Abortion... is it morally neutral?

[ObserveandReport]

Abortion

 

This topic is important for at least two reasons: one, if we are wrong about our thinking here we are possibly endangering many lives and two, we may be assigning blame wrongfully, in a very destructive manner.

 

Many years ago I took a class called “Contemporary Moral and Social Issues.” In that class we discussed personally identity and specifically we did an overview of the views expressed in the following academic paper (you don’t have to read it, but I will reference it): http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Animalism-and-the-Varieties-of-Conjoined-Twinning.pdf

The bottom line being that because of conjoined twins and the possibility of body transplants, our identity is no more than a brain or, so that we can avoid a lengthy philosophical tangent, consciousness which supervenes on that brain. Further, that brain is simply one part of a larger organism that is the culmination of all our organs. If this is true, then before certain parts of the brain form, which are necessary conditions for consciousness, we simply do not exist (and under these conditions abortion is morally neutral).

 

The Conjoined Twin Argument

 

Animalists are those who say we are identical with the whole of our body, that is we are the entire organism composed of both a mind and body. Dicephalus is a variety of conjoined twin where two heads share one body. This presents an interesting question for animalists: are dicephalus one person because there appears to be one organism? Or is it that there are two people sharing one organism? If this is the case, then who we are is not identical with the whole of the biological organism that gets called by our name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo

 

Are there two people here, or is it one person? Do the parents have daughters, or a daughter?

Now while it is true that there are two tracheas and other various organs, it would be strange to say that this is why there are two organisms. Mainly because there is a variety of conjoined twin that is two bodies, with one head. Is this two people? This seems implausible.

 

The Transplant Argument

If we are the sum of all our organs, then when a full body transplant occurs (a head is removed from one body and kept alive until it is attached to another) another problem occurs. Did that person die when their head was removed? Was a new person “born” when the head was attached to the new body? It appears that we survive a body transplant, especially if, throughout the procedure, we are kept conscious via some artificial blood supply. Such a transplant has been done on a monkey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwkkmsoo4a4 Also this surgery may be done to a human soon: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php

 

If we survive such an operation, clearly we are reducible to something less than the whole of our body.

 

Resisting the Conclusion

 

I’ve forwarded this thesis before, if not with these exact words. When I did so, there was one objection (or an unconvinced objector perhaps) who argued that my mistake was assuming it possible to separate the mind and the body. He went on to emphasize the close relationship between the mind and the body: the fact that chemical processes in the latter drastically effect the former. Without any advanced knowledge of human neurophysiology, it can still be asserted that such a relationship is irrelevant. The ongoing stimuli from the body is not different in substance from normal external stimuli such as those that activate our sensory organs. The origin of the stimuli is simply closer to home (about as close to home as you can get).

 

Additionally, the above form of argument sidesteps the “future like ours” argument against abortion put forward by Don Marquis because cells don’t have a future like anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml

Conscious entities may have a future like ours, but before those conscious entities exist, they cannot be harmed. In the same way, posthumous harm is incoherent.

 

To truly resist the conclusion that we are identical with our minds, which are themselves a part of the body, you would do well to say that murdering the twins above is simply killing one person and that we do not survive the head transplant. Short of this, it seems we are stuck.

 

Last Word

 

The real problem then, if we are our minds/brains, is that saying abortion is wrong before there is a thalamus or amygdala, is itself wrong. After all, what would be harmed in such a procedure simply wouldn’t be a person. I therefore hold that abortion before those structures develop is morally neutral. 

[dsayers]

Too much obfuscation. Animals have brains and consciousness. Abortions are performed on fetuses, who are not people/moral actors. There is no moral component.

[Ray H.]

Abortions destroy genetically complete humans that haven't aggressed against anyone. There is a moral component.

[ThatDrewGuy]

According to University of Maryland, conjoined twins "occur once every 200,000 live births". I don't understand why an extremely rare birth defect that most people don't live through should have anything to do with the morality of abortion.

 

Source: http://umm.edu/programs/conjoined-twins/facts-about-the-twins

 

I also fail to see how full-body transplants have anything to do with the morality of abortion. 

[Mister Mister]

According to University of Maryland, conjoined twins "occur once every 200,000 live births". I don't understand why an extremely rare birth defect that most people don't live through should have anything to do with the morality of abortion.

