SoylentNews

I found, and posted, this article in 2005. Today, the link is dead. Copy/pasted from where I originally posted it, on Mauisun.org

This article is pretty long, but well worth reading. I'll post it again, for those who weren't here last time I linked to it:

http://www.soul.org.nz/pages/resourc...ry_killing.htm

Students Organised to Uphold Life
A defence of the claim that foeticide and infanticide are morally on par.
[This article was made required course reading for the undergraduate paper "Social and Moral Philosophy" at the University of Waikato (New Zealand) in 1999]
Abortion as Arbitrary Killing
by Matthew Flannagan BSocSci, MSocSci(Hons), MTh
Ethical Advisor to SOUL New Zealand
Introduction
This paper argues that abortion is a form of arbitrary killing. The argument is divided into four sections. In section I., I argue that abortion is a form of discrimination, I will discuss the morality of such discrimination, arguing it is justified only if certain criteria are met. In section II. I will survey contemporary attempts to meet these criteria. I will argue that such attempts fail. Consequently I conclude in section III. that abortion is unjustified. In the final section, IV., I will respond to some objections that have been made against this type of argument.
I. Discrimination and Justification
A. The Contemprary Assumption

Contemporary attitudes towards abortion reveal a profound difference in the way we treat pre-natal and post-natal human life. This is evident in the conflicting approaches towards abortion (the termination of pre-natal human life) and infanticide (the termination of post-natal human life).

Imagine that in 1997, 15,000 children aged under 2 years, were killed by their parents. The killing was done indirectly; parents took their children to professionals called 'terminators,' who killed the children by dismembering them. The government took no action against this, in fact, it provided information on accessing 'termination services' and financial assistance for those unable to afford them.

Most people would find this scenario abhorrent. While sympathising with the pressure, financial stress, and sacrifice of parenting, even the added pressure of parenting alone, few New Zealanders endorse or condone as a solution. In New Zealand infanticide is illegal. The stigma of being a "baby killer" is not a dignified one. The thought of dismembering a baby in exchange for money strikes most as a sickening action. Those who engage in child abuse or who kill children are regarded with particular abhorrence.

While the 'imagined' scenario above is fictitious, an analogous situation occurs in contemporary New Zealand. In 1997, 15,000 abortions occurred, which entails 15,000 pre-natal humans were destroyed. This killing was done indirectly; women went to professionals called abortionists who killed the foetuses by dismembering them. The government took no action against this; in fact, it provided information on accessing abortion services and financial assistance for those unable to afford them.

It is noteworthy that we can stipulate similar motives in these two cases. In the case of infanticide parents might decide they do not want a child, they are not ready to be parents yet, they might find that the child has a disability, or that it is might be an economic burden upon them. They might find parenthood damages their career prospects. With infanticide, these reasons are not sufficient to justify killing an infant. Analogously however, these are precisely the reasons, often given, to justify terminating foetal life. Women can abort because they do not want a child, are not ready to be parents, because of foetal abnormalities, because the pregnancy is financially burdensome.

At the heart of the current analysis is a philosophical assumption about pre-natal life. Society treats pre-natal human life differently to the way it treats post-natal human beings such as infants. What would not justify killing an infant, is accepted as a ground for terminating pre-natal life. Consequently, what is unacceptable when applied to infants is held up as acceptable when applied to the unborn. The unborn and newborn are treated differently. Treating two things differently is to discriminate.

Discrimination between pre-natal and post-natal life is common in many western societies. For example, the United States landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade (1973) essentially made it a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion on demand. Roe divided a woman's pregnancy into three semesters. In the first two trimesters a woman has a right to procure an abortion, the state being barred from restricting abortion in this period for any reason.[1] In the final semester, the state has a right, and not an obligation, to restrict abortions to only those cases where a woman's health is endangered.

A later ruling, Doe v Bolton (1973) stated that the term 'health' must be defined broadly to include such things as emotional well being and family well being. The result is that the majority of States allow abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy and that any reason a person puts forward to have one, can be subsumed under the title 'health.'[2]

In contrast to this, the US Supreme Court has not ruled that infanticide is a constitutionally protected right. Few people think women have an unrestricted right to terminate a newborn infant on demand. Committing infanticide renders a woman liable for criminal prosecution.

An illustration of this contrast can be seen by to recent incidents in the US. In October '98, President Clinton had vetoed a proposal to ban the abortion procedure popularly dubbed 'partial birth.' This procedure is carried out during the last trimester of pregnancy right up until birth. It involves inverting the foetus in utero and then delivering its entire body accept the head. The termination is then carried out with the foetus' head in the birth canal. The base of the skull is pierced and the brain tissue is removed. The head consequently collapses and the foetus is delivered dead. In mid September of this year, the US Senate voted 64-36 in favour of overturning Clinton's veto. The Senate failed to reach the two-third majority needed to overturn such a veto by 3 votes.

Shortly after, a court in New Jersey sentenced a 20-year-old woman to 15 years incarceration for killing her newborn child. Melissa Drexler had gone to the bathroom during her senior prom and given birth. She confessed that the baby had been born alive in a toilet bowl, she had strangled the baby, cut the umbilical cord on a sanitary napkin disposal bin and tossed the infant into a restroom trash can. She then returned to the dance floor of her prom. Maintenance workers who were called to clean up blood on the restroom floor discovered the baby's body. Drexler pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated manslaughter.

These two incidents illustrate the assumption mentioned earlier. While there is reluctance to outlaw abortion, even in the final months of pregnancy, killing a newborn is condemned and punishable by incarceration.

Earlier this year, the state of Western Australia has adopted policies similar to Roe. The prosecution of two abortionists led to a campaign to liberalise the State's abortion law. The two doctors faced up to 14 years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The new abortion laws made abortion permissible for any reason up until 20 weeks gestation. After 20 weeks abortion is allowed on health grounds. Licensed doctors whose practice does not conform to this law are fined up to $50,000. Only unlicensed doctors can face up to 15 years.[3]

I doubt many campaigners in Australia would adopt a similar attitude towards infanticide. The prosecution of 'new-born terminators' would not lead one to campaign for more liberal infanticide laws. Western Australians do not typically think that only a fine should punish baby termination, or that only those who are not licensed to chop up infants should face incarceration. I doubt they think it is permissible to kill one's children provided good counselling is available. The treatment of Lindy Chamberlain is a classic example.

While other western nations have less liberal laws, the practice often does not differ. In New Zealand, abortion is illegal except for certain therapeutic reasons; such as allowing abortion if the mother's mental health is severely endangered by the pregnancy. In practice these laws are not enforced and a de-facto abortion on demand policy exists. In addition to this New Zealand law allows abortion to be performed at any stage of the pregnancy on limited grounds such as health and foetal deformity.

I venture to suggest these are not isolated examples. In most western countries a different moral and legal attitude is adopted towards abortion and infanticide. Further in those countries where the law condemns abortion, what is tolerated in practice often reflects such a distinction. While abortion is in principle legally restricted, in practice abortion exists on request. Consequently people can routinely terminate prenatal life for reasons which we would not tolerate the termination of the life of an infant.

B. Natalism
We have established that society treats pre-natal and post-natal life very differently adopting radically differing social, moral and legal stances towards them. Pre-natal beings are given an inferior status and are treated of less worth than post-natal beings. Social attitudes are adopted towards the foetus that would not be adopted towards the very same being after birth.

Some commentators have labelled the aforementioned discrimination 'natalism.'[4] In many non-moral respects, natalism parallels racism. Just as racism signifies discrimination on the basis of race, 'natalism' signifies discrimination on the basis of one's post or pre-natal position. Just as racists advocate social policies, which treat one race as having superior worth and being entitled to greater legal rights, natalists make a similar assumption about post-natal life, and grant post-natal life a superior legal standing to pre-natal beings.

The question arises as to whether natalism and racism are analogous to each other morally i.e. whether natalism is morally equivalent to racism. It is to this question I will now turn.

1. Is this Discrimination Justified?One obvious way of arguing that natalism is morally questionable is to point out that it is a form of discrimination. However, discrimination in itself is not problematic. Many forms of discrimination are justifiable and necessary. An obvious example is that our justice system discriminates between the innocent and guilty, it allows one to have freedom and incarcerates the other. In this situation we have good reasons for discriminating. Similarly at university we discriminate by awarding passes and fails. Those who achieve a certain level of academic excellence receive passing grades. Those who do not are failed.

However, there are other many contexts in which discrimination is clearly problematic. Racism and sexism are obvious paradigms. If a society incarcerated someone simply because they were Maori, or a woman, this would constitute an injustice.

The difference between these two types of discrimination is that in the former cases we have a good reason for discriminating. The criminal has a property of moral guilt; this is correlated with a property of dessert. We think the criminal's status as guilty merits some punishment. The criminal is different from the innocent in a way that warrants unequal treatment. With racial discrimination this factor is absent. While Maori and Pakeha and Women and Men do differ in many respects the differences in this context[5] do not provide good reasons for discrimination. In fact such differences seem arbitrary.

Applying this to the abortion issue contemporary discrimination is acceptable only if we have good reason for it. Without sufficient justification it is arbitrary to treat foetuses and infants differently. In fact, such a practice is morally akin to racism. In order for contemporary practices to be just, there must be a reason grounding our different attitudes towards pre-natal and post-natal life.

(A) What Constitutes Good Reason?
A couple of preliminary points are needed to clarify this. Firstly, this reason must constitute some difference between pre-natal and post-natal human beings. Obviously, if the killing of a foetus differs in no respect from infanticide or other forms of homicide it is morally on par with these practices. Then abortion is straightforward homicide and our current practice of abortion on demand is morally problematic.

Secondly, a mere difference is not enough. Consider genocide, the leader of a nation decides that she will not protect the rights of people who have dark skin. Consequently the leader decriminalises killing of dark skinned people. This is clearly a case of unjustified discrimination, yet there is clearly a difference between the people discriminated against. One group does not have dark skin, the other does. This example demonstrates that a mere difference between two classes or entities is not sufficient to provide reason for discrimination. Instead the difference must be one of a morally relevant kind.

In the context of abortion, a morally relevant difference is a difference that justifies granting or withholding a basic right, such as life. There must be some property possessed by post-natal humans which foetuses lack. This property must justify or ground rights for one and exclude it from the other.

In technical terms, a morally relevant difference translates into necessary and sufficient conditions for a right to life. The difference constitutes a sufficient condition because the fact that post-natal human beings display this property is what leads us to protect them. Similarly, it must be a necessary condition because the fact that foetuses lack this property justifies us destroying them.

For current natalism to be justified then it must be the case that there exists a property (or properties) X such that:

        (i) X is a set ofnecessary and sufficient conditions for having rights,

        (ii) Pre-natal human beings lack X,

        (iii) Post-natal human beings have X.

2. Further ClarificationsA further point often missed is that the proponent of abortion must be aware of X, they must rationally believe that X exits. Consider; I fire an employee because they are Polynesian and I hate Polynesians. In this context I have performed a racist act. Imagine, however, unbeknown to me that in fact there were justifiable grounds for dismissing this employee. The employee was secretly negligent, in a way that no one was aware of. Does it follow that I am exonerated from being a racist? It seems not.

Although there were grounds for dismissal these are not the grounds I base my decision upon. I performed the action because I dislike Polynesians. It is why I perform the action that matters in attaching blame or praise. Consequently, if there are grounds for a discriminating practice this does not necessarily justify a practitioner's engagement in it. What is important is what grounds the practitioner acts upon. If they have no good reason for the action, or are ignorant of such a reason, then they are engaged in a morally problematic practice.

Translating this into the immediate context. Current discrimination between post- and pre-natal life is only justified if proponents of abortion actually have a reason for their discrimination. They must then be aware of X.

Supporters of natalism must also be able to provide an account of their reasons for discriminating. Consider this, I shoot a child, I go to trial, all the evidence suggests I did perform this act. I give no reason as to why I performed this act. I just admit that I did it, I also assure the court I have a good reason for doing so. When asked under cross-examination what my reasons are I am unable to tell you. However, I can provide various character witnesses that I am a good person. In such a scenario I doubt that a court would acquit me.

The need to provide an adequate account is essential to prevent widespread injustice. Imagine the scenario where people could discriminate between a class of beings and not offer any reason for so doing. In this context racism, sexism and various other forms of injustice would go unchecked. Every time a prospective employer fired a minority he could say "I have a good reason for doing this, but I just don't know what it is."

Applying these factors to the immediate context:

        1) Current abortion policies are a form of a discriminatory practice labelled 'natalism.'

        2) As a discriminatory practice, natalism is justified only if there exists a property (or properties) X such that:

                (i) X is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for having a right to life,
                (ii) Pre-natal human beings lack X,
                (iii) Post-natal human beings have X,
                (iii) The practitioner is aware of X's existence,
                (iv) The practitioner can give us an adequate account of X.

I. Alleged Reasons for Discrimination

In this section I will examine many accounts of X. Many people have offered criteria that attempt to account for the crucial difference between post- and pre-natal life. I will classify these accounts into two types: 'popular' and 'sophisticated.' The former are those which dominate in popular discourse about abortion in the community. The latter are more sophisticated, finding a greater following in academia. In my view the latter are more plausible. Nevertheless I will argue that all these criteria fail.

