the adoptive couple, and positive impact they may have on a child against that?

genetic defects

Abortions based on (in many cases, possible) disability is social darwinism (aka eugenics) and sends a terrible message to the disabled who weren’t killed in the womb (the vast majority of Down Syndrome cases are aborted, not to mention cleft-pallette), as is, gender selection-abortion, which is rife in India and China.

I do grant that there are situations that require more consideration, and given that the majority of abortions are what you’ve called ‘voluntary’, I don’t think the hard cases can be used to justify the majority.

Rather than force a woman to have a child regardless of how she became pregnant I have enough empathy to leave the decision between her and her doctor. 

I don’t think anyone has the right to decide if another innocent human life should be terminated (aka killed). The pre-natal foetus and the post-natal newborn are both, according to biology, human beings, and should therefore have the same fundamental, inalienable rights that all human beings have.Whether the UN actually follows up on infringements of it’s Human Rights, and more specifically, Rights of the Child (which specifically calls for special protection of the unborn) declarations is beside the point.

I’m glad that you see it as a matter that should be informed by science, as many see the issue ideologically (e.g. as the final frontier of autonomy and  sexual liberation and anti-patriarchy). But it seems to me that the science is clear: a foetus is a human being, and that even pro-abortionists like Singer recognise this.

If the science is clear, and we ought to afford the unborn the same rights as any other human, then it remains to support those who have responsibilities they did not wish for (or who must bear them until such time as the responsibility of care can be transferred to another). Abortion is view through the lens of individualism, and I would suggest that we are, and need to remember that we are more interconnected than modern ideology would have us think. As John Donne said,no man is an island.

If nothing else, I do hope you can see why the ‘if you don’t like it don’t have one’ line just doesn’t cut it – there are real, serious concerns, informed by biology, which cannot just be dismissed like that.

In one sense I agree that a “human” can be defined at that which has the correct DNA.  Taken to extremes this also means scrapping away living skin cells is a virtual holocaust.  This is obviously absurd, so there must be more which must be added to the definition to make it workable.  I propose the ability to survive independently is required, along with the ability to experience pain and/or suffering – and I am sure there are more. Any rights afforded hinge on these tricky definitions.  I do not accept that they are as black and white as you imagine.

Yes, adoption is an option which must be weighed with the emotional affects on the mother bring a baby into the world into to give it to a stranger and never see it again, and the emotional impacts on a child who grows up knowing their biological mother did not want them (although this is not alway the case).  

Rather than get into the nitty gritty of the myriad of possible scenarios, it is sufficient to acknowledge that abortions are acceptable in some situations. Ectopic pregnancies, genetic defects, effects of drug abuse, and more may all result in non-viable pregnancies, yet no one seems to oppose abortion in these cases.  What seems to be the main objection are voluntary abortions.

Rather than force a woman to have a child regardless of how she became pregnant I have enough empathy to leave the decision between her and her doctor.  I am not weighed down with the problems of spirits or souls, and no country is being accused of violating human rights by the UN for providing abortions to its citizens.

  I think this is a workable definition of “human” (or whatever), but the main point I was making was to compare the suffering which results from a decision.

Sort of – the issue was that you contested Singer’s premise that a foetus is an innocent human being. So should I assume you retract the following statement:

If a foetus has “has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction”, then I am not convinced we can classify it as “human”, so it loses the utilitarian equation against the mother.

You seem now to agree that a foetus is a human, and that your main point is that even still, it loses on some kind of utilitarian ‘suffering’ measurement?

You also didn’t really answer my question about inalienable human rights expect to appear to imply that the right to life is not actually inalienable but subject to a mother’s wishes so long as they can’t feel it?
I don’t think human rights ought to be weighed in a utilitarian way, in fact, I would say that the declaration of human rights champions the rights of individuals to not be sacrificed for concepts like ‘greater good’. 

 this is why many countries which allow abortions only offer them to a certain age 

Actually, the age limit is usually on the basis of “viablility” and is e.g. 24 weeks in the UK, despite live births occurring at 20 weeks. (I take from what you’ve written that you’re against partial birth abortions, or leaving those born after botched attempts to die?)

