Abortion – Do You Value the Life of a Human Above that of an Animal?

Occasionally we spot an insect in the house and need to get rid of it. My usual approach to these situations is to scoop it onto a piece of paper and throw it out of the house. Sometimes though there’s no option but to squish it and I feel horribly guilty. It preys on my mind for quite a while afterwards.

Once we had to lay mice traps and I had to get rid of them once they were caught. I was told to just throw the traps away with the mice still in them, but this struck me as pretty cruel. The animal would die a lingering death from starvation, exposure or something worse. So I gave them a quick death by summary execution outside. This is more painful for me, but I tell myself it’s the least I can do.

Isn't all life the same?
Isn’t all life the same?

My question is – does everyone feel this way?

I try my best to avoid killing anything. While this may strike one as a good thing, the corollary is that I treat all life equally – human or animal. Given a choice to kill a random human and a random dog, I would flip a coin. Given a choice between a dog I know and a random human, I would always choose the dog.

So two things are odd in me. First, I have a problem killing spiders, ants, insects etc…which many may view as a good thing. But second, my value for human life doesn’t seem to be the same as that held for it by others. Many individuals I have seen place human life at a higher value than all other forms of life – even when the life in question is no better than a bunch of cells as in a fetus.

People will happily eat eggs, chickens, and cows and yet raise hell when a woman wants to have an abortion of a fetus that is just a few days old and is clearly nothing more than a bunch of cells! I agree that there is a time limit above which a fetus can qualify as human in the later stages of pregnancy. But before that, even insects like ants and mosquitoes have more consciousness and life. The hypocrisy of those who claim abortion violates the “sanctity of life” and who eat animal products or kill mosquitoes or cockroaches takes my breath away.

A common argument put forward to support the idea that a human life is inherently more valuable than an animal one is that we humans are capable of higher thinking and consciousness. That’s true. We do have this greater ability. But animals have many things we humans do not. Some can fly, some can run fast, others have stunning eyesight, smell, hearing etc. When it comes to raw abilities, humans are actually pretty lacking. Our progress and development is because we’re able to share knowledge and build upon what others have done before us.

Also if mental capability and quality are reasons to place humans on a pedestal, what of those individuals who are mentally retarded, old people with Alzheimer’s, and children? Last I checked, all such people are given the same rights as the rest of us. Shouldn’t we given them fewer rights in line with the animals because of their reduced mental capacity? But that doesn’t happen and it’s hypocritical.

It’s “speciesism” nothing more. The idea that your species is special for no other reason than that you belong to it. You might pull the religious card and say that the bible or whatever puts humans on a higher footing with animals. But if the bible is proof of the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman :). Let’s not bring god into this.

So what do you think? What would you do if you had to pick between your pet’s life and a random human stranger’s life?

What do you think of this post?
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (1)
  • Agree (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

249 thoughts on “Abortion – Do You Value the Life of a Human Above that of an Animal?”

  1. In organisms that have a Central Nervous System the “ end of life “ may mean when the brain no longer emits electrical signals; in other words it is Brain Dead. Continuing to provide a “ brain dead “ brain with oxygen through a ventilator or continuing to sustain the functioning of the heart through a heart lung machine would be futile.

    In organisms that have no CNS like plants perhaps “end of life “ may mean when they cease to metabolize; this may also apply to bacteria
    .What about viruses ? They have DNA but do not metabolise; maybe we could say that they are “ dead “ when they lose their capability to invade cells and incorporate themselves into the DNA of their host’s cells

    Many mutations probably occur through viruses which act in the above manner. This is also how virues replicate ; through the DNA of their hosts

    A dead leaf has no “ life “ just as hair and nails. But they still contain matter ( hair and nails even contain DNA ) which is held together by forces. To delve into those forces is what is interesting; we’ve indentified 2 Higgs bosons ( or even more ). What next – I wonder ?-

    To me “ life “ is just another phenomenon.

    Interesting news: Journal of the Royal Society Interface
    “ In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry. That approach is failing to capture the essence of what life is about “Journal of the Royal Society Interface; co author Paul Davies; physician and astrobiologist in Arizona State University

    Interesting follow up on the discussion about whether when when “ life” ends then “ that’s it “ as far as human consciousness is concerned. Is consciousness conscious about itself in the absence of a living organism with a CNS etc.

    Studies are being initiated to understand how the Mathematician Ramanujan “ received ‘ previously unknown mathematical formulas while asleep.; even on his death bed. Fortunately he was able to convey them to Hardy who was his associate and responsible for giving Ramanujan the credit due to him. These formulas were not proved then; they have been now ( 100 years later ) because we have the tools to do so. He would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.
    Quoting K. Srinivasa Rao,[94] “As for his place in the world of Mathematics, we quote Bruce C. Berndt: ‘Paul Erdős has passed on to us Hardy’s personal ratings of mathematicians. Suppose that we rate mathematicians on the basis of pure talent on a scale from 0 to 100, Hardy gave himself a score of 25, J.E. Littlewood 30, David Hilbert 80 and Ramanujan 100.'”

    WHERE did this information come from ? Even Steve jobs said that he just saw “ ideas “ in his head and was able to then work on them. Child prodigies say that they just “ see “ the notes in their head and then write them down. WHERE are these “ ideas “ coming from ?

    Reply

  2. Brilliant post! Throws the brain into a muddle thinking of how humans value certain kinds of life over other forms of life. Good point about the hypocrisy of those who claim abortion violates the “sanctity of life” and who eat animal products or kill mosquitoes or cockroaches.

    Reply

  3. All that this article is, is a big muddle of confusion right from top to bottom. The writer wanted to express something but is found arguing on both sides of the fence. This could actually have been an interesting and thought provoking article had not the writer messed it up with his confused mind. After going through all the text on this page, I’m forced to ask a few questions to the writer.

    [1] You say the fetus is a parasite. You also say a fetus can be killed as it cannot be accepted to be living. So are we looking at a concept of non-living parasites?

    [2] You feel guilty after squishing a mosquito which is a parasite. Would you then feel guilty after an act of abortion too?

    [3] Locusts are a type of insects which feed on crops. Farmers are known to use insecticides to kill locusts and other insects. Most insecticides cause a slow, painful and suffocating death. Since even insects have consciousness, do we expect you to demand for abolition of insecticide use now?

    [4] You have on the picture in the article, a caption which reads – “ Isn’t all life the same?”. And then you argue that there is the possibility of the presence of life different from the life on earth.

    [5] You talk of mentally retarded people and people with Alzheimer’s, that they have equal rights as normal people and animals shouldn’t be different just because they lack intelligence. But then you go to the extent of calling plants lifeless just because they don’t have the power to move and express pain. Just like it’s not the fault of a mentally retarded person to be mentally retarded, why should it be the fault of plants for not being able to move?

    [6] Another example of completely contradictory comments by you :-
    “It’s also not just about pain because that would mean that killing without pain is always ethical. Part of it is about organisms having the right to their own life – whether they feel pain or not.”
    And then,
    “I have no issues if the animal is killed quickly and with a minimal of torture for food. Otherwise I have a huge problem.”

    [7] At one place you say – “As of now, the scientific consensus (to which I bow) says that plants do not have consciousness”. But then you completely disagree with scientific consensus which defines life and includes plants in the living world.

    [8] For every argument you want a reliable source or proof about a fact from the other person. But if the same is asked of you, you comfortably deny having to refer to a source by quoting your ‘thought experiments’ at work.

    And I can go on and on. What probably started as a valid article about abortion, ended up as something strange. As you rightly said, this space is only a laboratory of your ‘thought experiments’. The only drawback being that you have this antagonistic tendency to argue against whatever someone says even if it requires contradicting your own logic mentioned earlier. And I expect you to be no different in replying to me. In fact, I’m absolutely sure that you’ll reply to each of the things I mentioned here trying to sound logical. Initially I wanted to express my views on the topic of abortion by being open to discussion to check where I need to rethink on my views. But after going through the entire discussion here, I don’t want to disturb your delusion that whatever you think is the ultimate truth.