A. Popular Accounts

1. Size
An example of this account is found in a report about sex education in Danish Schools.

        …This was done quite emotively, and it was obvious the students were relieved abortions were no longer illegal. A small stone model of a 12 week old foetus was passed around the class to show them the size and immaturity of the foetus. Inge finished the topic by telling students a 12 weeks foetus was transparent and weighed no more than one A4 piece of paper.[6]

The implication here, is that killing a foetus is acceptable because it weights less than an A4 sheet of paper. Foetuses unlike infants weigh less than an A4 sheet of paper, the reason we can kill a foetus and not kill an infant, is because the former weighs this much and the latter is much heavier.

According to this view, X is weight. For several reasons this is patently absurd. Firstly, it is purely arbitrary to put a particular weight as a necessary condition for a basic human right. Why not the weight of an A5 sheet of paper or an A3 sheet. Why not 3 sheets? What exactly is the significance of the weight of A4 paper that is necessary or sufficient for a being to possess rights?

Secondly, this has the absurd implication that astronauts have no rights. In outer space, people are weightless, therefore they weigh less than an A4 sheet of paper. If I take my victim up in the space shuttle she ceases to have a right to life. Consequently, astronauts can be killed on demand. Similarly, if I slaughter a group of people on a tiny asteroid, then I have performed no injustice.

However perhaps something deeper is meant here, the basic idea is that a foetus is significantly smaller than an infant is. Because of this we are justified in treating them differently. It is size that constitutes the necessary condition and sufficient conditions. This position is problematic in several respects.

(A) Not Unique to Infants
Firstly, it's not clear that foetus' lack this property while infants do not. Some foetuses are larger than some infants. Compare, a premature baby born at 22 weeks to a 30-week foetus, the foetus will be the larger of the two. If size disqualifies the foetus from having a right to life then there is no reason why we cannot kill premature infants.

Late trimester abortions are also problematic on these grounds. The radical size difference between foetus and infants proponent only holds in early stages of pregnancy. A foetus in the last trimester of pregnancy is not significantly smaller or lighter than a newborn infant.

In addition, the size of an infant at birth can vary. Some infants are born very small, while some late term foetuses can be quite large. Consequently, this condition, if correct, would only justify abortion in the earlier trimesters. Foetuses in the later trimesters would have the same rights to life as an infant by virtue of being roughly the same size.

However, abortion, as it is practised in many western countries, is not restricted to the earlier trimesters. In the United States many late trimester abortions occur every year.[7]

The proponent of this argument does not justify the status quo. In fact, if we were to accept this argument it would call for more restrictive laws and practices than currently exist. It would have to be accepted that late trimester abortions are no different, morally, from infanticide, and violate a fundamental right to life. Consequently, the current practice is akin to racist killings.[8]

(B) Size not a Sufficient Condition
Size is not a sufficient condition for the right to life. To suggest this is the case leads to absurd consequences. Many rocks, trees logs etc. weigh the same as some infants but this does not mean that rocks have a right to life.

(B) Size not a Necessary Condition
It is also questionable that a certain size is a necessary condition. Consider the following case. We come into contact with an alien race, this race is vastly superior to us in terms of rationality, self consciousness and awareness, they speak a language, can feel pain, have projects and goals just like we do. However, there is one major difference between then and us they are only 4 inches in height. Does it follow that this race has no right to life and we could kill them? Or imagine the following scenario, a mad scientist invents a shrinking machine and decides to test it out on you. He takes the machine and zaps you, shrinking you to the size of a few inches in height. Does it follow that you now lack any right to life and that killing you is not problematic?

Further, many cases in our history and tradition suggest that size is not a necessary condition of rights. Consider for example disembodied persons such as, souls, angel's, God. These traditionally are understood as beings that occupy no physical space and so consequently have no size or weight, yet they clearly have rights. Suppose that a disembodied intelligence is mortal and can be killed. Does the fact that it has no size mean we have no moral obligations to it?

(D) Arbitrariness
Size also seems arbitrary in the same way race is. The fact that a person is black or white does not make any moral difference. This feature doesn't carry any evaluative elements or components with it. Similarly with size, the question can always be asked why does size matter? What is it about size that grounds a right to life? There is no answer. Granting the right to life only to those above a certain size is arbitrary.

There is also a sinister side to this argument, stripped down it displays a 'might is right attitude.' It implies it is conceptually true that the big can oppress the smaller, the strong the weak, purely because they are bigger or stronger. What guarantees one's moral worth and standing is how big they are, the small are disqualified.

2. Human Appearance
Many people seem to make much about the appearance of foetuses; they do not look human. This can be seen in the same "Danish Sex Education" discussion cited above. Bonnie Steinbock also mentions this idea.

        The fetus [sic] begins to look recognisably human between 12-16 weeks gestation age (g.a.). Its eyes are obvious, though it does not yet have eyelids. It still has ear slits rather then ears. Its hands, still encased in an enveloping membrane, have well-demarcated fingers and thumbs. It may not look like a baby, but it is clearly a human fetus. By contrast, it is difficult to distinguish a human fetus at 8 weeks g.a. from a cat or pig fetus of the comparable gestational age.[9]

This idea is seen in popular ethical discourse. People are given a picture of an early foetus and told it is not a human, so abortion is acceptable because it looks like a fish or a blob.

(A) Not Unique to Infants
An immediate problem, which Steinbock's article suggests, is that only during the early stages of pregnancy do foetuses look non-human. Premature infants further the problems with this position. Jane English states:

        An early horror story from New York about nurses who were expected to alternate between caring for six-week premature infants and disposing of viable 24 week aborted foetuses [sic] is just that - a horror story. These beings are so much alike that no one can be asked to draw a distinction and treat them so very differently.[10]

In fact a foetus has a human appearance long before 24 weeks. In contrast, the following is taken from a submission put before the US Supreme Court which was signed by over 200 physicians.

        By the end of the seventh week we see a well proportioned small scale baby. In its seventh week, it bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult. … After the eight week no further primordial will form; everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby … [F]rom this point until adulthood when full growth is achieved somewhere between 25 and 27 years, the changes in the body will be mainly in dimension and in gradual refinement of the working parts.[11]

The foetus takes on a human appearance relatively early in the pregnancy. It is noteworthy that significant proportions of abortions are performed after this point.[12] As a defence of current practice this argument is weak indeed.

(B) Not Sufficient
The appearance of humanness is insufficient condition to ground the right to life. Consider a mannequin or a wax figure. These appear human they can, in fact, be made to look almost identical to any existing human being. Yet it is ridiculous to suggest that mannequins or wax figure have a right to life.

(C) Not Necessary
Appearance is not a necessary condition for the right to life either. Consider such eccentricities as the elephant man or the bearded lady. These creatures actually look more like primates than human beings but it doesn't follow that killing them is permissible.[13]

Similarly, people through various deformities can have their appearance marred significantly. Suppose you were involved in an accident. You were severely burned all over your body. The accident resulted in you needing multiple amputations. However you survive the accident, due to medical technology you are able to retain normal function by use of a specially designed robotic machine which your deformed body is hooked up to. In such a situation you would not look like a normal functioning human. But it does not follow that you have no right to life.

More fanciful counter examples can be constructed. Imagine we come into contact with an intergalactic race of alpha centurions. This race has technology, culture, and civilisation vastly superior to our own. Would the fact that these creatures differ from us in their appearance mean that these creatures have no right to life? That we could wipe them out and plunder their society for our own convenience?

(D) Humanity does not have a Static Form
A further problem with this line of thought is that it assumes humanity possesses a static form.[14] The claim that foetuses do not look human implies there is some form or standard of human appearance that can measure them.

The problem is that no such form exists. Throughout their life span, human beings possess a whole array of different forms and appearances. For example a newborn baby looks different from an infant. An infant looks different from a toddler; a toddler looks different from a child or teenager and so forth. The point drawn from this is that humanity has a dynamic form. What constitutes a normal human appearance depends on the age and maturity of the being in question. A two-year-old infant looks human because it approximates to the way humans look at that age and stage of human development. Similarly a teenager looks human because he has the normal appearance of an adolescent homo-sapien.

Once realised, it is problematic to argue that a foetus does not look human. To succeed at this one would have to assert that the foetus does not look the way a human being typically does when it is at the pre-natal stage of development. This is clearly nonsensical.

What the objector means is that the foetus does not look like a born human. It does not look like an infant or a baby. But why is post-natal appearance the standard by which we judge normal human appearance? The underlying assumption appears to be that normal human beings are post-natal. One suspects some questions are being begged here.

(E) Appearance not Usually a Ground for Discrimination
Its also noteworthy that appearance is normally a very poor ground to discriminate on. In fact, paradigms of arbitrariness such as racism or sexism seem to be rooted manifestations of such thinking. People discriminate against other races because they look different. They are considered less than human because they do not look like ''normal" white people. Similarly women look different, their physiological appearance is different, and consequently they are inferior.

3. Wantedness
Some people argue that what makes infanticide wrong are the attitudes of others towards the infant. Many parents, for example, do not mourn or grieve or at the death of a foetus the way they do for an infant or small child.[15] This suggests that people value and desire the existence of infants more than they do foetuses. In essence infants are more wanted.[16]

(A) Not Unique to Infants
An obvious problem is that being unwanted is not always unique to foetuses. Some children are unwanted after they are born. Some parents disown and reject their children, abandoning them to the streets or selling them into prostitution. Consequently, it is problematic to claim that 'wantedness' constitutes an important difference between infants and foetuses.

(B) Not Sufficient
Further, wantedness is not a sufficient condition for the right to life. Think of a material objects such as a toy or a car. People can intensely want these objects. However, it is a wild stretch of the imagination to think that such objects thereby attain a right to life.

Even if the object in question was a living entity, wanting it is insufficient for it to have a right to life. One might own or love a plant or a pet but it doesn't follow that plants have a right to life.

(C) Not Necessary
Wantedness cannot be a necessary condition for the right to life. If it were, then any being that is unwanted will have no right to life. If we return to the example of infanticide, can a child be killed after it is born because its mother decides she doesn't want it? What if the child is an orphan and no one wishes to adopt it? Does it follow that it has no right to live? Consider societies such as Ancient Sparta, which did not accept children who were born with disabilities. Also consider, those societies where the parents wanted the first-born child to be male. Does it follow that children with disabilities or female babies have no rights to life?

(D) Social Conventions
A cousin of the wantedness position is one that sees rights as being conferred upon individuals by society.[17] A being does not have a right to life unless society conventions recognise it as having one. For example, it is argued that birth is the moment a being gains a right to life because this is when society recognises an individual coming into existence. This is when we grant a birth certificate and why we celebrate birthdays and not conception days, or quickening days.

However, there is an inherent danger here in suggesting that a person's right to life depends upon whether other people in society value him. Consider a society like Nazi Germany that decides that Jewish people are vermin. Or consider those societies like Ancient Sparta who did not want children with disabilities. Would we grant that it was morally permissible for these societies to kill those they considered unwanted?

A missionary I spoke to recounted that in a Hindu society he visited, cows were valued more by society than women.[18] Surely it is not the case that women do not actually have moral rights in such a society?

B. Sophisticated Responses
The popular arguments for X fair badly upon examination. However, in philosophical literature more sophisticated and plausible responses are available. While acknowledging that such things as appearance, size or utility are irrelevant ways of demarcating right bearers, other hypotheses are put forward.

1. Pain and Sentience
One such position is sentience. A being is sentient when it is capable of experiencing sensations such as pain. Peter Singer gives the rationale for this position:

        The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way. It would be nonsense to say that was not in the interest of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing we could do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. A mouse on the other hand, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road because it will suffer if it is.[19]

The underlying idea is that if a being cannot feel pain, it cannot be harmed. It has no capacity to enjoy and no interests consequently we do not harm it by depriving it of something. Given this, we cannot commit a wrong against it; sentience is essential to possessing rights.

(A) Does a Foetus Lack Sentience?
Firstly, it is unclear that foetuses lack sentience. An obvious example of this is a premature infant. A child born at 32 weeks gestation, in terms of its psychological development, is less advanced than a foetus in the 39th week of gestation. Given that infants can be prematurely born as early as 21 weeks it seems that from at least the second trimester onwards, foetuses and infants can be the same in terms of sentience.

Further, there is evidence of early development of sentience in foetuses, much earlier than 21 weeks. There is some evidence to suggest the foetus can feel pain fairly early in the pregnancy. Certain physiological structures are essential for pain sensations. These are pain receptive neural cells, neural pathways, and the thalamus. These structures begin developing in the unborn child at 8 weeks and are established by around 12 weeks. Consequently, it is certain the unborn can feel pain at least as early as 13 weeks. However, seeing the requisite structures for pain are at least partially laid down during the 8-13 week period it is probable threat the foetus can feel pain during this period as well.[20]

One objection to this argument is that the cerebral cortex is not fully developed and so the foetus lacks the requisite higher physiological conditions for pain.[21] However, Dr Vincent Collins, Professor of Anaesthesiology at North-Western University and the University of Illinois points out:

        The presence of a functioning cortex is not necessary to pain sensation. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain; no portion of the cortex if artificially stimulated results in pain sensation. … Neither the presence of the cortex nor transmission of pain impulses to the cortex are essential to pain sensation.[22]

In fact, as John Noonan points out, that lack of a fully developed cortex may actually increase pain intensity.[23]

The thesis that foetuses can feel pain early in the second trimester is collaborated by many medical authorities. There is a well-documented letter for example to Ronald Reagan, which is signed by over twenty-five experts in the field of pain, obstetrics, and gynaecology. The letter backed Reagan's statements that foetuses are sentient. Citing various studies, they stated that no finding of modern foeteology invalidates the conclusion that the foetus can feel pain by the close of the first trimester.[24]

According to the 1997 New Zealand Abortion Supervisory Committee Report, 10% of abortions performed in 1996 were performed after 12 weeks. This means that around 1,480 abortions are performed annually after the foetus can feel pain.

