djbt wrote: For me the issue comes down to one point of principle and one point of fact. My questions are:
(1) What qualities must a thing possess for it to be morally wrong to kill it? And why are these qualities central?
(2) At what stage does an embryo develop these qualities?
My person answer to (1) would be consciousness - the ability to experience. I do not know at what stage we could say an embryo develops this (partly because I'm not sure why an organism has it, or how consciousness can emerge from no consciousness), can anyone help with this?
I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
To the Supreme Court of the United States, a distinguished group of 220 physicians, professors, and fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology submitted an amicus curiae brief. In this brief they tried to show how modern science established that the unborn child from the moment of conception is a person and therefore, like the mother, a patient. A succinct summary of this brief:
" From conception, when the sperm and egg unite, the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly growing organism.
By a natural and continuous process, the single fertilized egg will, over approximately nine months, develop into the trillions of cells of the newborn. The natural end of the sperm and egg is death unless fertilization occurs. At fertilization, a new and unique being is created which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent, is really unlike either.
About seven to nine days after conception, when there are already several hundreds cells of the new individual formed, contact with the uterus is made, and implantation and nourishment begin. Blood cells form at 17 days, and a heart as early as 18 days. The heart starts irregular pulsating at 24 days and about a week later smooths into rhythmic contractions. (Some investigators have observed occasional contractions of the heart in a two-week-old embryo. The new human being is called an embryo until the third month, a fetus after that until birth.)
At about 18 days, the development of the nervous system is under way, and by the 20th day the foundation of the child's brain, spinal cord and entire nervous system is established.
By the sixth week after conception, this system will have developed so well that it is controlling movements of the baby's muscles, even though the woman may not be aware that she is pregnant.
By the 33rd day, the cerebral cortex (that part of the central nervous system that governs motor activity as well as intellect) may be seen. The baby's eyes begin to form at 19 cord, nerves and sense organs are completely formed. days, and by the end of the first month the foundation of the brain, spinal
By 28 days, the embryo has the building blocks for 40 pairs of muscles, and by the end of the first month, the child has completed the period of relatively greatest size increase and the greatest physical change of a lifetime.
Now, the child is 10,000 times larger than the fertilized egg and will increase its weigh six billion times by birth, having in only the first month gone from the one-cell stage to millions of cells.
By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child looks distinctly human, yet the mother is not aware that she is pregnant....
At the end of the first month, the child is about a quarter of an inch long.
At 30 days, the child and mother do not exchange blood, the child having from a very early point in its development its own and complete vascular system.
Earliest reflexes begin as early as the forty-second day, the male penis begins to form, cartilage has begun to develop. Even at five-and-a-half weeks, the fetal heartbeat is essentially similar to that of an adult; the energy output is about 20 percent that of the adult but the fetal heart is functionally complete and normal by seven weeks. At this point, the child may be likened to a one-inch miniature doll with a large head, but gracefully formed arms and legs and an unmistakably human face.
The body is covered with skin, the arms have hands and fingers, the legs have knees, ankles and toes.
By the end of seven weeks, the doctors pointed out in their brief, there is a well-proportioned small-scale baby. It bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult, even though it weighs less than an ounce.
"The new body not only exists, it also functions," the doctors declared.
The brain, in its shape and general outline, is already like the adult brain and sends out measurable impulses that coordinate the function of the other organs.Brain waves have been noted at 43 days, the heart beats strongly, the stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys are functioning. The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion.
After the eighth week, no further original organs will form
Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
Frank Apisa wrote:real life wrote:
If the woman can be supposed to have a "right" that is not dependent upon the law, then the unborn can also. Just because the law does not currently protect the right of the unborn to life does not prove that the unborn has no rights.
That could possibly be...but I was not addressing that. I was merely mentioning what is currently so.
And you haven't yet been able to bring yourself to address it, though it has been brought up numerous times. All of your lawyerly pussyfooting aside, the unborn is being denied the right to live by the Supreme Court by circular reasoning and little else.
He has no rights because the Court doesn't recognize any; the Court recognizes none of his rights because he hasn't any.
It's very convenient just to restate what's currently so (which we all know) so as to give the appearance of having responded to a point , when in fact dodging it.
Your "striped" or "dissection" posting method works very smoothly in this respect. It gives the appearance of having responded to all points , when the responses often add up to little more than 'What are you talking about?' or 'This makes no sense. Do you ever think?' or some similar avoidance.
But, you know Frank, most people see through it.
djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Quote:The fetus's heart begins to beat, and by about the twentieth week the fetus can kick. Kicking is probably a spasm, too, at least initially, because the fetal cerebral cortex, the center of voluntary brain function, is not yet "wired," its neurons still nonfunctional. (Readings from 20- to 22-week-old premature babies who died at birth show only very feeble EEG signals.) From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically "impossible" before these connections form, says [Dr. Nicholas] Fisk, [a professor of obstetrics at the Imperial College School of Medicine in London].
