Reply to comment

Being pro-choice myself, I can understand where the author and the ScienceBlog editor are coming from. However, I think it philosophically shallow for a "science" blog to be posting such drivel. I do not believe in moral OR ethical absolutes, and the term "should" in the article title is a dead give away that this rant is not scientific. The original purpose of science was to minimize dogma into a compact method, the scientific method, in which we can referee arguments and evidence and revise theories. Many, including the author of this article, instead use pseudo-science as a tool to justify public policy.

On a more practical note, if a doctor feels that abortion is "doing harm" to a fetus, and you believe that withholding the morning-after pill is "doing harm", then who can put forth an ABSOLUTE standard to decide? No one; that's why this debate is still raging.

Having an "ethics expert" reinforce your views may give you comforting certitude, but it's not science or logic. All values and ultimate goals are founded on our instinctual urges; logic only helps us achieve those goals. For example, logic alone cannot tell us whether we should work toward world peace, or blow up the earth: it depends on our goal. Only our "un-rational" emotions and primal sympathies can guide us toward some kind of world peace (if such a thing is even possible).

ScienceBlog, please stick to what you're good at: science.