animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics

You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production.  British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.”  He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2]  [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010  [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008


Being vegetarian helps the environment  Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation  At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1]  The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2]  As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1.  The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6]  With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat.  [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center  [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 .  [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009.  [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997.  [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003  [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004


The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc.  [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’


It is immoral to kill animals  As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.  Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.  [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008  [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989


There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.


Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2]  Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3]  Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way.  [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010.  [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth.  [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.


Vegetarianism is healthier  There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.  [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009


Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning  Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]  Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.  [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009


To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?


Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.


There are problems with being vegetarian  A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.  [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,


Survival of the fittest  It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org


Humans can choose their own nutrition plan  Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.


The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that "There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores". [2]  [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010.  [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999


animals science science general ban animal testing junior

What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]


Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved  The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth.  It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.


The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed.  Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]


It would send out a consistent message  Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?


Animals shouldn’t be harmed  The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”.  We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us.  If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]


The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this.  Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.


There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.


The decision to test is not based upon the capacity to suffer. But it should be remembered that the individual being tested would not be the only one who suffers, for the intellectually disabled we must remember their families would suffer as well.


It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]


Most animals can suffer more than some people  It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities.  We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]


When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].


To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing.  Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]


People will die if we don’t do animal testing  Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying


Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.


Animal research is only used when it’s needed  EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.


Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.


Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.


Animals don’t have human rights  Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]


Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.


Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved.


animals international africa house would african government implement tougher

Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2]  [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Poaching is becoming more advanced  A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals.  [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’  [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’  [3] ibid


Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species.  [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’


The justice system does not currently work  A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2]  [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Natural habitats being are destroyed  A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] .  [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”  [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”


Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species.  [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’


Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail.  [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’


Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1]  [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’


Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries  Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented.  [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’  [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’


Poaching is linked to terrorism  Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa.  [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’


There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction.  [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’


There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’


Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching  Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves.  Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers.  [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162  [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”


Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective  Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3]  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’  [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’


African countries have little money to spare  Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’  [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’


If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’


Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1]  [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”


energy house would store nuclear waste underground

Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:  "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.” [1]  The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.  [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010


Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe  Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1]  The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.  Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1]  As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2]  Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.  [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010   [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.   [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste.  One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.


Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary  Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with.  Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.  The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.  As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1]  [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.


Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well.  Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging. [1]  [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010


Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.


The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1]  As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.  [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006


There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage  France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. [1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. [2]  As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.  [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,   [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.


Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.  There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source. [1]  The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required. [2]  [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS,   [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,


Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.  Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.  Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.  This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1]  [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010


Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground.  This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7


climate house believes were too late global climate change

Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.


Developing world  Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change.  1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.


Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)


450 PPM  The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm.  1. IPCC (2007). "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.  2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).


The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)


These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)


Failure to reach global accord  The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless.  1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.


Consequences of increased GHGs  Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:  -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1.  -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually.  -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption.  These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2.  1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008,  2. Wikipedia, "Climate Change Feedback". Retrieved 2011-08-08.


Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.


Carbon trading systems may have the effect of slowing the rise in CO2 emissions, and possibly even creating a fall. However this will not solve the problem as changes are already occurring and there may be no way to stop feedback that creates more emissions.


Earth's Resiliency  All the conclusions about the effects of rising atmospheric GHGs are based on computerized climate models. Even those that develop and use the models admit that the models are not nearly complex enough to be 100% accurate. Climate science is incredibly complicated and different models sometimes produce vastly different results 1.Increased carbon dioxide will increase plant life which may mitigate other damages of climate change and protect species currently considered threatened by climate change. Therefore, it is far too early to conclude that humanity is going to be destroyed. The earth's climate is continuously changing, with or without anthropogenic effects, and life has always found a way to continue.  1. Lemonick, Michael D., 'How much can we really trust climate models to tell us about the future?', 18th january 2011.


New Technology  Humanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1  1. Bradsher, Keith. “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.”, New York Times Published: May 10, 2009.