At about 26 weeks the cell structure of the fetal brain begins to resemble a newborn's, though many changes remain in store. By the twenty-seventh week, according to Dr. Phillip Pearl, a pediatric neurologist at Children's Hospital in Washington, D.C., the fetal EEG reading shows well-organized activity that partly overlaps with the brain activity of adults, although the patterns are far from mature and will continue to change for many weeks. By the thirty-second week, the fetal brain pattern is close to identical to that of a full-term baby. Summing up, Paul Grobstein, a professor of neurology at Bryn Mawr University, notes, "I think it can be comfortably said that by the late term the brain of the fetus is responding to inputs and generating its own output. The brain by then is reasonably well-developed. But we still don't know what within the fetal brain corresponds to the kind of awareness and experience that you and I have." The fetus may not know it is a baby or have the language-ordered thoughts of adults. But Grobstein points out that from the moment in the third trimester that the brain starts running, the fetus can experience the self/other perceptions that form the basis of human consciousness--since the womb, to it, represents the outside world.
Here are some additional references:
Quote:The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. As the pons, which is later to mature, mediates arousal, body movements, and vestibular and vibroacoustic perception, from around the 20th to 27th weeks the fetus responds with arousal and body movements to vibroacoustic and loud sounds delivered to the maternal abdomen. The midbrain inferior-auditory followed by the superior-visual colliculi is the last to mature, and in conjunction with the lower brainstem makes fine auditory discriminations, and reacts to sound with fetal heart rate (FHR) accelerations, head turning, and eye movements--around the 36th week. When aroused the fetus also reacts with reflexive movements, head turning, FHR accelerations, and may fall asleep and display rapid eye movements. Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity.
It is evident that the fetus is capable of considerable behavioral complexity. These complex actions appear to be mediated and governed by the brainstem with minimal forebrain participation, for similar behaviors are demonstrated by anencephalics and following forebrain destruction. However, although forebrain influences are minimal, the late-term fetal brainstem may also be capable of experienced-induced synaptic plasticity, and can become organized to respond selectively to certain auditory stimuli presented up to 6 weeks before birth. These latter findings could be interpreted as evidence for exceedingly rudimentary, learning-related cognitive-like activity.
Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.
Fetal brain development
Quote:Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons. The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections. The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns. Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation), whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates. Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions. Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation. In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.
Fetal development and pain
real life wrote:
And you haven't yet been able to bring yourself to address it, though it has been brought up numerous times. All of your lawyerly pussyfooting aside, the unborn is being denied the right to live by the Supreme Court by circular reasoning and little else.
If anyone is engaging in circular reasoning...it is you.
In any case, the question should not be about any supposed rights of a fetus or embryo. THE WOMAN HAS RIGHTS.
She has a right to have a cancer removed...or to have her breasts augmented...or to have a cavity in a tooth filled.
AND SHE CAN TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IF SHE CHOOSES.
No supposed rights of an embryo willl ever negate that!
Deal with that.
Quote:He has no rights because the Court doesn't recognize any; the Court recognizes none of his rights because he hasn't any.[/uote]
I am dealing with the rights of the woman...not any supposed rights of an embryo...or a fetus.
Quote:It's very convenient just to restate what's currently so (which we all know) so as to give the appearance of having responded to a point , when in fact dodging it.
I am not dodging anything.
Quote:Your "striped" or "dissection" posting method works very smoothly in this respect. It gives the appearance of having responded to all points , when the responses often add up to little more than 'What are you talking about?' or 'This makes no sense. Do you ever think?' or some similar avoidance.
I have responded to everything you've asked.
You have simply determined that the supposed rights of an embryo....strip a woman of her rights. I think that is bullshyt. You are free to suppose the rights of an embryo strips a woman of her rights....and I am free to think that is bullshyt.
Quote:But, you know Frank, most people see through it.
I suspect you don't really know what most people see through and what they do not see through....but you like to shoot off your mouth, so...
...enjoy.
Terry wrote:djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Now THERE'S an unbiased source.
Frank Apisa wrote:real life wrote:
And you haven't yet been able to bring yourself to address it, though it has been brought up numerous times. All of your lawyerly pussyfooting aside, the unborn is being denied the right to live by the Supreme Court by circular reasoning and little else.
If anyone is engaging in circular reasoning...it is you.
In any case, the question should not be about any supposed rights of a fetus or embryo. THE WOMAN HAS RIGHTS.
She has a right to have a cancer removed...or to have her breasts augmented...or to have a cavity in a tooth filled.
