Oh, that was 665 views.
Oh, well.
Do we have independent rights, though? Or is that an individualist conceit?
[aside] The annoying thing about a message board, is that one person must pick apart the other’s quotes, and then the other must respond at length without a point to point rebuttal. If you respond point to point repeatedly, things get confused fast, as you lose the forest for the trees by focussing on minutia, and losing the general picture of the debate. This is not a complaint, as often enough you are as often on the writing at length, as the point for point rebuttal side. Just an observation.[/aside]
As far as you’ve gone, I see nothing objectionable in your responses, and certainly this debate is causing me to rethink my original stance to some degree.
As you suggest, it is perhaps best to focus on brain development, as the surest route to progress.
My main stumbling block to your viewpoint remains the origination of conscience thought.
Your “conservative” criteria seems to be a developed cerebral cortex and detectable EKGs consistent with the indication of conscience thought consistent with those of fully developed individuals.
[aside]Wondering if any animals record such EKGs. It seems an interesting area of exploration for animal rights activists, and it’s surprising that they haven’t proceeded along these lines (although the fact that they haven’t might be indicative of the results[/aside]
Abandoning metaphor (which has always been my good friend,) my problem with this “conservative” criteria, is that it is not quite conservative enough.
To me, the beginnings of a human thought are a human thought nonetheless. A fully developed cortex, and an indicative EKG may not be catching the glimmerings of thought. A fetus develops very fast. You have drawn the line at 6 months. To be truly conservative (and I think we both agree in which direction we would like to err in this debate,) it might be wise to draw the line a month earlier in order to make sure that we don’t miss this glimmerings.
While the structure of development is rigid, time frames do differ between fetuses (I argued differently initially, further reading suggests that I was in error. Nobody else pointed it out, so I might as well rebutt myself.) If we push things back one more month to account for variances in development, we wind up with a figure of 4 mos.
Based on the data we’ve uncovered in this debate, four months would seem to qualify as a point that we’d both agree there is no reasonable chance that an abortion is destroying a “person,” as we’ve defined it.
I feel comfortable with that as an ultra conservative cutoff leaving little possibility for error.
It seems extremely likely that that’s a cutoff that that can probably be adjusted upwards in the future, but is reasonably safe for now.
Now for a couple of point to points:
Agreed. Even given proof of conscious thought, I think this would still be so.
It’s tangential, but I don’t necessarily agree. What makes human DNA human? We share an awful lot of DNA with other animals. I’ve known a couple of dogs that were much better people than the majority of people I’ve met, and I’ve known a couple of people that really don’t deserve to be equated with gerbils, mush less people.
While correct, perhaps we’re nitpicking, since both amount to the same thing as neither case provides for awareness of the physical human body.
I’m still looking for cites relating to brain damage, functionality, and recovery in infants as pertinent to this discussion, and something I’ve mentioned earlier.
I recall a disease or condition that results in excess spinal fluid within the brain cavity preventing growth of the brain, or actually destroying brain tissue.
It was over a year ago, and I cannot for the life of me recall the name of the disease/condition.
The site that I saw showed MRI’s of people with this condition who developed and functioned normally in spite of having very little actual brain tissue.
any help would be appreciated.
Well, without the cortex, there’s nothing to be thinking the thought. I’m not relying on the EKGs, but you can’t think without the structures in place for thinking any more than you can see without the structures in place for seeing. And to all evidence, the complex cerebral cortex is absolutely necessary to consciousness; brain-stem only infants have no complex cerebral cortex and show no indications of consciousness, and I have never seen anyone genuinely argue that they might be conscious, we just aren’t looking hard enough.
You must have missed it, but I have indeed drawn the line at 5 months, since that is when the complex cerebral cortex first begins to develop. I used the EKG readings as supporting evidence as to thought being impossible before the complex cerebral cortex develops, since the EKGs don’t register patterns indicative of thought until after the complex cerebral cortex is developed. So I feel I am being sufficiently conservative with my 5-month line.