 

Source: http://umm.edu/programs/conjoined-twins/facts-about-the-twins

 

I also fail to see how full-body transplants have anything to do with the morality of abortion. 

yes I agree.  concepts imperfectly refer to reality.  just because there is some gray area, doesn't mean you throw out the entire concept.  For example, just because there are "egg-laying" mammals like echidna and duck-billed platypus, doesn't mean that the words "mammal" and "bird" don't refer to anything tangible in reality.  This reminds me of the radical feminists who point out the extremely rare phenomena of Intersexualism, where a baby's genitalia is not clearly male or female (though most of these individuals DO produce either sperm or ova), and use this as proof that gender is entirely a social construct.  also I'm not sure how Siamese twins have any bearing on the abortion issue.

[Donnadogsoth]

Short version:  humans are defined by their minds and not their bodies.  A human has a self-interest related to his body but he is not identical to it.  Any organism with a human mind is human and therefore not subject to being exterminated.  A human mind develops after two or three months of gestation which transforms a highly-ordered but morally neutral blob of tissue into a sleeping, kicking, dreaming, thumb-sucking human being.

Too much obfuscation. Animals have brains and consciousness. Abortions are performed on fetuses, who are not people/moral actors. There is no moral component.

 

Are one-year-old infants people/moral actors?  Are three-year-olds?  Are retardates?  Don't tell me a consciousness consisting of staring into space and going "moooooooo" counts as a person immune to extermination.

[dsayers]

Abortions destroy genetically complete humans

The easiest way to lose an argument is to overstate your case.

 

Are one-year-old infants people/moral actors?  Are three-year-olds?  Are retardates?  Don't tell me a consciousness consisting of staring into space and going "moooooooo" counts as a person immune to extermination.

What makes a moral actor? The capability to reason. Something that cannot conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compares behaves to those ideals, and calculate consequences is not responsible for its actions. Does this present a grey area as a baby evolves into a moral actor? Certainly. Luckily, I think you'll find it quite impossible to argue that a fetus understands the consequences of its non-actions while infants cannot righteously enter into contracts.

[Libertus]

Moral actor this or that doesn't matter to me. A human being has to be human (genetically), alive and "separate / unique" (i.e. not a body part of someone else). It can have the mental capacity of a pot plant (or the average voter) for all it's worth, doesn't matter, still a human being.

[ObserveandReport]

Too much obfuscation. Animals have brains and consciousness. Abortions are performed on fetuses, who are not people/moral actors. There is no moral component.

 I like this. Brevity is great, but nuance is sometimes necessary. That being said, I am often too wordy. Thanks.

 

According to University of Maryland, conjoined twins "occur once every 200,000 live births". I don't understand why an extremely rare birth defect that most people don't live through should have anything to do with the morality of abortion.

 

Source: http://umm.edu/programs/conjoined-twins/facts-about-the-twins

 

I also fail to see how full-body transplants have anything to do with the morality of abortion. 

Whether or not it is rare, it tells us about what personal identity is. The rarity of some resource doesn't make it less real. Moreover, either there are two people conjoined in one organism, or there aren't. 

On the full body transplant bit, the argument runs as follows: If successful, I would survive a full body transplant. Therefore, whatever "I" am, is not my body, but rather my mind. If we are minds, you can't agress/ harm/hurt/murder/kill that which does not exist yet. No mind=no person. 

 

Abortions destroy genetically complete humans that haven't aggressed against anyone. There is a moral component.

Are you denying you would survive a brain transplant or asserting that the conjoined twins featured above are merely one person? If not, you have not read my argument carefully. 

Moral actor this or that doesn't matter to me. A human being has to be human (genetically), alive and "separate / unique" (i.e. not a body part of someone else). It can have the mental capacity of a pot plant (or the average voter) for all it's worth, doesn't matter, still a human being.

There is a difference between consciousness and a lack thereof. Which of my arguments/premises are you attacking exactly?

yes I agree.  concepts imperfectly refer to reality.  just because there is some gray area, doesn't mean you throw out the entire concept.  For example, just because there are "egg-laying" mammals like echidna and duck-billed platypus, doesn't mean that the words "mammal" and "bird" don't refer to anything tangible in reality.  This reminds me of the radical feminists who point out the extremely rare phenomena of Intersexualism, where a baby's genitalia is not clearly male or female (though most of these individuals DO produce either sperm or ova), and use this as proof that gender is entirely a social construct.  also I'm not sure how Siamese twins have any bearing on the abortion issue.

