Abortion after 24 weeks - good enough reason?

[WaryEri]

yguy

This whole idea that having no functioning brain means you don’t think or feel pain is entirely unsubstantiated? I’m not sure how or why, since everything we know about consciousness indicates otherwise, but since you’re so sure, I’ll go with you on this one. The post-living clearly have a right to life. Cremation is murder!

( not sure why I bothered, since you already proved that you ignore or don’t understand reductio ad absurdum on your points, but I had to try…)
You might want to note that the evidence you posted supports the postion that you’re trying to knock down, though- it shows evidence of fetal consciousness after 20 weeks, when there IS brain activity. It does not show that before having a working brain, a fetus has any kind of consciousness. Without a working brain, consciousness is an impossibility. Unless you’re arguing from magic, in which case it’s really bad form to go around labeling everyone else’s points as “unsubstantiated”.

I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my desk does not have thoughts and feelings, but since there’s no evidence whatsoever that it does, the burden of proof would be on me if I started claiming it did. Same goes for trying to claim that a fetus has consciousness before it has brain activity.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yguy *
That, of course, is nonsense. I may cause myself pain by my own stupidity. Do I have a right not to feel that pain?

Yes, of course you do. If you stub your toe because you weren’t looking where you were going, you have the right to down a couple Advil to make the pain go away.

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by yguy *
That, of course, is nonsense. I may cause myself pain by my own stupidity. Do I have a right not to feel that pain?

Yes, and you can stop feeling the pain by discontinuing to cause yourself pain. Furthermore, you can avail yourself of many different medical resources to help ease the pain.

Of course, your right to not feel pain may collide with another’s right to be compensated for their work (i.e. you can’t afford the medicine), and that’s where things become a bit sticky. The same could be said of abortion issues. It always seems to end up in a collision of rights, and that’s what makes it a tricky situation.

If you torture me, the pain I feel presumably has nothing to do with any action of mine, but is entirely the result of you wanting to get your jollies at my expense.

How is the above situation any different? If no one has a right to not feel pain, then the person being tortured has no right for the torture to stop, since the cessation of pain is not a right which they possess.

Now, if you would be so kind, do not bother me with any more such fatuous drivel.

I’m afraid that this is not fatuous drivel. You based your claim that a woman’s rights should not be weighed against the fetus’ rights based on a statement that leads to inflicting pain being acceptable. Instead of addressing this directly, you keep insinuating that this line of conversation is pointless, and then proceed to sidestep the question.

Again, the question is this: If no one has a right to be free from pain, then why should anyone have a right to not be tortured?

“Not being tortured” = “free from pain”

No right to be “free from pain” = no right to “not be tortured”.

This is, as WaryEri pointed out, a simple reductio ad absurdum.

Your repetition of this utterly unsubstantiated assertion is entirely uncompelling.

I repeat it only because you don’t seem to understand that every single shred of evidence in existence points to brain activity being necessary for consciousness. I mean, we can even demonstrate that physical manipulations of brain activity (either electrically, mechanically, or chemically) results in self-reported changes in consciousness.

To call this unsubstantiated would be to call anything else with a similar amount of evidence unsubstantiated. I guess that means that gravity is unsubstantiated, since the only reason to believe that gravity is a function of mass is that every single shred of evidence points to that being the case.

If you really want to claim that brain activity and consciousness are not causally related, would you care to share what you think does cause consciousness, as well as why you think it causes consciousness? Otherwise, it is your claim – that brain activity does not cause consciousness – that is utterly unsubstantiated.

Now, I suppose it’s possible that we’ll find someone who can remain conscious with no brain activity whatsoever. It’s also possible that the earth will spontaneously quantum-tunnel into the middle of the sun. I’m not holding my breath.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**Yes, of course you do. If you stub your toe because you weren’t looking where you were going, you have the right to down a couple Advil to make the pain go away. **

What if I don’t have any, and can’t afford to buy it, and have no substitutes?

[yguy]

*Originally posted by WaryEri *
yguy

This whole idea that having no functioning brain means you don’t think or feel pain is entirely unsubstantiated? I’m not sure how or why, since everything we know about consciousness indicates otherwise, but since you’re so sure, I’ll go with you on this one. The post-living clearly have a right to life. Cremation is murder!

( not sure why I bothered, since you already proved that you ignore or don’t understand reductio ad absurdum on your points, but I had to try…)

Mostly, such attempts are, well, absurd - as is this one. To the best of our knowledge, dead people are, umm, dead. Permanently. Fetuses are not.

