A different way to frame the abortion debate

[ataraxia]

The endless debates on abortion are logjammed because the two sides cannot agree to the answer to a basic question: when does life start? Pro-lifers call abortion murder because they assume that life begins at the moment of fertilization. The pro-choice side denies this.

But clearly, The most early stages of embryogenesis, consisting of a ball of fertilized cells, called a blastula, cannot represent an individual. These structures can split, both naturally in the womb as well as in the lab, to create twins, triplets, or even an infinite number of clones.

So because this question of abortion hinges on when does life start, how do we define it?

How about reframing this question in terms of consciousness/sentience and brain activity? Because, after all, many difficult questions in medical ethics are resolved in the same way. For example, if a patient has had a massive traumatic brain injury or a stroke, and loses all electrical activity in their brain, most doctors and hospital ethics committees will agree it’s OK to pull the plug. It’s not that controversial. Of course, going from a fully conscious human being to being brain dead is not either/or; it’s all on a spectrum. There’s all sorts of states of delirium and semi-consciousness. Medical/ethical decision making in those situations is obviously much more complicated and difficult. But for all practical purposes, by the time all brain activity ceases, it’s not that difficult anymore. Just about everyone will agree that patient is dead.

But isn’t the journey from a bunch of sperm and egg cells to a baby born at birth similarly on a spectrum, just going in the opposite direction? Brain activity, and consciousness/sentience, do not happen suddenly. It’s not either/or.

Scientists have made some inroads in trying to understand when and how consciousness and sentience begin to develop in an embryo: around weeks 24-28, as thalamocortical projections and connections began to develop among various important parts of the brain.

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

Does sentience appear in the womb, at birth or during early childhood?

www.scientificamerican.com

Can such recent research help us understand when life and consciousness/sentience begin, and therefore come to a resolution of this abortion debate?

 

[Antiwar]

Conception is their deal.

 

[ataraxia]

Conception is their deal.

Same thing as fertilization, isn't it?

 

[j brown's body]

The endless debates on abortion are logjammed because the two sides cannot agree to the answer to a basic question: when does life start? Pro-lifers call abortion murder because they assume that life begins at the moment of fertilization. The pro-choice side denies this.

But clearly, The most early stages of embryogenesis consisting of a ball of fertilized cells, called a blastula, cannot represent an individual. These structures can split, both naturally in the womb as well as in the lab, to create twins, triplets, or even an infinite number of clones.

So because this question of abortion hinges on when life starts, how do we define that?

How about reframing this question in terms of consciousness/sentience and brain activity? Because, after all, many difficult questions in medical ethics are resolved in the same way. For example, if a patient has had a massive traumatic brain injury or a stroke and loses all electrical activity in their brain, most doctors and hospital ethics committees will agree it’s OK to pull the plug. It’s not that controversial. Of course, going from a fully conscious human being to being brain dead is not either/or; it’s all ona spectrum. There’s all sorts of states of delirium and semi-consciousness. Medical/ethical decision making in those situations is obviously much more complicated and difficult. But for all practical purposes, by the time all brain activity ceases, it’s not that difficult anymore. Just about everyone will agree that patient is dead.

But isn’t the journey from a bunch of sperm and egg cells to a baby born at birth similarly on a spectrum, just going in the opposite direction? Brain activity, and consciousness/sentience, do not happen suddenly. It’s not either/or.

Scientists have made some inroads in trying to understand when and how consciousness and sentience begin to develop in an embryo: around weeks 24-28, as thalamocortical projections and connections began to develop among various important parts of the brain.

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

Does sentience appear in the womb, at birth or during early childhood?

www.scientificamerican.com

Can such recent research help us understand when life and consciousness/sentience begin, and therefore come to a resolution of this abortion debate?

It's arbitrary, which is why writing laws around it is stupid.

Texas prohibits abortions after what could be just six weeks, Florida's law allows abortion up to 15 weeks. So why does Florida's law allow murder?

It reminds me of the old race laws. You could move from one state to another and change your race.

It's absurd.

 

[Antiwar]

Same thing as fertilization, isn't it?

Yes.

 

[ataraxia]

It's arbitrary, which is why writing laws around it is stupid.

Texas prohibits abortions after what could be just six weeks, Florida's law allows abortion up to 15 weeks. So why does Florida's law allow murder?

It reminds me of the old race laws. You could move from one state to another and change your race.

It's absurd.

Well, in all fairness, a limit has to be drawn somewhere, obviously- for legal and practical purposes.