I'll try and make the siamese twins argument concise: Siamese twins are two people in one body, therefore a person is not their body. The organ that makes two people present in siamese twins is the brain. Therefore, we are our brains. If something does not have a brain sufficiently similar to ours (meaning all necessary conditions for consciousness are present) then it is neither good, nor bad to kill it.

 

In short, the twins are not some exception to the people rule. They ARE two people, who happen to share one organism. This informs us about what personal identity is reducible to. 

Short version:  humans are defined by their minds and not their bodies.  A human has a self-interest related to his body but he is not identical to it.  Any organism with a human mind is human and therefore not subject to being exterminated.  A human mind develops after two or three months of gestation which transforms a highly-ordered but morally neutral blob of tissue into a sleeping, kicking, dreaming, thumb-sucking human being.

 

Are one-year-old infants people/moral actors?  Are three-year-olds?  Are retardates?  Don't tell me a consciousness consisting of staring into space and going "moooooooo" counts as a person immune to extermination.

That is an excellent abridgment of my arguments! I'm not sure what you were getting at with the last bit, but if you were referring at all to animals, there is an interesting argument to be had about ascending levels of consciousness in the animal kingdom and how this may affect the morality of farming/eating meat.  My argument may be weaker than how far you push it because I am merely alleging that fetuses up until a certain stage of development are necessarily not conscious. Only up until then do I believe it neutral to abort; until we know more about the mind and consciousness I think we should er on the side of caution.

Bonus argument: A man has had his brain eaten away all the way up until the very base of the brain stem by a rare fungus. However, the hospital has kept his body fed and externally cared for. If it is not murder to cut this mans throat, then it is because we are conscious beings and early abortion is morally neutral because no conscious being is harmed. 

[Boss]

Moral actor this or that doesn't matter to me. A human being has to be human (genetically), alive and "separate / unique" (i.e. not a body part of someone else). It can have the mental capacity of a pot plant (or the average voter) for all it's worth, doesn't matter, still a human being.

So you think because the mother is not "separated" from the baby, she can kill the baby. But I believe OP point was the conjoined twins are not separated and you wouldn't agree one of the twins can kill the other just because its not "separated"

 

As far as you saying it has to be a human being, I am not sure if you understand what a human being is. The human being is formed once fertilization is completed. Princeton University has a great article on its website explaining the facts

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

 

Me personally I see abortion immoral 

1. We were all once alive in the mother and being in that state or any other state(coma/vegetative) does not give anyone the right to murder

2. I wouldnt want my life ended for the reasons mothers get abortions

3. 99% of the time the mother willingly did the activity that put her in the situation so I dont believe she is the victim. I believe the baby is.

[Sima]

The question is at which point everyone would be fine to have been aborted?

 

1 sperm and 1 egg is not a human.

But after fertilization,  there is living growing creature, which can't think yet just because of biological limits . 

Its growing, but its like someone in coma , who will wake up in few hours. 

We definitely know, that the fetus will think. People keep coma patient in hospitals who might never regain thinking function.

 

Or everyone just can ask himself: if my parents aborted me, would I be fine with that?

Would my parents would have been fine if they were aborted? 

Is it universal to be ok yourself  to be aborted?

Would I have been fine to be aborted after 2 months after fertilization?

Or would I prefer to have been adopted if my parents cant keep me?

 

I am expressing my opinion, I am not going to argue about this, I just hope this might be useful to someone.

[ObserveandReport]

Summation of common objection so far: Conjoined twinning is a highly irregular anomaly, therefore making arguments based on what we consider conjoined twins to be is essentially cherry picking examples such that my argument makes sense.

 

Cherry picking and "grey areas" are equally inapplicable here. Cherry picking works by selecting studies or statistics that contradict the vast majority of statistics in order to paint an illusory picture. This is not a statistical analysis or a scientific metaanalysis. My examples are solidly within the definition of "person," minus the brainless fungus body. Furthermore, they don't contradict any other evidence. If anything they are a fuller and more inclusive data set. 

