agnostic believer - Well you haven`t seen the video silent scream which graphically shows the blastocyst crinching and in pain...doctor Nathansan who was an abortion provider who did and supervised many an abortion and get an experts point of view here. not mine not yours some one who could now be called objective since he lived and played both parts of the abortion battle...

You fucked up by posting enough information for me to track down the video. First off the video is of a ~12 week fetus, not a ~1 week old as you suggested.

Here is what the medical community had to say about this video:

Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as "factually misleading and unfair".

John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm."

Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements.

David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain

The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.

Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."

So essentually what you have done agnostic believer, is to tell us lies, about lies.

Since AB raised the "pro life" propaganda film the silent scream, here's an extract of testimonies presented before a senate sub committee hearing on it.

"Additional medical opinions on the film, some critical and some supportive, were presented before a U.S. Senate subcommittee that was examining the question of fetal pain. Among the opinions expressed were those of Dr. Richard Berkowitz, whose criticism of the film was already mentioned above, and Dr. Ian Donald, a Scottish physician and pioneer of diagnostic ultrasound. Dr. Donald’s affidavit said that the fetal activities shown in the film “are not faked nor the result of artefact intentional or otherwise.” Nathanson himself appeared before the subcommittee and said that the film had portions that were shown in freeze frame or slow motion for clarification purposes but that it reverted to normal speed without any intention to deceive. On the issue of fetal pain, Nathanson said that the fetal reactions in the film infer that it is in pain, albeit at a “primitive level.” He also conceded that at this stage of development there would be no cognition of pain in the cerebral cortex."
-----------------------------------

>>>>Please note BILLY that in the last sentence that Dr Nathanson, whom you cited, admits it would be impossible for a foetus at that stage of development to feel pain, as there would be "no cognition of pain in the cerebral cortex"

So your own source admits what I posted about a foetus being unable to feel pain was true, oh dear. Again I sense an apology is never going to be likely from you. Based on past experience i doubt you'll even acknowledge you were wrong.

Hi Flamenca

Objective morality is not possible for the following reasons. When you talk of things like furthering wellbeing and reducing the worst possible misery--- you are not really dealing with morality there. (Let alone the challenge of defining these terms such as suffering/wellbeing etc). Morality kicks in when you have to sacrifice a little bit of your wellbeing or increase your suffering for the benefit of another individual. Allowing someone to eat the food they earned is not an act of morality. But sharing your food with a hungry man is morality. Do you get the drift? There is an element of sacrifice required for an act to be deemed moral.

Now, the big question is why should I suffer or make a compromise for someone else’s benefit? Why should the society be more important than my SELF?

Science can’t provide an answer for that.