You might want to note that the evidence you posted supports the postion that you’re trying to knock down, though- it shows evidence of fetal consciousness after 20 weeks, when there IS brain activity.

See my response to Mr. Random.

It does not show that before having a working brain, a fetus has any kind of consciousness. Without a working brain, consciousness is an impossibility. Unless you’re arguing from magic, in which case it’s really bad form to go around labeling everyone else’s points as “unsubstantiated”.

I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my desk does not have thoughts and feelings, but since there’s no evidence whatsoever that it does, the burden of proof would be on me if I started claiming it did.

With that in mind, when may I expect substantiation of the claim that human consciousness cannot exist without a brain?

Same goes for trying to claim that a fetus has consciousness before it has brain activity.

Listen - if there is anything at which I am above average, it is precision in the way I express myself. I strive for that in order to save time…but of course it goes for naught if people don’t reciprocate by reading carefully. With that in mind, kindly produce the quote in which I claimed that a fetus has consciousness befoer it has brain activity.

As for burden of proof I suggest that lies entirely upon those who countenance the killing of unborn human beings.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
Yes, and you can stop feeling the pain by discontinuing to cause yourself pain. Furthermore, you can avail yourself of many different medical resources to help ease the pain.

By that time, of course, it’s already too late, because the pain which I have the right not to feel I have already felt.

How is the above situation any different? If no one has a right to not feel pain, then the person being tortured has no right for the torture to stop, since the cessation of pain is not a right which they possess.

The right not to feel pain can be paralleled to the right to life. Strictly speaking, we only possess it in the negative sense that others may not take it unjustly, since death may come through other avenues than human malice. Likewise with pain and torture.

Again, the question is this: If no one has a right to be free from pain, then why should anyone have a right to not be tortured?

If that follows, it also follows that, since we have no right to life in the strict sense, we have no right not to be killed either.

I repeat it only because you don’t seem to understand that every single shred of evidence in existence points to brain activity being necessary for consciousness. I mean, we can even demonstrate that physical manipulations of brain activity (either electrically, mechanically, or chemically) results in self-reported changes in consciousness.

Ah well, now we’re getting somewhere. Provide a specific example, please. My bet is that you are confusing consciousness with thought or feelings. They are not the same.

Otherwise, it is your claim – that brain activity does not cause consciousness – that is utterly unsubstantiated.

Kindly provide the exact quote in which I made such a claim.

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by yguy *
kindly produce the quote in which I claimed that a fetus has consciousness befoer it has brain activity.

Your wish is my command:

As for burden of proof I suggest that lies entirely upon those who countenance the killing of unborn human beings

The above is you claiming that fetuses are human beings.

Beyond that, what living human beings all have is some level of consciousness, or an awareness of itself and its environment

That is you claiming that all living humans have some level of consciousness.

Thus, if all living humans are conscious, and if all fetuses are living humans, then all fetuses are conscious.

QED
Now, if you are actually of the opinion that a fetus with no brain activity is not conscious (and I admit that you may not have considered that your words would be interpreted as I did above), then you and I are one step closer to being in agreement. The next question is whether or not an entity that is not conscious, and that has never been conscious, has a right to life.

I claim that it does not, because I am of the opinion that consciousness is what imparts rights onto an entity. To whit, animals have rights proportional to their relative level of consciousness (i.e. shoving a hook into a fish’s mouth is okay, but doing the same to a dog would be illegal). Entities such as plants and bacteria, being completely devoid of consciousness, have no rights whatsoever.

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by yguy *
Ah well, now we’re getting somewhere. Provide a specific example, please. My bet is that you are confusing consciousness with thought or feelings. They are not the same.

Could you explain how they are not the same? Because I cannot see how they can be separated.

**Kindly provide the exact quote in which I made such a claim. **

You never made the claim directly. You simply insinuated it. You have consistently made claims similar to “There is no evidence that brain activity causes consciousness”. Such a statement would seem to indicate that you believe that brain activity does not cause consciousness. Why else would you make such a statement?

Would you care to take this opportunity to clarify your position? Do you think that brain activity causes consciousness?

[WaryEri]

*Originally posted by yguy *
Mostly, such attempts are, well, absurd - as is this one. To the best of our knowledge, dead people are, umm, dead. Permanently. Fetuses are not.

Not the point. A fetus that has not yet developed brain activity and a corpse have the same level of consciousness- None. One may develop consciousness, while the other will not, but you were arguing against people claiming that a fetus does not have conscious before it develops brain activity, not about what can develop eventually.

With that in mind, when may I expect substantiation of the claim that human consciousness cannot exist without a brain?