It may help to think of it like speed limit laws: how do you decide if the speed limit on a certain stretch of highway should be 55 mph, or 60 mph, or 80 mph? There can be some facts to help guide us, like if it is a 2-lane or 5-lane highway, or if it has lots of twists and turns vs a straight road, or how crowded it gets, etc... But to some extent also the decision making is a little arbitrary. Regardless, for legal/practical purposes, as a society we have to define it as something, no matter how arbitrary, so that if some driver decides to drive like a bat out of hell at 120 mph there there are some legal repercussions.

I know we all would like a very definitive moment when we can call it life vs non-life, and I think that's why this definition of life at the moment of conception can be so attractive to so many. But nature hardly ever works that way. Things tend to be more on grey and gradual spectra. But the law has to be very strictly defined. So we come up with some arbitrary laws. These new scientific findings are putting consciousness/sentience/significant brain activity at somewhere in the 24-28 week gestation mark. That may be the general facts nature is giving us: kinda like the facts of whether the highway is 2 land or 5 lane. But we may still have to come up with the exact place to draw the line for legal/practical purposes, because such a line does need to be drawn.

These research findings may not pinpoint exactly where we can draw the line, but they seem about as helpful a guide as possible.

 

[j brown's body]

Well, in all fairness, a limit has to be drawn somewhere, obviously- for legal and practical purposes.

It may help to think of it like speed limit laws: how do you decide if the speed limit on a certain stretch of highway should be 55 mph, or 60 mph, or 80 mph? There can be some facts to help guide us, like if it is a 2-lane or 5-lane highway, or if it has lots of twists and turns vs a straight road, or how crowded it gets, etc... But to some extent also the decision making is a little arbitrary. Regardless, for legal/practical purposes, as a society we have to define it as something, no matter how arbitrary, so that if some driver decides to drive like a bat out of hell at 120 mph there there are some legal repercussions.

I know we all would like a very definitive moment when we can call it life vs non-life, and I think that's why this definition of life at the moment of conception can be so attractive to so many. But nature hardly ever works that way. Things tend to be more on grey and gradual spectra. But the law has to be very strictly defined. So we come up with some arbitrary laws. These new scientific findings are putting consciousness/sentience/significant brain activity at somewhere in the 24-28 week gestation mark. That may be the general facts nature is giving us: kinda like the facts of whether the highway is 2 land or 5 lane. But we may still have to come up with the exact place to draw the line for legal/practical purposes, because such a line does need to be drawn.

These research findings may not pinpoint exactly where we can draw the line, but they seem about as helpful a guide as possible.

The decision is between a woman and her doctor up to the point of birth.

A law that is based on an arbitrary number is bad law. These new laws prohibiting abortions after an arbitrary number cause all sorts of problems as there are any number of reasons why a woman might need an abortion after the date. Who is to decide whether she gets one and how do they decide?

Better to have a clear law like the one I mention at the beginning of this post. Yes, many people won't like it, but it is clear. Many criminals go free every day because of laws protecting the accused. We don't like it, but we live with it because the laws are clear and they protect our freedom. And if you can't control your own body, you aren't free.

 

[MamboDervish]

Can such recent research help us understand when life and consciousness/sentience begin, and therefore come to a resolution of this abortion debate?

No. I reject the author's premise that the fetus is "asleep" - because there's nobody there to be sleeping. During development in the womb, the entire body grows to create every physical and neurological connection, the presence of which will be required to accommodate its occupation at birth.

Simple brain activity - the creation of neural connections and the firing of neurons - is not the same as the "presence" of a person. It certainly isn't even the beginning of conscious self awareness - only the onset of its potential. The presence of a human being (as opposed to mere living human tissue) is distinguished by having characteristics far beyond those easily quantified by mere brain activity.

 

[Lursa]

So because this question of abortion hinges on when does life start, how do we define it?

Who says the 'question' hinges on that?

It's proven science when life starts. And it's clearly defined. It's also proven law that the unborn life inside women dont have rights. Science may inform law but it does not create or even recognize rights, law, etc. for any species or stage of species development.

Abortion isnt about when life starts...it's about society deciding if it should violate women's rights in order to protect the unborn life inside her.

OTOH, the Const clearly protects women's rights and does not recognize rights for the unborn (see" Section One, 14th Amendment).

 

[Lursa]

It's arbitrary, which is why writing laws around it is stupid.

Texas prohibits abortions after what could be just six weeks, Florida's law allows abortion up to 15 weeks. So why does Florida's law allow murder?

It reminds me of the old race laws. You could move from one state to another and change your race.

It's absurd.

It's not arbitrary. Birth is a clear, reasonable AND practical benchmark.

For legal, physiological, and moral reasons. Even the Constitution recognizes it as the 'line.'

 

[Lursa]

Well, in all fairness, a limit has to be drawn somewhere, obviously- for legal and practical purposes.

I've asked you why in a previous thread and you never explained the 'legal and practical purposes' for the line.