AND SHE CAN TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IF SHE CHOOSES.
No supposed rights of an embryo willl ever negate that!
Deal with that.
Quote:He has no rights because the Court doesn't recognize any; the Court recognizes none of his rights because he hasn't any.
I am dealing with the rights of the woman...not any supposed rights of an embryo...or a fetus.
To simply ignore the issue of whether the unborn has rights or not will not make the issue go away. You can shout "THE WOMAN HAS RIGHTS" as loudly as you wish, but your head in the sand will not keep others from seeing that the crux of the issue is where does the woman's right end and the unborn's right begin.
You say you are not dealing with the rights of the unborn. This is true. You cannot seem to deal with it at all.
To compare a living being who has a heartbeat , brainwaves, a distinct genetic identity, (whom hundreds of prominent physicians went on record before the Supreme Court stating that the unborn was a patient and deserving of care ) ----with a cavity in a tooth !!
You must think that others will believe every cockamamie comparison you make. I think that they are sharper than you give them credit for, and yes I do think they see through it.
real life wrote:Terry wrote:djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Now THERE'S an unbiased source.
Are your religious sources any LESS biased.
real life wrote:
To simply ignore the issue of whether the unborn has rights or not will not make the issue go away. You can shout "THE WOMAN HAS RIGHTS" as loudly as you wish, but your head in the sand will not keep others from seeing that the crux of the issue is where does the woman's right end and the unborn's right begin.
Why the hell do you suppose the woman's rights have to end in order to accomodate the supposed rights of an embryo, zygote, or fetus?
If a woman wants voluntarily to give up rights in order to accomodate the embryo, zygote, or fetus...that is her right.
No one...NO ONE...should force her to give up her rights just because they have some cockamamie idea that a clump of cells has rights.
You are blind to this.
I am delighted the law of the land does not sustain you silliness.
Quote:
To compare a living being who has a heartbeat , brainwaves, a distinct genetic identity, (whom hundreds of prominent physicians went on record before the Supreme Court stating that the unborn was a patient and deserving of care ) ----with a cavity in a tooth !!
To call a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus...A LIVING BEING...is absurd. I'm sorry you are too wrapped up in your religion to see that...but tough. It still is absurd.
Quote:You must think that others will believe every cockamamie comparison you make. I think that they are sharper than you give them credit for, and yes I do think they see through it.
I think they are a hell of a lot sharper than you think, Life. I think they see right through the nonsense of people like you.
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:Terry wrote:djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Now THERE'S an unbiased source.
Are your religious sources any LESS biased.
The source I cited was quoting information given to the Supreme Court in a brief prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
let's see
this is about the status of women's rights in the u.s.
and the basic deal in the u.s. is, in theory, less government involvement in personal decisions
so, back off - it's nobody's business except the pregnant girl/woman
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
fascinating to watch people who one might suspect are republican voters encouraging increased government involvement in peoples' lives
it's so unAmerican
it's almost socialist in its approach
nice piece of cognitive dissonance to look at
real life wrote:maporsche wrote:real life wrote:Terry wrote:djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Now THERE'S an unbiased source.
Are your religious sources any LESS biased.
The source I cited was quoting information given to the Supreme Court in a brief prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
And are you saying that there is no bias there either?
EVERY single document has some bias. Having a bias does not always mean that the information is incorrect.
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:maporsche wrote:real life wrote:Terry wrote:djbt wrote:Terry wrote:I agree. Consciousness is not possible before the 24th week of gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that patterned brain waves can be produced. Actual awareness may occur much later, but certainly no earlier.
Can you reference this information for me?
I find it difficult to see how it can be confidently stated when consciousness become possible, when as yet we don't know what consciousness is, or why it exists.
My original source was: "Abortion and Brain Waves" by Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic 1/31/2000
Now THERE'S an unbiased source.
Are your religious sources any LESS biased.
The source I cited was quoting information given to the Supreme Court in a brief prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
And are you saying that there is no bias there either?
EVERY single document has some bias. Having a bias does not always mean that the information is incorrect.
I was correcting your mischaracterization of my source as "religious".
Hey Everyone!
I'm baaaacccckkkkk! Had a great vacation.
I have been reading over this thread. I see no one's views have changed, mine included.
Frank, I don't care what you say ~ call it a fetus, a zygote, a billy goat for all I care, but once an egg has been fertilized, it is a living being plain and simple. There is no getting around that. You can guess or estimate all you want that it is not a living being but it is. And actually, religion doesn't have a lot to do with it. Facts are facts. Anyone that would support someone having an abortion two seconds before the child was to be born is clearly not very compassionate, to say the least.
Abortion is an act of murder. Plain and simple. You deal with that Frank. You call it what you want. You justify it anyway you want. It doesn't change the facts.