Similarly 59% of abortions were performed at between 10-12 weeks gestation in the same year. This means that around 8,779 abortions are performed annually at a time when it is probable that the unborn can feel pain. It is arguable, that the majority of abortions kill sentient beings.

(B) Sentience not Suffucient for a Right to Life
Sentience is obviously not sufficient to ground a right to life. Consider animals, such as deer or pigs, these are sentient beings, they are in some contexts more sentient than human beings. Animals such as these are farmed, killed eaten, used as clothing; however, they do not have a right to life. One is not prosecuted for murder for hunting deer.

(B) Sentience not Necessaryfor a Right to Life
Sentience is also not necessary for a right to life. Consider a person who has been knocked unconscious or is temporarily comatose. We do not think it permissible to kill such people.

One attempt to circumvent this counter example is to draw attention to the fact that a comatose patient is sentient at some point in their life. While he or she can lack sentience at the time of the killing, what grounds one's right to life is the fact that they posses sentience at some other point in time.

This response is inadequate. The counter example shows that one need not be sentient in the present for a right to life. Consequently, to hold this position, the proponent must require the entity in question be sentient in either the future or the past. If what is necessary is that one become sentient in the future, then the application to abortion is dubious; A foetus typically will be sentient in the future if left to its normal development. Consequently, foetuses cannot be disqualified from having a right to life.[25]

What needs to be asserted then is that a being was sentient at some point in the past. However this claim is subject to a disconfirming thought experiment.

Imagine two children Tom and Bob, both are born in a coma. Within an hour of birth, Bob wakes up for a few minutes, but falls back into the coma. Medical evidence suggests conclusively that they both will wake up in two days. Does it make sense in this situation to say that Bob has a right to life whereas Tom does not? If a doctor treated Tom as if he had no rights,[26] this would be seen as legitimate, yet if Bob were treated the same way the doctor would be condemned. When this scenario is examined, Tom and Bob do not seem sufficiently different to justify treating one as a full being with rights and the other not.[27]

Secondly, the idea that being sentient in the past is a necessary condition for a right to life goes against the very spirit of the sentience criteria. As noted above the reason proponents of this position argue that a non-sentient being cannot be harmed.

The problem is that a being who was sentient in the past and no longer is, cannot be harmed either. Consider someone who is permanently and irreversibly comatose, such a being cannot be harmed in the relevant sense yet this being was sentient in the past. If one makes sentience in the past the criterion for rights that person divorces their position from the very notions that motivate it and give it plausibility.

2. Viability
Viability refers to the time when an unborn child can live independently of the mother, outside the mother's womb. At present this is around 20-23 gestation. Prior to this, the foetus is completely dependent on its mother. Because of this dependency, it is argued the foetus does not have moral status that would confer on it a right to life. An example of such argumentation comes from Susan Sherwin.

        Arguments that focus on the similarities between infants and fetus's, however generally fail to acknowledge that a fetus inhabits a women's body and is wholly dependent upon her unique contribution it its maintenance, whereas a new born is physically independent though still in need of a lot of care. …[28]

(A) Initial Problems with Viability
Several features are worth noting here. Firstly, viability depends on the technology available at the time. Advancing technology is increasingly pushing back the age of viability. In 1973, for example, viability was between 24-28 weeks. Now foetuses can be viable from 20 weeks. Further research with animals show that it is possible with advanced incubation techniques to make the foetus viable at any time. This latter scenario would make all foetuses technically viable.

What this means is that whether or not one has any rights depends on how advanced a civilisation one lives in. Children conceived in richer economically and technologically advanced societies, such as here in the West, will have rights. Children at the same level of development in poorer eastern countries will have no rights and have the moral status of animals.

It also implies that two children exactly the same in physiology, development and age will have different moral status depending on the year they are conceived in. What now is a sub-human animal with no rights will in 10 or so years become a human being with rights, despite the fact that nothing will have changed in the nature of the creature in question. Further, children of richer parents, who can afford better medical care and more sophisticated hospitals, will have the moral status of a human being whereas children of poor parents will not.

Furthermore viability differs for various racial groups and even between the sexes. Evidence suggests Negro children tend to be viable before Caucasians. Statistically female babies born prematurely, have a much higher chance of survival than males at the same stage of development. This is due in part to the fact that the lungs of female foetuses develop earlier, and their hearts tend to be stronger.[29] According to the viability position, it follows that two foetuses of the same age, but differing sex or race, may differ in which rights each possesses. The white or male child can be justifiably treated as an animal. This would also suggest that it is acceptable at certain stages in the pregnancy for white women to have abortions when it is not acceptable for black women to.

(B) Dependance not Ended at Birth
Another objection to the viability criteria is that dependence is not ended by viability. Newborn children can not exist with out the constant care and sacrifice of others. Children, after birth, need someone to feed them, clothe, educate, and love them or they will die, as surely as a foetus will, independent of its mother.

In fact there is a sense in which newborn infants require more sacrifice and effort on the part of the mother than pregnancy does. Think for example of the constant getting up in the middle of the night, the financial burden. The constant crying out for attention, breast-feeding problems, post-natal depression, the whole nappies and toilet training saga. If the ability to exist independently of the mother is what guarantees rights, then the killing of newborn infants is also justifiable. Women have the right not only to kill their children before birth, but after birth as well.

An associate of mine recently gave birth to a boy. For the sake of this essay we will call her Anne and the child William. Anne had a fairly normal pregnancy with no complications. However, once William was born she came down with severe post-natal depression. Further, William turned out to be more difficult than most, it was almost impossible to get him into a routine, he constantly kept Anne and her husband up so that they got little sleep for several months. They couldn't take the child out because of this and baby sitters that could handle the child were difficult to come by. The stress caused by rearing a newborn child can be severe. Anne is typical of a case where the pregnancy was the easy part and the dependence caused after birth was far more stressful on the parents.

Some suggest the distinction is that after birth other options are available. The women can adopt or hand the care on to someone else. Before viability, however, this is not the case. Hence, while infanticide is wrong, abortion, prior to viability is not.

The problem with this argument is that it makes ones right to life depend on whether we are wanted by others. Suppose the mother tries to adopt her child out but no one takes it, can she then be allowed to kill her child? Suppose society is racist and refuses to adopt black children? Does it follow that white children, though dependent on their mother, have rights while black ones do not? Suppose society is sexist, or people only wish to adopt babies with blond hair and blue eyes? Once this move is made we come back to the wantedness position.

3. Criteria of Personhood
Some argue that in order to have rights a being must be a 'person,' they must display something like the following characteristics:

        1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
        2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
        3) Self motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
        4) The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
        5) The presence of self-concepts, self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both; [30]

This list comes from Mary Anne Warren. Philosophers such as Michael Tooley and Joseph Fletcher have offered similar lists.

Its important to note that proponents of this position see personhood as a necessary and sufficient criterion for rights in general, not just the right to life. Joel Feinberg, for example, argues that these features are essential to the ability to act as an agent and assume responsibilities, to have values and interests. These features are what confers upon someone membership of the moral community, and consequently a bearer of rights. [31]

(A) Personhood not Suffucient for a Right to Life
I venture to suggest that 'personhood' in the above sense is not a sufficient condition for the right to life. Consider the concept of God, it would be absurd to say that God has a right to life. Yet he clearly is a 'person' in orthodox theism. Imagine a race of highly intelligent beings that have the property of immortality. Such beings will be 'persons' but they do not have a right to life. Such a right would not be applicable to them.

(B) Personhood not Necessary for a Right to Life
There are also problems if 'personhood' is construed as necessary for the right to life. Doing so excludes many groups from the right to life that we think the right should apply to.

While it is true that foetuses do not display most of Ms Warren's criteria, neither do infants. New-born children and children aged up to about age 18 months typically do not display most of the criteria. An infant becomes self-conscious at age 18 months, typically infants cannot speak a language until around age 2-3yrs, and neither can they reason. Further, these capacities develop slowly even around age 2yrs a child's rational and linguistic capacity is limited. Consequently, if 'personhood' is necessary for a right to life, infanticide is also permissible.

Further things follow from this position. For example, newborn cows actually display features to a greater extent than infants.[32] As noted, this position is put forward as necessary for possessing any basic rights. Consequently, this position entails that a cow has a greater moral standing than a child. If this is so then such actions as cannibalism are justified. If we can eat cows and cows have the same moral standing as children, then there can be nothing problematic about eating children. If one thinks we should legalise abortion, then we should also legalise Kentucky Fried Baby Outlets.

Plenty of other things follow, for example we use cows as work animals to plow fields, and we can sell them. As children are morally on par with cows then there is nothing wrong with child slavery. We could sell children in pet stores, shoot them when they break a leg or require expensive medical treatment. Stray children can be killed or left to starve to death.

A similar problem arises in regard to people with severe mental impairments. Peter Singer has pointed out that some such people will never reach the intelligence level of a dog. An intelligent pig will, in terms of the above criteria, excel over some mentally impaired humans. Consequently, this position implies that the severely mentally impaired have no rights, they are morally less worthy of protection than cows or pigs so we can treat them as animals.

III. Conclusions

I will now bring section I. and II. together, in section I. I sketched the following argument.

        1) Current abortion policies are a form of a discriminatory practice labelled 'natalism.'

        2) As a discriminatory practice, natalism is justified only if at there exists a property (or properties) X such that:

                (i) X is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for having a right to life,
                (iii) Pre-natal human beings lack X,
                (iv) Post-natal human beings have X,
                (iii) The practitioner is aware of X's existence,
                (iv) The practitioner can give us an adequate account of X.

The preceding survey of contemporary theories suggest that:

        3) It is not the case that X exists.

This paper suggests that there is no property which is necessary and sufficient for a right to life that is lacked by pre-natal human beings but possessed by infants, which abortion practitioners are aware of and can give an adequate account for. In fact, the current debate suggests most such accounts are inadequate. Much of the debate and diversity within it suggest people are unaware of why they make the discrimination.

From 2) & 3) we get

        4) It is not the case that natalism is justified.

But by 4) & 1)

        5) It is not the case that current abortion policies are justified.

We can now return to the question posed earlier: are natalism and racism morally on par? The conclusion drawn is yes. What makes racism morally odious is that it is a form of unjustified discrimination, we discriminate against a class of beings on the basis of a morally irrelevant difference. Here a precisely analogous situation arises; we discriminate against pre-natal human beings on the basis of morally irrelevant differences.

Further, this discrimination is the process whereby we grant life or death. We allow and even support the killing of pre-natal humans. Contemporaneously, we legislates against and the killing of infants.

In addition, the number of beings killed on the basis of this discrimination is very high. Not only is this the basis by which we grant life or death, but the basis by which we grant life and death to millions. For example, 1.6 million foetuses were aborted in the US in 1993.

Taken together these facts paint a sinister picture. Western society kills millions of beings on a purely arbitrary basis. Abortion is the moral equivalent of a holocaust. Just as German society denied the rights to millions on the basis of their ethnicity (a morally irrelevant difference), so our society kills humans on an equally arbitrary basis, in much greater amounts.

Such a thesis would have radical implications for the way we understand and insert ourselves in the social order. Politicians who support abortion are comparable to cabinet ministers of The Third Reich. Doctors who perform abortions are like the agents at concentration camps. Family Planning organisations look, from this perspective, more like the Ku Klux Clan than admirable health professionals.

IV. Some Objections

A. Limited Explanation
One objection to the above analysis is to argue that it has a limited application. An application so limited that it becomes irrelevant.

What I have argued is that there is no reason to discriminate between pre-natal and post-natal human beings. The only difference between pre- and post-natal human beings by definition is birth. So all I have established is that birth is not a legitimate place to demarcate those who have rights from those who do not.

This is a very limited conclusion. It is compatible, for example, with drawing the demarcation somewhere earlier in the pregnancy. In fact, as late trimester abortions are rare, around 1% of them take place in the third trimester, this move would still justify the majority of abortions and be compatible with the above criticisms which only rule out demarcation at birth. Several points can be made in response to this argument.

Firstly, the fact that late trimester abortions are rare, in and of itself, is irrelevant. What is important is that they are permitted. We can see this with an analogy. Suppose a society decreed that African Americans had no rights, one could kill them for whatever reason one saw fit. By complete coincide, however, no one actually decided to exercise this right. As such, no African Americans are exterminated. Such a society is still extremely racist; the fact that African Americans are not killed is irrelevant. The point is that society has decided that killing them is permissible, if millions were killed society would do nothing. In the same way the fact that late trimester abortions are rare is irrelevant. What matters is that current practice is such that it allows for millions of late trimester abortions.

Second, when one considers the number of abortions that takes place, late trimester abortions are only rare proportionally. As stated around 1% of all abortions are performed in the third trimester. However this is 1% of around 1.6 million, so it is close to 16,000 late trimester abortions per year, 43 a day.

According to this position, one would have to concede that 16,000 people were arbitrarily denied the right to life, annually, with government support. To give some comparable figures, the South American dictator, Pinochet, in his reign killed 7,000 people on an arbitrary basis. It is estimated that the Spanish Inquisition burned 12,000[34] people. With the number killed in all countries estimated to total around 30,000 people.[35]

Even if we were to adopt the strategy suggested, the implications would still be grave. While perhaps not the equivalent of the holocaust, in terms of numbers, current abortion practice is comparable to many atrocities that make us recoil in horror, atrocities where thousands of people were arbitrarily slaughtered and killed. A condemnation of late trimester abortions is far from trivial.