[chromanin]

The self, the part of us that collating sensory experience appears to be localized to the brain, yes. So 1-body 2-heads is 2 people, their experiences are divergent although similar because they are modulated by the same body and environment. One person could have an internal dialogue, or observe something in the environment with other brain being largely or completely oblivious to that experience. 

 

So with the head transplant, it's still the the same person, although they will now change into a new person as modulated by their new body as opposed to the old one. Think about it, we're all becoming new people; we are our physical state and we're changing all the time.

[ObserveandReport]

So you think because the mother is not "separated" from the baby, she can kill the baby. But I believe OP point was the conjoined twins are not separated and you wouldn't agree one of the twins can kill the other just because its not "separated"

 

As far as you saying it has to be a human being, I am not sure if you understand what a human being is. The human being is formed once fertilization is completed. Princeton University has a great article on its website explaining the facts

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

 

Me personally I see abortion immoral 

1. We were all once alive in the mother and being in that state or any other state(coma/vegetative) does not give anyone the right to murder

2. I wouldnt want my life ended for the reasons mothers get abortions

3. 99% of the time the mother willingly did the activity that put her in the situation so I dont believe she is the victim. I believe the baby is.

I see abortion as problematic after a certain point, but that is jumping way ahead of the argument. Try and parse this in the way I delivered the argument. 

1. There is a difference between a fertilized egg and a wiggling baby. The relevant difference is the functioning brain. Before that has developed to some minimal degree, "we" do not exist.

2. Using the term "my" life involves someone to possess the life. That person, what you are, can possess and experience things. Something that doesn't have the neural architecture to do so, cannot be deprived of anything.

3. The method by which the mother becomes pregnant is irrelevant, up until the necessary components for consciousness form (and perhaps later) for reasons cited in 1 and 2. 

 

Think about what makes you, YOU. is it your arm? Your leg? What if we make an artificial body for you from scratch. It looks just like yours and will conduct signals to your brain just like your current body does. There is nothing to say this is outside the realm of scientific possibility. Would you still be you if you fell asleep in your original body and woke up in the second?

The question is at which point everyone would be fine to have been aborted?

 

1 sperm and 1 egg is not a human.

But after fertilization,  there is living growing creature, which can't think yet just because of biological limits . 

Its growing, but its like someone in coma , who will wake up in few hours. 

 

 

I am expressing my opinion, I am not going to argue about this, I just hope this might be useful to someone.

Well I'm sorry to hear you are disinterested in joining the conversation. That being said, people in a coma have the prerequisites for consciousness and experience. A 2 week year old fetus, does not. This is relevant because those prerequisites are the core of what a person IS. Before they exist, no harm can be done just as you cannot harm someone after death. 

 

What both of you give are essentially versions of the "future like ours" argument I mentioned in my original post. My answers have been reformulations of my original answer. To say a collection of cells, which lacks the capacity for any semblance of consciousness and has never had such capacity, "has" a future like ours of, is giving an object possession before it has the ability to possess. 

[Donnadogsoth]

The easiest way to lose an argument is to overstate your case.

 

What makes a moral actor? The capability to reason. Something that cannot conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compares behaves to those ideals, and calculate consequences is not responsible for its actions. Does this present a grey area as a baby evolves into a moral actor? Certainly. Luckily, I think you'll find it quite impossible to argue that a fetus understands the consequences of its non-actions while infants cannot righteously enter into contracts.

 

Okay, so you're an exterminationist, willing to sanction the killing of born infants.  Fine, just own the label, man.

[Ray H.]

The easiest way to lose an argument is to overstate your case.

 

This isn't an argument.

[Romulox]

It seems to me that the essential question is whether the non-aggression principle applies to a developing moral actor, one that is assumed to be capable of moral actions in the future if left to develop without disruption.  In other words, is it immoral to initiate an action that prevents the formation of a human consciousness that otherwise would have formed in the absence of that action?

[Sima]

Talking about timelines, what about people who used to be moral agents: like people with serious dementia,  Alzheimer's patients? Are they moral agents? Do they lose or keep their rights as a moral agent?  At this stance we use the time variable, just backwards.

