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

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

But it is arbitrary. You're defining it as important because you want it to be and then referencing its importance based on the definition you just made up. That's what arbitrary means.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

I agree, which is why I don't have any problem with abortion if such measures are used.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I agree, which is why I don't have any problem with abortion if such measures are used.

And I do because I don't think it's an important criteria to base the decision off of.

 

[dystopian]

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.

But her bodily integrity hasn't been taken out of the equation. Again, how do you feel about the possibility of me taking some of your DNA and cloning you, without permission? Doing so certainly counts as a kind of violation of your bodily integrity to me. If taking your DNA and cloning you against your will is out of the question, then why would you be okay with taking what is essentially a flawed genetic clone of *two* people instead of just one and forcing it to gestation against their will? This is actually my main disagreement with you. So long as the clump of cells is just that, as opposed to something that already has the rudimentary systems in place to qualify as a human being, it's the property of the person the cells originated with; theirs to do with as they will. Saying they don't have the final say in such matters would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent in my view.

 

[dystopian]

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.

But it is arbitrary. You're defining it as important because you want it to be and then referencing its importance based on the definition you just made up. That's what arbitrary means.

No. Arbitrary is a quality subject to individual judgement; which is NOT the case here. Science has established these systems to be vital to the functioning of consciousness, and science has determined that this period is when they become fully developed. That is *not* arbitrary. It is similarly not arbitrary to claim this as an important point in time in regards to this discussion, since it is a matter of objective fact that these systems need to exist before consciousness can exist; and without some form of consciousness, the fetus is just a thing, and not a *being*. By arguing that one thing (a fetus) has a right to live/continue existing, but other things (such as say, a car you want to get rid of in favor of a newer model) do not, *you* are the one making an arbitrary distinction, not me. That's my point;

You're assigning value to the fetus simply on account of what it *could* become, whereas I'm saying that until it *actually* becomes that, it has no objective value. This is not an arbitrary position, as you seem to think; it is in fact acknowledging that any value given at that point in time is itself arbitrary; which means the value must be determined by the people personally involved, which means the parents whose genetics the fetus shares, rather than the government or the doctors who have no personal stake in it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

But her bodily integrity hasn't been taken out of the equation. Again, how do you feel about the possibility of me taking some of your DNA and cloning you, without permission? Doing so certainly counts as a kind of violation of your bodily integrity to me. If taking your DNA and cloning you against your will is out of the question, then why would you be okay with taking what is essentially a flawed genetic clone of *two* people instead of just one and forcing it to gestation against their will? This is actually my main disagreement with you. So long as the clump of cells is just that, as opposed to something that already has the rudimentary systems in place to qualify as a human being, it's the property of the person the cells originated with; theirs to do with as they will. Saying they don't have the final say in such matters would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent in my view.

And I disagree with your view that we'd be able to own any clones of ourselves as slaves or hunt down for sport or do anything else to them simply because we will it and they're our property. They would be individuals in and of themselves and worthy of freedom and respect. Your nightmarish vision of a futuristic dysptopia is not one I'd want to see come about - even if it has the hot, plucky teenagers fighting against the system in it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But it is arbitrary. You're defining it as important because you want it to be and then referencing its importance based on the definition you just made up. That's what arbitrary means.

No. Arbitrary is a quality subject to individual judgement; which is NOT the case here. Science has established these systems to be vital to the functioning of consciousness, and science has determined that this period is when they become fully developed. That is *not* arbitrary. It is similarly not arbitrary to claim this as an important point in time in regards to this discussion, since it is a matter of objective fact that these systems need to exist before consciousness can exist; and without some form of consciousness, the fetus is just a thing, and not a *being*. By arguing that one thing (a fetus) has a right to live/continue existing, but other things (such as say, a car you want to get rid of in favor of a newer model) do not, *you* are the one making an arbitrary distinction, not me. That's my point;

You're assigning value to the fetus simply on account of what it *could* become, whereas I'm saying that until it *actually* becomes that, it has no objective value. This is not an arbitrary position, as you seem to think; it is in fact acknowledging that any value given at that point in time is itself arbitrary; which means the value must be determined by the people personally involved, which means the parents whose genetics the fetus shares, rather than the government or the doctors who have no personal stake in it.

Ah, I see the issue. I've been using the word "arbitrary" when I should have been using "subjective". Of course it's not arbitrary, since you have a reason for it, the same as PyramidHead's being OK with abortions at 37 weeks with anaesthsia is not arbitrary because he's got a defined reason for it and my use of viability as the criteria is not arbitrary since I've got a reason for it.

What's subjective is the level of moral importance attached to the reasons. You think that consciousness is the most important moral consideration, I think viability is the most important moral consideration and he thinks that suffering is the most important moral consideration. I disagree with you about the subjective value you're placing on the development of consciousness as a defining criteria.

