Abortion Thought Experiment

[Jonnyclueless]

Consciousness does not occur until after birth. The reason no one remembers being born is because they don't have consciousness when they are born.

I have no issue with termination at any stage. Obviously the point of where it is or isn't OK is debatable and this is an issue of opinion. But for me it's pretty simple. Once it is no longer physically dependent on anything then I think it's best not to terminate. But so long as it's dependent on external factors and has no awareness of itself, has no fear, or ability to know, or pain, then no problem. It needs to have personhood for me.

 

[Ausmerican]

It seems that this scenario has removed all of the issues that make abortion an issue at all.
It is quite probable that no-one on either side of the abortion debate would necessarily have the same, or even similar, views on this exercise as with a real abortion.
That makes it rather useless as a guide to how people on both sides of the debate weigh human life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Since it will (once there are economies of scale from large factories) cheaper to make that meat on the hoof, and the vat-grown hamburger will be real hamburger, there should be no problem finding a market for it.

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

Viability alone doesn't do it for me. At best, it's a stand-in for something else.

Also, since we're getting better at taking care of earlier and earlier premies, the definition of "viability" is changing. There could be a day, as in the thought experiment when a fetus is "viable" outside the uterus very early on. Also, as has been pointed out, even full-term healthy babies are still completely dependent on others for their survival.

So what exactly defines "viability"? Is it only with natural childbirth and no other intervention except for the mother? Or the mother and father? Or the village? Or an incubator or PICU? Or?

Also, viability as a standard doesn't answer the broader question (when is it OK to kill something?) for other animals, severely injured people, etc. After all, an adult ant is viable, but few of us have any moral problem with killing an ant for any reason at all. ETA: And an adult human with a liquified cortex but a functioning brain stem can be "viable". . .

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Consciousness does not occur until after birth. The reason no one remembers being born is because they don't have consciousness when they are born.

Well that's not true. I don't remember anything before the age of 5. Does that mean I wasn't conscious before that age?


A remembered, more or less continuous stream of awareness is just one definition of consciousness. There are others.

Also, what distinguishes a conscious animal that it's OK to kill, and one that it's not OK to kill?

Again, my problem with "consciousness" is that it's a vague term. I think it's on the right track, though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Consciousness does not occur until after birth.

You don't know that! What physical brain changes heralds this magical transformation at the point of leaving the womb?

The reason no one remembers being born is because they don't have consciousness when they are born. ....

According to this logic kids are unconscious until they are a few years old. Who remembers things from the first couple years of life? No one. People sometimes think they do because they remember pictures they've been shown.

You brain is not developed enough to remember specific memories until you are 3-5 years old, but I daresay, 1 year olds are indeed conscious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Viability alone doesn't do it for me. At best, it's a stand-in for something else. . .

I hesitated using the word, "most". I don't know what a survey would actually show, only that Kahal's assumptions everyone had the same definition or criteria as he/she were presumptuous.

 

[Whiplash]

Very interesting, I was afraid to click this link because I tend to get unhinged in abortion discussions.

Still, I think this shows how problematic having a "line" where it's ok to abort is. It nicely removes some of the things that are the foundation of many arguments for abortion.

I will never be able to wrap my head around the mentality that as long as we nip it in the bud before a certain point in the development, than all is well. I think that is arbitrary, and attempting to minimize the ultimate outcome of the abortion to it being just flushing some useless cells down the toilet.

My line would be somewhere around the point where conception has taken place and the full life/growing process has started. I would have to know more about medicine to be more specific. But in the case in this example, I think once the fetus was in the tank would be a fair point. I'm thinking about the "point of no return".. where if all things go exactly as they should, the end result is healthy baby in 9 months. That's my own line. At least in terms of questioning the morals of a decision to stop that process strictly based on convenience.

No, masturbating is not killing anyone. No, eggs flushing down the drain as part of a menstrual cycle is not murder.

