Article: Fetuses in Artificial Wombs: Medical Marvel or Misogynist Malpractice?

[Tom Sawyer]

The viability also matters. If there's a woman who decides at 35 weeks to get an ahortion, is there a doctor who'd give her one? The kid can live fine outside of her, so it is killing a child to abort it at that point.

If viability is pushed back due to things like artificial wombs, then that same type of consideration applies earlier and earlier as well.

I'm assuming you mean a 'healthy 35 week old'.

There are plenty of fetuses that come to term only to die shortly after birth. Sometimes dying very painfully and slowly. So what was the point of letting them come to term even at 35 weeks?

Wow. I really wish I'd mentioned stuff like that half a dozen times before you posted and had specifically mentioned healthy development as a concern to take into account repeatedly.

In case it wasn't clear, that was me speaking ironically

 

[dystopian]

Oh no, no freaking way.

A person tries hard NOT to be a parent, but through rape or failure of birth control method becomes pregnant, no way should that mean you HAVE to become a parent. No way.

Look, you can argue all you want about the invalidity of the jack-booted government thugs forcing child support payments on men who accidentally became fathers when their birth control methods failed, but there is a child involved and that's more important than your concern about their desire not to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Rape would be a valid exception to all of this, though.

Wait, we're talking about just a fertilized egg here, right? What do you mean, there's a 'child' involved? Just because those cells will grow *into* a child, doesn't mean it already is, nor does it entitle the cells to the same rights. Until it achieves a sufficient level of development, it's just a bit of 'stuff' that's a genetic derivative of both parents, which to me implies ownership; you'd no more have the right to take that 'stuff' and incubate it into a human being than you'd have the right to take my DNA and clone me without my permission. That decision lies entirely with the people personally involved in it; at least until the moment the fetus develops brain activity and starts to become a person instead of a thing.

And why would rape resulting in an unwanted pregnancy be a valid exception, but a regular unwanted pregnancy would not be? That seems like a completely arbitrary distinction; if the point is the unwanted nature of the pregnancy (as it should be), then the distinction shouldn't exist. If on the other hand the point is the horror the rape resulting in pregnancy produces, then the distinction still shouldn't exist because said horror can be just as much a thing in just a regular unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Look, you can argue all you want about the invalidity of the jack-booted government thugs forcing child support payments on men who accidentally became fathers when their birth control methods failed, but there is a child involved and that's more important than your concern about their desire not to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Rape would be a valid exception to all of this, though.

Wait, we're talking about just a fertilized egg here, right? What do you mean, there's a 'child' involved? Just because those cells will grow *into* a child, doesn't mean it already is, nor does it entitle the cells to the same rights. Until it achieves a sufficient level of development, it's just a bit of 'stuff' that's a genetic derivative of both parents, which to me implies ownership; you'd no more have the right to take that 'stuff' and incubate it into a human being than you'd have the right to take my DNA and clone me without my permission. That decision lies entirely with the people personally involved in it; at least until the moment the fetus develops brain activity and starts to become a person instead of a thing.

And your use of brain activity is another arbitrary milestone. It's not relevant to the position I hold. I'm cool with women aborting fetuses with brains if they don't want them using their body. The key issue in the abortion debate for me is that the fetus has no right to the woman's body. Once the matter of bodily integrity is taken out of the issue, I feel that a viable fetus should be allowed to develop regardless of whether viability starts at 30 weeks or 30 minutes.

And why would rape resulting in an unwanted pregnancy be a valid exception, but a regular unwanted pregnancy would not be? That seems like a completely arbitrary distinction; if the point is the unwanted nature of the pregnancy (as it should be), then the distinction shouldn't exist. If on the other hand the point is the horror the rape resulting in pregnancy produces, then the distinction still shouldn't exist because said horror can be just as much a thing in just a regular unwanted pregnancy.

If she made no choice which led to the pregnancy, then there's a choice not to have her rapist's baby come into the world. It's an extenuating circumstance which alters the equation just like medical conditions are.