[MrNlul77]

B

[Jaeger]

At what level of consciousness does it become morally wrong to kill another human being?  Who gets to decide what that level is?  I assume in a free society it will be the community you live in.  If you live in a community of pro-lifers expect to be ostracized.  If you live in a pro-choice community I imagine there will be no issue.

 

I did find this study interesting about when consciousness forms.

 

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/full/pr200950a.html

 

 

 

At birth, the newborn brain is in a “transitional” stage of development with an almost adult number of neurons (with the exception of adult neurogenesis) but an immature set of connections (13). During the few months after birth, there is an overproduction of synapses accompanied by a process of synaptic elimination and stabilization, which lasts until adolescence (14). Myelination begins prenatally, but is not completed until the third decade in the frontal cortex (15) where the highest executive functions and conscious thoughts take place (1,9).

[chromanin]

It seems to me that the essential question is whether the non-aggression principle applies to a developing moral actor, one that is assumed to be capable of moral actions in the future if left to develop without disruption.  In other words, is it immoral to initiate an action that prevents the formation of a human consciousness that otherwise would have formed in the absence of that action?

 

Well, how far back do you go in the causal chain? I'm tempted to say that if the fetus does not yet have structures for neural activity, it is not yet a person which can be aggressed against. Then again, a zygote has a realized potential to become a person as opposed to an egg or sperm cell. Should we also consider the potential conditions of this life? I'm torn actually... What are your thoughts?

[ObserveandReport]

Okay, so you're an exterminationist, willing to sanction the killing of born infants.  Fine, just own the label, man.

I don't think you have read carefully. "Only up until then do I believe it neutral to abort; until we know more about the mind and consciousness I think we should er on the side of caution." That point where the bare minimum for consciousness exists, not where it is confirmed to be occurring, is at 22 weeks (the earliest point at which the amygdala could be formed)

 

It seems to me that the essential question is whether the non-aggression principle applies to a developing moral actor, one that is assumed to be capable of moral actions in the future if left to develop without disruption.  In other words, is it immoral to initiate an action that prevents the formation of a human consciousness that otherwise would have formed in the absence of that action? 

 

 

Yes, precisely. And I believe that answer to be "no" because you cannot aggress against someone who does not (and most importantly could not )currently exist.

 

 

Talking about timelines, what about people who used to be moral agents: like people with serious dementia,  Alzheimer's patients? Are they moral agents? Do they lose or keep their rights as a moral agent?  At this stance we use the time variable, just backwards.

This is a reasonable objection. Again the main difference between a coma patient or someone with Alzheimers and a 2 week old fetus is that the fetus lacks the bare minimum neural architecture necessary for consciousness and there is simply no way it's a person. You can empathize with "someone" who experiences like we do, you can agress someone who has existed and and still exists though weakened (we all are likely weakened somehow). Conversely it makes little sense to talk about hurting/agressing against someone who does not yet exist. Would you say that you can wrong someone who doesn't exist entirely, after having existed? That's the brain fungus example. Look to "Bonus Argument" above. My answer is "No" What's yours, and why? Do you not think this more analogous to a fetus because both are outside the bounds of when a person could possibly exist? 

 

Follow UP: So that I don't talk in circles here, let me lay out the "valuable future like ours" argument that I mentioned in my original post because it seems a few of you are raising that very argument. 

 

If you let a fetus grow, uninterrupted, it will mature into a functioning human being with all the experiences and eccentricities of being a person.Therefore it is wrong to deprive that fetus a future existence like ours.

 

Response: Since we are our minds/brains, it's not the body of a fetus that has a valuable future like ours, nor is it the fertilized egg which has such a future. Since only the mind/brain can experience or possess things or have things, at some point the developing brain has a future like ours. Up until that point, you cannot deprive anything any more than you are depriving a future person by wearing a condom or using spermicidal lube, or preventing implantation on the uteran wall.

 

In other words, its not our genetics that make the person, or even the environment. It is that they are conscious beings, or beings with the current capacity for consciousness. At an instant, coma patients could wake up and Alzheimers patients could flush the neural plaques from their brains. They were people all the way up until those points, because they possessed the stuff of consciousness, (brains with amygdalas and thalamuses ect.) regardless of the diminished state it was in. Someone who has suffered brain death however, simply cannot be harmed further because they don't exist.