No, see, the burden of proof is on the one making the extrordinary claim, not upon the position that in line with everything we known about consciousness. I suppose human consciousness may someday be able to exist without a brain, via computers, but currently no brain= no detectable consciousness. Your religion may tell you that your mind goes on without your brain, but its up to you to show evidence that it does, not on me to prove that it doesn’t. It’s possible, but there’s no more evidence for it than there is for the proverbial IPU.

Listen - if there is anything at which I am above average, it is precision in the way I express myself. I strive for that in order to save time…but of course it goes for naught if people don’t reciprocate by reading carefully. With that in mind, kindly produce the quote in which I claimed that a fetus has consciousness befoer it has brain activity.

You answered this one yourself:

See my response to Mr. Random.

As for burden of proof I suggest that lies entirely upon those who countenance the killing of unborn human beings.

That is not what is at issue in this particular arguement. If you pride yourself on being clear and precise, you should proabably stop side tracking the debate like that. It’s along the same lines as demanding that ruadh and myself defend positions we did not put forth. It’s a pretty cheap trick. I’m not going to play.

Some one claimed that a fetus does not have brain activity before 20 weeks, therefore it cannot have consciousness.

You claimed this was unsubstantiated.

I, and several others, have been trying to show why yours is not a supportable position, based on the evidence we have (some of which you prsented yourself).
Whether abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, indeed whether such a thing would be wrong even if it were true, is a different debate. The burden of proof in the “lack of brain activity doesn’t mean no consciousness” debate is still on you, since you’re espousing the position that is contrary to all the evidence.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
Your wish is my command:

“As for burden of proof I suggest that lies entirely upon those who countenance the killing of unborn human beings”

The above is you claiming that fetuses are human beings.

It is me claiming that SOME fetuses are human beings - such as those a few minutes away from birth. That much I’m sure of. I’m also sure that twins able to play games en utero are human beings. Whether the conceptus begins with some infinitesimal spark of consciousness and grows from there or is merely human tissue up to a certain point, I cannot say. However, science has provided no objective criterion that I’m aware of as to what level of consciousness constitutes human awareness.

and if all fetuses are living humans,

There’s your problem. I never said that all fetuses are human beings.

Now, if you are actually of the opinion that a fetus with no brain activity is not conscious

I cannot be, as no one knows that to be the case.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
Could you explain how they are not the same? Because I cannot see how they can be separated.

Consciousness can observe thought and feelings. Thought and feelings cannot observe consciousness, any more than my computer can observe me.

You never made the claim directly. You simply insinuated it. You have consistently made claims similar to “There is no evidence that brain activity causes consciousness”. Such a statement would seem to indicate that you believe that brain activity does not cause consciousness. Why else would you make such a statement?

Other than the fact that it’s true?

If we think we know something for a fact, when in reality we do not, are we not better off being aware of our ignorance?

Would you care to take this opportunity to clarify your position? Do you think that brain activity causes consciousness?

I suspect it’s the other way around.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by WaryEri *
Not the point. A fetus that has not yet developed brain activity and a corpse have the same level of consciousness- None.

Still waiting for anything resembling a substantiation of this claim.

No, see, the burden of proof is on the one making the extrordinary claim, not upon the position that in line with everything we known about consciousness.

But my good man, my claims are entirely in line with what we know about consciousness, which is practically nothing. If it isn’t so, produce the merest shred of evidence that any assertion I’ve made is incorrect.

I suppose human consciousness may someday be able to exist without a brain, via computers, but currently no brain= no detectable consciousness.

Detectability is irrelevant if the fetus has some level of consciousness that we are unable to detect.

Your religion may tell you that your mind goes on without your brain, but its up to you to show evidence that it does, not on me to prove that it doesn’t. It’s possible, but there’s no more evidence for it than there is for the proverbial IPU.

I have yet to make a single assertion based on anything resembling religious doctrine, so this is yet another smokescreen.

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by yguy *
Consciousness can observe thought and feelings. Thought and feelings cannot observe consciousness

But I have never experienced my consciousness observing anything. Instead, all of my observations are manifested as thought. I can use my thoughts to think about other thoughts or feelings. Also, even you would have to agree that thoughts and feelings are the direct result of brain activity, since manipulation of brain activity results in manipulation of thoughts and feelings.

From that perspective, your definition of consciousness seems useless, since I can do everything without it.

So what, exactly, is this unobservable consciousness for? What is it’s purpose, or its function? How does it manifest itself?

If we think we know something for a fact, when in reality we do not, are we not better off being aware of our ignorance?

