Abortion Thought Experiment

[Kahalachan]

To put pro-lifers and pro-choicers on equal footing, I have this little thought experiment.

Suppose we have Star Trek technology. A pregnant woman can go in for an abortion, to have the embryo or fetus immediately teleported out of the woman into a large fluid filled incubator designed to sustain human life.

There is now, no pro-life issue cause the life that was inside the woman is now sustained.

There is no pro-choice issue cause the life exists externally and no one can mention a woman's body being her choice.

At what stage of development can that human life be terminated?


My stance on abortion remains the same in this issue. I still say it is morally wrong to abort if there is enough neural synchronicity to imply the fetus is conscious or can process any kind of stimuli in any fashion.


I have to wonder if there is going to be a difference in when it is permissible to exterminate human life, provided there exists the technology to do this.


And that brings up another question on if technology can actually drive our morality and if our ethical choices can change if we had a technological alternative?


Another quick one along these lines.......

Suppose we could grow a brainless animal carcass to be mass produced to be consumed as meat? Would it then become immoral to kill an animal for its meat?

I could see my position on meat eating changing due to technological advancement. I may see someone killing an animal for flesh as barbaric since we have an alternative.

Thoughts or comments?

 

[slingblade]

To put pro-lifers and pro-choicers on equal footing, I have this little thought experiment.

Suppose we have Star Trek technology. A pregnant woman can go in for an abortion, to have the embryo or fetus immediately teleported out of the woman into a large fluid filled incubator designed to sustain human life.

There is now, no pro-life issue cause the life that was inside the woman is now sustained.

There is no pro-choice issue cause the life exists externally and no one can mention a woman's body being her choice.

At what stage of development can that human life be terminated?

What reasons still exist for termination?

My stance on abortion remains the same in this issue. I still say it is morally wrong to abort if there is enough neural synchronicity to imply the fetus is conscious or can process any kind of stimuli in any fashion.

It isn't wrong, then, to abort before that point in time? While it's still a cluster of cells, perhaps?

What if after that point in time, it's discovered the fetus has some sort of abnormality that will impede its life outside the womb? Would you insist the fetus be born, or would you terminate it? Would it matter how severe the impediment would be? So how severe is that, then? How bad does it have to be, to decide that termination is morally acceptable in this case?

I have to wonder if there is going to be a difference in when it is permissible to exterminate human life, provided there exists the technology to do this.

I'd say your scanario, provided it was freely available to any and every woman, would largely put a stop to abortion-as-birth-control. Women don't have to stay pregnant unless they want to, in that future. But the developmental reasons would still remain: how bad does a defect or deformity have to be before we are merciful to the individual developing it?

 

[paximperium]

Imagine a switch that women or men or flip. Sterile or fertile. End of controversy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At what stage of development can that human life be terminated?


My stance on abortion remains the same in this issue. I still say it is morally wrong to abort if there is enough neural synchronicity to imply the fetus is conscious or can process any kind of stimuli in any fashion.

My answer is the same as it was even when the fetus was in a woman's womb. And I think it's similar to yours, except I'm not sure what "neural synchronicity" means.

The standard to determine whether or not or at what point the fetus becomes a person with human rights should be whether it is capable of having desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled. I believe this is a function, in part, of neural development.

In our current legal system, we use the first trimester as a line that stands in for this degree of neural development. That is, before that point, in a normal situation (where the fetus is normal and there is no immediate threat to the woman's health or life), we're pretty confident that before the end of the first trimester the fetus does not have the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

ETA: I think your thought experiment is useful in that it shows the flaw in standards a number of other people have proposed in recent threads (like abortion is OK because the fetus is dependent--only uses 2 heart chambers, etc.) I think unfortunately it has the problem Slingblade mentioned--you've lost another agent who is motivated to terminate the pregnancy. But I don't think that's a big deal. We might want to terminate the fetus-in-a-machine because we want to use the machine for another fetus. We might just want to stop spending the energy sustaining or preserving the fetus. (In fertility clinics, freeze-dried embryos are thrown out from time to time--presumably to make room in the fridge or at the request of the parents or whatever.)

Another quick one along these lines.......

Suppose we could grow a brainless animal carcass to be mass produced to be consumed as meat? Would it then become immoral to kill an animal for its meat?