Carbon Trading Schemes  The EU ETS is an example of a viable carbon market, it covers thirty countries from the EU as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Countries within the ETS are using market mechanisms to force domestic emitters to meet national caps as the amount of allowances reduces over time emissions fall. In 2020 under the ETS emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005 1. The IPCC report contains recommendations for how emissions can be abated through the simultaneous application of numerous small reductions and the implementation of abatement technologies and this is exactly what schemes like the ETS encourage. Part of the reason that the ETS is successful is that it is ensuring an even playing field between countries by (more or less) applying its rules equally across borders and industries.2  1. European Trading System, 2010  2. European Commission Climate Action, 'Emissions Trading System'


While climate models may be imperfect they are the best tool presently available to predict the future. Most predict dire consequences if GHGs continue to rise through the 21st century, which is what seems most likely.


omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would

While it is clear that such an immense project will have an impact we have little idea what that impact might be. Will the builders be local? Will the suppliers be local? It is likely that the benefit will go elsewhere just as the electricity will go to South Africa rather than providing electricity to the poverty stricken Congolese. [1]  [1] Palitza, Kristin, ‘$80bn Grand Inga hydropower dam to lock out Africa’s poor’, Africa Review, 16 November 2011, www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/80-billion-dollar-Grand-Inga-dam-to-lock-out-Africa-poor/-/979184/1274126/-/kkicv7/-/index.html


An immense boost to DRC’s economy  The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1]  [1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013,


In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1]  [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013,


The dam would power Africa  Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4]  [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010,  p.89  [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013,   [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013,   [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,


It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power.  [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011,  p.21  [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,


There is currently not enough traffic to justify such a large addition to the project. If it were worthwhile then it could be done without the need for building an immense dam.


Will enable the rebuilding of DRC  DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013.  [1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013,   [2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013,


A dam could make the Congo more usable  While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.


Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.


The World Bank would be taking a lead role in the project and it proclaims “The World Bank has a zero-tolerance policy on corruption, and we have some of the toughest fiduciary standards of any development agency, including a 24/7 fraud and corruption hotline with appropriate whistle-blower protection.” All documentation would be in the public domain and online so ensuring complete transparency. [1]  [1] Maake, Moyagabo, ‘Concern over SA’s billions in DRC Inga project’, Business Day Live, 24 March 2013,


A dam would damage the environment  Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1]  [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,


The cost is too high  The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,   [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009,   [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,


Dams displace communities  Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around?  [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,


Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity  The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3]  [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012,   [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013,   [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,


The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity.


Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids.  [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,


healthcare deny organs non donors

There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.


healthcare deny organs non donors

Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor  The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)


healthcare deny organs non donors

The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.


healthcare deny organs non donors

A Practical Solution  There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.


healthcare deny organs non donors

The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.


healthcare deny organs non donors

Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.


healthcare deny organs non donors

Organ donors are more deserving of organs  Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.


healthcare deny organs non donors

People ought to donate their organs anyway  Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.


healthcare deny organs non donors

Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).


healthcare deny organs non donors

The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.


healthcare deny organs non donors

This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo  Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.


healthcare deny organs non donors

People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.


healthcare deny organs non donors

Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.  For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.


healthcare deny organs non donors

The right to access healthcare is absolute  Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.


healthcare deny organs non donors

In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.


healthcare deny organs non donors

This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.


pregnancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions

This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.


If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong  If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.


Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.


The foetus feels pain  Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child.  [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,


Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.


These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.


Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption  Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable.  [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,


Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards  here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise.  [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011,   [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998,


There is no medical consensus on this issue. Where Dilation and Extraction is performed without inducing partial birth then it has the potential to be just as safe for the mother.


Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?


Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general  Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.


Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative  The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves.  [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,


The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women  The culture of foetal rights reflects a dangerous litigious trend in American society, and implies a view of pregnant women as being nothing more than baby-carrying machines whose independence and autonomy should be restricted and whose motivations should be questioned at every turn. If this has implications for the abortion debate, then those implications are profoundly damaging to women in general. In any case, the mother of a wanted baby has entirely different responsibilities toward the unborn foetus from the mother of an unwanted baby - that’s why our society allows both abortions and antenatal classes.


Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.


disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled

It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.


It’s in the interests of employees  It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee.  [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,


Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?


It’s in the interests of employers  It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively.  [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,