    Reply

  4. Somehow this topic has turned from ‘is it ok to harm other non-human living things’ to ‘do plants deserve the same consideration as animals and other humans do’. And there are a lot of thought-provoking comments about the presence of ‘consciousness’ in plants, which is interesting, but to me it boils down to trying to minimize the harm caused to other living organisms. I don’t think it is possible to survive without causing harm, and plants are lower down the scale in terms of consciousness than animals, so causing plants harm by eating them is less harmful (according to me). Also, regarding certain fruits and vegetables, plants have developed them in order to reproduce and spread their seeds, so I don’t think plucking an apple off a tree is going to cause the tree too much pain. I think this is also why Jains don’t eat onions, garlic and potatoes, because in order to eat them the whole plant has to die (not sure though). This whole food chain rationale, animals are meant to be eaten, high reproduction rate(disgusting) etc., is nonsense. Humans have a choice in our food selection, we are omnivores, and all the nutrients that are in meat can be gotten through fermented foods, so there is no NEED to eat animals. If we were living in the jungle, struggling to survive, what we SHOULD be eating would be anything that keeps us alive, but since we have evolved past that stage we need to think about the food choices we are making.

    I think tp said it best “Where there is compassion and a will, there is always a way. But compassion – the awakening has to come from within; it cannot be forced; it has to evolve…”

    Also, I hope I am never forced to choose between the life of an animal I know vs. an unknown person, but if I did I would probably choose the animal. I do not feel like only humans deserve to live, other living creatures have every right to do so as well. As for abortion, I value the life of the mother over the life of the child, so the mother’s rights trump the childs’. You are right in saying that pro-lifers don’t seem to worry about what happens to the child after it is born.

    Reply

    • In reply to BBD-Lite

      BBD-Lite, most of what you wrote makes sense. Except for the food-chain part. It is not like, animals ‘should’ eat other animals because of their position in the food-chain. It is the other way round, that the food-chain has been worked out after observing the feeding habits of animals. Though now, the concept of a simple food-chain has been replaced by the food-web where animals may be observed feeding on other animals lying even higher in the hierarchy. Anyways, this shouldn’t have been about animals in the first place. Looking at abortion through ethical reasons is unwarranted enough. Debating on it with respect to consideration for other animals is equal to, but opposite to what the pro-lifers argue.

      In any case of abortion, the health of the mother should be the utmost priority. In case of a physically healthy woman with no health risks, the choice of whether or not to undergo an abortive procedure should be her call. But in cases where an abortion may put the life of the mother in danger, it shouldn’t be carried out even if its the mother’s choice. Abortion is not similar/harmless as using a purgative. It has many short-term as well as long-term adverse effects, both physical and mental. And only in a very few voluntary cases does the woman escape without any negative psychological effects. And one thing which people seem to be ignorant of – termination of pregnancy before a certain time (20 weeks) is advocated more, considering the lesser harm to the woman’s health before than after 20 weeks and NOT just because a fetus can be or not considered to be alive by that time. Its high time people should give up the debate on the basis of the fetus and start considering the pros and cons with respect to the woman’s health.

      I hope that the author of this article doesn’t come up with something like – suicide should be legal if a person chooses to end his or her life.

      Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Suicide should indeed be legal. It’s absurd to think that anyone other than myself gets to decide whether my life should continue or not!

        Btw, statistically abortion is safer for the mother than actually having the baby.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I was absolutely sure that you would come up in support of suicide. But I won’t debate on it as it is your opinion and I’m only too happy to let you keep it.

        But you have gone a step further and dropped another pearl of wisdom saying that – “abortion is safer for the mother than actually having the baby”. So now, every woman who gets pregnant should have an abortion (as it is safer for her) and we should happily wait for the end of the human race. Except, obviously, if you have some ideas of engineering humans without the process of gestation in a woman.

        I don’t know where you get your statistics from, but obviously, you don’t seem to believe that anything like medical science exists. But if you do, please consult statistics based on medical facts and knowledge before commenting something. Abortion is safer for the mother in conditions where the continuation of pregnancy is a risk to her health. For example, in cases of severe ecclampsia, severe hypertensive/cardiovascular disease, carcinoma of the cervix, auto-immune disease, etc. However, there are many circumstances where an abortion may put the life of the woman in danger. For example, hemorrhagic disorders, severe anemia, porphyrias, etc. are contraindications for either surgical or medical termination of pregnancy. It is absurd to generalize all abortions to be either safer or riskier to the woman concerned without assessing her medical condition.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Umm…do you actually review facts before telling other people they’re wrong, or is it intuition?

        Here are the actual statistics from abortion:

        “Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine. In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).”

        It’s not a good idea to accuse others of not looking up facts when you yourself are guilty of doing the same. Makes you lose credibility if you know what I mean.

        I never said all abortions are safer. I said statistically they are safer. Do you understand the difference?

        Please let me know how I can take anything you say seriously after this. At the very least, tone down your arrogance so you don’t make a fool of yourself.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Surely you will not be able to take me seriously because it is obvious that you didn’t understand a single word of my comment above. But I cannot blame you for that because I don’t expect you to understand details of medical science. I’ll still try nevertheless.

        In my comment above, I specifically stated that – “It is absurd to generalize all abortions to be either safer or riskier to the woman concerned without assessing her medical condition.” Nowhere did I remotely suggest that abortions are either ‘always unsafe’ or ‘always safe’. And I gave specific examples where an abortion can be life-saving as well as examples where it can be fatal. Do you understand the difference???

        You gave a reference from Wikipedia (which you seem to consider the ultimate source of all knowledge). If only you would have checked the provided information carefully. I’ll do that for you now.

        The health risks of abortion depend on whether the procedure is performed safely or unsafely. The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortions as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities.[46]Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine.[1][47] In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).[48][49] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks’ gestation.[50][51][52]

        So, interestingly, you comfortably omitted the previous and subsequent sentences and copied only the part that supposedly backed your logic. Ok. If only would have checked the references in numbers ( [1], [47], [48], [49] ) from the very portion which you stated, you could have refrained from using the reference. Let me do that for you as well.

        [1] http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_4.pdf
        This article is about studies done from 1991-2000. Finally compiled based on those studies and published in 2006.

        [47] http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717375
        Article published in 2004.

        [48] http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2012&issue=02000&article=00003&type=abstract
        Article based on studies conducted from 1998-2005.

        [49] http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(05)00973-7/abstract
        Article based on studies conducted from 1991-1999.

        Now, I hope you are well aware of the year we are currently living in. And for medical science, a difference of mere 5 years may be equivalent to a different generation altogether. And since your reference specifically talks about mortality, let me inform you that the Maternal Mortality Rate in USA for 1987 was 6.6 per 100,000 which had risen to more than 16 per 100,000 by 2009 which is shocking for a leading developed country. (Reference – http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/07/27/Why-is-maternal-mortality-so-high-in-the-US/WEN-7181343403729/) It (USA) is one of 23 countries where maternal mortality is steadily on the rise. Also, globally, abortion is the third most common factor for maternal mortality.

        Even if we accept your statistics (which you yourself limit to ‘safe abortions’ in developed countries), you should have limited your views on the safety of abortion strictly to developed countries. Because if you will care to read from reference [1] above, the developing countries are facing an epidemic of sorts of deaths due to unsafe abortions. Generalizing abortions to be safe everywhere in the world is absurd. And I guess the article by you was for abortion in general rather than specific to developed countries.

        The basic point is that no doctor can perform an elective termination of pregnancy without assessing the medical condition of the woman. If a woman, who has a severe hemorrhagic disorder, wishes to undergo an abortion, a doctor does not and cannot rush to do so, just because he is convinced of some statistics which suggest abortions are safer, then gets the woman killed and later come out and jumps for joy shouting – “I upheld her right to choice to have an abortion”.

