Find's response and the question of basic human rights.

Find - "The question of pain or consciousness is interesting, but not at the heart of the matter. The question is merely whether or not the victim is deserving of the same human rights as anyone else. To use your criteria to determine the value of a human life is unworthy because on a logical basis very similar arguments could be directed against adults who might be in a coma, on life-support or merely asleep! As far as being considered whether or not to be deserving of life at the "discretion" of another human being, I charge you again with spouting drivel. Dangerous drivel at that, since arbitrary criteria of a 'life worth living' by someone more powerful is exactly the kind of justification used by oppressors of basic human rights throughout the centuries."

Again, Find and I have a fundamental disagreement. For me, pain and consciousness are right at the heart of the matter.

No, I do not think a non-conscious entity has the same rights as a conscious entity (being asleep hardly meets the criteria for being a non-conscious entity). As for directing similar arguments against people who are in comas or life support, I do have views on that. I don't believe a brain dead person should be kept on life support. Those resources should be directed toward people who have a chance of coming out of their comas. Similarly for humans in vegetative states.

Personally, I do not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state, that is, a state where it appears that I am awake, but actually there is no brain activity. If I were to end up like that, the being on the bed being force fed through a tube would not be me, it would be a hunk of meat, hanging around and causing misery to my poor family. The being on the bed could not have a cereal preference let alone want to live. It could not choose to live or die, it would not be able to choose anything. As far as I'm concerned, it should not have a right to life. If my family saw some benefit in having me there, fine, if they would rather not see me in that condition and prefer for the ordeal to be over, that is fine too. The choice, whether or not to keep me alive, would be theirs.

As for "arbitrary criteria of a live worth living by someone more powerful", are you trying to compare me to a Nazi doctor? or perhaps Pol Pot? I have said that I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth, and that I do not believe a non-conscious undeveloped human can be harmed by not turning into a fully fledged conscious human. I have NOT said we should practice euthanasia willy-nilly on anyone who does not meet arbitrary criteria.

My criteria have been carefully thought out over a number of years. They will probably change and develop over time. However, giving a fertilised egg the "right to life" would indubitably be a step backwards for me.