[MrNlul77]

Every discussion I've ever had/seen/heard about abortion basically come down to the same arguments:-

 

At what point do we assign a fertilised egg/foetus with property rights?.

 

Does the potential for a foetus to develop into a "human being" override the existing property rights of the woman?

 

Is the woman that has an abortion immoral for terminating the potential for a foetus to develop into a "human being"?

 

The whole discussion is subjective, it depends on your own personal belief/opinion, What is the basis of your belief/opinion is the real question.

 

I'm of the opinion that, until science comes up with a way for us to choose whether fertilisation happens (I get that we choose to have sex) there will always be abortions and this discussion will continue.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think you have read carefully. "Only up until then do I believe it neutral to abort; until we know more about the mind and consciousness I think we should er on the side of caution." That point where the bare minimum for consciousness exists, not where it is confirmed to be occurring, is at 22 weeks (the earliest point at which the amygdala could be formed)

 

 

Was talking to dsayers, not to you.  He is an exterminationist, you appear not to be.

[chromanin]

At what level of consciousness does it become morally wrong to kill another human being? 

 

Does the sensation of pain count as consciousness? A fetus starts moving around by 8wks, so that suggests it is at least partially innervated... Are there any sensations yet or is it just reflexive electrical activity? 

 

The whole discussion is subjective, it depends on your own personal belief/opinion, What is the basis of your belief/opinion is the real question.

 

Subjectivity is an illusion. Try again. Ignoring facts does make reality subjective. 

[MrNlul77]

Subjectivity is an illusion. Try again. Ignoring facts does make reality subjective.

 

??You have completely lost me?? What are you talking about? Are you saying that that subjectivity doesn't exist?? What's your favourite flavour of ice ream?

 

stating "try again" is clearly snarky!

 

Also, you have clearly got your wires crossed, what facts are you talking about that you think I or whoever it is (I haven't a clue who your referring to) is ignoring.

[Donnadogsoth]

X thinks killing Z is murder, Y thinks killing Z is tasty.  How well is that going to work out in an anarchy?

[ObserveandReport]

??You have completely lost me?? What are you talking about? Are you saying that that subjectivity doesn't exist?? What's your favourite flavour of ice ream?

 

stating "try again" is clearly snarky!

 

Also, you have clearly got your wires crossed, what facts are you talking about that you think I or whoever it is (I haven't a clue who your referring to) is ignoring.

I'm not speaking for him/her, but saying that some arguments are merely subjective doesn't mean they are actually subjective. Certainly there are differing opinions, but that's not what's going on here. I have levied three arguments to elucidate a definition of person-hood or identity. You can reject the conclusions by attacking the premises or the logical connection of the premises to the conclusion. Subjectivity plays no role here.

Does the sensation of pain count as consciousness? A fetus starts moving around by 8wks, so that suggests it is at least partially innervated... Are there any sensations yet or is it just reflexive electrical activity? 

 

I think being reactive to painful stimuli is not necessarily a sign of consciousness. As you suggested there could be other things at play. I'd be very interested to see what we know of the neural structures needed, as determined by those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries.

 

Here's some brain stuff: https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-on-consciousness-from-medical-interest/ And: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

I'd be interested to see if there is research that is contrary to this.  It looks like 24-26 weeks. I always er on the low side, so let's say 24 or even 22 if you want to be a stickler.

[chromanin]

??You have completely lost me?? What are you talking about? Are you saying that that subjectivity doesn't exist?? What's your favourite flavour of ice ream?

 

stating "try again" is clearly snarky!

 

Also, you have clearly got your wires crossed, what facts are you talking about that you think I or whoever it is (I haven't a clue who your referring to) is ignoring.

 

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Subjectivity is an illusion, produced by relative objective differences in perceivers. For instance, we know there are more wavelengths of light out there than we can perceive with human eyes. My preference is determined by my objective composition at any given time, a subjective filter is not required to explain this. Used to be mint chocolate-chip, now it's rum & raisin.

 

Sorry about the snarky, it gets to me when people appeal to subjectivity when the fruits of objectivity are everywhere to be gleaned. Why would you bother engaging in philosophy if reality was subjective? Even to say that some things are subjective is an objective claim, yes? 