        So I still state that an elective abortion can be life-saving or can be fatal depending upon the medical condition of the pregnant woman. And I don’t need to shout my mouth off on the basis of half-baked and outdated facts from Wikipedia for my convenience. What I say is based on my experience of handling cases in and out of the OT for the past thirteen years.

        And if I come across as arrogant through my words, I can do nothing much if you are so emotionally fragile that you get offended by my way with words. At least I don’t call you names (and hence don’t make a fool of myself).

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        I asked you not to be arrogant for your sake not mine. You’re a guest on my blog – it’s reasonable to assume that you should behave like one when you’re here no?

        We’re only talking about legal abortions following the proper procedure. At least I was. If that wasn’t clear earlier, let me make it clear now.

        So I still state that an elective abortion can be life-saving or can be fatal depending upon the medical condition of the pregnant woman.

        Who’s even disputing this? We’re not talking about specific cases, but in the aggregate. As in statistics.

        And here was my original statement: “Btw, statistically abortion is safer for the mother than actually having the baby.”

        It now turns out that you’re actually agreeing with me. Why didn’t you say so at the beginning and spare both of us the hassle?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        If you were talking of ‘legal’ and ‘safe’ abortions on the basis of a normal and healthy pregnant woman’s choice, under skilled medical care, I’m wholeheartedly agreeing with you.

        But, I disagree with any generalized statement which says abortions are (even statistically) safer than actually having the baby.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Let’s agree to disagree on the food chain thing then :) But my point was other animals and most humans in the past do/did not have much choice about what to eat, anything to survive is/was okay, but since most humans now have the luxury of buying food we can make more compassionate choices.

        Refusing abortion because it puts the mother’s life in danger, when the mother has given consent to the abortion is an argument I haven’t heard before. I’m not sure I agree though because if the woman has been given counselling etc. and knows full well the risk to her life, if she STILL wants to go through with the abortion then I think it is still her decision. I would not be happy with that decision if the abortion is life-threatening, but I think she has a right to make it.

        Reply

    • In reply to BBD-Lite

      BBD-Lite
      nonsense is when you say that;

      “Also, I hope I am never forced to choose between the life of an animal I know vs. an unknown person, but if I did I would probably choose the animal” and completely ignore other probabilities like what if the animal and human both are known to you or what if the human is known and animal is not yours?

      Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        Err… I answered that particular scenario because that is the question BJP posed at the end of his post. But “if the animal and human both are known to you or what if the human is known and animal is not yours”, I really can’t say what I would do because like I said to me all life has value. I wouldn’t automatically save the human, it would depend on the circumstances.

        Reply

  5. It’s a BS when the people who are talking about sanctity of life compare life of a human to that of a mosquito or cockroach.

    Reply

    • In reply to Anjali

      Anjali, personally, I don’t think the issue of abortion should have anything to do with sanctity of life considering/comparing other species. It should be decided purely on medical terms. The way pro-lifers oppose abortion for the sanctity of life even if the life of mother is put in danger is as absurd as the logic being used here which argues on the basis of sanctity of all forms of life including comparison with insects. What people here are arguing for is the right of a woman to choose to abort. While I believe the most important thing is the right of a woman to have the best of health.

      Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Mayur,you are a saviour…how on the earth was I going to excavate what this blog is about…!!!

        I am not a pro life…I agree on the part that abortions should allowed on the basis of medical grounds and for the rape victims…but I think there should be a bar over reckless abortions and obviously it has to start from somewhere.I do not consider importance of an innate life because its written in some religious book.I think a fetus deserves to live if it is competent enough and does not cause any harm to the mother.

        Reply

      • In reply to BBD-Lite

        BBD-Lite, I cannot answer for Anjali, but according to me, “reckless abortions” ‘might’ mean a woman getting pregnant thinking she can have an abortion every time she gets pregnant.

        Reply

      • In reply to BBD-Lite

        I referred reckless abortion in terms of the ease with which abortions were practised earlier…it’s only result of the law that recognizes the rights of the unborn and legal obligations that we can see decrease in abortion rates per year.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        So according to you if a woman has unprotected sex every day of her life and also takes the “morning after” pill the next day every day of her life, that is somehow wrong?

        Why? Because there are a few hundred cells lying inside her that do not even closely resemble a human being?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        A ‘morning after pill’ is NOT abortion. It is a contraceptive measure. :-)

        And contraceptive measures do not allow conception. So the question of a few hundred cells does not even arise.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        I agree that the morning after pill is not an abortion.

        But I have a feeling Anjali would still consider it to be a termination of a life. If I’m wrong, I stand corrected.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        As I said, I cannot speak for Anjali, but specifically for abortions, repeated abortions (that is what I understood from the word ‘reckless’) apart from being impractical are sure to be extremely hazardous for any female’s health.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,if there is no life why would I worry about it…pills are the prevention…it’s better not to conceive or let the gametes remain segregated then to wait for them to fuse and metamorphose into a living form only to terminate it later.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        There is a whole class of contraceptives which can be taken after fertilization has occurred. They prevent the embryo from attaching itself to the uterine wall thus causing its expulsion. There’s a lot of info on how it works here: http://www.womenscenter.com/how_does_ec_work_faq.html

        Strictly this is not contraception but “interception” since it allows the fusing of the egg and sperm to occur and “aborts” the sequence after that.

        Do you consider this wrong if done every day?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I’ll make a few technical corrections here owing to a lot of confusion regarding medical terms. In fact, I’ll refer to the link provided above about contraceptives.

        [1] Abortion is defined as any method that removes a viable pregnancy from the attached uterine wall. – http://www.womenscenter.com/how_does_ec_work_faq.html#IUDCauseAbortion

        [2] There is no contraceptive method that causes abortion. – http://www.womenscenter.com/how_does_ec_work_faq.html#contraabortionpill

        Contraception, interception and abortion are different things. Contraception is the prevention of conception (fertilization between a sperm and an ovum). Interception is an obstacle to prevent a fertilized ovum to implant in the uterus. Abortion has already been described in [1] above.

        Having said that, I can’t understand why people are so hung up with the moral and ethical aspects of whether a fetus (or an embryo) is alive or not. Instead of debating whether a method (either contraception or abortion) is right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that whether it is medically feasible for an individual or not. Both the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ people seem to be oblivious of all the medical aspects of the issue.

        Speaking strictly in medical terms, an individual can use (hormonal) contraceptives but cannot undergo abortion every day. If a completely healthy woman undergoes abortion, the products of conception are actually detached from her uterine wall, which leads to irreversible changes in the uterine histology. Ignoring any short term and temporary effects of abortion (which a normal healthy woman may actually escape), the irreversible histological changes in the uterus are permanent.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        20 weeks is an arbitrary limit. I’m speaking from a philosophical point of view and not from a technical medical one, since I’m interested in the thought process behind it.

        There are many people who consider it murder even when an abortion is performed days after the pregnancy. I want to find out if Anjali is one of those individuals.

        For that matter, there are those who consider it murder even to use a condom. It’s a sliding scale and I want to know who lies where.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        firstly emergency contraceptive pills are not abortion pills..it’s just a post coital pill,secondly it has to be taken within 72 hrs of the copulation…an embryo is formed only after the Implantation phase i.e 7 days after the conception ..basically emergency contraceptives interfere with the process of ovulation, and if there is no ovulation the question of implantation or destruction of embryo doesn’t even arise.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        Once again, there is a lot of confusion going on here.

        In medical terms, a viable pregnancy is only when it completes 20 weeks in the uterus. Before twenty weeks, a pregnancy isn’t considered viable. That’s why elective abortion is done mostly before 20 weeks of pregnancy because when it reaches the stage of viability, abortion does more harm to the mother than before 20 weeks. Therefore, even a hypothetical question such as the one above is invalid.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        By that logic, if human life has the same value as an insect’s life, then a fetus should never be killed (irrespective of what effect it may have on the mother’s health) AND the use of insecticides should be abolished just as you wouldn’t kill a crowd of humans by spraying them with insecticides.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Actually you got it backwards. I believe both fetuses AND insects can be killed. I’ve killed insects after all even though I felt bad about it. Killing humans and fetuses should be no different. It’s all about net benefit to the killer.