Finally, it is inaccurate to suggest that the above argument has only criticised birth as the demarcation point. In coming to this conclusion sentience, personhood viability, size, wantedness and appearance have all been rejected as demarcating rights.

B. Biting the Bullet
One straightforward objection is to bite the bullet and endorse infanticide. I have argued that there is no reason for treating pre- and post-natal humans differently. The proponent of liberal abortion laws could agree. The argument could then be advanced one step further; that infanticide is a legitimate social practice.

Note that it is not just a matter of allowing infanticide. If there is no reason for discriminating between pre and post-born humans, then one must adopt the same stance towards abortion and infanticide. Consequently, the defender of liberal abortion laws would have to argue for liberal infanticide laws, or come up with some morally relevant distinction between the practices. This would have several implications.

Firstly, any reason one saw for terminating a foetus must equally apply to an infant. To cite common examples, a mother could terminate her infant if it was deformed, mentally impaired, interfered with her career or education or if it caused her emotional stress. If one advocated abortion on demand, one would have to argue for infanticide on demand.

Secondly, those who saw abortion as a fundamental right, essential to liberating women, would have to argue that infanticide was such a right as well. This would lead to a two-fold conclusion, that a woman cannot be truly equal with men until they can kill their children and that a society that does not allow a women to do so is unjust.

Thirdly, those who argue for public funding and education to access abortion services should be willing to adopt a similar stance towards infanticide. Teenagers should be taught about how to get their children terminated in state schools. Public hospitals should offer to terminate infants as a basic core health service.

If appears that in this scenario we have a dilemma, a clash of intuitions, on one hand there is the widely held belief that abortion is permissible. On the other there are the deeply ingrained beliefs about child rearing, that infanticide is abhorrent, that parents have a duty to sacrifice, provide and care for their newborn children. As I have argued, these two notions are set on collision course.

There is a lot at stake in this discussion. If we cannot establish the existence of X, society faces a dilemma with far reaching cultural and political implications. Either our deeply held revulsion against killing infants is abandoned; leading to a reassessment of the various attitudes towards childbearing and parenting that go with it. Or, we accept that our society is perpetuating a holocaust and view our political and social institutions accordingly. Either way society's position on this issue cannot stay where it is, we must embrace one horn of the dilemma or the other.

My own intuitions incline me towards rejecting abortion. I suspect that for many people their revulsion for infanticide far outweighs any acceptance they have towards abortion. In fact, it seems widely held that abortion is a necessary evil a tragedy, or perhaps something that should be allowed only in certain hard cases. Consequently, I think that the parity between abortion and infanticide is for many, a powerful argument against abortion.

I am aware there are some who will respond to this dilemma by embracing infanticide. This problem, however, is inherent in any philosophical argument. If one accepts the premise, the conclusion follows. Those confronted with an inference have two options; they can only deny the premise or the conclusion (or logic).

With any argument, those we are trying to convince can always respond by denying a premise in stead of accepting the conclusion. Unless our premises are self evident or universally accepted (and few arguments for any thesis of significance can be established by self-evident or universally accepted premises), our arguments will always fail to convince some. It will always be possible to reject an argument by biting the bullet and rejecting a premise.

C. No Positive Criteria Offered
One objection raised against my position is that it is wholly negative. I put forward various positions relating to when a being acquires moral status, and then criticise them. However, I fail to present my own position.

Firstly, failure to put forward an alternative does not invalidate criticism of a position. Alvin Plantinga articulates this point with characteristic wit:

        I may think it unlikely, on the evidence that I will be the next Pope, however, that doesn't commit me to having a candidate I think is likely to win. … You and I find a watch in the woods behind your house; I propose the hypothesis that it was dropped there by Saddam Hussein; you are entirely within your rights in pointing out that this hypothesis is unlikely, on our evidence, even if you are not prepared to propose as probable some hypothesis as to who did drop it there.[36]

Secondly, I suspect that any positive position will be the result of many broader theoretical concerns. For example, one relevant factor in theorising will be "what is a correct ethical theory?" For example, if one believes that moral notions supervene upon facts such as pleasure, pain, or utility, then the ability to feel pain, pleasure and utility will be of importance in deciding which beings have rights. If we have a more contractual understanding of morality, then ideas of autonomy will come into play. If morality is a way of serving peoples interests, then only beings that have interests can be morally wronged.

Equally influential will be issues of philosophical anthropology. Much of the discussion in this area revolves around the issues of personhood and humanity. What is it about human beings that make them significant? How are they special?

Consequently, any answer to this question will be part of a broader perspective about who human beings are, what makes us significant and important and what is the nature of the good and moral life. Any answer we give will be convincing only to those who share similar perspectives. At the roots then, the question of abortion becomes a religious question.[37]

        When we converse with one another in our pluralistic world, we discover that we live with different moral visions, each vision intertwined with different understandings of reality and none grounded in what all rational persons accept immediately. In our conversations with one another we can sometimes offer our partners good reasons for giving up some part of their moral vision. Sometimes these good reasons are also effective reasons: our partners accept the reasons and change their views. And sometimes our partners have good reasons to alter their views apart from the reasons that anyone gives them; it doesn't all depend on conversation. The rationality of a moral vision lies mainly in whether one has responded adequately to these good arguments, not on whether that vision has been grounded on consensus foundations.[38]

This Kuyperian understanding of the abortion debate provides me with the resources to reply to the above objection. I do think it is valuable to try and find a plausible theory about what features a being must have in order to possess rights. However, such an undertaking would involve delving into broader religious issues beyond the scope of this essay. It would involve clearly articulating a perspective and applying it to the current context. It would involve critical encounter with opposing views and reflection on the various issues involved. It would also involve, perhaps, a reflection of how this answer is to be taken in a pluralistic society where this perspective is not widely accepted.

While such a research project is valuable, it would take us well beyond the scope of this paper and require vastly more time and space than I can at present muster. Consequently, it will have to wait for another time.

Endnotes

1. Except such restrictions as "the procedure must be performed by a licensed physician."
2. See the discussion of Roe v Wade in chapter 2 of Beckwith, F Politically Correct Death Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights (Baker Books, 1993).
3. "Humanity" Vol. 22 No 3, May 1988, 1.
4. Supra n.2, 98.
5. There may be some contexts in which racial differences do constitute good reasons for warranting unequal treatment. Think of a person wanting to employ an actor to play Martin Luther King in a movie. In such a situation, there are justifiable reasons for hiring an African American actor over a Caucasian one.
6. Flyvberg, M. F., "What we can learn from the Danish Situation to Lower the Rate of Teenage Pregnancies in New Zealand? A report to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust on a Study Tour of Denmark in 1996."
7. Infra section C. No Positive Criteria Offered, in this text.
8. Infra section C. No Positive Criteria Offered, inthis text, for further articulation of this point.
9. Steinbock, B "Abortion: A Pro-Choice Perspective," 330. This article was given to me as a photocopied course hand out by the Waikato University Philosophy Department, so I cannot reference the book and publisher it is drawn in.
10. English, J "Abortion and the Concept of a Person" in Morality in Practice ed. Sterba, J (Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991) 166.
11. Motion and Brief Amicus Curiae of certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in support of Apellees. Cited in Supra n.2, 44.
12. Infra (A) Does a Foetus Lack Sentience? andA. Limited Application , inthis text.
13. Supra n. 2, 98.
14. Jefferson, J. D., Abortion and the Christian, 1984, 58.
15. Supra n. 2, 98.
16. This argument is obviously problematic, the fact that one mourns more for a child only means that they have a deeper bond with it, not that it has more rights. If we mourn much more for our own children than we do for children killed in Ethiopia, then it does not follow that Ethiopians children have less rights than our own children.
17. Paul Flood suggested in a conversation, that what counted as a bearer of rights was a determined by social convention.
18. Apparently, the running over of a cow and a man were serious offences, while running over a woman was a lesser offence, punishable by a fine.
19. Singer, P, "All Animals are Equal" in Morality in Practice ed. Sterba (Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991) 425.
20. Supra n. 2, 48.
21. Supra n.9, 331.
22. Collins, V, Zielinski, S, and Marzen, T. J., "Fetal Pain and Abortion: The Medical Evidence Studies" in Law and Medicine (Chicago: Americans United for Life Defence Fund, 1984) no 18, 6.
23. Noonan, J, "The Experience of Pain by the Unborn" in The Zero People ed. Hensley, J. L., (Ann Arbor, Mich: Servant, 1983) 149.
24. The original statement, is as follows:

        As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn.
        That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the newborn of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning, individual organism is established scientific fact. That the human unborn and newly born do respond to stimuli is also established beyond any reasonable doubt.
        The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus during, at, and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Liley -- the father of fetology.
        Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies. Indeed, one doctor who, the New York Times wrote, "conscientiously performs" saline abortions stated, "When you inject the saline, you often see an increase in fetal movements, it's horrible."
        We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."

The medical specialists who signed this statement claiming they agreed with it:
Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Dr. Vincent Collins, Professor of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, University of Illinois Medical Center
Dr. John G. Masterson, Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Northwestern University
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, F.A.C.O.G., Clinical Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Cornell University
Dr. Denis Cavanaugh, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of South Florida
Dr. Watson Bowes, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Material and Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina
Dr. Byron Oberst, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska
Dr. Eugene Diamond, Professor of Pediatrics, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Dr. Thomas Potter, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical College
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Instructor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Melvin Thornton, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Texas (San Antonio)
Dr. Norman Vernig, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota (St. Paul)
Dr. Jerome Shen, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, St. Louis University
Dr. Fred Hofmeister, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Matthew Bulfin, F.A.C.O.G., Lauderdale by the Sea, FL
Dr. Jay Arena, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Duke University
Dr. Herbert Nakata, Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Hawaii
Dr. Robert Polley, Clinical Instructor of Pediatrics, University of Washington (Seattle)
Dr. David Foley, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Anne Bannon, F.A.A.P., Former Chief of Pediatrics, City Hospital (St. Louis)
Dr. John J. Brennan, Professor of Ob/Gyn, Medical College of Wisconsin, (Milwaukee)
Dr. Walter F. Watts, Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Dr. G. C. Tom Nabors, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Southwestern Medical College, Dallas, TX
Dr. Konald Prem, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis)
Dr. Alfred Derby, F.A.C.O.G., Spokane, WA
Dr. Bernie Pisani, F.A.C.O.G., President, NY State Medical Society, Professor of Ob/Gyn, New York University

Some further sources are listed below:

        The first detectable brain activity in response to noxious (pain) stimuli occurs in the thalamus between the ninth and tenth weeks.

Reinis & Goldman, The Development of the Brain, Thomas Publishers, 1980, pp. 223-235.

        By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus, at that point, the fetal organic response to pain is more than a reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to avert the noxious stimuli.

Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN.

        Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13.5 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."

S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain .

        As early as eight to ten weeks gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain.

V. Collins, M.D., Diplomate and Fellow, Amer. Board of Anesthesiologists

        Dilatation and evacuation, for example, where fetal tissue is progressively punctured, ripped, and crushed, and which is done after 13 weeks when the fetus certainly responds to noxious stimuli, would cause organic pain in the fetus. Saline amnioinfusion, where a highly concentrated salt solution burns away the outer skin of the fetus, also qualifies as a noxious stimulus.

T. Sullivan, M.D., FAAP, Amer. Academy of Neurosurgeons

        Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body ...

        By 10 weeks, the palms of the hands are sensitive to touch, and at 11 weeks the face and extremities likewise respond to tactile stimuli. By 13 1/2 weeks, these responses are sufficiently elaborate and sufficiently avoidant to warrant the definite conclusion that the fetus responds aversively, not reflexively. They evidence an integrated physiological attempt to escape noxious stimuli. In response to experiments performed on 12 to 16 week fetuses, movements of the head, body, and limbs have been observed. These movements were vigorous, and consisted of ventro- or dorsoflexion of the trunk, flexion of the limbs, and turning of the head, indicating the presence of acute fetal pain. It is agreed that a fetus must be heavily sedated before intrauterine manipulation, such as transfusions, because such painful stimuli cause the fetus to move, making the procedure difficult.

Vincent J.Collins, M.D., Steven R Zielinski, M.D., and Thomas J. Marzen, Esq., Fetal Pain and Abortion: The Medical Evidence.

        "In the sixth to seventh weeks, nerves and muscles work together for the first time. If the area of the lips, the first to become sensitive to touch, is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. . . In the ninth and tenth weeks, the child's activity leaps ahead. Now if the forehead is touched, he may turn his head away and pucker up his brow and frown.... In the same week, the entire body becomes sensitive to touch." Motion and Brief Amicus Curiae of Certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Support of appellees, submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1971, No. 70-18, Roe v. Wade, and No. 70-40, Doe v. Bolton.

Prepared by Dennis J. Horan, et.al. (The List of Amici contains the names of over 200 physicians.).