And no, people having a miscarriage are not committing murder. And by this I mean a natural miscarriage. But a miscarriage that comes about because of actions by someone to stop the pregnancy.. that would make it more moral gray area to me. Once you've past that "point of no return" line I mention, I think that actively taking actions to stop further development is where you cross into moral gray area. But I'll also grant that there is a lot of room for discussion on whether or not moral concerns are mitigated by serious health issues or concerns of death.

The only thing I have a problem with in abortion is in a the case of someone actively seeking to stop the pregnancy, based only on matters of convenience. I think to justify stopping the full development of a human life, you need to have a lot more on the other side of the scale to balance that moral issue. A whole lot more than is out there to date.

(just to be clear again, however, since I am speaking in a very pro-life manner.. I do still think pro-choice is the best choice for society, and that outlawing abortion would have monumentally drastic consequences. I am just addressing this from a point of view of my own moral compass).

 

[fls]

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?

Aren't you missing the main pro-choice issue in this situation? Do we have any sort of 'first dibs' on our own reproduction?

You don't need your Star Trek scenario. This situation already exists with the presence of frozen embryos from fertility treatments. If you think that growing an embryo to a person should be considered entirely separate from the parents' consent, then shouldn't we be confiscating all unused embryos and implanting them in paid or volunteer incubators? Why don't we?

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I hesitated using the word, "most". I don't know what a survey would actually show, only that Kahal's assumptions everyone had the same definition or criteria as he/she were presumptuous.

Yup--and I'll be the first to admit that my take may not be the most typical of pro-choice approaches.

Of course, it is the best and most logical one!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Aren't you missing the main pro-choice issue in this situation? Do we have any sort of 'first dibs' on our own reproduction?

You don't need your Star Trek scenario. This situation already exists with the presence of frozen embryos from fertility treatments. If you think that growing an embryo to a person should be considered entirely separate from the parents' consent, then shouldn't we be confiscating all unused embryos and implanting them in paid or volunteer incubators? Why don't we?

Linda

But there are anti-choice people who think something very much like that.

At least their stance on embryonic stem-cell research comes from the position that the left over frozen embryos are somehow people and deserving, if not actual human rights, then something very close to it.

Many of them say that the standard to be used is fertilization, and that these things get a soul right at that moment. (Aside from the other problems with this standard, there are the questions raised with monozygotic twins. Does the same soul get split and shared? Or does the standard sometimes allow this magic to happen later than fertilization?)

ETA: At any rate, the right to choose goes away at some point. That is, we all (as a society) agree that the parents don't have the right to choose not to have the baby after the baby is born. Killing it then is clearly infanticide. So the question still remains--at what point does that right to choose go away, and why?

As always, I think the standard I've offered is the best.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Still, I think this shows how problematic having a "line" where it's ok to abort is. It nicely removes some of the things that are the foundation of many arguments for abortion.

How so?

I will never be able to wrap my head around the mentality that as long as we nip it in the bud before a certain point in the development, than all is well. I think that is arbitrary, and attempting to minimize the ultimate outcome of the abortion to it being just flushing some useless cells down the toilet.

I disagree. As I've said many times, the line we've drawn legally is NOT arbitrary. The first trimester is a stand-in for a point before which we're certain there hasn't been enough neural development for the standard we're after. (IMO, that standard is when you have an entity capable of desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.)

My line would be somewhere around the point where conception has taken place and the full life/growing process has started. I would have to know more about medicine to be more specific. But in the case in this example, I think once the fetus was in the tank would be a fair point. I'm thinking about the "point of no return".. where if all things go exactly as they should, the end result is healthy baby in 9 months.

It sounds like you're talking about implantation as the line. How is that line less arbitrary than the first trimester? At implantation, the zygote is just a small cluster of cells. I don't believe any differentiation has happened by that point. The fetus has none of the characteristics of a person or what I was calling a moral agent (no desires and thus no behaviors). And many of them even after implantation do not result in a healthy baby in 9 months.