        You’ve taken my post to assume that I’m glorifying the value of life by saying that the life of insects is as precious as that of a human. In fact, my point is the opposite – that there’s nothing special about it and that human life is just about as casual and worthless as an insect’s :)

        If a crowd of humans was threatening me, I wouldn’t hesitate to eliminate all of them if I could. Just like a swarm of insects.

        Reply

  6. so why shouldnt female feticide be made legal if the consent of the woman should be the only thing required ? a female fetus shouldnt have the right to live inside a woman’s body without her consent if the woman doesnt want female children. if some people dont want female children it should be their choice. how can a state dictate the choices of its citizens ? i think your article can be a boon to all the female feticide dominant areas in the world. why should some parts of the world be denied your logical and rational argument ?

    Reply

  7. Firstly, feticide is not the same as infanticide. Feticide is about a fetus while infanticide is about an infant. I don’t think I need to describe the difference between a fetus and an infant.

    “You punish an act. Not an intention.”

    Does that mean that killing a person in self defense should be tried as murder? Something you said is fine if done in self defense in the heat of the moment on the topic of rape. If intention is not to be taken into account then shouldn’t all instances of a person getting dead be punished as murder? Like, if a patient dies while being operated upon, the doctor should be punished for murder.

    The question here is not about whether abortions should be legal or not. It is about whether sex-selective abortions should be legal.

    A woman who does not want a baby undergoes abortion irrespective of the gender of the fetus. On the other hand a woman wants to have a baby, but undergoes an abortion just because she does not want the baby of a particular gender. Do you see the difference?

    Abortions should be legal. Only that the woman should not have the liberty to know the gender of the fetus before undergoing an abortion. Abortion should be fine as long as a woman doesn’t want a baby. Not because she doesn’t want a baby of a particular gender.

    Reply

    • In reply to Mayur

      Yes – I made a mistake when I said “male infanticide”. Since an infant is a person it’s different. To me, a fetus is not a person.

      This is about a woman’s control over her own body. If a woman doesn’t want a male child or a female child, who are we or the government to force her to “want” a boy or a girl? This is nothing but moral policing. If a woman in the US for example aborts a male fetus because she wants a girl child, that is her legal right. She might not be a very nice person for doing it, but it’s her body and her life.

      A woman can choose to abort for any reason or no reason at all. Before having an abortion, she is not required to fill out a form stating her reasons. She might feel bored with life and have an abortion and there is no law that can stop her. We can’t start forcing women to have children they don’t want. And you can’t force women to “want a male child” or “want a female child”.

      If abortions are ok, then all abortions are ok. We can’t suddenly tell a woman, “You have full control over your body. Unless you don’t want a boy or a girl. Then you’re forced to be pregnant and suffer childbirth!”

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        let us not go to US to justify what you said..consider the situation of India itself,if all abortions will be made legal despite of the mother’s will to have a girl child, she will be forced to have an abortion…can you assume the rate of anarchy in the country if we began saying that “who is govt to force me?”

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        It’s the principle of the matter – about a women’s control over her own body. That is the same regardless of country as it is a principle of humanity. And human beings are the same all over the world.

        You can’t just assume that every woman is having an abortion because she is being “forced”. It’s up to the woman who is an adult to decide whether she wants to be “forced” or not. Who am I or who are you to look down on women who have an abortion and say “Oh, she was forced into it”? That’s insulting and disrespectful.

        It’s like saying many adult women are “forced” into marriage by their parents. No they’re not. They choose to obey their parents. Unless a woman is drugged, taken to the hospital and put under anasthesia, she is not “forced” to do anything.

        “can you assume the rate of anarchy in the country if we began saying that “who is govt to force me?””

        What anarchy? We’re not talking about harming others. As far as one’s own body goes one has every right to do anything they want. Including committing suicide. When it comes to one’s own body, the government indeed has no right to force anyone to do anything.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        I haven’t forgotten. I just don’t believe an individual has a responsibility to keep the sex ratio at a certain level. Of course, it’s a good thing if people want girls as much as boys. But it’s individual choice and you can’t force a woman to suffer pain and pregnancy just to keep the ratio of boys and girls at a certain level. It’s her body and no one can force her into carrying a fetus to term.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        sex ratio is not something which represents a single family or a community specific…it represents country as whole and all of us contribute to it.
        you dont believe an individual has a responsibility to keep the sex ratio but what if every individual starts following the same thing?

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        Then I believe we just have to suffer the consequences. I only have a responsibility to myself – not to “society”.

        Just a couple of days ago, a PIL was filed in the Allahabad high court asking for the “two child policy” to be implemented because the population was going out of control.

        The court said that the government cannot cure all evils. It can only educate people and try and persuade them to make the right choice. It cannot force them to do it.

        The same solution is applicable to female feticide. If the government wants the sex ratio to improve it can’t force people to have girl children. It has to educate them instead.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        the link you have posted says that “EACH Individual or NGO is required to spread the awareness…and you are pretty ignorant when you say that you are responsible only to self and not the society..if you and individuals like you are not responsible towards society then who is going to aware others?
        Why not make the law and ensure its followed..?

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        Unless I’m mistaken, we’re talking about legal responsibilities. You can’t put a person in jail for not spreading awareness!

        As for me, I don’t have a legal responsibility to spread awareness. Yet I choose to write a blog that does just that don’t I? Just because I don’t have to do something doesn’t mean I won’t.

        You’ve ironically chosen the example to prove my point. I have no legal responsibility to others or to society. Yet I try my best to reach an audience and spread awareness because I choose to do it. Not because I’m forced.

        And that is what we’re talking about. Whether the government should force people to care. It can’t.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        we can’t just wait and suffer the consequences and that is why female feticide is a crime in India..even prenatal sex determination is banned..and I guess we all are very well aware what will happen if feticide is legalised..so in cases like this govt has every right to put legal obligation on the citizens..you can’t cause harm to others while exercising the rights given to you…if an adult has been given rights so is for the unborn too!
        If you can seek justice when your rights are violated so can the unborn.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        I disagree on a few points:

        1. There is no harm to other since a fetus is not a person. It’s just a bunch of cells

        2. Adults have more rights than minors (like drinking, voting), who in turn have more rights than unborn children who in turn have more rights than a new fetus (which has no rights at all)

        I agree we can’t wait and suffer the consequences. That’s why education and programs are so important. But the ultimate choice has to be left up to the mother whether she wants to abort or not.

        Otherwise you’re saying that the woman is a slave who is being forced to suffer pregnancy, childbirth for no benefit to herself just for the sake of “society”.

        Reply

      • In reply to Anjali

        No I’m not advocating it. Saying that people have the right to do something is not the same as advocating it. For example, everyone has the right to be an idiot if they want. But that doesn’t mean I’m advocating it or recommending being an idiot.

        Everyone has the right to be rude and be a jerk. But that doesn’t mean I’m advocating rudeness. Similarly, every woman has the right to an abortion regardless of the reason. That doesn’t mean I’m recommending it or advocating it.

        I use this blog to spread awareness of rights. Animal rights, women’s rights, gay rights etc. I’m not legally obligated to do it, but I do it nonetheless. This is proof that you don’t need laws. There are people who do stuff because they want to. Not because they have to.

        Reply

    • In reply to Mayur

      Also, let’s look at the “self defense as murder” claim. In most legal environments, you can’t kill someone even in self defense unless it’s absolutely necessary to save your own life. And that needs to be proved in court. So only when it’s your life vs the other’s life is it acceptable. Otherwise, self defense will indeed by murder.