 

[dystopian]

And I disagree with your view that we'd be able to own any clones of ourselves as slaves or hunt down for sport or do anything else to them simply because we will it and they're our property.

You're setting up a strawman. What you just described is about as far removed from my view as could possibly be. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was saying that *until* a fetus develops rudimentary consciousness, it is a *thing*; in other words, *afterwards* it becomes a being with all the rights that entails. This, naturally, applies to a clone as well. I don't have the right to take DNA from you (a thing), and create a clone of you, because your DNA belongs to *you*, and you're the one who makes the decisions about your body and its products. However, if I do manage to create a fully developed clone of you, even if done against your will, neither of us then have ownership over the clone, because the clone is now a person.

They would be individuals in and of themselves and worthy of freedom and respect.

Yes. But they are not individuals worthy of freedom and respect when they're just DNA and nothing more; just like a fetus isn't worthy of freedom and respect when it's just a clump of cells. If your argument holds true, that we have a duty to take unwanted fetuses from their mother's wombs and gestate them to maturity regardless of what the parents have to say about it so long as we have the technology to do so; then does that not ALSO mean we have a duty to take any scrap bit of DNA you choose to discard and use technology to turn it into an actual person? Remember, you can't say that it's different on account of the 'leaving a fetus alone will lead to it becoming a person', because you're not leaving it alone in order for it to do so in this hypothetical situation.

 

[dystopian]

What's subjective is the level of moral importance attached to the reasons. You think that consciousness is the most important moral consideration, I think viability is the most important moral consideration and he thinks that suffering is the most important moral consideration.

Well, then we run into the problem I described in my previous post (although to be fair, when you made your post you couldn't have seen my post yet); if viability is the most important moral consideration, then we must also clone every bit of DNA you discard over a life-time; after all, if we have the technology to create a fully realized clone from your spit, then how is that any different; in terms of viability; from taking a fetus that obviously can't survive on its own, and putting it into a high-tech artificial womb?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're setting up a strawman. What you just described is about as far removed from my view as could possibly be. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was saying that *until* a fetus develops rudimentary consciousness, it is a *thing*; in other words, *afterwards* it becomes a being with all the rights that entails. This, naturally, applies to a clone as well. I don't have the right to take DNA from you (a thing), and create a clone of you, because your DNA belongs to *you*, and you're the one who makes the decisions about your body and its products. However, if I do manage to create a fully developed clone of you, even if done against your will, neither of us then have ownership over the clone, because the clone is now a person.

They would be individuals in and of themselves and worthy of freedom and respect.

Yes. But they are not individuals worthy of freedom and respect when they're just DNA and nothing more; just like a fetus isn't worthy of freedom and respect when it's just a clump of cells. If your argument holds true, that we have a duty to take unwanted fetuses from their mother's wombs and gestate them to maturity regardless of what the parents have to say about it so long as we have the technology to do so; then does that not ALSO mean we have a duty to take any scrap bit of DNA you choose to discard and use technology to turn it into an actual person? Remember, you can't say that it's different on account of the 'leaving a fetus alone will lead to it becoming a person', because you're not leaving it alone in order for it to do so in this hypothetical situation.

So, you're saying that we're NOT hunting down and killing clones for sport? If that's the case, why is the hot teenager leading a rebellion against the government? I don't understand her rationales.

And yes, that is about as serious a response as I feel this particular line of inquiry of your merits.

 

[dystopian]

So, you're saying that we're NOT hunting down and killing clones for sport? If that's the case, why is the hot teenager leading a rebellion against the government? I don't understand her rationales.

And yes, that is about as serious a response as I feel this particular line of inquiry of your merits.

Then that is a problem with you not wanting to acknowledge a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Your position and the hypothetical position I put forth are morally equivalent under your own arguments; the fact that you consider one to be so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a serious response should tell you that perhaps there is a flaw with the other one as well.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, you're saying that we're NOT hunting down and killing clones for sport? If that's the case, why is the hot teenager leading a rebellion against the government? I don't understand her rationales.

And yes, that is about as serious a response as I feel this particular line of inquiry of your merits.

Then that is a problem with you not wanting to acknowledge a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Your position and the hypothetical position I put forth are morally equivalent under your own arguments; the fact that you consider one to be so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a serious response should tell you that perhaps there is a flaw with the other one as well.

No, it's that I don't consider it a serious argument.

 

[dystopian]

Then that is a problem with you not wanting to acknowledge a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Your position and the hypothetical position I put forth are morally equivalent under your own arguments; the fact that you consider one to be so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a serious response should tell you that perhaps there is a flaw with the other one as well.

No, it's that I don't consider it a serious argument.

Yes, but the only reason you'd do so is either because you don't understand it, or because you don't want to consider its implications. And I think you're more than smart enough to understand it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it's that I don't consider it a serious argument.