If I applied your apparent standards for determining facts, then there would exist no facts at all, since everything is subject to change and revision as more information becomes available.

Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean that all claims about reality are unjustified. Different claims can be modified with a probability based on how accurate and extensive our observations are. I would imagine that the percentage that would be attached to “brain activity causing consciousness” would rank up there with “the earth orbits the sun”; We have an absolute preponderance of evidence in favor of it.

**I suspect it’s the other way around. **

Why do you suspect that? Is there any evidence that would make that a likely situation? Is there even any evidence that would make that a possible situation?

I mean, if consciousness causes brain activity, then consciousness must exist separate from the brain. So what does consciousness exist as? Can we detect it? If so, then why hasn’t anyone ever done so? If not, then of what use is the concept of a non-detectable consciousness? You might as well propose a non-detectable troll living in your refrigerator who turns the little light on and off when you open and close the door.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yguy *
**What if I don’t have any [Advil for my stubbed toe], and can’t afford to buy it, and have no substitutes? **

Then you’re in the same situation as a woman who can’t afford an abortion.

Maybe you’ll find a clinic that will treat you for free, or a government program that will pay for your treatment. Maybe not. If your point is that you don’t have the right to make anyone treat your pain for free, however, then you’d do better to phrase it like that, instead of the ambiguous “Do I have the right not to feel that pain?”

You have the same right to treat pain caused by your own actions as you do to treat pain caused by someone else’s actions, or by a wild animal, or by random chance. The only difference the cause makes is whether that right gives anyone else an obligation to treat your pain.

As far as I can tell, no one here has claimed that anyone should be obligated to perform an abortion for a woman who wants it. I don’t see how your point is relevant.

BTW, I’m still waiting for your evidence for this claim:

Originally posted by yguy
What I said is that many men support abortion rights for misogynistic reasons, mainly so they can use women as sex toys without consequence.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
But I have never experienced my consciousness observing anything. Instead, all of my observations are manifested as thought.

This is probably an illusion. If the phone rings, the awareness of the sound comes before any thought about the phone ringing, who might be calling, or whatever, does it not?

I can use my thoughts to think about other thoughts or feelings.

Thinking about thoughts is merely analysis, not observation. If you sit quietly, undistracted by external stimuli, you can after a few minutes begin to observe your thoughts. Consciousness is, if you will, the “eye” with which you see those thoughts.

Also, even you would have to agree that thoughts and feelings are the direct result of brain activity, since manipulation of brain activity results in manipulation of thoughts and feelings.

From that perspective, your definition of consciousness seems useless, since I can do everything without it.

You could think and feel, but you could not discern right from wrong, or good from bad, among other things.

If I applied your apparent standards for determining facts, then there would exist no facts at all, since everything is subject to change and revision as more information becomes available.

Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean that all claims about reality are unjustified.

I’m not objecting to a percentage of certainty less than 100, I’m talking about something that isn’t known at all, because we don’t understand what consciousness is well enough to begin to say what it is an effect of, or what it may be a cause of.

Different claims can be modified with a probability based on how accurate and extensive our observations are. I would imagine that the percentage that would be attached to “brain activity causing consciousness” would rank up there with “the earth orbits the sun”; We have an absolute preponderance of evidence in favor of it.

To my mind, it’s closer to “the earth is the center of the universe.”

Why do you suspect that?

Just a gut feeling at this point.

Is there any evidence that would make that a likely situation? Is there even any evidence that would make that a possible situation?

I mean, if consciousness causes brain activity, then consciousness must exist separate from the brain. So what does consciousness exist as? Can we detect it?

Obviously not by the means which modern science would find acceptable. Possibly its in another dimension, such as that in which ideas exist.

If not, then of what use is the concept of a non-detectable consciousness?

Of what use is the concept of dark matter?

[WaryEri]

That’s a lovely hypothesis, but I do hope you don’t propose that we should base abortion laws on that hypothesis.

Science cannot absolutely prove that the case of strep throat I had recently was not caused by throat gnomes. We may just not have the technology to detect throat gnomes yet. It’s possible, even if unlikely and contrary to current evidence, that throat gnomes gave me strep throat. I’m still gonna take amoxicillin.

Banning amoxicillin because it might harm throat gnomes would not be sensible. Nor would banning abortion because a fetus might have consciousness that we cannot detect, before it has what all of our current evidence dictates is neccessary for consciousness.

There may be other reasons to ban abortion, even before the fetus develops brain activity. I don’t personally think so, but I’ve seen some good arguments. Magical brain-free consciousness just isn’t one of them.
( You’ve made the same mistake about me that I made about ruadh, btw. I’m female)

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by yguy *
Why can the same not be said of infants?