 

[PyramidHead]

Being a viable life does not necessarily grant something moral consideration. If morality has anything to do with consequences and preferences, then terminating a clump of cells causes no harmful consequences for the clump of cells, since a brain is required to suffer harmful consequences. At least, it cannot suffer more harmful consequences than a colony of bacteria does when exposed to bleach (which I assume you consider morally permissible). Nor does termination violate the preferences of the clump of cells, since it cannot possibly have any preferences without a brain. On the contrary, bringing the clump of cells further along the developmental pathway to become a full human being is arguably more harmful, since at that stage it will have a brain and some measure of subjectivity, and will certainly suffer harmful consequences at some point in its life.

And that's the point on which we disagree. I see something as being viable life as soon as it's able to survive on its own, it's a life of its own and requiring medical assistance to survive counts as being able to survive on its own. I don't find it particularly relevant that it's a clump of cells since all humans go through a clump of cells stage and if that clump of cells can survive and develop on its own, then it merits consideration as a life on its own.

I'm cool with aborting a non-viable fetus after brain development and not cool with aborting a viable fetus before brain development.

We don't disagree that it's a viable life. We disagree that all viable lives are worth preserving. I also don't quite understand how something that requires not-yet-invented medical technology in order to survive can "survive on its own." Surely, all you mean by "viable" is "can survive without invading another person's bodily autonomy." But that's beside the point.

Your argument is that the mother's autonomy is of primary importance, but after her autonomy is secure, the continued development of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/whatever is next in line. I can agree with the first part, because I can see how violating the mother's autonomy can lead to tangible, experience-able negative outcomes. But for the life of me (pun intended), I cannot fathom your thinking in the second part. Your position appears to be: since the blastocyst would have developed into a baby if it stayed in the womb, and we have the technology to allow it to continue developing outside the womb, we should do everything we can to make sure it develops into a baby. You're leaving out a bunch of premises in there. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it, obviously. When people decide what to do in a given situation, there is usually some consideration of what the results will be, and a comparison to what they would have been otherwise. So let's break it down.

The woman removes the blastocyst from her body, and we have a choice between (a) putting it into a machine that will provide the necessary and sufficient nutrients to turn the blastocyst into a baby, or (b) letting the blastocyst die. The consequence of letting it die is that it cannot develop into a baby. Your argument is that we ought to avoid this consequence, but you have not explained why.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that's the point on which we disagree. I see something as being viable life as soon as it's able to survive on its own, it's a life of its own and requiring medical assistance to survive counts as being able to survive on its own. I don't find it particularly relevant that it's a clump of cells since all humans go through a clump of cells stage and if that clump of cells can survive and develop on its own, then it merits consideration as a life on its own.

I'm cool with aborting a non-viable fetus after brain development and not cool with aborting a viable fetus before brain development.

We don't disagree that it's a viable life. We disagree that all viable lives are worth preserving. I also don't quite understand how something that requires not-yet-invented medical technology in order to survive can "survive on its own." Surely, all you mean by "viable" is "can survive without invading another person's bodily autonomy." But that's beside the point.

They's be able to "survive on their own" in the same way that that people without working hearts can survive by having an artificial one implanted. Their ability to do that with new technology is irrelevant to the lack of survivability of patients without access to that technology.

Your argument is that the mother's autonomy is of primary importance, but after her autonomy is secure, the continued development of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/whatever is next in line. I can agree with the first part, because I can see how violating the mother's autonomy can lead to tangible, experience-able negative outcomes. But for the life of me (pun intended), I cannot fathom your thinking in the second part. Your position appears to be: since the blastocyst would have developed into a baby if it stayed in the womb, and we have the technology to allow it to continue developing outside the womb, we should do everything we can to make sure it develops into a baby. You're leaving out a bunch of premises in there. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it, obviously. When people decide what to do in a given situation, there is usually some consideration of what the results will be, and a comparison to what they would have been otherwise. So let's break it down.

The woman removes the blastocyst from her body, and we have a choice between (a) putting it into a machine that will provide the necessary and sufficient nutrients to turn the blastocyst into a baby, or (b) letting the blastocyst die. The consequence of letting it die is that it cannot develop into a baby. Your argument is that we ought to avoid this consequence, but you have not explained why.

