Abortion Thought Experiment

[Kahalachan]

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Thoughts or comments?

[slingblade]

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

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

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

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

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

What reasons still exist for termination?


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

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

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


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

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

[paximperium]

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

[JoeTheJuggler]

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


My stance on abortion remains the same in this issue. I still say it is morally wrong to abort if there is enough neural synchronicity to imply the fetus is conscious or can process any kind of stimuli in any fashion.
My answer is the same as it was even when the fetus was in a woman's womb. And I think it's similar to yours, except I'm not sure what "neural synchronicity" means.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Simon39759]

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

However, it does not change the moral of it.


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

[Kahalachan]

What reasons still exist for termination?



Good question.

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

So let's just go with these 4 criteria.

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

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

3. Necessity for the life and its caretaker.

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

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

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





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


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



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

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

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

[Kahalachan]

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

Hah hah

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

[esquel]

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

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

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

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correct. Prior to fetal consciousness, I don't think it's wrong.
My only complaint about "consciousness" is that it's vague. Cows, pigs, mice and rats have consciousness. I think you mean something more specific.


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

[Kahalachan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kahalachan]

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


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

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

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

[JoeTheJuggler]

At present, the issues are still inextricably wound with the life and rights of the mother, a.k.a. incubator unit. Until the dichotomy gets resolved, both sides have to be considered.
I disagree. I think the basic question in the abortion debate is whether or not (or at what point) the fetus is or becomes a human with human rights. (Or at least is a "moral entity" the way I described that term above.)

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

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

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't brain activity our main moral compass regarding euthanasia and abortion?
Euthanasia, maybe, but in abortions, no. I've never heard of an abortion clinic conducting any sort of test for brain activity in a fetus before aborting them. As I said, I think the first trimester line is used as a stand in for the degree of neural development that gives rise to the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

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

Maybe not consciousness, but the level of brain activity says when we pull the plug on someone who is going to die anyways and when we abort something that just started living.
See above. It's not "brain activity" per se, but something else. IMO, that something else is best expressed as the capability of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled (this is from desire utilitarianism).

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

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

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

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

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

[Duncanthrax]

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

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

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

[Sun Countess]

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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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


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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't brain activity our main moral compass regarding euthanasia and abortion?Not for most people who are pro-choice. Viability outside the womb implies 2 individuals, prior to that implies one.

Maybe not consciousness, but the level of brain activity says when we pull the plug on someone who is going to die anyways and when we abort something that just started living.This is only true if the person who no longer has a functioning brain also doesn't have enough brain function left to survive without external support. And it has only been in the last couple decades anyone suggested that include letting a brain dead person die of starvation (which I BTW, think is reasonable). It's a matter of letting natural death occur, not a matter of killing a being that has no higher brain function.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

So let's just go with these 4 criteria.

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

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

3. Necessity for the life and its caretaker.

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

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

4. Immediate Threat. That incubator must be shut off or someone will die.Your list of reasons implies, IMO, a shortsightedness of the reasons a woman chooses to abort a fetus.

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

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

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

[Kahalachan]

Arbitrary reasons: Which abortions are done for that?


None.

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

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

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

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

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

[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 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arbitrary). 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.