I’m sure it could be said about children of various ages, or about fetuses of various stages. I’m just telling you where I think “human beings” begin.

To the degree that they have the right not to be killed, they do.

See my earlier statements about mothers of children being able to walk away.

[hildea]

Originally posted by Joe Random
From that perspective, your definition of consciousness seems useless, since I can do everything without it.

Originally posted by yguy
You could think and feel, but you could not discern right from wrong, or good from bad, among other things.

yguy, are you saying that you think fetuses can discern right from wrong? In my experience, babies can’t. Or if they can, they don’t let it influence their actions - biting the boob that feeds you qualifies firmly as wrong to me.

To return to the OP, more or less, I recently read about a study on late abortions for medical reasons in Norway. “Late” in this context is later than 12 weeks, but most of the abortions in this study took place in 19th or 20th week, a few later than 22nd week. The researcher reports that:

Most of the women in my study considered carrying their disabled child to term. But to do that, they needed guarantees that the child would get the help it needed to get a dignified life. But none of the women I interviewed felt any trust that society would offer necessary assistance. This refers to both parents and child, and not least it’s about the fear of what will happen when the parents are gone. This places an enormous responsibility on those who choose to give birth to a child with serious disabilities.

(Cite in Norwegian, translation mine.) Note that we’re talking about Norway here, which (AFAIK) is among the world leaders in offering safety nets to those who need some kind of assistance. (Read that as “decadent welfare state” if you prefer )

So, as a pro-choicer my answer to Stratocaster’s question (“Assume you needn’t keep baby inside the sovereign realm of your body. Given that option, do you still get to say junior dies, as opposed to just being delivered?”) is a firm, definite “Maybe. It depends.”

If the fetus had a good chance of becoming a healthy child, I would support legislation which replaced abortion with “moving fetus to artifical womb” or whatever the procedure was. But in cases of serious disabilities it’s a much harder question. I’d hate living in a society which only had room for “perfect”, well-functioning people. And saying of a potential human being that it will be better for it never to be born is very harsh. Nevertheless, in some cases, it will be true. If the potential parents decide that they can’t, in good conscience, let their child be born to suffer life with the disabilities in question, I’m extremely uneasy about overruling them.

Some invisible guy asked:

Originaly posted by AHunter3
So, those of you who oppose abortion because it means killing the fetus which is human or alive or a person or whatever:

Assume for the sake of argument that you do not succeed in making abortion illegal, but that this technology comes into being. May we assume that you will cheerfully support the bill that uses your tax dollars to keep fetuses alive after they are removed from the wombs of people who do not wish to carry them?

As I said, I don’t oppose abortion, but I’d support such a bill anyway. But then, I cheerfully support the current state of affairs, where my tax kroner cover all expenses related to prenatal care, birth, abortion, and all health care up to seven years of age, and most medical expenses after that.

And, JackaRoe, thanks for sharing your story. I’ve no idea what I’d have chosen had I been in your shoes, but I’m glad your choice turned out right for you. My best wishes for you and your son.

[adaher]

Assume for the sake of argument that you do not succeed in making abortion illegal, but that this technology comes into being. May we assume that you will cheerfully support the bill that uses your tax dollars to keep fetuses alive after they are removed from the wombs of people who do not wish to carry them?

There is no moral difference between this sentiment and the one that states that those who can’t afford to feed themselves should just starve.

[Essured]

*Originally posted by yguy *
**By this reasoning, it appears that the mother is no more obligated to care for the child after birth than before, in which case it appears she is perfectly justified in taking it into the wilderness, leaving it there, and going on an ocean cruise. If you object that others would care for the child if she didn’t want to, why would others be obligated to care for a child they did not bring into the world? **

Half right. The mother or the father are NOT legally obligated to care for their child in modern western society. Haven’t you noticed things like adoption, anonymous baby drop-offs at hospitals, foster families, etc. Of course the bio-parents aren’t legally made to care for any and all offspring.

That doesn’t mean they can kill their born off-spring, because alternatives exist. Currently, no alternatives exist when their off-spring are unborn (that word sounds so zombie-like… attack of the Unborn!!!). The fact that the fetus dies because there are no technological alternatives as yet, is truly a side effect of the abortion, not the purpose. The purpose isn’t to kill a fetus, it is to stop a pregnancy, or prevent a birth. When alternatives exist to avoid killing the fetus, while still allowing the host to withdraw its support, then there’ll be no reason to kill the fetus and everyone can be happy (except the ZPG guys, of course!)