      Also, causing the death of someone is by itself not murder. Murder is defined with intention in mind. If I don’t repair my roof properly and it falls and kills someone in my house, a judge or a jury will have a tough time convicting me of murder. So a patient dying on an operating table is not murder unless intention can be proved. That doesn’t mean however that the doctor can’t be sued for negligence or wrongful death. There are other laws for that.

      Abortion is a different story. Here there is no harm being done to anyone on the planet.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I would have agreed to what you have said in the previous comments had the reality been as ideal as you make it sound. But sadly, the world doesn’t run according to the norms in the USA. Female feticide has been a practice of countries like China, India, etc and gender discrimination at multiple levels is the prime cause of it. There is no basis of sex-selective abortions in the US. Even if we accept that a rare mentally retarded woman in the US wants to have an abortion because she is bored of life or she just wants to experience an abortion or she doesn’t like a particular gender, still it does not form the basis of it becoming a practice.

        It is like, if one argues for the abolition of the dowry laws in India because there is no such law in the US. But actually, there are no dowry laws in the US because there is no prevalence of the practice of dowry in the US. But I think you will oppose dowry laws too as one cannot be “forced” to give dowry. And that one shouldn’t be convicted even if one demands dowry because he can simply be refused and the marriage called off. Right? No one on the planet is getting hurt for dowry until a wife is physically assaulted or killed for it. And if that happens the culprits can just be punished accordingly. Then isn’t the government imposing morals on people through dowry laws?

        Similarly, prostitution should be legalized as no one on the planet is being hurt by it. Right? Also, no girl can complain of being “forced” into prostitution. Maybe she is just obeying those who want her to become a prostitute. Right? How can the government force morals by prohibiting prostitution?

        I think you can also start awareness for the abolition of prohibition of illicit drugs. If a person wants to indulge in cocaine or marijuana, he isn’t hurting anyone else on the planet. Right? Since you feel suicide should be legal, all those persons who want to get killed using illicit drugs should be allowed to possess and use them. Why all the fuss?

        In another of your articles, you wrote about the state of women in Arab countries. For example they are not allowed to wear revealing clothes and have to cover themselves from head to toe. But why shouldn’t we think that they are simply obeying the Arab men? Even Arab women are adults to decide whether they are being “forced” or not to cover themselves up. Who are we to look down upon them and say “oh, they are being forced to”. That’s insulting and disrespectful.

        You are right when you say that “You can’t just assume that every woman is having an abortion because she is being “forced”. But such a statement holds valid for example, for an American woman undergoing an abortion in the US.

        BUT, you can’t just assume that every woman is having a sex-selective abortion completely at her will without being forced into it in India.

        And ‘force’ does not always mean physical force. There are a lot many ways to ‘force someone into giving consent’ “without or against their will”. And I am not speaking on the basis of some hypothesis, but by direct interaction with such cases throughout my professional life. So while it is wrong to assume ‘forcible abortions’ in the US, it is equally wrong to assume ‘willful abortions’ in India. The conditions are entirely different between the two. It is one thing not to address an issue but it is another thing to pretend an issue does not even exist. And if you still maintain that female feticide is not ‘forced’ in India or China, then you are just pretending.

        I hope that you don’t suggest a lie-detector test for every woman undergoing an abortion to assess whether or not she is willing or being forced into it.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Here is what I feel:

        1. Yes, anti dowry laws are wrong. The government should not be allowed to legislate morals

        2. Yes, prostitution should be legalized. But there are cases where girls are held captive against their will and raped. I’m sure you’ll agree that this is wrong and is not really prostitution at all but a crime.

        3. In Arab countries women can be punished for not dressing “appropriately”. In this case, they really are being forced.

        4. You make an excellent point about drugs. I’ve often wondered if dangerous drugs should be legalized.

        I believe that “force” should only mean physical force. Everything else is a choice. How else can someone be forced to do something? If a woman is “forced” into an abortion by say her husband, she’s choosing to follow her husband – that is not force. That is persuasion. Unless he threatens to use violence against her in which case it become and issue of physical force all over again.

        This is like saying adult women are “forced” into marriage by their parents. No. They choose to follow their parents. Unless the laws treat people like adults, the population will forever think that they’re children.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Well then, if we even take the possibility of words like persuasion and ‘choose’, they still don’t fit in the picture because…

        A person may be persuaded or may choose to give consent “even without or against their will”.

        In other words, a person may be persuaded or may choose to follow or obey their parents into marriage while still not willing or wanting to marry. The will is not there. Just the consent is given. Choosing is not equal to wanting.

        So, for a woman to undergo abortion, does simply the consent matter or should she be willing too?

        I say this because I’ve seen enough cases where the woman ‘agrees’ but still doesn’t want to.

        According to you, force ‘should’ mean only physical force. But every person’s psyche is different. And there are actually a lot of non-physical types of force that affects people. You may disagree with the logic, but it cannot be denied. You may call such people immature, childish or whatever, but that doesn’t take away their rights from them.

        And for people to be treated like adults, just changing laws cannot change personalities of people overnight. Laws cannot make people assertive. For example, the law clearly states that over a certain age, an adult is free to choose whom to marry. But in spite of being there for so long, has this law affected everyone to be confident in choosing their life partners? If you say so that most Indian women behave like children because of being easily persuaded against their will, I will sadly agree with you. But it doesn’t change the reality of the situation at hand. Just because they don’t behave like adults to stand by their choices doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have their right to their choices as per their will.

        Let me tell you about a female patient I had not long ago. She was so meek and docile that she couldn’t even look her husband in the eye. Obviously she must have been brought up in an oppressed environment. Now, if we have a legal sex-selective abortion law, and if this woman is pregnant with a girl child, and if her husband doesn’t want a girl and asks her to abort, can we expect this woman to be assertive and refuse abortion if she wants to continue with the pregnancy? But just because we can’t, is it right to say to her that “sorry, but you don’t have a right to your body and health. You are not assertive”.

        I did think of a reverse scenario too, where such a woman may want an abortion but her husband doesn’t. She still wouldn’t have her choice and will be forced to continue with her pregnancy. Here I would like to add that as yet all females I have met who voluntarily wanted an abortion, wanted it because they didn’t want a baby rather than not wanting a baby of a particular gender.

        But in comparing these two situations, we have to opt for one in which the balance tilts. Since an abortion is an irreversible process, her husband can have his say in the second scenario until she decides to abort. Which can be done anytime during the pregnancy (obviously with increasing risk to her health).

        But in the first scenario, once the husband has his say and gets her to abort, she cannot resume with the pregnancy at any cost. So, in my opinion, the balance tilts in favor of preventing an abortion till the woman herself is completely willing to abort.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        In order to function as a civilization, we have to have the concept of consent and adulthood. And that means “consent” has to mean with their will. Otherwise lots of stuff breaks down. A signature on a contract assumes this. The decision to get married assumes this. The burden of being an adult means that “consent” means you choose to do something.

        Even if you don’t want to do something, you can give your consent. Like if my arm has to be amputated to save my life, losing my arm is not something I want. But I give my consent because that’s my choice. It’s a question of weighing the pros and cons of an action and coming to a decision. Like it or not we treat people as adults at the age of eighteen.

        Now I’m fine if your argument is that the age of adulthood has to be raised to say 30. We can discuss that. But what is not up for discussion is that there has to be some way for the law to treat a person as an adult. Whether that happens automatically at a certain age, or it happens after taking some test…or whatever. For civilization to function, we nee people to be able to take decisions and put their name on it saying “I authorize this!”. The simple act of signing a check implies this. You can’t write a check and later say “I was emotionally blackmailed into writing it”. The law doesn’t care. We need the idea of valid consent.

        Now we’re talking about abortion choices made by adults. Not children. Like I said, I’m fine if we can discuss how a woman becomes an adult and whether we should change the law to remove the status of adulthood from all married women in India. That is a discussion we can have. But if you agree that at some point of time a woman has to be treated as an adult, then you also have to agree that consent means “an act of will”. That she authorizes the abortion.