It's nice to be back.
ehBeth wrote:let's see
this is about the status of women's rights in the u.s.
and the basic deal in the u.s. is, in theory, less government involvement in personal decisions
so, back off - it's nobody's business except the pregnant girl/woman
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
fascinating to watch people who one might suspect are republican voters encouraging increased government involvement in peoples' lives
it's so unAmerican
it's almost socialist in its approach
nice piece of cognitive dissonance to look at
Wow ! Just because you say so? Well, I guess nobody realized that they had no right to dissent.
ehBeth, killing someone is not a "personal decision".
We do have government involvement in protecting life and property, even under a limited government. Limited government doesn't mean no law.
And actually, it appears that both Frank and Phoenix have sort of decided it is their business when the mother decides NOT to abort. They were very adamant about it. Go back and check it out. It makes interesting reading coming from a couple of "pro-choice" folks claiming to support the woman's decision , blah , blah.
Fascinating to watch folks that one might suspect are Democratic voters supporting an organization (Planned Parenthood) which targets neighborhoods that are high in minority and poor populace.
BTW -- I'm an Independent.
Momma Angel wrote:Hey Everyone!
I'm baaaacccckkkkk! Had a great vacation.
I have been reading over this thread. I see no one's views have changed, mine included.
Frank, I don't care what you say ~ call it a fetus, a zygote, a billy goat for all I care, but once an egg has been fertilized, it is a living being plain and simple.
No it isn't...and foolish people repeating over and over that it is...will never make it so.
Quote:There is no getting around that.
Yes there is. All you have to do is use your brain.
Quote: You can guess or estimate all you want that it is not a living being but it is.
No it isn't.
Quote: And actually, religion doesn't have a lot to do with it. Facts are facts. Anyone that would support someone having an abortion two seconds before the child was to be born is clearly not very compassionate, to say the least.
Facts are facts. You ought to pay more attention to that.
Quote:Abortion is an act of murder. Plain and simple.
You are simply irrational. Abortion is not murder. Murder has a definition...and abortion does not fall under it.
Quote: You deal with that Frank. You call it what you want. You justify it anyway you want. It doesn't change the facts.
Well why do you keep trying to change them. You really have no abilities in this area in any case...so why do you keep trying to change them?
Quote:It's nice to be back.
It is nice that you are back. We all missed you. Hope you had a wonderful time.
real life wrote:
ehBeth, killing someone is not a "personal decision".
You are right. And obtaining an abortion is not "killing someone."
Quote:And actually, it appears that both Frank and Phoenix have sort of decided it is their business when the mother decides NOT to abort. They were very adamant about it. Go back and check it out. It makes interesting reading coming from a couple of "pro-choice" folks claiming to support the woman's decision , blah , blah.
At no point did either Phoenix or I suggest that the woman should have been prevented from making her choice by the government. Your argument in this area, Life, is a red herring.
Quote:Fascinating to watch folks that one might suspect are Democratic voters supporting an organization (Planned Parenthood) which targets neighborhoods that are high in minority and poor populace.
That last part is only in your imagination.
Quote:BTW -- I'm an Independent.
Hey, so am I. A capital "I" Independent also. Glad to see that. Glad we share at least this in common.
Frank Apisa wrote:In any case, the question should not be about any supposed rights of a fetus or embryo. THE WOMAN HAS RIGHTS.
She has a right to have a cancer removed...or to have her breasts augmented...or to have a cavity in a tooth filled.
AND SHE CAN TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IF SHE CHOOSES.
No supposed rights of an embryo willl ever negate that!
Deal with that.
Well, first I should confess that I find the concept of rights a fairly muddled and unnecessarily abstract approach to morality (I prefer to think it terms of interests), but since they are being used in this discussion...
Frank, your comments seems ludicrous to me. Clearly whether or not the fetus has rights is the central issue. In every rights-based moral system I've ever heard of, personal rights can be negated if a 'right' claimed is to act in such a way which would grievously ignore the rights of another individual. The statement that a woman has rights is unchallenged in this discussion, and irrelevant.
It still seems to me that the only way to move forward in this discussion is to focus on questions like:
(1) What qualities must something possess to be considered a living being?
(2) Why are these the criteria that are relevant?
(3) Why is it wrong (or is it wrong?) to harm a living being?
(4) At what stage in a pregnancy (or afterwards, even) can a fetus be said to satisfy the criteria to be called a living being?
Real life, if you feel that Terry's source is damagingly biased, could you point out the areas in the article which suffer from this bias, and explain where the article goes wrong? This would seem to me far more useful than arguing about bias in the abstract, and making unsupported statements about 'rights'.
(As you've probably realised, I'm still very much undecided on this issue, hoping this discussion might bring me closer to an opinion on it)