Yes, I'm saying that we SHOULD do it. If we have the ability to save a life, then we should use that ability. If an otherwise healthy fetus is removed from its mother at 30 weeks, there's a good chance that it will die or have serious medical issues. If we place that same fetus in an incubator, there's no real difference between it and a fetus which stays in the mother until full term. This means that anytime an otherwise healthy fetus is born prematurely at 30 weeks, we should feel a moral obligation to put it into an incubator. At the point that it is removed from the mother, it is a patient with a treatable condition and should be treated just like any other patient with a treatable condition.

This is entirely independent of considerations about the mother. Because the fetus is viable on its own, the doctors should have a duty to treat it. If two pregnant women have a heart condition and their healthy 30 week old fetuses need to be removed and one wants to get a C-Section and have the baby placed in an incubator and the other wants an abortion, then the wishes of the one asking for an abortion should be ignored. The doctors can remove the fetus and have it develop into a healthy baby using the technology available to them, so it would be morally wrong for them to grant the mother's request for an abortion instead of placing the fetus into an incubator and allow it to continue developing.

As the technology continues to improve, the line at which this is consideration applies to the fetus is something that I feel should move with it. If we CAN remove it safely from the mother and have it develop into a normal, healthy baby, then we SHOULD do it. The fact that it requires medical assistance to be viable doesn't change the fact that it's viable. The doctors can treat the conditions associated with premature delivery the same way that they can any other medical conditions, so it's a patient in and of itself. If a mother with a 20 week old fetus needs it removed and incubated due to her having a heart condition and the technology exists to allow the fetus to develop and grow normally at this stage, then another woman with an equally developed fetus who wants an abortion should be denied it because the fetus should be treated as a patient who can be saved, the same as a 30 week old fetus is treated with today's technology.

Currently, there is a one-to-one relationship between brain development and viability. Fetuses become viable so long after their brains develop that it's a non-issue to discuss viability of fetuses before that point. I see that, however, as a technological limitation more than anything else. If that changes, it becomes a potential issue. If you can extract a fetus that has the brain fully developed and have it live a healthy life, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the brain mostly developed? If you can do that with a fetus that has the brain mostly developed, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the brain only slightly developed? If you can do that for a fetus that has the brain only slightly developed, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the precursors to brain development? If there's no difference in the end result when you incubate a 30 week old fetus and a 30 minute old fetus, then I don't see a good reason to make a moral distinguishment between how you treat them simply because of the stage of development that they happen to be in when the treatment starts.

 

[4321lynx]

After all this philosophical and technological care who is going to care for the baby after it is "born"? It will need care. Will it be an adopting "parent"? The "government"? In what kind of institution? Or is that "not my business"? But you are "saving" innumerable "lives" by virtually forbidding abortions as any group of fertilized cells is a viable baby by your definition and the ranks of people needing adoptions will soon thin out to none, so IMHO it is your business.

 

[PyramidHead]

We don't disagree that it's a viable life. We disagree that all viable lives are worth preserving. I also don't quite understand how something that requires not-yet-invented medical technology in order to survive can "survive on its own." Surely, all you mean by "viable" is "can survive without invading another person's bodily autonomy." But that's beside the point.

They's be able to "survive on their own" in the same way that that people without working hearts can survive by having an artificial one implanted. Their ability to do that with new technology is irrelevant to the lack of survivability of patients without access to that technology.

Your argument is that the mother's autonomy is of primary importance, but after her autonomy is secure, the continued development of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/whatever is next in line. I can agree with the first part, because I can see how violating the mother's autonomy can lead to tangible, experience-able negative outcomes. But for the life of me (pun intended), I cannot fathom your thinking in the second part. Your position appears to be: since the blastocyst would have developed into a baby if it stayed in the womb, and we have the technology to allow it to continue developing outside the womb, we should do everything we can to make sure it develops into a baby. You're leaving out a bunch of premises in there. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it, obviously. When people decide what to do in a given situation, there is usually some consideration of what the results will be, and a comparison to what they would have been otherwise. So let's break it down.

The woman removes the blastocyst from her body, and we have a choice between (a) putting it into a machine that will provide the necessary and sufficient nutrients to turn the blastocyst into a baby, or (b) letting the blastocyst die. The consequence of letting it die is that it cannot develop into a baby. Your argument is that we ought to avoid this consequence, but you have not explained why.