(just to be clear again, however, since I am speaking in a very pro-life manner.. I do still think pro-choice is the best choice for society, and that outlawing abortion would have monumentally drastic consequences. I am just addressing this from a point of view of my own moral compass).

I understand this, and it makes good sense. I only wish more people who think abortion is immoral would see that it still makes sense to be pro-choice. (I myself am similarly a pro-choice vegetarian. I would never go around saying killing a cow is murder, and I would never tell another person not to eat meat--or worse yet, push for laws that would force other people to refrain from eating meat.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I will never be able to wrap my head around the mentality that as long as we nip it in the bud before a certain point in the development, than all is well. I think that is arbitrary, and attempting to minimize the ultimate outcome of the abortion to it being just flushing some useless cells down the toilet...

And yet using fertilization can also be described as an arbitrary point as well. How about the egg and sperm before fertilization? Why exclude those cells? You just picked your own point on the continuum and declared that point had meaning. I declare my point, viability outside the womb, has equally valid meaning. Before that time the fetus is part of the woman, not separate from the woman.

...
The only thing I have a problem with in abortion is in a the case of someone actively seeking to stop the pregnancy, based only on matters of convenience. I think to justify stopping the full development of a human life, you need to have a lot more on the other side of the scale to balance that moral issue. A whole lot more than is out there to date.

And do you have your own definition of "convenience"? Is that any abortion? Is it convenient for a raped 12 yr old to have an abortion? Again, you are declaring your lines valid and other people's lines not. In reality, you cannot usually justify with evidence, one person's line in the sand over another's.

 

[Brian-M]

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?

I think the thought experiment works best if you leave out the teleportation part and just start with a single egg and sperm in the incubator.

The problem is no clear dividing line appears in any part of the process. There is no point where one moment the fetus isn't human, and the next it is.

A single human cell is not a person.
Two human cells are not a person.
Four human cells are not a person
(And so on.)

It's not a case of 100% right and 100% wrong. Perhaps it would be best plot an exponential chart showing 0% wrong at 0 weeks and 100% wrong at 40 weeks (birth).

Wherever you draw the line is going to be purely arbitrary. For me, I'd draw the line somewhere between 20 and 25 weeks. Somewhere in this period the fetus usually becomes developed enough to feel pain and has a good chance of surviving outside the womb.

ETA:

I'd also become less and less comfortable with the idea of killing terminating the fetus as it approches 20 weeks.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the thought experiment works best if you leave out the teleportation part and just start with a single egg and sperm in the incubator.

Just for the record, without intervention of some sort, a single sperm will not fertilize an egg in vitro.

The problem is no clear dividing line appears in any part of the process. There is no point where one moment the fetus isn't human, and the next it is.

But morally and legally we have no problem creating lines even when we know such changes are gradual and differ from individual to individual. (Consider, the age of consent, the age requirements to get a driver's license, to vote, to drink alcohol, to hold various public offices, etc.) In fact, the process we're talking about (becoming fully neurologically a human, or as I prefer to say an entity deserving moral consideration) doesn't end until well after birth. As I mentioned humans fail the mirror test for self awareness before about 18 months of post-partum age.

Perhaps it would be best plot an exponential chart showing 0% wrong at 0 weeks and 100% wrong at 40 weeks (birth).

Wherever you draw the line is going to be purely arbitrary.

I agree with you up until this last sentence. I've given a standard that is not arbitrary, that works logically when applied to many other situations, and which reflects the strongest consensus (and the current legal standard).

That is, we ask whether the entity in question has the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. This of course depends, in a human fetus, on a certain degree of neural development, and as a substitute for measuring neural function, we draw the line (in a normal situation) at the end of the first trimester, not because we're certain the fetus has that capability at that point, but rather because we're certain that it does not before then (that is, we err on the cautious side, which makes sense morally). I think the moral consensus depends on some similar understanding.