I could see my position on meat eating changing due to technological advancement. I may see someone killing an animal for flesh as barbaric since we have an alternative.

Thoughts or comments?

That's an interesting twist to an issue I've contemplated before. I'm a vegetarian, in part because I think most food animals like cows and pigs do have the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. I would eat vat-grown meat (my understanding is the technology isn't so far off, and it won't be a brainless carcass, but just the tissue necessary to make tailor-made meat without losing most of the energy from whatever you feed it to animal metabolism).

I never considered someone who is not a vegetarian re-thinking the need to kill animals if there were vat grown meat. I don't think it's such a strong position because there is no need to kill for meat even now. (The existence of vegetarians proves that.) In other words, my opinion is that if you're OK with killing a cow or pig for meat now, the fact that you could get meat without killing a cow or pig doesn't really change your position that the cow or pig isn't a moral entity. If it's not a moral entity*, then it doesn't matter. (Well--except for considerations of economy and so on. If eating vat-grown meat can feed 10 times the people for the same cost, then there might be a moral case for it independent of whether the cow is a moral entity.)

*I have no idea if "moral entity" is a legit phrase or if it's used for something else. I mean it to be a thing that's wrong to kill--sort of like the term "person". I think most of us extend that same kind of honorary personhood to our pet dogs and cats. Anyway, in my way of thinking, it's just shorthand for an entity that has desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled--or more generally an entity that it's wrong to kill.

 

[Simon39759]

I agree with Slingblades, at that point, there would be very little reason to have an abortion, unless as some sort of preventive euthanasia for condemned foetii.

However, it does not change the moral of it.


But Pax also makes a good point. A society that'd have achieved such levels of technological sophistication would have better, safer, more economical methods of birth control available.

 

[Kahalachan]

What reasons still exist for termination?

Good question.

Currently, a human life is pitted against the choice of a woman. In this scenario it's negated.

So let's just go with these 4 criteria.

1. Arbitrarily. For the same reasons someone may step on one particular ant at that time. No reason at all.

2. Convenience. The fetus is taking up an incubator that the doctor wants to use for something else and there's nothing else available.

3. Necessity for the life and its caretaker.

The doctor, under good reason backed by scientific evidence, needs to kill that particular human life for whatever reason in order to advance medical research.

If that life continues to grow it will suffer greatly and have a very harsh life.

4. Immediate Threat. That incubator must be shut off or someone will die.

It isn't wrong, then, to abort before that point in time? While it's still a cluster of cells, perhaps?


What if after that point in time, it's discovered the fetus has some sort of abnormality that will impede its life outside the womb? Would you insist the fetus be born, or would you terminate it? Would it matter how severe the impediment would be? So how severe is that, then? How bad does it have to be, to decide that termination is morally acceptable in this case?

Correct. Prior to fetal consciousness, I don't think it's wrong.

I would think it's morally wrong to abort due to disfigurement or mental retardation, but I wouldn't want someone else's choice to do so to be impeded. I just think it's the wrong message to send. "If you're retarded you're better off dead."

There's always going to be a cost-benefit analysis so I can't define black or white areas in which I would think it's OK or not.

 

[Kahalachan]

Imagine a switch that women or men or flip. Sterile or fertile. End of controversy.

Hah hah

That would be cool, but I think as far as moral philosophy goes, we will always have to wrestle with the question of when it is OK to kill a human life. And that's what I like about the abortion debate is it ideally gets to the root of that.

 

[esquel]

Maybe an even better scenario would be if humans were oviparous and laid eggs, which are essentially self contained, only needing to be kept at a reasonable temperature for 9 months. In that case the technology wouldn't be an issue; presumably any civilization that could 'teleport' a fetus or embryo out of a woman's uterus could also address some pretty serious birth defects.

In that scenario, I could still see a abortion (what would you call it if the fetus isn't implanted in an organic uterus?) being (necessary? desirable? more horrible choices) if it were obvious that the developing embryo would have such severe defects it would either be non-viable if allowed to continue to term, or have serious quality-of-life issues. Which is better: killing a fetus with grave defects, or allowing it to be born, then torturing it with extreme medical procedures while attempting to keep it alive?

At present, the issues are still inextricably wound with the life and rights of the mother, a.k.a. incubator unit. Until the dichotomy gets resolved, both sides have to be considered.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correct. Prior to fetal consciousness, I don't think it's wrong.