Yes, I'm saying that we SHOULD do it. If we have the ability to save a life, then we should use that ability. If an otherwise healthy fetus is removed from its mother at 30 weeks, there's a good chance that it will die or have serious medical issues. If we place that same fetus in an incubator, there's no real difference between it and a fetus which stays in the mother until full term. This means that anytime an otherwise healthy fetus is born prematurely at 30 weeks, we should feel a moral obligation to put it into an incubator. At the point that it is removed from the mother, it is a patient with a treatable condition and should be treated just like any other patient with a treatable condition.

This is entirely independent of considerations about the mother. Because the fetus is viable on its own, the doctors should have a duty to treat it. If two pregnant women have a heart condition and their healthy 30 week old fetuses need to be removed and one wants to get a C-Section and have the baby placed in an incubator and the other wants an abortion, then the wishes of the one asking for an abortion should be ignored. The doctors can remove the fetus and have it develop into a healthy baby using the technology available to them, so it would be morally wrong for them to grant the mother's request for an abortion instead of placing the fetus into an incubator and allow it to continue developing.

Why? You are expounding upon your position without explaining the reasoning behind it. Why is the life of a viable fetus valuable in and of itself?

As the technology continues to improve, the line at which this is consideration applies to the fetus is something that I feel should move with it. If we CAN remove it safely from the mother and have it develop into a normal, healthy baby, then we SHOULD do it.

Why? What negative outcome will happen if we don't? Who will be worse off, and how, as a result?

The fact that it requires medical assistance to be viable doesn't change the fact that it's viable. The doctors can treat the conditions associated with premature delivery the same way that they can any other medical conditions, so it's a patient in and of itself. If a mother with a 20 week old fetus needs it removed and incubated due to her having a heart condition and the technology exists to allow the fetus to develop and grow normally at this stage, then another woman with an equally developed fetus who wants an abortion should be denied it because the fetus should be treated as a patient who can be saved, the same as a 30 week old fetus is treated with today's technology.

Currently, there is a one-to-one relationship between brain development and viability. Fetuses become viable so long after their brains develop that it's a non-issue to discuss viability of fetuses before that point. I see that, however, as a technological limitation more than anything else. If that changes, it becomes a potential issue. If you can extract a fetus that has the brain fully developed and have it live a healthy life, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the brain mostly developed? If you can do that with a fetus that has the brain mostly developed, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the brain only slightly developed? If you can do that for a fetus that has the brain only slightly developed, then why not have the same consideration for a fetus that has the precursors to brain development?

The answer to all these questions is the same: the consideration should be on a spectrum, increasing or decreasing proportionally to the developmental stage of the fetus and its ability to suffer. Why a one-size-fits-all approach derived from specious "slippery slope" reasoning should be favored over logically assessing each case on its own merits is a mystery to me. The whole point of having a system of morals is to prevent harm from befalling those who can be harmed by our actions. The degree to which a developing baby can be harmed changes as it develops, and continues to change after it is born, so why should the moral consideration we grant it remain constant from the moment of conception (assuming the mother's autonomy is not at stake)?

If there's no difference in the end result when you incubate a 30 week old fetus and a 30 minute old fetus, then I don't see a good reason to make a moral distinguishment between how you treat them simply because of the stage of development that they happen to be in when the treatment starts.

And that's where you're wrong. The difference is not in what happens when you incubate, it's in what happens when you DON'T incubate. A 30 week old fetus is much more sensitive to discomfort and possibly even emotional distress than a fertilized egg. Letting a 30 week old fetus die therefore requires additional methods to ensure it doesn't suffer. You appear to be saying that since both will develop into a baby when incubated artificially, they both deserve the same moral consideration, and moreover, they both should be allowed to develop into babies. That position is not supported by any underlying principle you have thus far provided, and is certainly not obviously true, so it needs justification.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if you think that life is sacred, or that it's a precious, rare commodity that needs to be fostered and preserved or else something terrible will happen. It's not. Fetuses are a renewable resource. We have almost no power over their genetic composition beyond selecting a mate whose chromosomes will shuffle and scatter randomly with our own. A given fetus is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to any other fetus created by the same parents. The uniqueness of a particular configuration of genes is no more valuable than the uniqueness of throwing a deck of cards against the wall. It can be generated over and over again. Parents may place importance on their specific creation, but their welfare is not what you appear to be primarily concerned with. No, you seem to be arguing that we do the baby some kind of harm unless we ensure it comes to term. I'll ask again why you think this is so, but I don't think there is an answer that applies all the way back to the beginning of gestation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why? You are expounding upon your position without explaining the reasoning behind it. Why is the life of a viable fetus valuable in and of itself?