The rights of the mother also need to be protected, or should we force women to have children for the remainders of their lives to due rape or simple mistake?

With rights also come responsibilities, and sometimes our ‘mistakes’ leave us with certain responsibilities. Any right to not live with the consequences of our actions, however unintended, (and sometimes the consequences of other people’s actions) does not override another’s inalienable human right to life. 

Out of interest, do you factor adoption into your equation of ‘suffering caused’?

Sure.  If you define an individual of a species as one which possesses a DNA sequence.  I think this is a workable definition of “human” (or whatever), but the main point I was making was to compare the suffering which results from a decision.

> It seems to me that you are arguing for personhood as the qualifier.

No, not really.  A blastocyst cannot sense pain or experience suffering, so the equation is rather simple.  Nevertheless, there are situations which even you would advocate the termination of a human life (as you have defined it above).

> what does that mean? Are you against abortion after the point of feeling pain?

That depends on the situation, but in general “yes”.  These issues are not as clear cut as many people pretend.  I cannot advocate terminations for pregnancies, or ban them across the board. Everyone in this debate would not advocate the first, but many see no problem with the second.

> It’s not a straw man, because it’s still somewhat arbitrary to use feeling-pain as the deciding factor. It’s at least less objective that a biological fact of being a member of the species.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but there is a stage in development in which a foetus can be said to experience pain and suffering.  While this may not be the same precise moment for every pregnancy, the general trend is there and this is why many countries which allow abortions only offer them to a certain age (unless there are extenuating circumstances).  These decisions are best left to the doctors dealing with individual situations under the framework of a system driven by scientific information.

> What do you make of the declaration of human rights, which is based on inalienable rights as human beings – to say that these rights might need to be weighed with consequences (in a utilitarian way) seems to deny that the rights are inalienable – or how do you reconcile them then?

The rights of the mother also need to be protected, or should we force women to have children for the remainders of their lives to due rape or simple mistake?

Why don’t we just round this off nicely and say that absolutely everything is shit and can be disproved by any other means? Unless of course this whole post is wrong because it’s in English.

I am not using the capacity to feel suffering as a measure to determine humanity, but as a utilitarian way to compare the potential consequences of various decisions.

Apologies.. I took you literally when you said:
If a foetus has “has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction”, then I am not convinced we can classify it as “human”

 At some stage the foetus develops a nervous system and the capacity to feel pain, and becomes capable of being an independent life (albeit dependent on others).

No, that just makes it an independent (I would say individual, which perhaps what you mean by independent but dependent) human life which has developed a nervous system. 

 Where the cross over occurs is a decision best left t those who study such things – doctors.  It’s really as simple as that.

What about this, from microbiologist Gerard Nadal?:

Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert is arguably the leading text in the field. Gilbert is on faculty at Swarthmore College. [he writes:]
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
If that can be said with such certainty of one vertebrate, it can be said of all vertebrates.

I’m not a biologist, and don’t have access to a proper library,  but there’s plenty of other quotes from biology around.. it seems that the doctors are clear that life begins at conception, or at least that embryos are human life forms.
It seems to me that you are arguing for personhood as the qualifier.
Never-the-less, let’s run with your argument for a moment..

This significantly changes the equation

what does that mean? Are you against abortion after the point of feeling pain?

Nice straw man you have there.  Read what I wrote above to see why.

It’s not a straw man, because it’s still somewhat arbitrary to use feeling-pain as the deciding factor. It’s at least less objective that a biological fact of being a member of the species.

“… would you agree with the syllogism and and hold that it is wrong to kill and innocent human being…” – Andrew Finden

To make such a decision we need to weigh the consequences along the path of each possible decision.

Interesting to see you come out in favour of utilitarianism.. I hadn’t picked up on that before. What do you make of the declaration of human rights, which is based on inalienable rights as human beings – to say that these rights might need to be weighed with consequences (in a utilitarian way) seems to deny that the rights are inalienable – or how do you reconcile them then?