I'm not sure these types of topics should be discussed on a chess forum. I will talk to the co-owner about possibly establishing boundaries on such topics, but I suppose until then its fair game.

I disagree with abortion, and actually for me that's one of the saddest things about my life in China. I hear all sorts of stories about abortions etc., and there are ads for it on TV

To me there is no difference between abortion and murder. Many people argue about the right of the mother to choose, but I hardly hear anyone mention the baby's rights!

It's a sad, sad world that we live in today.

On euthanasia;
In my view everyone has the right to leave this earthly party at a time of their own choosing should they wish. If people are gravely sick and/or unhappy then the world is not so beautiful (to them) relatives should not stand in their way if they feel they have to leave.
The role of the State in this should be to provide a mandatory period of counseling but ultimately to make available the means necessary for people to do so with dignity.

On abortion:
In my view, until the actual birth of the child the Mother and the Child are one organism and it is the mother’s rights that are paramount.
Women choose abortion because they have nothing to offer the child that they are carrying. To force the child into the world against the will of the Mother is wrong.

In my view everyone has the right to leave this earthly party at a time of their own choosing should they wish.

In my view, until the actual birth of the child the Mother and the Child are one organism and it is the mother’s rights that are paramount.

On what do you base these two views?

On euthanasia;
In my view everyone has the right to leave this earthly party at a time of their own choosing should they wish. If people are gravely sick and/or unhappy then the world is not so beautiful (to them) relatives should not stand in their way if they feel they have to leave.
The role of the State in this should be to provide a mandatory period of counseling but ultimately to make available the means necessary for people to do so with dignity.

[/font][/size]

I agree in general, that voluntary euthanasia should be acceptable after individuals have undergone counselling and consultation with physicians. I thought the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of 1995 was a great piece of legislation - Kevin Andrews' reasons for rescinding it through federal parliament were woefully inadequate. You can read Bob Dent's (one of four to make use of the legislation before it was rescinded) letter to parliament here: http://www.exitinternational.net/bob_dent.htm

The arguments regarding the social consequences of allowing the practice don't stand up either if the correct criteria is adhererd to, i.e. having a terminal illness, enduring a lot of suffering as set out in the original legislation.

Of course, the more interesting questions involve non-voluntary euthanasia in cases of braindead coma patients and severely disabled infants.

I disagree with abortion, and actually for me that's one of the saddest things about my life in China. I hear all sorts of stories about abortions etc., and there are ads for it on TV

Ads for abortion on television!!!

That is very troubling indeed Hugo. At least in Australia abortions are done very low key and privately because the mothers and doctors know that what they are doing is wrong and therefore want to conceal the practise as much as they can. The only instance where abortion is justifiable is when, in the honest and genuine opinion of a qualified and experienced medical doctor, there is a substantial liklihood that death during child birth would result to the mother.

Regarding euthanasia, the issue is fundamentally the same in my view. Just as abortion is murder, so to is killing one's self (euthanasia). Murder of another person cannot be justified on the basis that the victim is in pain, or depressed, or mentally handicapped, a burden on society, or any other basis. Therefore the murder of one's self cannot be justified on these grounds either.

On a semi-related chess theme, Gata Kamsky's father once threatened to kill GM Nigel Short, or so it was reported in a Chess magazine.

All my views are based on my personal knowledge and experience.

What are your views based on?

I would be very interested to know what knowledge and experience you have in these areas?

Which of my views are you asking about?

Most people would say they have personal knowledge about these types of matters, but how do you compare people's personal experiences?

Moreover, does having personal experience make someone's opinion superior on these issues compared to someone who doesn't have personal experience? I am not convinced of that, and think when we start comparing people's experiences in these areas in order to better validate their views, that becomes a slippery slope to travel down and ultimately circumvents the intertwined moral arguments.

I would be very interested to know what knowledge and experience you have in these areas?

Which of my views are you asking about?