Because that's the criteria that I personally feel is the important part. Full stop. Once it has the ability to live on its own, the moral obligations towards it as a living being begin. It has nothing to do with sacredness, rarity or preciousness. It has to do with the fact that at that point it can exist as an independent life and should therefore be treated as such.

And that's where you're wrong. The difference is not in what happens when you incubate, it's in what happens when you DON'T incubate. A 30 week old fetus is much more sensitive to discomfort and possibly even emotional distress than a fertilized egg. Letting a 30 week old fetus die therefore requires additional methods to ensure it doesn't suffer. You appear to be saying that since both will develop into a baby when incubated artificially, they both deserve the same moral consideration, and moreover, they both should be allowed to develop into babies. That position is not supported by any underlying principle you have thus far provided, and is certainly not obviously true, so it needs justification.

You seem to view the ability to suffer as the defining point and that's perfectly fine as a subjective and arbitrary point of view for you to have. It's not related to the basis of the opinions of people who aren't you, however. I see that as a far more trivial concern than viability.

It's irrelevant what happens when you don't incubate, since the relevant question is what happens when you do. If you have a 36 week old fetus born, minor and trivial procedures might be required for it to be healthy. If a 30 week old fetus is born, more serious procedures are likely required for it and if those procedures are easily available to you and can be done without risk to anyone then you should use them. Same thing for the more extreme procedures required for a 25 year old fetus. Same thing for the even more extreme measures required for a 20 week old fetus and so on and so on. As medical technology advances more and "extreme measures" get redefined as "trivial procedures", they should be used as required.

 

[PyramidHead]

Because that's the criteria that I personally feel is the important part. Full stop. Once it has the ability to live on its own, the moral obligations towards it as a living being begin. It has nothing to do with sacredness, rarity or preciousness. It has to do with the fact that at that point it can exist as an independent life and should therefore be treated as such.

I keep asking for you to fill in the blank between the two bolded concepts, but I'm getting nowhere. There has to be some other premise other than "it can survive, therefore it must survive." And "treated as such" doesn't help either, since the "as such" part is exactly what is under debate: how should we treat a living being? You are acting like that's a settled question, but it's not.

And that's where you're wrong. The difference is not in what happens when you incubate, it's in what happens when you DON'T incubate. A 30 week old fetus is much more sensitive to discomfort and possibly even emotional distress than a fertilized egg. Letting a 30 week old fetus die therefore requires additional methods to ensure it doesn't suffer. You appear to be saying that since both will develop into a baby when incubated artificially, they both deserve the same moral consideration, and moreover, they both should be allowed to develop into babies. That position is not supported by any underlying principle you have thus far provided, and is certainly not obviously true, so it needs justification.

You seem to view the ability to suffer as the defining point and that's perfectly fine as a subjective and arbitrary point of view for you to have. It's not related to the basis of the opinions of people who aren't you, however. I see that as a far more trivial concern than viability.

Well, if it just comes down to a difference in opinion, there's nothing I can say to convince you. But at the very least, my view is connected to some sort of consequence that I can point to and say "see, that's what we don't want to happen, because it's clearly not enjoyable for the person it happened to." In your case, I can't even really conceptualize why viability should matter on its own. Does viability have some special status that I'm not aware of?

It's irrelevant what happens when you don't incubate, since the relevant question is what happens when you do. If you have a 36 week old fetus born, minor and trivial procedures might be required for it to be healthy. If a 30 week old fetus is born, more serious procedures are likely required for it and if those procedures are easily available to you and can be done without risk to anyone then you should use them. Same thing for the more extreme procedures required for a 25 year old fetus. Same thing for the even more extreme measures required for a 20 week old fetus and so on and so on. As medical technology advances more and "extreme measures" get redefined as "trivial procedures", they should be used as required.