[Jaeger]

Does the sensation of pain count as consciousness? A fetus starts moving around by 8wks, so that suggests it is at least partially innervated... Are there any sensations yet or is it just reflexive electrical activity? 

 

 

Hearing seems to be the first sense at about 16 weeks, pain at 19 weeks, smell at 20 weeks and memory at 22-23 weeks.  I would argue that consciousness would start with memory.

 

 

There are several indications that various sensory modalities are processed in the developing brain befor birth (35–38).

  Pain. 

Nociceptive reactions such as withdrawal reflexes can be recorded from the 19th wk (35). By the 20th wk, fetuses were found to increase the levels of cortisol, beta-endorphin, and noradrenaline in umbilical blood when a needle was inserted into the abdomen (38). Facial expressions similar to adults experiencing pain can be seen in preterm infants after 28 wk (18). Painful stimulations by either venipuncture or heel lances of preterm infants of 25-45 wk produced an increase in hemodynamic response in the somatosensory cortex revealed by real-time near infrared spectroscopy (39,40) either bilaterally and/or over the contralateral areas. Interestingly, the cortical responses to noxious stimulation were found to be greater in awake than in sleeping infants (39). Moreover, the bilateral activation noticed in the Bartocci et al. (40) study was suggested to include the S₂ cortex, anterior insula, ventral premotor area, and anterior cingulate cortex which belong to the GNW circuits.

 

 

 

Olfaction. 

The behavior of alert newborn infants appears to be influenced by olfactory cues mainly originating from the intrauterine environment (41,42). For instance, they seem to be more attracted by the smell of amniotic fluid than by other odors. Exposure to amniotic fluid and other maternal odors were found to have a soothing effect in newborns. Clear behavioral responses to smell can be recorded in preterm infants from approximately the 29th wk of gestation and the fetus can probably smell from approximately the 20th, the time at which the epithelial plugs blocking the nostrils disappear (41). Near infrared spectroscopy recordings in the left anterior orbitofrontal gyri of newborns (from 6 to 192 h) in a quiet awake state show increased hemodynamic response during exposure to smells like that of colostrum or of vanilla compared with water (43). Conversely, a decreased response, which was significantly greater in the right than in the left side, was noticed when the babies were exposed to the smell of a disinfectant or of a detergent (44).

 

 

Vision. 

Visual acuity in the full-term newborn infants is only 1/40 visual acuity in the adult but newborns can process complex visual stimuli, recognize faces, and imitate (21). They have developed preferential looking i.e., they look longer at patterned field stimuli than at gray fields. The ability to recognize different colors, as well as other features of visual perception, develops later.

Infants at birth prefer images of attractive faces, are sensitive to the presence of eyes in a face, and have a preference to look at faces that enjoy them in eye contact (21). Such face detectors preferentially mobilize a subcortical route that seems more developed than the cortical route at birth. In any case, these experiments require the infant not only to be awake and attentive but also to be sensitive to a “social” eye-contact relationship.

Hearing.  

Responses to low frequency noise can be recorded from approximately the 16th wk in the fetus brain (45). The cochlea is probably structurally developed from around the 18th gestational week to provide auditory input. However, the auditory cortex does not respond to hearing until around the 26th wk in preterm infants. At this age, brainstem auditory evoked responses can be first observed, although they may not be reliable until the 28th week (46). In a recent study, cortical activation to sound was detected in the fetus from the 33rd wk of gestation (47).

 

Memory. 

If a 22-23 wk human fetus is exposed to a repetitive stimulus, such as the vibration of an electric tooth brush, it reacts by movements; after multiple stimuli it does not react any longer, it habituates (48). Newborn infants remember sounds, melodies, and rhythmic poems they have been exposed to during fetal life (49,50). However, short-term memory is rather limited in newborn infants, retention of visual objects lasts only for a few seconds. A 2-mo-old baby remembers a soother or a face which suddenly disappears (51) but working memory is not fully efficient before 7 mo (49). Long-term memories disappear during early childhood (infant amnesia) and full declarative memory develops only after 3 y (49).

