Abortion

It's possible to care all along, but have the nature of that caring change and evolve. And there need not be a discrete, defined transition.

Here you're guilty of the "ought from an is" effect. How do you possibly derive a moral out of biology? And given how different embryonic and fetal development is from the rest of human life, why must we have a single moral that transcends both pre- and post-natal life?

There's no ought from is here. Certainly 'is' type facts are brought to bear upon the 'ought' of termination, but the moral dilema is already out there, and merely informed, not established by the facts. Is that not so?

The difference between this question and the question of when you become an adult is that in this instance there is a huge discrepency in how you are going to treat the child/fetus, as opposed to the more subtle changes in stature at adulthood. In this case, at one stage you'd "terminate" them with no remorse, at another stage it would be murder. So while there might not be any concrete specific point for you, I think you can see the need to address the question rather than just shrug it off. If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject, and attempt to have discourse with others about it, I would sugest that you take some time and really think about when you think a child/fetus is important as a human being. At least get a ball-park time period or stage of developement. Obviously you don't have to pick the same point I would. Frankly, you could choose anything from conception to some point in adulthood, but I think you owe it to yourself (and anyone you're going to discuss this subject with) to figure out when you choose to start caring about the child/fetus.

I was talking to Mr. Fight the Power, who has appeared to unapologetically consider the fetus unworthy of any rights or care.

I believe the most important development in terms of becoming a valuable person (valuable in themselves as moral ends) is that of self-awareness.

I think existence is only valuable to the extent that one knows what they are and what they want to be. A good indicator of this shows up around 18 months to 2 years, when a child begins to show embarrassment.

We need to move past the vagueness of immature idealism and confront the anxiety inducing finality of decided decisions with the sensibility of adults.

My son, now 5 months old exactly today, loves looking at his own hands and feet. That is the first developmental sign of self-awareness.

Okay, but 'your experience' are is type facts, and visceral reaction or not, are brought to bear upon a moral question - unless you think a feotus with a congenital defect is not worthy of moral consideration. I don't think that's so - I think you realize that the greater morality here is in termination, for your sake to some extent, but for the sake of the child itself.

Thus, I think you must acknowledge that there are biological facts that bear upon the moral question...

we are still faced with the question of whether simple self-recognition and self-differentiation is morally important.

The easiest way for me to deal with this issue is to argue that there is no important development during the pregnancy

This is laughably ironic.

Well, I think neither one is necessary for a moral argument here. There are plenty of human beings who by virtue of illness or injury no longer have the cognitive capacity to even be conscious, let alone self-aware. But that doesn't mean they forfeit any protection from murder.

Furthermore, even if a young infant hasn't developed true self awareness, infants are highly social creatures from the moment of birth. They vocalize, they make eye contact, they have differentiated cries and facial expressions, etc. In other words they are participatory members of their family and environment from the moment they come out.

But that's not biologically correct. There are many physiologic changes that birth creates, but none of them is neurologic. Neurodevelopmentally there is nothing that changes by virtue of birth alone if you correct for gestational age. In fact premature babies who are live born are generally developmentally behind unborn ones because of the physiologic and medical stress that prematurity creates.

Why is social behavior important?

just thinking about these questions fills my heart with terror - much less dealing with the sticky biology and even stickier emotional decisions of real living people.

surely there's a point in the physical process of gestation where the metaphysical definition of the human being doesn't apply - perhaps because there's no awareness or ability to feel pain?

Is this not subject to factual definition?

So you'd need to go further and specify exactly what you mean by pain sensation.

NeitherExtreme,

That's interesting. What you propose sems to be an intersubjective solution, whereas mine is an objective solution - where I, if not explicitly, suggest there's a valid basis of analysis possible.

Do you really think it possible that people with different values can agree a pracrical compromise solution without establishing a common basis of analysis? I don't. I think what you end up with is a compromise satisfactory to no-one.

I think intersubjectivity is important in establishing what everyone's views are - but then, ideally, the debate must be logically conducted to assess, and establish a view on each of the arguments - until arriving at a valid answer.

iconoclast.

At a local philosophy discussion group which I attend, we got round to discussing the ethics of abortion (a hot topic, I know!)

I said that I was dissatisfied with my own ideas on this topic. I am clear that at the beginning of the pregnancy, all or virtually all the rights are with the mother. Equally, by the later stages, the preponderance of rights lie with the foetus. My problem is that I can find no clear point at which the foetus becomes a child with attendant rights. No such sharp transition exists, just as there is no single point at which a child becomes an adult. Both are developmental processes, not step processes. So when the law fixes an age at which the foetus "becomes" a child, or the child "becomes" an adult, we all know these are necessary fictions.

One consideration that would be relevant in determining the cut-off point for abortion is the stage at which the foetus becomes sensitive to any pain incurred during the abortion process. But when does pain-sensitivity start? Looking at different websites I see that estimates vary widely, from 15 weeks to 28 weeks - and guess what - these estimates are closely correlated with the ideological stances of the writers. Those who have a liberal attitude to abortion place the onset of pain-sensitivity late in gestation, anti-abortionists insist that it begins early.

Is there any hope of some neutral authoritative information on this crucial question?

Peter