Further Dr D. Gareth Jones, the Professor of Anatomy at Otago University an expert in human brain development and a moderate supporter of abortion, states in his book Manufacturing Humans mentions that the foetus probably feel pain around 14 weeks g.a.
25. Paul Flood has suggested that this is not the case. If I abort a foetus I see to it that it will not have a future, consequently any foetus that I carry out an abortion on will not be sentient in the future. However, this line of reasoning, brings us back to the initial problem because a precisely analogous line of reasoning would justify killing the temporarily comatose and unconscious. If I kill a person who has been knocked unconscious and is in a coma, I am seeing to it that they will not be sentient in the future.
26. Note that Singer suggests that sentience is a necessary condition of possessing any rights at all, not just the right to life.
27. This example is adapted from Schartz, S, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press) 90.
28. Sherwin, S, Abortion a Feminist Perspective (Another Waikato University Philosophy Department handout with no citation) 364.
29. In addition, the female capacity for endurance and longevity tends to be higher than males.
30. Warren, M. A., "On the legal and Moral Status of Abortion" in Supra n.19,156.
31. See citation in Marquis, D, "Why Abortion is Immoral" in The Journal of Philosophy vol. 83, No 4, 187.
32. Supra n 2, 110.
33. Journal of Pediatrics 1983, vol. 72, 128 cited in Overman,C, Assumptions that Affect our Lives (Micah 6.8, Chatsworth CA, 1996) 112-113.
34. Barret, D, Cosmos, Chaos and Gospel, 30.
35. Lockyer, The Man Who Changed the World, vol. 1, 270.
36. Plantinga, A, Evolution, Neutrality and Antecedent Probability: A Reply to McMullin and Van Til, Christian Scholars Review XXI: 1.
37. I use the word religion here broadly, to refer to a fundamental perspective or way of thinking about what the world is like, what we ourselves are like, what is most important about the world, what our place is in it, and what we must do to live the 'good life.'
38. Wolterstorff, N, Until Justice and Peace Embrace, vii-viii.

ÓSOUL New Zealand 2000

Over the years, I've used a number of monitors. My first monitor was rather small - maybe 12 or 13 inches. Black and white CRT thing, just like an ancient black and white television. I resisted upgrading to a color monitor, but the wife insisted, and we got something about 15 inches. All was good, for a long time. Then, I needed a decent monitor in a place where there was really no room to put a huge ass monitor. Enter the first LED screen. Wow - I saw colors on that LED that I didn't know existed. So, I was good for years with a nice 15" LED monitor. Then, I inherited a 19" Dell monitor. When I plugged it in, things got easier to read, so I used it. Then, I got the bright idea of using BOTH monitors! I can do whatever I'm doing on the big monitor, and keep my email and system monitors on the smaller screen. That worked nicely for quite a long while. It never bothered me that the videos and movies I might watch were cramped into half the space they were intended to fill.

Well - now the larger monitor started showing signs of age. Strange phenomenon that were never meant to happen convinced me that it might be wise to upgrade, before the monitor just crapped out. Talked to my kid, and he told me what to look for. Dithered for a couple weeks over the size I wanted. Finally went with a screen that supports 1080p. And, bearing in mind that two screens are nice, I bought two of them.

Alright, they aren't "state of the art". I wasn't willing to spend a thousand dollars on monitors, after all. But, HOLY SHIT! I can have two browsers open, all my system monitors, a file manager, qbittorrent, a calculator, email, and still have lots of room on the desktop! The movies? Hell, I can see the texture of people's skin! Pretty awesome.

It's a whole new world on my computer.

So, here's the recent happenings on twitter in as few words as possible:

Kotaku: Fuck gamers

Bethesda: Fuck Kotaku

Kotaku: Help us, gamers!

Gamers: LOL

SJW: BUT ETHICS!!!

irc.anonops.com/6697

Haven't been on IRC for quite a long while - looking around in #opisis and #opparis - as expected, it's rather dead in there. #opparis seems to be hunting and reporting twitter accounts, and I'm wondering if it's worth opening an account.

Expounding on what I feel ban-worthy as linked in a recent story I subbed...

These are my opinions not site policy. That said, they are also my minimum requirements to remain on staff.

Over-the-top spam: This means dozens of spam comments to a single story, automated or not. Anything less can and should be dealt with by simply modding the comments as Spam.

Gross/repeated illegal activity: Linking to copyrighted works and other illegality of the minor variety that we notice should be resolved by editing the comment in the database and letting the user know why their comment was edited in a reply. Bans should be reserved for things such as illegal and credible threats or multiple instances of minor illegal activity that was not ceased when notified that it should be.

Opinions, truly held or of a trollish nature: Absolutely never should this be criteria for a ban.

The meaning of "site bans": Banning an account or IP address from posting to the website. I don't have as much issue with IRC bans, it's a secondary means of communication for us not our primary one.

Any further clarification or other questions, feel free to ask.

I plan to buy a house next spring, so I'll almost certainly need a new refrigerator. There's a problem: they don't make the fridge I want, and never have. I can't figure out why.
        Refrigerators today are quite different than antique ones, using a different coolent because of the ozone layer, better insulation, the use of rare earth magnets in the motors, and other improvements.
        But they're still incredibly wasteful.
        The fridge I want has two vents outside, much like dryer vents but insulated. There is an electronic outside thermometer, one in the refrigerator, and one inside the freezer.
        When the temperature outside is above seventy fareignheight, the heat taken from the fridge is vented outside, so the air conditioner doesn't have to work harder to cool the hot air refrigerators let out inside the house.
        Under seventy the air is vented into, rather than outside, the house. If the heat is on, it doesn't work as hard.
        But most of all is winter. It's ludicrous that we pump the heat from our freezers with a lot of energy expenditure, while freezing air is right outside that could come in the intake hose and freeze and cool your food. At freezing, this fridge doesn't need the compressor at all and compressors take a lot of energy to operate.
        I don't know why nobody is selling those things.

It was the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe; the very first planet to have life. It was the only planet in existence to have the conditions necessary for biogenesis, including being a double planet, each orbiting each other. The double planet was one of the keys of biogenesis, because of the tides. The timing of orbits and gravities had to be perfect, as well as chemical and photonic conditions.

        Life has a hard time getting started. This was the first planet on which it was possible. It would be billions of years before any other planet had these conditions.

        In time, its rotation slowed as its sister planet Theia went farther away and took up an eccentric orbit around the star.

        It was a very rich planet. Rich in metals, rich in diversity of vegetation once life had evolved that far, vast riches of water, and very rich in hydrocarbons. It was rich in chemicals and conditions conducive to abiogenesis. One of the planet's fauna evolved to the point of sentience, then the arts, than the sciences, until their technologies were very advanced. By the time this had come about, though, the slightly smaller sister had wandered away. The Vulcans never knew of it.

        The Vulcans were a very religious people who worshiped Plutus, a god everyone could see and love. When the heretic prophet Ragnarok was twenty three, he warned them that Plutus had told him to inform everyone that he was commanding them to explore outer space, that there were vast riches there, and their very existence depended on it.

        But space exploration isn't cheap, and the Vulcans couldn't see any monetary payback, only expense. Space travel wasn't started.

        Fifty years later Ragnarok spoke of an evil that only Plutus could save them from, and said it was on its way, and called it Theia. He spoke before a crowd one day, saying Plutus had spoken to him in a dream. As they listened intently, he informed them that their god was angry because they had never left Vulcan and was going to destroy the Vulcans, and Ragnarok and his family were the only ones who would survive the cataclysm unless he told anyone of his dream, in which case he would die instantly and his family would perish as well. His blasphemy was met with a storm of stones, and he died there broken and bloody. The mob then murdered his family and set his house on fire.

        But Ragnarok was right. The rich are never satisfied with their riches, so poured more and more of their seemingly limitless hydrocarbon riches into industry and commerce, all worshiping Plutus with all their hearts. Technology brought wealth, and was developed to a very high degree.

        A century after the would-be savior Ragnarok was stoned to death, the Vulcan culture was already in decline. They developed space travel, but they never saw the signs of the decline. The denizens of a declining civilization never do. But space travel was developed despite its seemingly nonexistent to meager payoff, and a colony was planted on the next planet out from theirs, the third, and another on the fourth. The third planet was uninhabitable because of its almost completely nitrogen atmosphere, and space men and women had to wear oxygen masks and very heavy clothing outside. It was very cold there, having very low concentrations of greenhouse gasses. The planet was called “Schnee”.

        Schnee was the reason space travel was actually developed on Vulcan. Vulcan had been much like Raj a few centuries earlier, but had gradually warmed, becoming hotter and drier. The area near the equator become a desert with fewer and fewer forms of life, and its oceans started shrinking, the water entering the atmosphere as vapor and staying there. Collecting this water was very expensive, so they started looking at Schnee for water. It was a hard life for the scientists and ice miners there, many of whom froze to death.

        The fourth planet, Raj, was much nicer. It had a nitrogen atmosphere with plenty of oxygen for animals to breathe, and carbon dioxide for plants to breathe and warm the planet, so had very comfortable temperatures near its equator. Scientists were there before too long, followed by rich tourists, followed by rich immigrants who went for its beautiful weather and the wonderful Marineris Ocean's seashores. As Vulcan became hotter, Raj became the star's ruling planet. All still worshiped Plutus.

        Vulcan was dying, but wasn't yet dead when Theia returned. It had been in its eccentric orbit for billions of years, its orbits often changed drastically by a gas giant and a ringed planet.

        Theia seemed to be headed directly to Raj! It came very close, its gravity from its larger mass than Raj's and its nearly all iron composition tearing away almost all of Raj's atmosphere. Animals, including the sentient Rajians whose ancestors had immigrated from Vulcan died in hours. Flora came to its end shortly later.

        Raj's gravity altered Theia's course, and it was now headed directly to Schnee. Vulcan had fallen so far that its meager population of Vulcans had no idea of the destruction that had hit Raj, now dead, and what awaited Schnee. It mattered not to them, for they knew that they were doomed. Ragnarok's prophesy was well on its way to being true -- but no one would be left alive to tell tales of the blasphemous prophet.

        The Vulcans on Schnee saw Theia coming, but were helpless to do anything about it. There were few of them left, as well.

        At first it was a white dot in the night sky that got brighter and brighter every evening, then bigger and bigger. Before long it was a huge circle. It hit Schnee with tremendous force, releasing tremendous energies. It made a giant splash of molten rock and metal, and steam from the suddenly boiled ice. Vulcans who still had binoculars could see rings around Schnee, but there were few Vulcans, let alone binoculars. They, the few animals, meager vegetation, and microbes in Schnee's atmosphere that had ridden to Schnee with the Vulcans were the only life in the entire universe.

        Plutus had his revenge, making Vulcan so hot anything combustible burned, and soon there were rivers of flowing lead. Schnee was covered in an ocean of magma, and Raj was hit by so many meteors that all traces of Vulcan activity were erased completely. Plutus had not only destroyed the Vulcans, but all evidence of their very existence.

        It was finally only the microbes in Schnee's atmosphere that lived, who had no way of appreciating the beauty of Schnee's rings. Which was a pity, as they were very beautiful rings indeed.

A little meta-moderating would be nice, regarding submissions. Just thought of it, a minute ago. There is a submission regarding the Zumwalt destroyers. I have things to say on that subject, so if I were able to meta-moderate the submission, I would definitely give it an up-vote.

One person's moderation in that respect might not mean much - but if a number of people took the time to moderate, it could be useful.

Some people may not even look at that queue, but I've gotten used to it now. If something looks very interesting, there is time to do some modest research before the discussion starts. Or, if it only looks moderately interesting, you can at least click the links in the submission. Voting a submission up or down though. Sounds good anyway.

So - you open a web page, and it takes a while to load. Sometimes, a long while. You get curious about just WHAT takes so long, and start looking at the page code, fire up wireshark, and watch things. Everyone with a little savvy blocks ads, blocks trackers, streamlines the browser, tweaks under the hood settings.

One thing that I've personally not keyed on until recently, are online fonts, or web fonts. WTF? I've installed a boatload of fonts on my system. I only use a few fonts, but I've installed all kinds of fonts, to ensure that I could read stuff that just might require some outlandish font.

But, everytime I load a page, I'm DOWNLOADING a new font? WTF? Time to investigate . . .

So the author demands that if I read his content, it must use some special font, that is hosted online? Really? Oh - it's a PROPRIETARY font. Ahhh, I see. Someone is making MONEY off of this waste of bandwidth. Makes sense now! "Download ze fonts, Old Man, or we'll break the REST OF YOUR FINGERS!"

Fuck them all.

Some of us hate downloadable web fonts so here's how you can stop websites (including techpowerup) from forcing their glorious fonts down your throat.

1) Mozilla Firefox

Open about:config
Set "gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled" to false.

2) Google Chrome
Right Click Chrome's launcher icon, click "Properties".

At the end of the launcher string add the following:

" --disable-remote-fonts" (without quotes).