With "as required" being the key point. What you and I consider moral requirements are diametrically opposed, so we can just leave it there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I keep asking for you to fill in the blank between the two bolded concepts, but I'm getting nowhere. There has to be some other premise other than "it can survive, therefore it must survive." And "treated as such" doesn't help either, since the "as such" part is exactly what is under debate: how should we treat a living being? You are acting like that's a settled question, but it's not.

Because I see a direct correlation between our ability to preserve a life and our obligation to do so. If the same level of effort is required to save a 20 week old fetus as a 30 week old, then the same level of moral obligation should apply to both. Same for 10 week old or what have you. I see a life which is able to exist on its own as valuable in and of itself. While I fully admit that the premises and consequences of this position are as subjective and arbitrary as yours are or any other possible positions on the matter could be, it seems a good delineating point for me to use.

 

[Blahface]

I haven't seen this thread in a while and I'm very surprised at Tom's take on this. The world is already overpopulated. Ocean life is being depleted, global warming is fucking up the crop yields, and if GMO's aren't able to save us, we are going to have a major food scarcity problems. If we ever want accountable government for everyone, it will be necessary for everyone in the world to have access to information technology. This requires rare earth metals that severely fuck up the environment when extracted.

We don't need any new people being born. I don't care what potential an embryo has; I care about the state it is currently in. If it doesn't have sentience, you are not robbing it of anything. If you say a 30 minute old embryo deserves to develop, then you might as well be against birth control because you are “robbing” a potential, potential life form from being born. Why don't we just designate a government agency that does nothing but artificially grows humans in the lab to make sure that every potential life gets a chance to be born?

 

[dystopian]

And your use of brain activity is another arbitrary milestone. It's not relevant to the position I hold. I'm cool with women aborting fetuses with brains if they don't want them using their body. The key issue in the abortion debate for me is that the fetus has no right to the woman's body. Once the matter of bodily integrity is taken out of the issue, I feel that a viable fetus should be allowed to develop regardless of whether viability starts at 30 weeks or 30 minutes.

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim brain activity is an arbitrary milestone. Brain activity is required for pretty much everything that defines a human as being more than just a body. Without brain activity, you can't have pain or consciousness; and without either of those there is no moral argument against killing the fetus, since doing so neither causes suffering nor deprives an actual *being* of life. It's just the termination of a process at that point.

The key issue here is NOT whether the fetus could viably develop outside the woman's body; it has no right to life until it develops the rudimentary mechanisms required for conscious and sensation, and since it is essentially a by-product of both parent's bodies, it is entirely up to them (not you, or the government) as to what to do with it. By taking that decision away from them, you are doing pretty much the exact same thing as if I were to take your DNA and clone you without your permission. If the parents want to let it develop into a human being, that's their choice. And theirs alone.

If she made no choice which led to the pregnancy, then there's a choice not to have her rapist's baby come into the world. It's an extenuating circumstance which alters the equation just like medical conditions are.

Again, utterly arbitrary. If the woman had sex but the condom broke, you'd argue that because 'she made the choice to have sex', she doesn't have the right to an abortion under these circumstances. She didn't *choose* to have the condom break; she didn't *choose* to get pregnant; the choice was *forced* on her just as much as when she gets pregnant because she was raped. You can't objectively separate the two scenarios. It is utterly unacceptable to demand that a woman can't choose to terminate a pregnancy because she chose to have sex under the belief that she was safe from pregnancy (If we actually practiced such an extreme idea of personal responsibility in our societies, it would be utterly impossible to do almost anything out of fear of being held responsible for any number of things) Whether or not the clump of cells could be harvested and gestated to full development outside of the woman's body is completely irrelevant, for reasons already stated.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim brain activity is an arbitrary milestone. Brain activity is required for pretty much everything that defines a human as being more than just a body. Without brain activity, you can't have pain or consciousness; and without either of those there is no moral argument against killing the fetus, since doing so neither causes suffering nor deprives an actual *being* of life. It's just the termination of a process at that point.