My only complaint about "consciousness" is that it's vague. Cows, pigs, mice and rats have consciousness. I think you mean something more specific.

I would think it's morally wrong to abort due to disfigurement or mental retardation, but I wouldn't want someone else's choice to do so to be impeded. I just think it's the wrong message to send. "If you're retarded you're better off dead."

And that's good evidence that "intelligence" isn't a good standard to use.

 

[Kahalachan]

Maybe an even better scenario would be if humans were oviparous and laid eggs, which are essentially self contained, only needing to be kept at a reasonable temperature for 9 months. In that case the technology wouldn't be an issue; presumably any civilization that could 'teleport' a fetus or embryo out of a woman's uterus could also address some pretty serious birth defects.

In that scenario, I could still see a abortion (what would you call it if the fetus isn't implanted in an organic uterus?) being medically necessary if it were obvious that the developing embryo would have such severe defects it would either be non-viable if allowed to continue to term, or have serious quality-of-life issues.

At present, the issues are still inextricably wound with the life and rights of the mother, a.k.a. incubator unit. Until the dichotomy gets resolved, both sides have to be considered.

I thought of that too, but I didn't wanna go with "pretend we are all birds"

I figured people would get into the thought experiment if we used technology.

Also I wanted to question on if we should even let technology affect our moral choices?

 

[Kahalachan]

My only complaint about "consciousness" is that it's vague. Cows, pigs, mice and rats have consciousness. I think you mean something more specific.


And that's good evidence that "intelligence" isn't a good standard to use.

Isn't brain activity our main moral compass regarding euthanasia and abortion?

Maybe not consciousness, but the level of brain activity says when we pull the plug on someone who is going to die anyways and when we abort something that just started living.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At present, the issues are still inextricably wound with the life and rights of the mother, a.k.a. incubator unit. Until the dichotomy gets resolved, both sides have to be considered.

I disagree. I think the basic question in the abortion debate is whether or not (or at what point) the fetus is or becomes a human with human rights. (Or at least is a "moral entity" the way I described that term above.)

If it's a human with human rights, we've got other ways of dealing with conflicting rights. I think, if we agreed on if and when the fetus was a moral entity, then the other debate would be similar to kill-or-be-killed situations, or kill-a-doctor-vs.-kill-a-beach-bum-when-you-must-choose-one, situations. These questions are very different than the one that plagues the abortion debate.

In your egg-laying situation, why not just use world population as a motivation for terminating eggs? The question is whether the embryo in the egg is a moral entity (in my opinion, whether or not it is capable of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't brain activity our main moral compass regarding euthanasia and abortion?

Euthanasia, maybe, but in abortions, no. I've never heard of an abortion clinic conducting any sort of test for brain activity in a fetus before aborting them. As I said, I think the first trimester line is used as a stand in for the degree of neural development that gives rise to the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

But again, it's not "brain activity" in itself. Even ants have brain activity, but few of us have any moral problem with stomping them for little or no reason.

Maybe not consciousness, but the level of brain activity says when we pull the plug on someone who is going to die anyways and when we abort something that just started living.

See above. It's not "brain activity" per se, but something else. IMO, that something else is best expressed as the capability of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled (this is from desire utilitarianism).

I think this standard gives us the right results whether you're talking about fetuses, cows, comatose patients, brain-damaged or developmentally disabled people, ants, etc.

ETA: I think "consciousness" is closer to it than "brain activity" FWIW.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I mentioned, most of us grant honorary human-rights status to our pet dogs and cats--even people who have no moral problem with killing a pig or cow for food object to killing a pet dog or a cat.

One aspect of "consciousness" (a term used in many ways) might be considered to be self-awareness--like as a higher form of consciousness. Using the mirror test, relatively few animals pass the test for self-awareness. Humans and the other great apes, some cetaceans, elephants and I think one or two bird species. Dogs and cats do not. Neither do humans younger than something like 1 year of age.

Again, I don't think "consciousness" even what is perhaps the highest form of consciousness, self-awareness, is the right standard.

 

[Duncanthrax]

First, it would only be morally justified if both parents agree (and under the situation described, a DNA test to conclusively determine the identity of the father would be possible). The standard "my body, my choice" slogan justifying giving the woman the sole decision would not apply if her body was not involved.