 

[ataraxia]

No. I reject the author's premise that the fetus is "asleep" - because there's nobody there to be sleeping. During development in the womb, the entire body grows to create every physical and neurological connection, the presence of which will be required to accommodate its occupation at birth.

Simple brain activity - the creation of neural connections and the firing of neurons - is not the same as the "presence" of a person. It certainly isn't even the beginning of conscious self awareness - only the onset of its potential. The presence of a human being (as opposed to mere living human tissue) is distinguished by having characteristics far beyond those easily quantified by mere brain activity.

Like what?

Do you think brain death should not be considered a criterion anymore for considering a patient actually dead in a medical setting?

 

[ataraxia]

I've asked you why in a previous thread and you never explained the 'legal and practical purposes' for the line.

Somewhere along that spectrum of blastula to newborn, I think we can all agree it is no longer abortion and it becomes murder. I think that needs to be clearly and legally defined.

Are you really OK with late term abortions?

 

[Lursa]

Somewhere along that spectrum of blastula to newborn, I think we can all agree it is no longer abortion and it becomes murder. I think that needs to be clearly and legally defined.

Wow. Who says? That's wild. It has been clearly and legally defined, btw. (And the First Section of the 14th Amendment also specifies it).

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

It's certainly not murder.

 

[ataraxia]

Wow. Who says? That's wild. It has been clearly and legally defined, btw. (And the First Section of the 14th Amendment also specifies it).

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

It's certainly not murder.

Late term abortions are not going to be acceptable to many- the majority of the population. I think some sort of compromise needs to be reached. The advent of consciousness seems like a good place.

 

[Lursa]

Are you really OK with late term abortions?

No elective abortions of healthy viable fetuses occur. For several reasons, some practical, some medical, some financial (at that point, giving birth is safer and less painful than the procedure to remove that fetus AND she can get a cool ~$20,000 in a private abortion, for example)

Anyway, there are several states and all of Canada that have no such limits...and no elective abortions of healthy viable fetuses happen. I am always against useless, feel-good legislation, esp. something that would represent a gross disrespect for women unnecessarily.

 

[Lursa]

Late term abortions are not going to be acceptable to many- the majority of the population. I think some sort of compromise needs to be reached. The advent of consciousness seems like a good place.

See post 16.

I am never in favor of compromising to placate the ignorant. No such restriction is needed.

 

[Lursa]

Wow. Who says? That's wild. It has been clearly and legally defined, btw. (And the First Section of the 14th Amendment also specifies it).

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

It's certainly not murder.

Late term abortions are not going to be acceptable to many- the majority of the population. I think some sort of compromise needs to be reached. The advent of consciousness seems like a good place.

Now please directly address what I posted. It directly addresses your OP.

 

[ataraxia]

See post 16.

I am never in favor of compromising to placate the ignorant. No such restriction is needed.

I am against hurting anything which can feel pain, IOW, anything with sentience and consciousness- no matter how primitive. Don't you think that should be a consideration?

 

[aociswundumho]

Late term abortions are not going to be acceptable to many- the majority of the population. I think some sort of compromise needs to be reached. The advent of consciousness seems like a good place.

So medical decisions should be up to the majority?

 

[Gordy327]

Like what?

Do you think brain death should not be considered a criterion anymore for considering a patient actually dead in a medical setting?

Brain death is considered medically and legally the same as actual biological death. At that point, any life support measures can be withdrawn, unless the patient is an organ donor.

Somewhere along that spectrum of blastula to newborn, I think we can all agree it is no longer abortion and it becomes murder. I think that needs to be clearly and legally defined.

No, I do not agree. Elective abortion already has a cutoff at viability, which is a reasonable compromise. But at no point is abortion considered legal murder.

Are you OK with late term abortions?

Yes! They are also permissible in the event of detrimental or life threatening health risk to the woman or in cases of fetal demise. Late term abortion is not an elective procedure and is usually performed either by C-section or possibly induction.

Well, in all fairness, a limit has to be drawn somewhere, obviously- for legal and practical purposes.

There is a limit: Viability.

The endless debates on abortion are logjammed because the two sides cannot agree to the answer to a basic question: when does life start?

That's the wrong question. The real question should be at which point does life become a person?

Pro-lifers call abortion murder because they assume that life begins at the moment of fertilization. The pro-choice side denies this.

Pro-lifers are wrong in that abortion is not legally considered murder.

But clearly, The most early stages of embryogenesis, consisting of a ball of fertilized cells, called a blastula, cannot represent an individual. These structures can split, both naturally in the womb as well as in the lab, to create twins, triplets, or even an infinite number of clones.

And yet, some pro-lifers equate that with actual born humans.

So because this question of abortion hinges on when does life start, how do we define it?