The key issue here is NOT whether the fetus could viably develop outside the woman's body; it has no right to life until it develops the rudimentary mechanisms required for conscious and sensation, and since it is essentially a by-product of both parent's bodies, it is entirely up to them (not you, or the government) as to what to do with it. By taking that decision away from them, you are doing pretty much the exact same thing as if I were to take your DNA and clone you without your permission. If the parents want to let it develop into a human being, that's their choice. And theirs alone.

And what point of brain development are you using as your non-arbitrary milestone and why? The brain starts developing at about week three of gestation and keeps developing until about 25 years of age. Please define consciousness and what developmental milestones the brain needs to go through in order to activate it so I can understand how it is that you're using an objective standard as opposed to a subjective opinion.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim brain activity is an arbitrary milestone. Brain activity is required for pretty much everything that defines a human as being more than just a body. Without brain activity, you can't have pain or consciousness; and without either of those there is no moral argument against killing the fetus, since doing so neither causes suffering nor deprives an actual *being* of life. It's just the termination of a process at that point.

The key issue here is NOT whether the fetus could viably develop outside the woman's body; it has no right to life until it develops the rudimentary mechanisms required for conscious and sensation, and since it is essentially a by-product of both parent's bodies, it is entirely up to them (not you, or the government) as to what to do with it. By taking that decision away from them, you are doing pretty much the exact same thing as if I were to take your DNA and clone you without your permission. If the parents want to let it develop into a human being, that's their choice. And theirs alone.

And what point of brain development are you using as your non-arbitrary milestone and why? The brain starts developing at about week three of gestation and keeps developing until about 25 years of age. Please define consciousness and what developmental milestones the brain needs to go through in order to activate it so I can understand how it is that you're using an objective standard as opposed to a subjective opinion.

To be fair, I don't think dystopian mentioned anything about milestones. As I said in my reply to you upthread, it's actually a spectrum. There's no moment where the fetus suddenly becomes a person, just an ever-increasing degree of vulnerability to harm as the brain (and therefore the mind) becomes more self-aware. Consciousness is a necessary condition for the kinds of suffering we normally try to avoid inflicting on others by acting morally. I know you don't buy that as a legitimate ethical concern, but it explains common moral intuitions pretty well. We don't know if there is anything valuable about life itself, or if that's even something that can be known. But we do know that nearly every sentient being prefers not to be harmed--by whatever definition of harm would make that statement uncontroversial. So, I think you're making an error when you treat the criterion of 'how much harm can this entity experience, and how severely' as purely arbitrary.

 

[dx713]

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim brain activity is an arbitrary milestone. Brain activity is required for pretty much everything that defines a human as being more than just a body. Without brain activity, you can't have pain or consciousness; and without either of those there is no moral argument against killing the fetus, since doing so neither causes suffering nor deprives an actual *being* of life. It's just the termination of a process at that point.

The key issue here is NOT whether the fetus could viably develop outside the woman's body; it has no right to life until it develops the rudimentary mechanisms required for conscious and sensation, and since it is essentially a by-product of both parent's bodies, it is entirely up to them (not you, or the government) as to what to do with it. By taking that decision away from them, you are doing pretty much the exact same thing as if I were to take your DNA and clone you without your permission. If the parents want to let it develop into a human being, that's their choice. And theirs alone.

And what point of brain development are you using as your non-arbitrary milestone and why? The brain starts developing at about week three of gestation and keeps developing until about 25 years of age. Please define consciousness and what developmental milestones the brain needs to go through in order to activate it so I can understand how it is that you're using an objective standard as opposed to a subjective opinion.

Well, until science can tell us more about the emergence of consciousness, I'd say those three weeks would be a good non-arbitrary, safe-side, milestone. By your own words, the brain doesn't start developping before.
I hope a future world where fully reliable artificial wombs exist also has the technology to quickly warn of the start of a pregnancy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair, I don't think dystopian mentioned anything about milestones. As I said in my reply to you upthread, it's actually a spectrum. There's no moment where the fetus suddenly becomes a person, just an ever-increasing degree of vulnerability to harm as the brain (and therefore the mind) becomes more self-aware. Consciousness is a necessary condition for the kinds of suffering we normally try to avoid inflicting on others by acting morally. I know you don't buy that as a legitimate ethical concern, but it explains common moral intuitions pretty well. We don't know if there is anything valuable about life itself, or if that's even something that can be known. But we do know that nearly every sentient being prefers not to be harmed--by whatever definition of harm would make that statement uncontroversial. So, I think you're making an error when you treat the criterion of 'how much harm can this entity experience, and how severely' as purely arbitrary.