        “You may call such people immature, childish or whatever, but that doesn’t take away their rights from them.”

        But I am preserving their rights! By insisting that we treat people with respect and like adults, I am ensuring that they keep their rights. Your argument on the other hand strips them of rights and assumes that we can’t trust the decision of an adult woman to abort.

        Am I reading this wrong?

        In your example of the girl, the best way to treat her is to tell her “Do what you want. Your word is law and it’s your own body. If you say you give your consent to an abortion, then we respect your word. If you say no, then it’s no!” You see, I am all in favor of giving people their rights.

        A signature on a form is all the “proof” you need that the woman has given her “complete consent”. Anything else would be an insult to her as you’re essentially telling her – “I don’t believe you.” Don’t you think that’s disrespectful?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I’m sorry but you are just not getting it. And I do think you are reading it wrong. No where is anyone assuming things on behalf of an adult woman. Didn’t I clearly mention about having seen enough cases where the woman ‘agrees’ but still doesn’t want to. But since you are bent on equating ‘agree’ with ‘want’, I can’t be of help here.

        It’s not about not believing an adult woman. It’s about knowing her choice while she has made a consent for the contrary. And however philosophically you view it, the reality is a lot different from your ideal world.

        In the medical field, we are dealing with living patients and not fixing machines as per their warranty cards. Dealing with patients purely on the basis of what’s on paper (even investigation reports) is the actual insult that can be inflicted. But that’s something you will never understand. Please accept my sincere gratitude for not choosing medicine as your profession.

        And civilization has been functioning since the time the human race came into existence and continues to function even now and will continue to function in the future too. And life isn’t so simple as you make it sound by putting things in black and white without accepting the presence of grey areas.

        No matter how much you press for a consent to mean “with will”, but in the real world with all its complexities adults make consents against their will. Obviously, that’s legally valid, but to consider every consent as “with will” is possible only in ideal situations.

        It is very nice to say what “should” be. But the world is far from ideal. And in your ideal world a person is only concerned for himself/herself, hence all decisions and choices are in black or white. Maybe for you, writing a check may be the same as signing a consent form for abortion, but it’s not so in the real world where life is more than just laws and philosophy. On a lighter note, you seem to be as disconnected to the actual issues in practicality as the lawmakers are disconnected to the general public. :-)

        Since we are on entirely different platforms here, I don’t think there is any use of further discussion. Good luck to you.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        At some point of time, being an adult implies taking responsibility for your choices. As you said, we can’t have a lie detector test for seeing whether a woman “really” wants an abortion or not. We just have to respect her consent and her signature.

        And yes, civilization existed before consent. We didn’t have banks, a central government, or property laws either. I don’t know about you, but those things are pretty important to me. Ergo, consent is deemed to be the woman’s choice after considering everything.

        Reply

  8. I have a little problem with your statements/arguments…

    You asked: “Isn’t all life the same?”

    Under this premise, it should be allowed to re-formulate your statement: …
    “Given a choice to kill a random human and a random dog, I would flip a coin”

    …without any obvious break in logic, to:…
    “Given a choice to kill a random human and a random mosquito, I would flip a coin”

    …or even better:
    “Given a choice to kill a random human and a random bacteria, I would flip a coin”

    Would like to read your comment about the last one, given the fact that from your own arguments, I’m talking to a mass-murderer – since every time you clean-up your toilet with some chemicals, you destroy millions of life-forms (equal to human beings) – don’t you have any conscience?). ;-)

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You state: “Life is consciousness and ability to feel pain”

        Fine – so you apparently *draw* a line *somewhere*…
        (not very humble, I might add… – since any higher life-form evolved from those “bacterial-root-life-forms” of our “tree-of-life”)

        Now, Animal-Consciousness is, according to the “Mirror-Test” on wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

        … only positively tested on these animals so far:
        – chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas
        – dolphins
        – elephants
        – magpies (surprisingly, also a raven-like bird-form passed this test)

        But as you see, dogs are not among them.

        So I assume, that we have to reduce your definition above to:
        “Life is ability to feel pain”

        So, that your dogs are included again.

        Now that they are in the game again, what’s your opinion about other human-beings, which treat dogs as food-animals?

        Are you vegetarian?

        Even if your answer is “Yes” – do you have any problem with people, which eat dogs
        (or any other “animals who feel pain” – as e.g. chickens, whatever)?

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Huh? Just because dogs aren’t listed doesn’t mean they don’t have consciousness. If a creature has autonomous behavior, or a sophisticated nervous system, it’s a fair bet to say that they’re conscious.

        If you feel pain, you have to be conscious. A non conscious being cannot feel pain. So if dogs feel pain, they’re conscious. My definition stands.

        You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I’m elevating non human life forms to the status of human life forms. The opposite is in fact true. I’m degrading human life to the status of non human life forms.

        For me, a culture that eats human beings is no worse than a culture that eats dogs. Or chickens. Or cows.

        I’m not sure as to what point exactly you’re trying to make.

        As for killing animals for food, my problem is the suffering of the animal in factory farms. Not their actual death: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2009/rights-and-freedoms/animal-torture-im-a-nazi-and-so-are-you.html/

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        > Huh? Just because dogs aren’t listed doesn’t mean they don’t have consciousness.
        > If a creature has autonomous behavior, or a sophisticated nervous system,
        > it’s a fair bet to say that they’re conscious.

        Come on, don’t contradict yourself.
        If you suddenly re-define “consciousness” again to:
        …”creatures that have autonomous behaviour, or a sophisticated nervous-system”,
        then suddenly mosquitoes are in-the-game again… ;-)

        > If you feel pain, you have to be conscious. A non conscious being cannot feel pain.
        > So if dogs feel pain, they’re conscious. My definition stands.

        From your above redefinition, mosquitos are conscious – but perhaps you will state (entirely based on your opinion, without any scientific prove), that they don’t feel pain – and therefore have to be excluded!

        In any case, it’s quite a dance you make here so far…

        So, maybe let’s settle for “rats” – which will match your definition quite fine.

        > You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I’m elevating non human
        > life forms to the status of human life forms. The opposite is in fact true.
        > I’m degrading human life to the status of non human life forms.

        … ending up with the same result – so what’s your point exactly?

        That “only by way of *degrading* a human being” to “being equal to a rat” –
        we’re able to reach an even higher “state of awareness, humility, sanctity, consecration” or something?

        Do you think, that statements as:

        – “For me, a culture that eats human beings is no worse than a culture that eats dogs.”
        – “Given a choice to kill a random human and a random rat, I would flip a coin”

        Are ideal vehicles to transport your message (whatever it is)? ;-)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Of course mosquitoes are in the game. Where is the contradiction? Perhaps you’ve gotten confused reading all the various comments on this post :)

        And why do you feel that mosquitoes don’t feel pain? Pain is evolutionarily useful for every mobile creature. I’m pretty sure that applies to mosquitoes.

        Why do you assume I have a message? Why do you assume I’m trying to make a point? This blog post is what I think. End of story.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        > Of course mosquitoes are in the game. Where is the contradiction?
        > Perhaps you’ve gotten confused reading all the various comments on this post :)

        Yes, it’s all really confusing. ;-)

        > Why do you assume I have a message?
        > Why do you assume I’m trying to make a point?
        > This blog post is what I think.

        Well, you *were* inviting comments to your post – in the headline as in the text itself.

        The main-problem I have with your post, is your apparent amorality, asociality.

        In addition to the weird statements you made (listed in my last post),
        you also mentioned “old people, mentally retarded people and children” –
        followed by your statement, that “it’s hypocritical, when we give them the same rights”.

        That’s just extremely arrogant or at least immature (or un-educated) – one could even get the idea, that you’re only “fishing for site-traffic”… ;-) … now won’t *that* be hypocritical?