You're done.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/disabling-web-fonts-in-mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome.184198/

"How you been, old man?"
        "Wild Bill! I haven't seen you since... damn. You haven't aged a day!"
        "I've been in space, you quit. You know space travel slows aging. So how've you been? I've been doing runs to Titan since the discovery."
        "Bill, it's fantastic. My beer is the best selling beer on Mars, and they want us to import it to Earth. Can you believe it? And I have the cost down really low since I bought that warehouse to grow the ingredients in. I'm almost as rich as my wife!"
        Bill laughed. "How is Destiny?"
        "Oh, man, she's doing better than me. She's getting the damned Nobel Prize! She's going to be famous. I'm so damned proud of her!"
        "Damn, that's hundreds of years old, not many prizes more prestigious than that. What did she get it for?"
        "Her new telescope. She never told anybody but me, but her first PhD thesis was rejected; they didn't think her theory was sound. After she got her doctorate she decided to prove her theory and built that telescope here. The results were that her theory was on the money. They replicated it on the moon and got the same result and it was a huge paradigm shift in the astrophysics world. I'm really proud. So we're going to Earth. I'm taking a shipload of beer with me."
        "Yeah, you always liked beer. I remember your last trip."
        John laughed. "Fuck you, Bill, I'm not drinking it, I'm selling it. Earth is importing it from Mars."
        "Earth is buying beer from Mars? Even with the shipping costs? What the forgswaggle?"
        "Young man!" an old woman at the other end of the bar admonished, "Watch your fucking language, asshole!"
        "Oh, shit, I didn't see you down there, Mrs... Ferguson, wasn't it? Terribly sorry, it won't happen again."
        "I remember you, too, you foul mouthed asshole. Now watch your fucking mouth!"
        "Yes, ma'am. John, Earthians are buying beer from Mars?"
        John laughed. "Rich dumbasses trying to be cool. Mars is cool now, I could piss in a can and they'd buy it."
        "I'm headed for Earth in a week, maybe I'll be your captain. When you leaving?"
        "About a week. Hope you're running my load."
        "Maybe I will. Hope so, anyway."
        "Our friend Tammy's going, too. She's getting some kind of award for her work with the droppers and the discoveries she's made, although it isn't the Nobel. She found that Mars was perfect for curing dropheads; they hate low gravity when they're high, so being on Mars helps when they're withdrawing, as well as what she learned on the trip here."
        "I don't think I met her when I was on your boat."
        "Probably not, although she was probably watching you have fun with the whores. She never said anything about it, though."
        "What??"
        "She was studying them. Her research led to a cure for drop addiction, which is what her award was for. Her first success works for me now, she's the morning bartender. All of them are employed now, mostly in construction and robot repair."
        "Is Mars still short of robots?"
        "Not since that factory opened two years ago."
        "I'm surprised you don't have robots tending bar, then."
        "Screw that. People don't go to bars to drink, they go to bars to socialize; bars are full of lonely people. If there's nobody to talk to but a damned robot they're just going to walk out. I do have a tendbot for emergencies, like if one of the human bartenders is sick and we don't have anyone to cover. The tendbot will be working when we're going to Earth, but I avoid using it."
        Bill took another sip of his beer. "How the hell did you learn to make such good beer, John?"
        "Lots of books, lots of classes; I minored in chemistry, and lots and lots of trial and error."
        "Well, I can sure see why you're exporting it. This stuff could make me an alcoholic! Damn but your beer is good," he said, draining the glass.
        "Want another one?"
        "Well, I was only dropping by to say 'hi' but this is some damned good beer. Yeah, one more and I have to go, but I think I'll take a case with me. Damn, but this is some good beer!"
        An Asian woman walked in. "Lek!" John said. "Back so soon?"
        "I forgot my purse," she said, retrieving it from a drawer behind the bar.
        "Lek, Meet my oldest friend, Bill. Bill, Lek here is one of my best assets. She's been studying and knows five languages. That's a hell of an advantage in a Mars bar, since we get people from all over Earth coming here."
        "Pleased to meet you, Lek. Where are you from? Chicago?"
        She laughed. "No, but my English teacher was from Chicago. I'm from Bangkok."
        "You really speak English good!"
        John laughed. "Not so good when I first met her but you could understand her."
        "It was nice meeting you, Bill, but I have to run, I have a class in half an hour. See you tomorrow, John."
        "Oh, Lek, you're sure you don't mind doing the evening shift when I'm gone?"
        "No, I told you, it's fine. Tips are better at night, anyway. See you!"
        Bill said "Damn but this is good beer. Give me another one, John!"

        Bill was, indeed, their captain. Of course, he was running a first class ship this load. First class ships had two dozen docks so passengers could take their own transportation with them if they so chose. John, Destiny, and Tammy took the houseboat up. A large chemical rocket took his huge load of beer up.
        Bill met them at the dock, and John introduced Bill to Tammy. Bill showed them their suites, and when the last of the half-dozen or so other passengers embarked and the robots finished moving John's huge load of beer, Bill left orbit.
          After settling down in their quarters, John and Destiny decided to have lunch in the commons. There was a very large, scary looking black man in a business suit sitting at the bar and sipping a martini. He took notice when they walked in.
        "Excuse me, sir," the large fellow said, "Are you John Knolls?"
        "Yes, sir," John replied. "And you are...?"
        "Dick Martin, Mister Knolls. I love your beer! My houseboat's half full of your beer, you can't get beer as good as yours on Earth!"
        "Well, thank you, Mr. Martin. What do you do?"
        "I'm an engineer. I work for this shipping company. Had to go to Mars to oversee the installation of some equipment I designed. Sure will be glad when I get back to Earth!"
        John laughed. "I'll probably be glad to get back to Mars. After five years of Martian gravity I'm going to hate Earth."
        Martin laughed. "I probably won't much like it after two months on Mars, either. I'm sure not looking forward to the centrifuge. But I'm looking forward to getting back, they have a new toy I want to play with."
        "They didn't tell you? We'll be at over a gravity by the time we reach Earth."
        "Really?"
        "Yes, between the two of us my wife and I hold nearly a third of the company's stock. We can pretty much do as we please. It probably won't take a week to get there. So, what kind of toy?"
        Dick grinned. "Company toy. We're getting some of those new molecular printers, can't wait to try it out."
        "Molecular printer?"
        "Yes, it's a printer that builds objects molecule by molecule. You can get some pretty wild stuff from it. I feel like a kid at Christmas!"
        Destiny had ordered pork steaks, fried potatoes, broccoli, and green beans cooked with pork bacon. "John," she said, "The food's here."
        "It was nice meeting you, Mr. Martin. Please excuse me."
        The large man went back to his cocktail and John sat down with Destiny as a portly, shabbily dressed, nerdy looking young man came in frowning, and ordered a double whiskey from the tendbot.
        John and Destiny finished their lunch, John remarking that those were the best green beans he'd ever eaten.
        Destiny laughed. "It's the pork bacon."
        Pork was incredibly expensive because of Earth's environmental regulations.
        "Those pork steaks were pretty good, too," John said. They had coffee and pie, and went back to their quarters. Destiny put on a new holo and they watched it, drinking Knolls' Stout Lager.
        They had dinner in their suite, and went to the commons for cocktails. Destiny ordered a zinger splash, and John ordered a Knolls lager.
        The nerdy looking fellow fell off his stool as Bill came in. "God damn it," he said, "this is why I hate passenger runs. At least the damned drunk didn't start a fight." He called a medic to take the drunk to his quarters.
        "Hi, guys," he said to the Knolls. "Destiny, John tells me you're getting the Nobel Prize! Is he bullshitting me?"
        Destiny laughed. "No, he's right. We're going to Stockholm."
          "Man, that's great," he said. "You must be really proud!"
        Tammy walked in as Destiny said "Well, duh! Jesus, Bill, it's the Nobel!"
        John laughed. "Told you, asshole. I wouldn't shit you about anything like that."
        "Hi, guys, Captain. What's up?" Tammy said.
        "Tammy, Captain Kelly here is my oldest friend. We went to high school together. Bill, this is our good friend Tammy Winters. I've known her for five years or so and she and Destiny have been friends since college. She's a scientist, too. She's going to Sweden for the Rudolf Virchow Award."
        "Congratulations, uh, Doctor? What's that award?"
        Tammy smiled. "Just Tammy, Captain. It's for my research in prostitute communities. It took the anthropology world by storm, but not near as big a storm as Destiny's telescope caused!"
        "Wow, you guys are going to be famous!"
        Tammy laughed. "Destiny will, I'll just make the other anthropologists jealous. I'm getting an APA, too, but you don't get famous for those, either. Where's that waiter? WAITER!"
        Destiny laughed. "Yeah, I'll be famous for fifteen minutes."
        A waiter came over apologizing profusely. John frowned. Tammy ordered. John said "I hate those damned talking robots, glad I'm not running these boats any more. Do they all talk now, Bill?"
        "Yeah, most of them. Especially on passenger boats. Another reason I like cargo runs."
        The large black man walked in. John waved, and he walked over. "Hi, Mister Martin," John said.
        "Call me Dick, sir."
        "Don't call me sir, call me John!"
        Dick smiled, and asked "Did that jerk leave?"
        "What jerk?" Bill asked.
        "Fat dorky looking guy that was in here earlier. My God but he was annoying."
        Bill said "Well, if it's the guy I think you're talking about, he passed out. A medic rolled off with him." A thin, attractive black women walked in. "Oh, excuse me, folks," Dick said, and walked over and met the woman.
        An elderly lady entered. "Uh, oh," John said. "Mrs. Ferguson. You're in trouble, Bill. I wonder why she's going to Earth? And how she got a first class ticket?"
        Mrs. Ferguson spied Bill, frowned, and walked over. "Well, if it isn't the asshole with the foul mouth! They're letting a dickhead shitmouth like you be captain?"
        "I watch my language when I'm on duty, ma'am. I'm sorry I offended you."
        Dick called out from the next table, "Blagger off, you busdown forgswaggled fognart!"
        The old woman got a disgusted look on her face and left in a huff. Everyone burst out in riotous laughter. Bill shook Dick's hand and bought him and his wife a drink. They were all becoming a little intoxicated. Another couple and a single man came in, but by then they were too drunk to worry about, or be able to remember, names anyway.
        It had started to become sort of a party, but Bill and Tammy seemed to be hitting it off, and since five years later John and Destiny still felt like they were on a honeymoon, went home to cuddle to a movie, cuddle to twentieth century music, and go to bed.
        "Pork sausage again? You said it made you feel guilty!"
        Destiny smiled. "I told you, it's because I'm frugal. Tammy says I might be nuts. But this is paid for, part of a first class ticket!"
        John laughed. "Tammy's right. You're nuts!"
        Destiny grinned and dug into the ham and cheese omelet with a side of pork sausage.
        Bill's eight o'clock adjustments needed no adjusting, and he wondered if the whole trip would be this easy. After all, it was only going to take a little more than a week, since their gravity would have increased to one point four by the time they docked, and Mars and Earth were pretty close right now.
        John and Destiny were coming out of their suite as he was inspecting that section. "Bill," John said, "you look like hell!"
        "Man, I am so damned hung over... man. Me and Tammy sure tied one on. Damn, but I like that woman! Uh, don't tell her I said that."
        John laughed. "She has PhDs in psychology and anthropology, dumbass. She already knows."
        "Well, shit!"
        Destiny laughed. "Don't worry, Bill, Tammy studies what she studies because she loves people and studies how to make them hurt less. She'd never hurt you on purpose, and I'd bet she knows you better than you know yourself. Doing inspections?"
        "Yeah."
        "We're just going for a walk. Want some company?"
        "Sure, but I can't let you downstairs. John knows that." They were walking past the cargo area.
        John and Destiny both started laughing. "What's so funny?" Bill asked, perplexed.
        "You!" they both said in unison. John added, "Computer: open C-17." The door opened.
        "What the..." Bill started. "What... Damn it, John, how in the hell did you do that?"
        Destiny laughed. "Bill, only my dad and Charles have more stock in this company than John and I do. We own the damned ship. But to tell you the truth, I really don't want to go up and down five flights of stairs."
        John laughed. "That's one reason I retired. I hated those God damned stairs! Hey, come in here, I opened the door to show you something."
        "You opened the door to freak me out!"
        "Yeah, but I still want to show you something. My new cans and bottle labels." He opened a case and handed a can to Bill.
        "Knolls' Martian Ale? Funny name for a lager."
        John laughed. "I don't just make lager. So what do you think about the new design?"
        "I don't know. Why is Mars white?"
        "Because it's ale. Lager is green and pilsner is red."
        "Why?"
        "You going to pay me tuition? Look it up."
        Bill laughed. "Asshole," he said. "Going downstairs?"
        Destiny said "I don't think so" in almost unison with John, who instead said "No fucking way in hell!"
        Bill's alarm went off. "God damn it," he said."
        "What's the problem?" Destiny asked.
        "I can't talk about it. John knows that."
        Destiny laughed. "You work for me, Bill. I can fire you, you know." He looked at John, who said "It's okay, what's the danger?"
        "A pirate." John and Destiny looked at each other. "A pirate?" John asked.
        Bill shook his head. "Beats the hell out of me, that's what the computer said." They all went to the pilot room.
        Bill sat in the pilot seat. It looked like the pirate was trying to communicate. There was only one ship, which puzzled all of them. Bill let him communicate.
        "Stand and deliver!" the pirate ordered. All three burst out laughing. "What the hell does that mean?" Bill said, and pressed a button. "What do you want, dumbass?"
        "You will surrender your ship or be destroyed!"
        All three laughed even louder; these ships were nearly impervious to weapons, especially the weapons available to pirates. An atomic explosion couldn't even damage it unless it detonated less than two hundred meters away, and the pirates had no atomics.
        "Do your worst," Bill told the pirate, laughing.
        Lasers and chemically propelled projectiles rained on the ship, of course with no effect. "Should I kill him?" Bill asked. It would have been easy.
        "No," John said, "Kill his ship, hit it with an EMP and have the company come out and snag his ass. That boat is surely stolen, the company might make some cash and you might get a raise."
        "I don't know," Bill said. "Bastards have killed our friends."
        "Everybody dies," John said. "Not everybody spends their life in prison before they do. Give him an EMP, lots worse than an atomic, and you might get a raise."
        Bill disabled it with an EMP and called the company. The three of them started towards the commons for a cup of coffee before Bill finished inspections when another alarm went off.
        "Damn it," Bill said, pulling out his phone. "Ladies and gentlemen, your attention, please. We will be experiencing lowered gravity for a short while. Please excuse the inconvenience." The three of them walked back to the pilot room, and Bill slowed the ship down.
        Suddenly Bill said "Holy shit!"
        "What?" John asked.
        "There's a ship headed right for that meteor shower we slowed down for, and he's really hauling ass! It's one of ours," he added. "Didn't see it until he passed us, he's in full stealth mode."
        "Damn it," John said. "What the hell is wrong with its captain? Pirates got him?"
        "One of our ships? Not very likely," Bill said.
        "It must be. Why would that captain drive right into a rock storm?"
        They watched the computer display in horror as the other ship went through the rocks. Bill spoke on the phone again, alerting the company about what had just happened. When the meteor shower passed, he sped the ship back up and they headed to the commons for their delayed coffee.
        Tammy was in there with coffee and a stylus tablet, so they started to join her, but the obese drunk, now sober, walked up and said "Excuse me, Captain..."
        "Yes?" Bill answered.
        Bill saw the big knife way too late and found himself on the floor, bleeding from the abdomen.
        "I'm the captain now," the fat man said, waving the big bloody blade. "Nobody but me can get you to Earth alive."
        "Think so?" Tammy said. "Think again." She kicked the knife out of his hand as a medic swiftly wheeled in, then she whirled around and kicked him in the head. He went down hard.
        John was tending to Bill, and took his taser and handcuffs. Dick walked in with his wife as the medic rolled off with Bill, Tammy following.
        "Oh, my God!" Dick exclaimed. "What happened?" John was cuffing the portly fellow. Another medic wheeled up.
        "That asshole tried to murder my best friend," John said.
        Dick was wide-eyed. "We're in trouble. How will we get to Earth without a captain?"
        "Don't worry," John said, "I ran boats like this one for a quarter of a century.
        Dick gave him a puzzled look. "You can't be much older than thirty."
        John laughed. "Space. Times on a boat are different than standing still time, I'm almost fifty. We'll be fine. Look, Dick, I have to make sure that asshole pirate is locked up and see how bad off Bill is." He went to sick bay while Destiny took over assuring passengers in the commons that everything was going to be all right.
        The flabby man was strapped firmly to the medic. Bill was pale, but awake. Tammy was there with him. John asked "How did you do that, Tammy? That was amazing!"
        She grinned. "Lek gave me lessons, said she owed it to me for curing her drop addiction. I never thought I'd have to use it!"
        Bill groaned. "John, what am I going to do? I have to get us to Earth, but it's going to be a while before I can get out of bed."
        "Tell the computer to transfer control to me and I'll take care of it. And the paperwork."
        "God, John..."
        "Forget it, Bill, I want to get us there in one piece too. Just get your rest and I'll take care of things until you can get around again."
        Bill asked "What the hell was that guy's problem?"
        John shook his head. "Fucking pirate. Another one. I'll question him when he wakes up. Look, I'm going to the pilot room to send paper and look at your schedules. I'll come back as soon as I can."