But any harm experienced by the fetus can be dealt with easily. If you give anaesthesia to a 37 week old fetus, you could abort it without it experiencing any pain or suffering at all. It'll be dead before it knows that anything is wrong and feel no distress or negative emotions whatsoever. If suffering is the criteria, that can be made equal between 37 weeks and 37 hours.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, until science can tell us more about the emergence of consciousness, I'd say those three weeks would be a good non-arbitrary, safe-side, milestone. By your own words, the brain doesn't start developping before.
I hope a future world where fully reliable artificial wombs exist also has the technology to quickly warn of the start of a pregnancy.

But it's a meaningless and arbitrary milestone. Why would 1% of brain development be a more meaningful milestone than 86% of the precursor activities which lead to the beginning of brain development in terms of relating it to consciousness?

Now, understand that I have no problem with people using arbitrary milestones to decide when they'd start giving moral consideration to a fetus. It's a subjective call. My problem was with the claim that brain development was a non-arbitrary milestone to use.

 

[dx713]

I think the point is not about suffering per se. It's about harming a conscious being.
Okay a nihilist might point that as dead don't suffer, painlessly interrupting a life is not harm. But as I am not and am using some kind of golden rule, and would like my life to be interrupted as late as possible, I would deem that harmful.
Now, how we measure consciousness and when do we deem it high enough to make the foetus "harmable", I agree is fuzzy. But I think we can find some "safe-side" date rather than go to the extreme and say a fertilized egg not linked to any parental project is already a kid.

 

[dystopian]

And what point of brain development are you using as your non-arbitrary milestone and why? The brain starts developing at about week three of gestation and keeps developing until about 25 years of age. Please define consciousness and what developmental milestones the brain needs to go through in order to activate it so I can understand how it is that you're using an objective standard as opposed to a subjective opinion.

I don't really have to set a point *during* brain development. Like dx713 said, playing it completely safe without knowing the full facts behind consciousness and its origins, we could always set the cut-off point at those three weeks.

If you absolutely must have some point during development, you could set it somewhere between the 24th and 28th week, when the thalamocortical system develops, which lies at the root of human consciousness as we understand it. For the purposes of 'consciousness' in terms of the fetus, we'd obviously use a less strict definition of consciousness; by 26 weeks, the neural connections needed to hear/respond to sound and feel pain are established; at this point it seems the fetus can truly respond to external stimuli (it can technically respond to touch much earlier, but the brain isn't believed developed enough for the fetus to actually feel/be aware of this, it's just an automated response), and displays a rudimentary awareness.

That certainly doesn't strike me as an 'abitrary' milestone, and I doubt scientists regard it as such either; so that's where I'd place the cut-off point, if I absolutely had to give you a point like that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the point is not about suffering per se. It's about harming a conscious being.
Okay a nihilist might point that as dead don't suffer, painlessly interrupting a life is not harm. But as I am not and am using some kind of golden rule, and would like my life to be interrupted as late as possible, I would deem that harmful.
Now, how we measure consciousness and when do we deem it high enough to make the foetus "harmable", I agree is fuzzy. But I think we can find some "safe-side" date rather than go to the extreme and say a fertilized egg not linked to any parental project is already a kid.

But harming conscious beings isn't actually a problem. I will shoot a cow in the head and eat it without any problem and that's more conscious than any fetus will be at any stage of development. It's human life that concerns me. If something with a partially developed brain is worthy of moral consideration, then I see no practical reason that something with a partially developed precursor to a brain should be different. Neither of them is conscious but if you leave them alone they will become so. Once the issue of the woman's bodily integrity is taken out of the equation, I see them as things which should be treated the same.

I get the argument that you're making, but I just don't see it as being as good a criteria as fetal viability would be.