 

I find the practice of abortion repugnant.  Especially when European and American culture is in decline because no one wants to have babies.  So instead of the almost 60 million people that could be alive and working in the US who were aborted since 1973,  we open our borders to mass migration of people of lower IQ cultures who do not assimilate. I can't understand the infanticide.  How can anyone claim to be a peaceful parent then kill their own offspring, sentient or not?  Where is the parenting instinct?  Out of the 308,390 abortions this year so far in the US only 2990 were do to rape or incest.  14,800 were to fetuses older than 16 weeks gestation.  Sorry for the rant just a sore subject for me.

 

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

[chromanin]

I think being reactive to painful stimuli is not necessarily a sign of consciousness. As you suggested there could be other things at play. I'd be very interested to see what we know of the neural structures needed, as determined by those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries.

 

 

Thanks for the links. The first one had a nice graphic equating brain structures and areas to variations of consciousness impairment, as determined by clinical observations. So yeah it looks like the first connections to the thalamus appear @ 20 wks. but the more mature projections aren't in place until 29/30 wks. I'm not sure (I guess no one is) how much cortical involvement is really required for the most primitive beginnings of sensation awareness, so I think it's hard to justify going much past 20 wks. 

 

Here is a cool article on premature babies: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth

 

The question still remains whether it is moral to destroy even a zygote, which technically contains all the genetic material to become a person. Does that initial realized potential demand deference or is it a case of no cigar? It can't be aware of its loss of future, but it is in fact losing its future. I would rather exist even if handed off to foster parents, but perhaps not if I was going to die within a couple of years from dysentery.

[Libertus]

So you think because the mother is not "separated" from the baby, she can kill the baby.

 

Nope. Let me clarify. A fetus has DNA separate from its mother, therefore it's a separate entity. I did explain my position a bit by adding "not a body part of someone else".

So you think a fetus is a body part, therefore she can kill the baby. YOU MONSTER.

[MrNlul77]

I'm not speaking for him/her, but saying that some arguments are merely subjective doesn't mean they are actually subjective. Certainly there are differing opinions, but that's not what's going on here. I have levied three arguments to elucidate a definition of person-hood or identity. You can reject the conclusions by attacking the premises or the logical connection of the premises to the conclusion. Subjectivity plays no role here.[/size]

I Accept what your saying about person-hood. What I pointed out in my post was the main arguments that pro-lifers give. The subjective opinion I referred to was that they say, at the moment of conception there is the potential to form into a "human being" so to terminate that potential is immoral.

[ObserveandReport]

I Accept what your saying about person-hood. What I pointed out in my post was the main arguments that pro-lifers give. The subjective opinion I referred to was that they say, at the moment of conception there is the potential to form into a "human being" so to terminate that potential is immoral.

I would ask them why there is relevantly more potential at the exact instant the egg and the sperm meet as opposed to a nanosecond prior? Further, could the reason be that it is a convenient and definitive line? Further, the sperm and the egg existed prior to conception... was it obligatory to have sex so they might meet?

[MrNlul77]

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Subjectivity is an illusion, produced by relative objective differences in perceivers. For instance, we know there are more wavelengths of light out there than we can perceive with human eyes. My preference is determined by my objective composition at any given time, a subjective filter is not required to explain this. Used to be mint chocolate-chip, now it's rum & raisin.

 

Sorry about the snarky, it gets to me when people appeal to subjectivity when the fruits of objectivity are everywhere to be gleaned. Why would you bother engaging in philosophy if reality was subjective? Even to say that some things are subjective is an objective claim, yes?

 

Firstly, I appreciate the apology, thanks.

 

If person A says, " I feel that abortion is wrong because at the moment of conception the egg has the potential to form into a "human being"". And person B says "I feel that regardless of that potential, abortion is not wrong". I don't understand how that would not be classed as subjective opinion.

 

I think you have misunderstood what I said (or I may have not made myself clear) as I've never said reality is subjective, in fact, Reality is objective and consistent, UPB.

I would ask them why there is relevantly more potential at the exact instant the egg and the sperm meet as opposed to a nanosecond prior? Further, could the reason be that it is a convenient and definitive line? Further, the sperm and the egg existed prior to conception... was it obligatory to have sex so they might meet?

Over the years, I've put forward all the arguments and had the "debates", asked the questions, most pro-lifers don't want to listen, they have a belief (usually religious or people who go on about people who aren't able to have kids) and no amount of reasoning will change their mind, their irrational.