        "Look, Mrs. Ferguson, everything will be all right!"
        "But Miss..."
        "It's Doctor, Ma'am. Doctor Knolls. It will be okay! Really!"
        "Doctor? You don't look like a doctor. But there isn't anybody to run the ship!"
        "I told you John was a captain in this very company for over two decades, and he was the best. There's nothing to worry about."
        "Well, frankly, 'Doctor', I'm afraid I simply don't believe you. John's been tending that bar for years and just isn't old enough to have been a captain for that long. For that matter that foul-mouthed captain that got hurt is barely old enough to be a captain. And how long have you been in practice, 'Doctor'?"
        Destiny laughed. "I'm not that kind of a doctor, I'm an astrophysicist. A scientist. And John's a whole lot older than he looks because he spent half his life in space. The faster the ship goes, the faster time goes outside the ship as far as the people inside are concerned. He and Captain Kelly are both almost fifty; they went to high school together. They just look young, John's fifteen years older than me but he doesn't look it."
        "Well," the old woman said dubiously, "At least he doesn't have a foul mouth. At least he's a gentleman. I sure hope you're not lying to me, young lady!" she added sternly, with a glare. "Where is he, anyway?"
        "Questioning the would-be assassin."
        "Well, thank you, I guess. Bartender! Another martini, you mangy metal monstrosity!"
        "Here you are, ma'am," the robot said, handing her the drink.
        "Fuck off, junkpile. God, but I hate talking robots!"
        Destiny laughed. "So does John. Robot, give me a Knolls Ale and shut up."
        "I always did like that boy. He's really a captain?"
        "Yes. Over twenty years."
        "He's really fifty?"
        "Yes, like I said, space travel."
        "Gee, I should have been a captain!"
        Destiny laughed. "You still live the same number of years, your time. It's just that when you travel, more time passes on the planets than you experience."
        Mrs. Ferguson shook her head. "That relativity stuff is over my head."

        "How are you feeling, Bill?"
        "Better than I was before the robot did surgery. I still hurt like hell. Is my ship all right? Did the pirate wake up?"
        "Yeah, she's fine, just did inspection for you. Everything's shipshape despite our acceleration. Surprising."
        "They're doing a lot better job of designing and building these things than when you were captain. If that had been an old boat that went through those meteors it would have surely been destroyed, and it's been years since one of the robots or wall panels caught fire. I'm worried about engine forty two, though, watch that one close."
        "Why? What's wrong with it?"
        "Do you know how an ion engine works?"
        "No."
        "Well, I can't explain it to you then, but the wiring looks different than the wiring on the other motors. It worries me, I wish I was an engineer. I'm afraid that if we shut it down it will explode."
        "What?"
        "Like I said, I'm not an engineer but I can read a schematic, and since you don't know how they work I can't explain it, but it looks to me like they screwed up the wiring. Is the pirate awake?"
        "Yeah, and I wasn't the least bit nice to the asshole. He spilled, though. Seems that he was in cahoots with the pirate you disabled; that guy was early, or Skankley was late."
        "Skankley?"
        "His name, Robert Skankly. He was supposed to take over the ship before the other pirate engaged, and the two of them would lock up the passengers in the other boat and either collect ransom or work them to death.
        "You were targeted because of Destiny; Dewey would have paid a king's ransom to get us back.
        "Stupid pirates. How long is the medic going to keep you here?"
        "It says sometime tomorrow, but I'll be restricted to light duty. You'll still have to do downstairs inspections for me."
        "Damn. I wish we hadn't ordered full gravity."
        "You'll be glad when you get to Earth and don't need the centrifuge. I wish we had an engineer."
        "I guess. But we do have an engineer, Dick."
        "Who?"
        "Dick Martin, the big black fellow. He's an engineer for the company but I don't know what his specialty is. I'll talk to him. I'm going to go to the commons and see if I can do anything helpful there; they're sure to worry since you're stuck in sick bay. If Dick's in there I'll talk to him. Call if you need anything."
        "Thanks, John."
        "Don't mention it."
        John could see why Bill was worried; you would expect all the wiring on all the motors to be identical. When he reached the commons, the passengers were already calm, even having a good time. Almost all the passengers were drinking and laughing, and he saw no sign of unease at all. Destiny and Tammy were sitting at a table. He walked up and sat down. "I expected everyone to be worried, considering what happened tonight."
        "It was Tammy," Destiny said. "That's her field."
        Tammy laughed. "It was gin. I couldn't do anything with Mrs. Ferguson, but she listened to Destiny. At least after a few martinis."
        They chatted a while, and Tammy went to visit Bill in sick bay. John and destiny had two more drinks and went back to their cabin.
        The next morning John did Bill's eight o'clock pilot room duties, and as he headed past the commons on his way downstairs, he spied Dick standing by the bar drinking coffee, and sauntered over to talk to the large black man. "Excuse me, Dick."
        "Hi, John, what's up?"
        "Uh, its..." he looked around. "Kind of... can I talk to you in private?"
        Dick frowned. "Sure." They walked out to the hall. "You said you're an engineer for the company, what kind of engineer?"
        "Electrical, why?"
        "Because Bill says the wiring on engine number forty two is different than all the other engines."
        "Oh, my God!" Dick exclaimed. He would have gone pale if his skin could have allowed it. "A Richardson Death Ship! We need to have everyone evacuate to their houseboats immediately and sit tight there."
        "What?!" Exclaimed John.
        "No time, give the order to the passengers and I'll explain."
        "Okay." John spoke into his phone. "Attention, passengers. An emergency has arisen aboard ship. Please evacuate to your houseboats and wait there until things are normal. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you. Captain Knolls out.
        "So what's wrong, Dick?"
        "Five years ago, an electronics hobbyist was Mr. Osbourne's intern. He found a schematic wiring diagram that was wrong, and showed it to his boss, the company president. Well, the chief technical officer and five engineers got fired for that bad schematic, and rightfully so.
        "It was wired into ten ships, all of which had to be rewired. Every single one of those three hundred ion engines on each of the ships. We worried that someone would miss an engine and they'd have a death ship. You might make a hundred runs, but sooner or later that thing's going to blow. And when it's shut down is when it will blow.
        "We called this model the 'Richardson Death Ship'. This ship is one that had to be rewired, and it looks like they missed a motor."
        "But these things will take an atomic!"
        "That's why it's so dangerous in here and safe in the houseboats. When that engine blows, all the force will be inside the ship; outside will be fine except right outside the docks by storage; we'll open the inside door to the airlock and if it blows, the force will go there rather than to houseboat locks."
        "Let's go talk to Bill."
        "You should evacuate until I can study the schematics and see if I can rewire it while it's running."
        "No, I can't. I'm captain until Bill's back on his feet. Come on."