When "life" starts is misleading and ambiguous. In the broadest sense of the term, life starts at conception, as it is a single, undifferentiated cell. But only staunch pro-lifers would equate that with a born individual. But that is also silly. If we want to be more specific, then we need to ask when there is an actual person.

How about reframing this question in terms of consciousness/sentience and brain activity? Because, after all, many difficult questions in medical ethics are resolved in the same way.

Fair enough. No brain means no person. However, there is no specific point at which consciousness "turns on." The brain is continuously developing in utero, with sensory perceptions and reflexive responses arising during development. Pre-term infants can "respond" to external stimuli, but they are often in a semi-conscious state. Kind of like being suddenly aroused from a deep sleep and you're not fully "conscious" or coherent yet. That also describes me before my morning cup of coffee, lol. However, it can be stated that actual consciousness does not significantly develop until after viability.

But isn’t the journey from a bunch of sperm and egg cells to a baby born at birth similarly on a spectrum, just going in the opposite direction? Brain activity, and consciousness/sentience, do not happen suddenly. It’s not either/or.

Exactly. See previous statement.

Scientists have made some inroads in trying to understand when and how consciousness and sentience begin to develop in an embryo: around weeks 24-28, as thalamocortical projections and connections began to develop among various important parts of the brain.

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

Does sentience appear in the womb, at birth or during early childhood?

www.scientificamerican.com

There is also a scientific article regarding the development of consciousness in Pediatric Research (2009).

Can such recent research help us understand when life and consciousness/sentience begin, and therefore come to a resolution of this abortion debate?

It can help. But pinpointing an exact moment is probably unlikely. That said, viability seems to be a major turning point. Hence, viability becomes an acceptable compromise for elective abortions.

 

[ataraxia]

So medical decisions should be up to the majority?

You have to look at this from their perspective: they consider it murder, not a medical decision.

I am just offering a way to reframe this dilemma so that a reasonable compromise can be made between the two sides. Looked at in this way, abortion would still be allowed, and it would not be murder by current medical criteria.

 

[Lursa]

Wow. Who says? That's wild. It has been clearly and legally defined, btw. (And the First Section of the 14th Amendment also specifies it).

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

It's certainly not murder.

I am against hurting anything which can feel pain, IOW, anything with sentience and consciousness- no matter how primitive. Don't you think that should be a consideration?

*sigh* By law if the abortion takes place after the point where pain may be felt (not reaction...that's different), ~after 20 weeks, then lethal injection is required before the procedure. The dead feel no pain.

OTOH, no one ever considers the pain the fetus would feel during 18-48 hrs of labor being squeezed between powerful muscles on it's way down the vaginal canal.

Now is there anything else you feel should be a consideration?

 

[ataraxia]

Brain death is considered medically and legally the same as actual biological death. At that point, any life support measures can be withdrawn, unless the patient is an organ donor.

No, I do not agree. Elective abortion already has a cutoff at viability, which is a reasonable compromise. But at no point is abortion considered legal murder.

Yes! They are also permissible in the event of detrimental or life threatening health risk to the woman or in cases of fetal demise. Late term abortion is not an elective procedure and is usually performed either by C-section or possibly induction.

There is a limit: Viability.

That's the wrong question. The real question should be at which point does life become a person?

Pro-lifers are wrong in that abortion is not legally considered murder.

And yet, some pro-lifers equate that with actual born humans.

When "life" starts is misleading and ambiguous. In the broadest sense of the term, life starts at conception, as it is a single, undifferentiated cell. But only staunch pro-lifers would equate that with a born individual. But that is also silly. If we want to be more specific, then we need to ask when there is an actual person.

Fair enough. No brain means no person. However, there is no specific point at which consciousness "turns on." The brain is continuously developing in utero, with sensory perceptions and reflexive responses arising during development. Pre-term infants can "respond" to external stimuli, but they are often in a semi-conscious state. Kind of like being suddenly aroused from a deep sleep and you're not fully "conscious" or coherent yet. That also describes me before my morning cup of coffee, lol. However, it can be stated that actual consciousness does not significantly develop until after viability.


Exactly. See previous statement.

There is also a scientific article regarding the development of consciousness in Pediatric Research (2009).

It can help. But pinpointing an exact moment is probably unlikely. That said, viability seems to be a major turning point. Hence, viability becomes an acceptable compromise for elective abortions.

But many patients in ICUs are not really viable without intensive life support. And yet most people would wince if it was decided it's OK to just finish them off if they are unwanted.

That's why I think sentience and the ability to feel pain may be a far more acceptable criterion in coming to a compromise on this issue.

 

[Gordy327]

Late term abortions are not going to be acceptable to many- the majority of the population. I think some sort of compromise needs to be reached.

That compromise is viability. But many pro-lifers are not interested in compromise.