Granted most people don't use the language of desire utilitarianism, but talk instead about when the fetus has "volition" or "consciousness" or is viable. I think all those standards, while definitely on the right track, have one flaw or another.

However, none of them are arbitrary. There really is good reason to use the line we've drawn--just as there is good reason not to let people younger than 16 get a driver's license. There's nothing magical about the age where the line is drawn; it's a stand-in for something else that's more difficult to measure.

 

[Brian-M]

Just for the record, without intervention of some sort, a single sperm will not fertilize an egg in vitro.

Not a problem. If you're going to take the effort of putting a sperm an egg in an artificial womb, bringing them together isn't a major issue.

As I mentioned humans fail the mirror test for self awareness before about 18 months of post-partum age.

In that case... let's make abortion legal up to the eighth trimester.

Seriously though, emotional reaction towards our young is hard-wired into us. Logically, there's no reason to consider a new-born baby a sentient entity deserving a right to life. But because we are human, all debate on babies and abortion is bound to be at least partially emotional and irrational.

I agree with you up until this last sentence. I've given a standard that is not arbitrary, that works logically when applied to many other situations, and which reflects the strongest consensus (and the current legal standard).

That is, we ask whether the entity in question has the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. This of course depends, in a human fetus, on a certain degree of neural development, and as a substitute for measuring neural function, we draw the line (in a normal situation) at the end of the first trimester, not because we're certain the fetus has that capability at that point, but rather because we're certain that it does not before then (that is, we err on the cautious side, which makes sense morally). I think the moral consensus depends on some similar understanding.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of arbitraty. A trimester, for example is an arbitrary length of time. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with setting arbitrary limits, in fact it's necessary to do so... I'm just pointing out that they're not based on any objective transition.


That said, your definition of "the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled" would mean that even a snail would deserve the same rights as our own offspring.

Granted most people don't use the language of desire utilitarianism, but talk instead about when the fetus has "volition" or "consciousness" or is viable. I think all those standards, while definitely on the right track, have one flaw or another.

I don't see how your "desire utilitarianism" makes things any less vague than using "violition", "consciousness" or being "viable". The presence of desires in a fetus is as difficult to prove as consciousness. In fact, consciousness might be considered a prerequsite for posessing desires.


BTW... You wrote earlier:

In our current legal system, we use the first trimester as a line that stands in for this degree of neural development.

Whose current legal system?I don't even know what country you're in. Abortion law is different all over the world. Here in Australia abortions are only legal for health reasons.

 

[Pup]

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's missing, I think, is how society would change if such a thing were possible. It means that people could create children with apparently no responsibility for raising them. There would be no need for birth control at all. If a baby happens, just teleport it.

So then, how do all these unwanted teleported babies get raised? Who nurtures them? Who pays for their support?

While as many as possible might be adopted out, I suspect that society would soon begin to feel that they were a drain on resources, and would either heartlessly try to minimize their care (futuristic orphanages run by robots?), or compassionately start putting pressure on parents not to teletransport and instead to take responsibility for the children they produced.

Once you start heading down the first path, seeing the vat babies as a drain on resources, you have two tiers of children, one kind more loved than the other, and I suspect that triage would start to be applied... "Maybe we won't keep this one in the vat, because it'll only live a few months with that birth defect anyway, and will cost a lot of money. And maybe not that one, because it'll only live a few years. And maybe not that one because it'll live to old age but won't contribute enough to the workforce to pay its raising..." So the pressure to abort the vat babies would grow.

If you head down the other path, and try to discourage parents from teleporting, then the vat technology will begin to wither, because even though it's an option, it'll be one that's used less and less. Rather than face the stigma of being a (*sneer*) teleporter, people will use birth control or other methods, depending on how bad the stigma is. But the existence of birth control doesn't prevent the existence of abortion today. It would depend on whether the guilt of knowing your teleported child would be spending its life working underground in the salt mines on Mars, was worse than the guilt of aborting it, as to where abortion fell among the options.

And either way, we'd be right back where we started.