        I’m (as you) entirely with Darwins evolution-theory –
        but please (before posting more of such non-sense-articles on your blog) –
        inform yourself about the evolution of “morality in social groups” – and it’s decisive influence on the survival-probability of single individuals, belonging to such (“socially interacting”) classes.

        Wolfes, buffalos, humans, etc. … in short:

        Any life-form, successfully climbing the tree-of-life, which belonged to a group (“pack-, herd- or swarm-animals”) had a lot of advantages, all coming from “social dynamics/interactions within the group”.

        Heck, even animals which we don’t count as pack- or herd-animals are at least protecting their own offspring.

        And even a buffalo herd goes as far in its “moral, or social behaviour”, that the males not only protect their own offspring – they defend all offspring generally.

        When you indeed postulate (in a slight variation to your already made statements):
        “Given a choice to kill a child, not my own offspring – or a random mosquito, I would flip a coin”

        Then you’re not only making an “ass” out of yourself – but you’d act against basic evolutional rules, which made (not only us humans) as successful as we are today (acting as social beings, under an “evolved moral-code”).

        Please, at least think about it in future blog-postings.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        As a human I make my own morality based on reason and logic. I’m under no obligation to follow a “herd” mentality. My present lifestyle gives me the luxury of not caring a damn for “society” or “group morality”.

        No one is stopping you from doing it. But my morality is derived from first principles. I don’t go around trying derive my ethics from sociology.

        You’re welcome to say I’m being an ass. But the world is essentially amoral – the universe doesn’t care about morality or immorality. If you think otherwise…well, forget it :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Mosquito, I feel like giving you many many thumbs up for your comments which so efficiently expose the contradictions Bhagwad makes to his own statements just to debate each comment separately. :)

        Bhagwad, since you have finally returned to bringing ‘a sophisticated nervous system’, (which is again, just a ‘hardware’), back into the picture, I would like to know your definition of a sophisticated nervous system.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        I don’t think Mosquito understands the point I’m making. He seem to think that I don’t think mosquitoes feel pain – when I’ve never said otherwise. Perhaps he’s unable to explain what he really wants to say? Because it seems he doesn’t understand my point in the first place.

        I really don’t want to get into another back and forth thing about definitions. My point is simple – everything that feels pain has an equal ethical value – mosquitoes, rats, humans etc. Killing one is no worse or no better than killing another.

        Anything that cannot feel pain/isn’t conscious has no ethical value. Like plants, rocks, bacteria, fetuses etc.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Even I have no confusions regarding your point – “which you want to make” – that everything that feels pain has an equal ethical value. I’m not even contesting your opinion on ethics. All I have issues with is your fluctuating logic on the very concept of pain and life.

        In other words, I respect your opinion if you ethically value things on the basis of pain. In fact, that is a nice thought. But I disagree with your reasoning which categorize ‘things’ into living and non-living, pain-sensitive and pain-insensitive, etc. And my guess is that Mosquito has issues with that too. That is the reason I wanted to know how you define a sophisticated nervous system. :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        Ah so you don’t have issues with the concept itself, but rather with how the concepts are defined…is that it?

        If we had an all knowing robot that told us for sure whether a particular organism can feel pain or was conscious then we would essentially be in agreement over everything?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Once again, the ability of feeling pain or the presence of consciousness is not the point being contested. It is the reasoning, that proves how and whether or not an organism can feel pain or not or is conscious or not, that is debatable.

        I would surely have issues with such a robot if all the info it delivered was based on wikipedia. :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        > Even I have no confusions regarding your point – “which you want to make” –
        > that everything that feels pain has an equal ethical value.

        As I’ve just explained in my last post to Bhagwad, that exactly *is* the basic assumption, where everything becomes *wrong*, “tastes wrong” or whatever … finally leading to all those “weird statements” we had to swallow…

        There’s definitely *not* an “equal ethical value” *cross*-species.
        Heck, we aren’t even evolved enough, to apply “equal ethical values” across different *human* societies/nations/religious backgrounds/whatever.

        “My own offspring comes first” … or:
        “The group where I belong to comes first – an instinctive… and later on especially also
        conscious protection of every member – with all I (or We) have to give!”
        Those are *the* two most basic, and successful survival-patterns in all evolving social contexts (accompanied in case of us humans with a whole lot of “proven successful”
        rules for other interactions in our given group).

        When Millions of years ago, members of “human groups/tribes” would have thought:
        “Well, *I* for my part will save the mosquito first… ” – then the human race would be extinct by now.

        So, Bhagwad – there’s nothing wrong in protecting your own child, you know?
        It’s in your genes.

        And should you indeed be thrown into a situation later in your life
        (by some “bad joke of karma” or something ;-)) – where “some child, not your own”
        is in danger to drown – and desperately pleading to you, to save her – believe me – you *will* jump! And that even despite the fact, that you’ve definitely seen her – just 3 minutes before – squashing a mosquito – now imagine that! ;-)

        Of course not to forget all the “Thank you!”- traffic your site would get, when you’d publish *that* story… ;-)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        As humans, we can (indeed should) rise above our instinctual primal morality and create one more in line with reason and logic. Otherwise you’re just a slave of your unexamined emotions.

        By the way, I probably will save someone else’s child from drowning. But not at the risk of my own life. Just as I have also saved cockroaches from being crushed. When I have nothing to lose, I will save both a child as well as a mosquito.

        It’s also presumptuous of you to think you know how I’ll react. What is the basis of your assertion? You don’t know me, my life or anything else. So you’re just guessing – not very logical at all.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Mosquito, I was just conveying to Bhagwad that I understand the point he was trying to make as that is his opinion. But I don’t understand his reason and logic which form the basis of his opinions, specially when his reason and logic changes from comment to comment.

        After reading the references in your comment, I carefully read the thread of comments on this article and I agree with you. It is really confusing. Not because of differences in opinions, but more so because the changes in logic in his own statements.

        For example, initially Bhagwad refused the theory of cellular basis of life questioning the reference to the ‘hardware’ (cells). He recognized only those forms as living which were sensitive to pain and were conscious. But now he requires a sophisticated nervous system (again a ‘hardware’) to support his theory of consciousness.

        Though you probably stated a valid point that he is – only “fishing for site-traffic”. If that is so, I am all for helping him to increase his site traffic through debate. :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Let me know when the human race is in danger of extinction :) . Then we’ll talk about “survival of the species”.

        Also, my mom is one of the commenters on this article. We have huge disagreements – I won’t tell you which one of the comments is hers though.

        Finally, I’m 30 years old and way past the “young” stage. And yes – that is very much an “ah hominem” argument and hence completely irrelevant and worthy of being ignored.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mosquito

        Enough of this – it’s getting tiresome. I’ve tried to be polite so far but it clearly hasn’t worked.

        If you want to discuss the content of the post, please feel free to do so. Otherwise remember that you’re a guest in my private space. You would do well to behave yourself and not indulge in personal attacks.

        I’ll let your existing comments stand. If your future comments do not stick to the content of my post (which is all I’m interested in), I will blacklist your IP address not just on my blog but with the entire blogger community.

        You won’t get a second warning.

        Reply

      • In reply to Mayur

        I’m not particularly hung up on the “sophisticated nervous system” idea. If we find a life form that feels pain or is conscious that doesn’t have a sophisticated nervous system, I won’t use that as a disqualification. I only used that phrase as a shorthand for cases where if we don’t know whether or not an organism feels pain, we can use the nervous system as a sort of indicator of consciousness/pain.

        As for my reasons for writing this and giving my opinions, they’re irrelevant. Talking about the person presenting the idea instead of the idea itself is called an ad hominem argument and is a logical fallacy. Doesn’t matter why or for what reason. The point is the only thing that is relevant.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        > As for my reasons for writing this and giving my opinions, they’re irrelevant.
        > Talking about the person presenting the idea instead of the idea itself
        > is called an ad hominem argument and is a logical fallacy.