Yes, but the only reason you'd do so is either because you don't understand it, or because you don't want to consider its implications. And I think you're more than smart enough to understand it.

Or I think that it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed and that is silly. That's also part of me understanding it.

 

[dystopian]

Yes, but the only reason you'd do so is either because you don't understand it, or because you don't want to consider its implications. And I think you're more than smart enough to understand it.

Or I think that it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed and that is silly. That's also part of me understanding it.

...yes. But *why* do you think that? I think I know the real reason, but I don't think you do.

If it's such an irrelevance, then surely it would be a simple matter to show how it doesn't apply? Why not do so instead of repeatedly saying that you think it's silly? In my experience, when people keep insisting that an argument is silly it's because they don't want to acknowledge there's actual merit to the argument, but part of them recognizes that it is in fact there. That's why they can't just ignore it from the get go like one would if they genuinely thought it was silly; need to call it silly, or stupid, or whatever, a bunch of times before they finally disengage.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Now THAT is what I would call arbitrary. And cruel, if you want my (subjective) opinion. I find it hard to believe that, upon seeing a building full of burning people, your immediate reaction is to think "how horrible that so many carriers of the ~1% of DNA that separates us from other primates can no longer make copies of those genes!" My reaction would be that actual conscious suffering and agony is taking place, and as a compassionate being with some control over my behavior, I want to help alleviate their pain. If it wasn't a burning building, but a burning spacecraft full of aliens running around and screaming, I don't think my response would be any different. Both of our moral compasses may be grounded in ultimately subjective concerns, but yours doesn't seem to have anything to do with having a conscience as we normally understand it, or feeling empathy for fellow animals. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think it's incredibly strange.

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.

What makes the criterion of fetal viability better, if all moral criteria are arbitrary?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Now THAT is what I would call arbitrary. And cruel, if you want my (subjective) opinion. I find it hard to believe that, upon seeing a building full of burning people, your immediate reaction is to think "how horrible that so many carriers of the ~1% of DNA that separates us from other primates can no longer make copies of those genes!" My reaction would be that actual conscious suffering and agony is taking place, and as a compassionate being with some control over my behavior, I want to help alleviate their pain. If it wasn't a burning building, but a burning spacecraft full of aliens running around and screaming, I don't think my response would be any different. Both of our moral compasses may be grounded in ultimately subjective concerns, but yours doesn't seem to have anything to do with having a conscience as we normally understand it, or feeling empathy for fellow animals. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think it's incredibly strange.

What?

So, you're saying that people who eat meat don't have a conscience as we normally understand it? You quoted the rest of the paragraph, so I know you're not taking that single sentence on its own completely out of the context it was used and you realize quite fully that the conscious being that was referred to was the cow that I mentioned immediately afterwards. It would have been almost impossible for you to have missed that.

This is the argument that you're making, correct?

 

[PyramidHead]

Now THAT is what I would call arbitrary. And cruel, if you want my (subjective) opinion. I find it hard to believe that, upon seeing a building full of burning people, your immediate reaction is to think "how horrible that so many carriers of the ~1% of DNA that separates us from other primates can no longer make copies of those genes!" My reaction would be that actual conscious suffering and agony is taking place, and as a compassionate being with some control over my behavior, I want to help alleviate their pain. If it wasn't a burning building, but a burning spacecraft full of aliens running around and screaming, I don't think my response would be any different. Both of our moral compasses may be grounded in ultimately subjective concerns, but yours doesn't seem to have anything to do with having a conscience as we normally understand it, or feeling empathy for fellow animals. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think it's incredibly strange.

What?

So, you're saying that people who eat meat don't have a conscience as we normally understand it? You quoted the rest of the paragraph, so I know you're not taking that single sentence on its own completely out of the context it was used and you realize quite fully that the conscious being that was referred to was the cow that I mentioned immediately afterwards. It would have been almost impossible for you to have missed that.

This is the argument that you're making, correct?

Eating meat is not the same thing as saying harming conscious beings is not a problem! So no, that's not the argument I'm making! Could you answer my question?

What makes the criterion of fetal viability better, if all moral criteria are arbitrary?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Eating meat is not the same thing as saying harming conscious beings is not a problem! So no, that's not the argument I'm making!

Well then, what the hell were you talking about? How is my willingness to kill a cow before I eat it (I assume it's the killing it myself which you have an issue with as opposed to buying it pre-killed at a store that you have a problem with) somehow equivalent to not caring about people in a burning building? You are aware of the context of the statement, so I assume you weren't just taking the one sentence out of context from the paragraph it was in and didn't ignore the next sentence in order to deliberately misunderstand it. Please flesh out the thought process of how you built your argument here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What makes the criterion of fetal viability better, if all moral criteria are arbitrary?

Arbitrary isn't a synoym of random. I think viability is better for all the reasons I've talked about.