        An hour later, Dick met Bill and John in the sick bay, where the robot was just releasing Bill for light duty. "I can fix it," Dick said. "I'll need some wire and alligator clips, and a wire cutter."
        "They're by each generator, forty two is closer to port. I'll show you."
        "No, you and Bill better get to safety. No sense anybody but me gets killed."
        "No," John said. "I'll help. Bill, wait in your boat. How long will it take you, Dick?"
        "Maybe an hour. There's nothing you can do to help, and it's incredibly dangerous."
        "I can hand you tools. That's an order. Come on."
        The medic Bill was on rolled to his houseboat, and John and Dick climbed down into the bowels of the giant ship. John was indeed helpful and it only took forty five minutes. Dick stood up and brushed himself off. "Okay, you can shut it off now and I'll take the board out, and the passengers can Re-embark."
        "We can shut it down from here," John said, and did so. He addressed the public address, telling passengers they could come back on board, that the situation was resolved. He and Dick trudged up the steps at almost Earth gravity.
        "I hope I'm getting paid for this!" Dick said, panting.
        "Yeah, you're getting paid. And you're getting a raise, too."
        "How do you know?"
        "I'm on the board of directors."
        "Oh."
        "Look, Dick, everybody's going to want to know what's going on, explain it so they don't really understand but are calmed down and satisfied."
        Dick grinned. "I can do that."
        "Dick, you're a hero, you know. I'm buying you a drink when we get to the commons!"
        Dick shook his head. "I'm no hero, it's just that I'm the only guy who could do it."
        "Bullshit, you could have waited in your houseboat while I played Russian roulette in the pilot room shutting that damned engine down, but you risked your life. That makes you a hero."
        "John, you were there, too."
        John shrugged. "Nah, part of what a ship's captain is paid for is hazardous duty. I'm used to it, did this for more than twenty years. Uh, please don't let the other passengers know how much danger we were all in."
        Dick laughed. "I know company policy, don't worry."
        They reached the commons and John asked Dick what he was drinking. Dick shrugged. "Martini, I guess."
        A robot wheeled over. "What would you gentlemen like?" it asked.
        John answered "A martini and a Knolls stout lager, a shot of bourbon and for you to shut up, you metal monstrosity."
        Dick laughed. The robot said to him "And what would you like, sir?"
        "God damn it, you stupid pile of wires, the martini is for him and I told you to shut up. Now shut the fuck up and get us our drinks and I don't want to hear another word from you."
        The robot rolled rapidly away and Dick said "I hate talking robots, too."
        "Almost everybody does. Somebody should talk to engineering, I guess."
        "John, I am an engineer and I hate 'em. But management wants to show off our superior technologies."
        Bill came in on his medic, now folded into a chair shape. "Hi, guys. Damned robot won't let me walk."
        "Well, you probably shouldn't, then," John replied.
        "I hate taking orders from a damned robot," Bill growled. "Where's that damned bartender? I could really use a shot and a beer right now."
        Others started in, and Dick got busy confusing the other passengers with what folks outside the technical fields call "technobabble". The robot finally returned with the drinks, and Bill said "What took you so damned long, junkpile?"
        The robot turned its camera towards John and froze. "Robot?" Bill said. "Bartender!"
        But the bartender wasn't going to move; lights weren't even shining. It stood there like a statue. "Must have broke, maybe its battery or something came loose," Bill said.
        "Fuck it," John said, "I'll tend the God damned bar. Call for a server, would you?"
        Dick had joined the others at the bar, speaking the engineer's perplexingly complex jargon and baffling everyone, all but Mrs. Ferguson pretending to understand. "Damned kids today, they just don't talk the same language!"
        John walked around the bar as Destiny and Tammy came in. Destiny laughed. "Told you so," she said. "He loves tending bar!" She walked around and kissed him.
        "Damned robot broke, Bill's calling a repairbot."
        Dick looked at the dead robot and said "That's an R 15 XB. A repairbot can't fix those."
        "Why not?"
        "They're brand new, I didn't even know we had them in deployment and can't figure out why they did, because the repairbots haven't been fully reprogrammed yet. I'll look at it."
        His wife laughed. "Dick's happiest when he's up to his elbows in wiring," she said. "John reminds me of him."
        Dick tinkered with the robot while John tended bar and everyone else drank and chatted. Finally Dick walked back to his stool while the robot wheeled around to the other side of the bar. "Cool," John said. "What was wrong with it?"
        Dick snickered. "It's a safety bot. Brand new and more bugs than a picnic."
        "Safety bot?" Mrs. Ferguson asked. "Oh, hell, why do I bother?"
        "Well," Dick began, "hundreds of years ago there was this guy named Asimov who wasn't even an engineer, but was a biochemist who wrote fiction on the side. Well, this guy coined the word 'robotics' and dreamed up what he called the 'three laws'. It was all fantasy, when he wrote it there were no robots and computers were brand new and so primitive they weren't really computers, but some people called them 'electronic brains'. This guy had his robots run by positronic brains."
        "So what's this guy's fiction got to do with that bartender?"
        "The 'laws' were safety devices, and the company has been trying to program something similar into our robots. From what I could gather, this one had two conflicting demands and couldn't cope and just shut down. I did a system reset and it's fine. Guess I should file a bug report."
        He sat down with the captains and the scientists and ordered a drink from the server. "You told the robot to shut up, and the captain here told it to talk. It's easy to fix, there's a reset button right inside the panel. You'd think they could have programmed the repairbots to push the damned button when they couldn't figure it out.
        "Programmers... they need to learn engineering. Or maybe psychology. They should at least learn how a computer works, but I don't think they teach that in programming school."
        John said "The stupid robot should be able to figure it out."
        Dick grinned and shook his head. "Robots can't think."
        "But they’re networked with the computer, and it can figure ship trajectories. I can't do that. They have encyclopedic memories, I don't."
        "Do you know what an abacus is?"
        "Of course, they used them thousands of years ago to do simple arithmetic."
        "So how many beads would it take for it to become intelligent?"
        "I don't get it."
        Mrs. Ferguson, sitting at the bar, overheard. "Well, at least I'm not the only one. How can something with that much knowledge be so stupid?"
        "I get it," Destiny said. "They used to have non-electronic books. Before there were computers, books were just lots of sheets of paper with information printed on them, bound together. A book held encyclopedic memories but had no memories of its own."
        "Exactly. As to how it does calculus, it's pretty much done like an abacus works. Ever heard of a slide rule?"
        John shook his head. "Nope."
        Destiny said "I do. They looked like measuring rules, but there was an inside part that slid and a clear piece. Line the numbers up right and it would do multiplication, division, logarithms, all kinds of math. Engineers used them before they had computers."
        "That's right, and a computer doesn't know that two times two is four any more than a slide rule does. When you tell it to tell you two times two, it takes the binary number two and shifts it to the left."
        "I don't get it," Mrs. Ferguson said.
        "Neither do I," John agreed.
        "I'll show you how to do binary arithmetic some time," Destiny answered. "I had to learn it for that telescope. Speaking of which, will we be turning around in a couple of days, Bill?"
        Somebody called out from the bar "the bartender quit again."
        "Damn it," Dick said. He reset the robot and told it "Robot, do not talk. If someone asks you a question, display the answer on your screen. Do you acknowledge?"
        The screen flashed "yes".
        "Stupid programmers," Dick said.
        Bill finished his beer and said "well, I'd better call it a night." Everyone else partied on.
        The next day was "turnaround" day, when the ship turned around and used its thrusters as brakes; they were two thirds of the way there by now, three days into the trip, and traveling at fantastic speeds. They would reach Earth two days later.
        Bill was healing rapidly, thanks to the healing drugs that had been developed a century earlier. No longer confined to a wheelchair, he was using a cane to get around. He met John, Destiny, and Tammy for breakfast after his eight thirty chores in the pilot room.
        "Did you guys order yet?"
        "No," John said. "We waited for you. Robot!"
        "Yes sir?" the contraption said. "Are you folks ready to order?"
        "Yes," John said, "I'll have scrambled eggs, toast, bacon, and hash browns and you'll just shut up and bring our food when the rest have ordered. I want no noise from you, if you need to talk, print it out instead."
        Its screen printed out "yes si" and it froze.
        "God damn it," Bill said. "I'm hungry. Glad Dick showed me how to reset that damned thing." He opened the server's panel and reset it."
        "Are you folks ready to order?" It asked aloud.
        "Damn it..." John started.
        Bill said "John, let's get our food before you tell it to shut up, I'm hungry. It might lock up again."
        John frowned and repeated his order. The robot asked "pork or turkey bacon, sir?"
        "It doesn't matter."
        Destiny, of course, ordered sunny side up, pork sausage, and hash browns. Tammy had the same, and Bill had a steak and cheese omelette.
        Drinking their coffee after the meal was eaten, John asked Bill how long before turnaround.
        "Three hours."
        "Okay, I'll do inspection in an hour and a half. I'm just going to sit in the basement while you turn around, I don't want to climb those damned stairs twice. It's heavy, we must be at Earth gravity by now."
        "One point two. We'll be at one point four right before free fall."
        Destiny and Tammy were talking about fashion, celebrities, and mathematics. Mrs. Ferguson came in and ordered a martini. John looked at his phone and said "Right on time!"
        "What?"
        "Mrs. Ferguson, always has a morning martini or four, usually at my bar. I hope that damned barbot doesn't run all my customers off. But it's doing the morning shift, and besides Mrs. Ferguson, stupid tourists, and captains getting in from a long run not many people are there then, anyway. Robot, more coffee and do it quiet."
        Bill laughed. "Well," he said, "I'm going to inspect cargo, anybody feel like going for a walk?"
        "Sure," said Tammy. "I'll go along." They excused themselves, while John and Destiny drank more coffee.
        Two hours later, John was at the ship's lowest level inspecting the engines for Bill. He wondered why the robots couldn't just medic Bill down, but he was used to machinery enough to know that it was pointless to even ask the question.
        As he was inspecting the last engine, Bill called. "We may have a problem, John. The computers disagree about a reading on number one twenty, one says a slight overvoltage, one an undervoltage, and the other two read normal."
        "I ran across that on my last run. Probably nothing, I'll check it out again." He did, and as he expected there was an electrical fault in a connector that made an occasional spike or drop in voltage, too quickly for all four computers to measure at once. He shut it down and informed Bill.
        Half an hour later they were weightless for a couple of minutes while Bill reversed the ship's orientation, and then they all got heavy again. John inspected everything again, and to his surprise nothing was amiss. Something almost always broke turning them around when he was captain. He guessed that Bill was right, that they were building them better.
        Except, he thought grimly, it had been a Richardson Death Ship.
        By the time he reached the top of the stairs he was winded. "Damn," he said out loud, "I need more exercise." He went to his cabin, collapsed on the couch, and called Destiny. "Hon, I'm too beat to move. I'm going to have the robot make dinner, are you hungry?"
        "Yeah, just have it make what you're having. I'm in the commons with Tammy, I'll be 'home' in a while."
        "Robot," John said, "Two rare steaks, two baked potatoes; one with butter and one with sour cream, two salads with ranch dressing, and green beans made with pork bacon. Oh, and bring me a beer. And shut up." He put a zero gravity football game on the video, San Francisco against Osaka.
        Zero gravity games were popular in deep space, but there were no professional players out that far. John thought about buying a pro team and moving it to Mars.
        Nah, he had too much on his plate already, what with the bar, the brewery, and the farm... and watching his stocks and bonds.
        Destiny came in right before dinner was finished cooking, just as John finished his first beer. He got another, and Destiny got her third.
        As usual, the commons was pretty full at dinner time; at least, the huge thing was as full as the small number of passengers could make it, which was very little at all. Bill came in and sat down with Tammy. "Where's John and Destiny? I thought we were eating together tonight?"
        She laughed. "Climbing stairs almost killed John."
        Dick was at the bar with a martini and Mrs. Ferguson, and his phone rang. "Excuse me," he said, and answered his phone. After talking a minute he pulled the standard forty by one hundred millimeter phone into a tablet almost a third of a meter wide and about quarter of a meter tall.
        "Well, I'll be damned," Mrs. Ferguson said. "What will they come up with next?"
        Dick studied something on the large tablet, which showed no sign of seams, then folded it back up and put it in his pocket. "Where'd you get that, Mr. Martin?" she asked.
        Dick smiled. "Made it myself, prototype for a new product the company is rolling out."
        "How does it work... oh, hell, never mind, I wouldn't understand it, anyway. But I thought you said you were an electrical engineer?"
          "Does this thing look like there's no battery? If it does, I designed it well. It's a phone. It has radios and computers and microphones and cameras and all the other electronics in any phone or tablet. Of course, I didn't design the whole thing all by myself, making this thing took teamwork."
        "Fascinating! ...HIC... Oh, my, please excuse me, Mr. Martin, but I think I had one too many of these. I think I'll lay down for a while." She got up and staggered. Dick and Bill helped her to her quarters and returned to the commons, laughing.
        "She's a character," Bill said. Dick laughed.
        John and Destiny never showed up; they were sleeping on their couch, having fallen asleep while listening to music and cuddling. Bill left after three beers, and the little party dwindled quickly after that.
        The next morning, John woke up in bed to the sound of Destiny's snoring. He didn't remember waking up and going in there, but they must have. "I'd better let her sleep," he thought, "she drank twice as much as me. She's going to be HUNG over!"
        The robot made coffee and he drank a cup while catching up on business, then went to the commons to meet Bill and Tammy for breakfast. Bill was in there by himself, and Bill asked "Where's Destiny?"
        "Still sleeping. I got a little drunk last night and she was wasted. Where's Tammy?"
        Bill laughed. "Same as Destiny. Wasted. While me and Dick helped Mrs. Ferguson to her room she had three cocktails. I only drank three beers and wasn't even buzzed, but Tammy kind of went wild with the booze last night. She's really going to regret it!"
        The robot came by and took their orders.
        "I'm still wondering what was up with the ship that went through those rocks," Bill said. "I'll probably never know."
        "Yes, you will. I found out this morning. It was a shipping run from the belt to Earth and the captain, William Smith, got injured. Something in storage fell and hit him on the head and gave him a concussion. The poor guy got amnesia, had no idea where he was or even who he was."
        "Is he going to be okay?"
        "Yeah, after therapy. We're not sure how extensively those rocks damaged his ship. It's going to be discussed at the next board meeting, poor guy couldn't reach his phone or tablet that he dropped when he got hit, and the door locked behind the medic that took him to sick bay. We need to make sure nothing like that happens again!"
        The robot wheeled up with their food, and they ate in mostly silence. When they were finished they continued to drink coffee as the robot cleared the table. John looked at his phone. "I wonder where Mrs. Ferguson is? She almost always has a martini by now."
        Bill laughed. "She was drunker than anybody. I'm sure she's still asleep."
        Dick walked in looking rather rumpled, wearing a polo shirt and slacks rather than his customary business suit. He waved at Bill and John and spoke to the tendbot. "Eggnog, real eggnog with a real raw, unpasteurized egg yolk and milk and cinnamon and a double shot of rum. And shut up, for God's sake!"
        John laughed. Bill said "I'll bet we're the only two on board right now that isn't hung over or sleeping it off. You missed a hell of a party..." when his phone interrupted him. He glanced at it.
        "Damn."
        "What's wrong?"
        "Skankly's loose. Here, take a taser and help me find the bastard. I wish Tammy was awake, but she'd be way too hung over to be any help."
        "I'll get the son of a bitch," John said. "Lock yourself in the pilot room so I don't have to go down those damned stairs again." They went out as Dick nursed his eggnog.
        John heard a woman scream and took off at a run toward the sound. There was Skankly, threatening one of the passengers, Mrs. Dillon, with a steak knife. John wondered how he got out and where in the hell he got hold of a knife. "Drop it, asshole," John ordered. Skankly whirled around, and John hit him with the taser, took his knife, and cuffed him.
        "I ought to cut your heart out right now, you worthless piece of shit. Any more trouble from you and you're a corpse, got it?"
        "Oh, you'd murder me?" the fat man snarled.
        "Nope, self defense." He cuffed Skankly to a chair, cut off all of Skankley's clothing and started moving the rest of the furnishings out of the room as he called Bill, who joined him in moving furniture into the hall.
        They went through Skankley's belongings and found an electronic lock pick. Just then Bill's phone sounded. "Shit," he muttered. "More pirates!" he said to John. They went to the pilot room.
        They were relieved that there were only thirty ships, so they were in no real danger. Bill wished again that it was a pure cargo run, so he could have a little fun angering the pirates before he disabled them all, but simply launched two EMPs and called the office to have them collect the ships and their pirates.
        They reached orbit the next day without further incident, and John met his mother in law for the first time, who had traveled by ocean liner.
        Bill and Tammy were married a month later at the rim of the Grand Canyon. After the ceremony and at the wedding party, Destiny asked Tammy where they were honeymooning.
        "Mars," she said.
        "Mars?" Destiny responded. "Why Mars?"
        "We're taking more droppers there for treatment."
        John shook his head sadly. "Hell of a honeymoon with those monsters on board. More like a nightmare than a dream."
        Destiny laughed. "Tammy can handle them."
        "Yes," Tammy said, "We've learned an awful lot about them in the five years since that last trip. It won't be a problem."
        "What about pirates?" John asked. "Still a lot left."
        Destiny laughed. "You know what happens when pirates attack a ship with Tammy and droppers!"
        John leaned back. "You're right. Poor pirates!"