Beyond that, I think it would only be justified prior to some level of development. Drawing that line would be even trickier than in the abortion in the womb situation, as there's nobody else's interests to consider. As I said in another thread, I do not consider brain development or the ability to have desires to be legitimate standards, as there are animals that meet those standards who most people have no problem being killed. I suppose at some point before it looks too much like a human, to avoid desensitization to killing older people.

Having said all that, I wouldn't have a big problem outlawing abortion altogether in those circumstances. It's not much different than outlawing infanticide. I've sometimes thought that "pro-lifers" should put their money in medical research towards artificial wombs or some form of transplant into animal wombs. If that could be done without excessive risk, danger, or expense, it would totally undercut the rationale of Roe v. Wade and most arguments for legal abortion.

 

[Sun Countess]

I would never ask a victim of rape or incest to have a baby born from that scenario, even if the fetus could be removed from her body and she never had to see it again. I'd still like to choose whose DNA is mixing with my DNA and making new human beings. The decision to terminate that particular embryo could be made at a very early stage, teleported out of the body, yet never teleported into a magic incubator.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What reasons still exist for termination?....

I wonder how long it would take for the backlog of potential adoptions to be fulfilled and the state then having a million orphans on its hands? Would the pro-lifers still insist on never killing a fertilized egg knowing the life that would result would be doomed to exist in some dismal extremely large understaffed underfunded orphanage?


As for the animal-less meat, I don't think that one is very far off. It might take a while for acceptance to create a market for lab grown meat, but the technology is probably already here to do so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't brain activity our main moral compass regarding euthanasia and abortion?

Not for most people who are pro-choice. Viability outside the womb implies 2 individuals, prior to that implies one.

Maybe not consciousness, but the level of brain activity says when we pull the plug on someone who is going to die anyways and when we abort something that just started living.

This is only true if the person who no longer has a functioning brain also doesn't have enough brain function left to survive without external support. And it has only been in the last couple decades anyone suggested that include letting a brain dead person die of starvation (which I BTW, think is reasonable). It's a matter of letting natural death occur, not a matter of killing a being that has no higher brain function.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Currently, a human life is pitted against the choice of a woman. In this scenario it's negated.

So let's just go with these 4 criteria.

1. Arbitrarily. For the same reasons someone may step on one particular ant at that time. No reason at all.

2. Convenience. The fetus is taking up an incubator that the doctor wants to use for something else and there's nothing else available.

3. Necessity for the life and its caretaker.

The doctor, under good reason backed by scientific evidence, needs to kill that particular human life for whatever reason in order to advance medical research.

If that life continues to grow it will suffer greatly and have a very harsh life.

4. Immediate Threat. That incubator must be shut off or someone will die.

Your list of reasons implies, IMO, a shortsightedness of the reasons a woman chooses to abort a fetus.

Arbitrary reasons: Which abortions are done for that?
Convenience: Discounts completely why a woman chooses abortion and implies it's like picking out curtains. This BS originates from the anti-choice crowd's attempts to portray abortion as simply convenient birth control. That's nonsense.

Some less intelligent, less well off, less emotionally together, and/or less educated women may have several abortions in their lifetimes and it would appear they can't seem to figure out how to use the birth control option. But the reasons for multiple abortions in these women cannot be oversimplified into something as stupid as it's more convenient than birth control.

Necessity or immediate threat, to prevent a life of suffering: Obvious when the health of the mother is at stake or the fetus is afflicted with a terminal condition. But medical research? Give me a break!

 

[Kahalachan]

Arbitrary reasons: Which abortions are done for that?

None.

I'm not talking solely about abortion but about when we grant sanctity to human life on par with our own lives.

As I said earlier, the abortion debate touches up on this and we can branch out into this discussion.

It's not even just fetal life I'm interested in. My original post talked of animals. I wonder when we would grant AI the same rights as our own. For AI, people obviously bring up doomsday scenarios with killer robots. But I don't see that as the most likely explanation. When would it be fair to terminate AI?

If we come to an agreement on fetal rights and establish our reasons on when that life should be given rights as our own, could we apply these same reasons to other forms of life or intelligence?

I don't want this to turn into pro-choice vs. pro-life and my whole point on trying to put us on equal ground is to start this discussion on when we grant some entity human rights.