        Bhagwad,

        it was not really “ad-hominem” (and not really impolite) … just projecting “you” (as an example for anybody, who’s willing to follow your “logic”) into a fictive situation.
        To demonstrate what would (very probably) happen.

        A vehicle, to open your mind, to (more easily?) accept *my* flow of arguments.

        It’s just, I see such “ideas” as real dangerous stuff… “you” (or anybody else, who would act in ignorance of the evolved basic social rules) could endanger the human race’s survival in the end (given enough followers).

        You are the one, who wants to “degrade” humans for the sake of “more humility” (with regards to other species) to their level…
        Well, with that I have no real problem, since we’re “still animals” basically (for a long time to come … having the Internet and the IPhone is certainly no reason, to call out “the next stage of human ascendance into a new quality”).

        So Darwins laws (as well as the evolution of *social-rules*) apply to us (as “social-animals”) definitely further.

        These social aspects are *facts* which you entirely left out in the presentation of your “logic”.

        In your blog-post you’re basically calling out to others:
        “Shouldn’t *we-all* act more *a-social*?” … (with regards to other humans, to our own “social group” we still belong to).

        You call out for more “empathy with fellow animals” (basically right) – but (as I tried to point out in all my posts) that has to happen without neglecting the empathy with our fellow humans, which “always have to come first” (since that’s the evolved and established “basic social rule”, which has ensured our survival so far).

        When you say: “I don’t care for social rules, I make my own ones”, then this is simply ignorance of existing “laws of nature” (basically similar to – “I don’t care about gravity”).

        If you’re a logic-driven person, then you can do better in your “casual-chains” (also with these “more soft” laws).

        But since these laws are “more soft” – you can “get away with such an attitude for a while” (acting as a sociopath) – and if your voice is loud, and your mind is quick, you can even gather “a whole lot of followers” – with the then often following side-effects on whole societies (hey, I’m from germany … but let’s better not “go there”).

        Not to be read as ad-hominem please – I know you possess enough “empathy for humans” – otherwise you wouldn’t have “recognized” in your Book-Review about Eriksons “Deadhouse Gates”:
        “…the central event in the story by far is the heartbreaking march of an army escorting 50,000 refugees”.

        Heartbreaking… indeed! (I actually cried at the end of the book – never happened to me “over a book” so far… I’m a huge fan of the series – that’s how I stumbled over your blog BTW).

        So, well – I don’t think that you really are “a sociopath” – you’re “just young” and “yet too proud about your intellectual and logic-capabilities” (which are definitely there – it’s just that you have your “undies in a twist” about some things still) … personal opinion of course – just coudn’t resist.

        Well, just don’t tell your Mom (next time you bring your laundry or so) about your “I don’t care about humans”-article here…; I’m sure she’d have something to say to that… (SCNR – just to finish with a real “ad-hominem” – albeit a still “friendly meant one”).

        Bye

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Mosquito, absolutely loved your comment. :)

        “It’s just, I see such “ideas” as real dangerous stuff… “you” (or anybody else, who would act in ignorance of the evolved basic social rules) could endanger the human race’s survival in the end (given enough followers).”

        You are so correct. But since Bhagwad seems to already acknowledge this when he said, “Then I believe we just have to suffer the consequences. I only have a responsibility to myself – not to “society”.”, I guess he’s ready to endanger the human race or life itself just to uphold his logic and reasoning. Only hoping now that he doesn’t reply with a – I don’t care what my Mom says – to your final suggestion (though somewhat expecting that he will).

        You hit the nail right on the head! Just my opinion though, or else I may be asked to provide proof (preferably from wikipedia) to back my agreement with what you said. :)

        Reply

  9. Wow ! What a lot of interesting discussion.

    I would like to know, do you approve of infanticide being a legal right if the mother so wishes ?

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I couldn’t see my comment here the first time so I re-commented. Please remove the duplicate one.

        “Since when did murder become a legal right?”

        What if someone is inspired by your logic and argues that an infant isn’t alive ? Just like a plant, you couldn’t ‘murder’ a non-living thing, could you ? Otherwise, how do you prove that an infant perceives pain ?

        Reply

      • In reply to Purple Cloud

        It’s really not my problem if someone reads what I write and draws their own twisted conclusions.

        “How do you prove that an infant perceives pain ?”

        How do you prove that anyone perceives pain?

        In any case it’s irrelevant. An infant is classified as a human being and so destroying it becomes murder.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        If one reads statements based on twisted logic one is bound to twist his conclusions. In the events of discussion on this post, you have yourself stated that :-

        “Plants don’t have a central nervous system. They can’t feel pain. Also, pain would serve no useful purpose for a plant since it can’t move away to avoid it. Pain would be an evolutionary useless feature.”

        “They can’t feel pain because pain would never have evolved as a function for plants since they can’t move away.”

        And now you ask :-

        “How do you prove that anyone perceives pain?”

        You yourself have clearly stated more than once that anyone who perceives pain is capable to move away to avoid it.

        So going by your logic, how can an hour old infant move away from pain to avoid it ? If it cannot, then isn’t pain a useless feature for such an infant ? And if it is useless, your logic of pain as an essential feature of life goes down the drain IF you still consider an infant to be alive.

        Reply

      • In reply to Purple Cloud

        1. I’m not responsible for any other adult’s behavior

        2. A newborn infant can very much move as well as give ample signs that they have sensation. Do you mean to say that newborns are like stone and can’t move their arms and legs?

        3. Just because I said that plans don’t have the innate capacity to move and hence can’t feel pain doesn’t mean you can extend that to fringe cases like paralyzed people etc.

        Understand the essence of what I’m saying. We’re not lawyers here.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        1. “I’m not responsible for any other adult’s behavior”

        I never said you were. I was simply providing the reason why my conclusions appeared twisted to you.

        2. “A newborn infant can very much move as well as give ample signs that they have sensation. Do you mean to say that newborns are like stone and can’t move their arms and legs?”

        Does ‘move’ becomes equal to ‘move away’ which was your idea about the usefullness of pain to an organism ? Even plants ‘move’ their parts (which were not considered proof of being alive by you). Your logic about usefullness of pain was by ‘moving away’ or ‘moving about’ and not just ‘move’. How does mere movement of arms and legs signify the perception of pain. If a robot moves its arms and legs on stimulation, should it be considered as alive ? As regarding ‘ample signs’ of sensation that a newborn gives, how does pain suddenly vanish from the equation which was THE MOST essential criterion for life according to you ?

        3. “Just because I said that plans don’t have the innate capacity to move and hence can’t feel pain doesn’t mean you can extend that to fringe cases like paralyzed people etc.”

        Why not ? And why just paralyzed people ? If a person is born without having the capability to move, should he be considered alive ?

        4. I’m only using your own logic to question you. Here we are using pain and movement in relation to deciding whether an organism is alive or not. Why do you want to selectively apply your logic to plants ? How is it that suddenly your criteria about the characteristics of life have changed ?

        Reply

      • In reply to Purple Cloud

        This is not an academic essay. You’re supposed to understand the basic essence of what I’m saying. If you can’t then we’ll just leave it at that.

        The concept of being able to move in response to pain is an evolutionary feature and obviously doesn’t apply to those who’re born with something wrong in their bodies. They are not representative of the species and it’s a little absurd that you’re using them as examples.

        Babies can indeed move parts of their bodies away from pain. Who cares if their entire body shifts position? When a mosquito bites me, I don’t go to another room. I just move my hand either to kill it or shake it off.

        Robots did not evolve so your observation is invalid here. Plants do not have a sophisticated nervous system and so don’t have the ability to feel pain. Again, irrelevant. Babies both have a complex nervous system and move/demonstrate against damaging stimuli that cause pain.

        Also, you’ve again moved away from your main point and gone into irrelevances. The initial question you raised was whether or not I was suggesting that infanticide should be legalized.

        My answer was no. Let’s stick to the topic.

        Reply

Leave a Comment