Do you have a cite that shows that a fetus may be a full month early in developing a complex cerebral cortex than is usual? That seems a vast difference. Since I’ve already scootched back my date to a place where to all scientific evidence shows that there is no chance of consciousness, I don’t see much need to change it unless such very premature brain development is fairly frequent. We do kind of have to go by averages; even abortions “from the point of viability” use the average point of viability as a basis. I don’t believe they account for a rare exception when the fetus may be viable significantly earlier.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that you are now using brain development rather than bodily development as a measure; I think it is a more logical choice and much more in line with your actual beliefs about when a human is a person. In addition, you are probably the only person I have seen change their mind in an abortion debate, so this is quite remarkable. 
I agree also, though it is a terrible situation. But a person cannot be allowed to ignorantly kill the person whose body they are living in (though if the mother wishes to die so her child can live, I think that is her right).
Er, I think scientists can identify human DNA versus dog DNA quite well, given a complete DNA strand. You’d have to ask a geneticist for how they actually know, though, and I am willing to admit my error if I am incorrect.
Of course I was nitpicking. 
Considering that I’ve read most of that series, I felt obligated to correct an error in fact.
maybe meaningful:
And note that a newborn human has a brain weight of only 350-400 grams. Quite a bit less than your half-brained friend’s measurements of 730-823 grams. I’m going by “degree of development” rather than just size, and I think that’s a good move (heck, my brain is probably significantly smaller than yours, being a smallish female). It might be possible to remove a great deal of a fully-developed CCC without ending that person’s ability to think, but if the whole thing’s gone or not yet adequately developed, you’re outta luck.
Let me try a hypothetical to put my finger on the button of what’s troubling me.
Suppose we determine that conscioussness can’t occur until an infant is two months out of the womb.
Can you leave a newborn in the dumpster because it hasn’t had a conscious thought yet? It’s still not a person though.
My wife gave birth by caesarian. I changed every diaper for two weeks while the Mrs. healed. I was there for every feeding. I had scrutinized and studied and watched my daughter with the focus that only a terrified new father can bring to the task.
I honestly don’t think having newly formed in what is pretty much a sensory deprivation environment, that she was anything like conscience as we know it. She was a bundle of need, and instincts. She also had a personality even at that time. Conscience? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure Mommy, Daddy and Baby were all one entity as far as she was concerned.
I can’t tell you why, but I think she was a person even then.
Given a few pints of Guinness…you’ve described me to a “T” 
And suppose that we determine that an infant is not conscious until two years? And suppose we determine the fetus is conscious at two months? I draw the line where I do because that is where the weight of scientific evidence puts it. I’d rather not go off to far on hypotheticals that are not supported by evidence. Besides, I draw the line for at-will abortions at “possibility for consciousness”, not a firm “certain consciousness”.
Currently, “brain-death” is when there is no electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex. If “person-death” is the cessation of electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex, it makes sense that “person-life” should be reliant on the presence of electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex. Since knowing whether a person is conscious is somewhat fuzzy, the presence of electrical activity in a developed complex cerebral cortex seems me the most solid and conservative method of determining whether a human may possibly be conscious, and a possibly-conscious human has certain rights (though they do not override the rights of a certainly-conscious person). I may be unnecessarily preserving the life of an unconscious creature by this defintion, but I’ll take that chance, at least until further data gives me cause to reevaluate.
Once the fetus is not wholly dependent and parasitic on the mother, she does not have sole rights to its dispensation. Since we can’t tell for sure, I draw the line for at-will abortions at a point when it seems completely impossible for the fetus to be conscious. If her newborn is born with only a brain stem and she was certain of this, my only issues with her leaving the child in the dumpster would be that she did not seem properly respectful of the tragedy that occured to what might have been a new person, and that she did not give the body to scientists to perhaps use the tissue to save other people.
Yet if you compare her to an anencephelitic infant, I think you would see quite a difference. She did have a personality, in your opinion; I doubt you would have said that on a infant only possessing a brain stem and a few instinctive reflex actions. That cerebral cortex does make a difference.
Oh yeah! Well I’ve been getting along fine for 33 years and I haven’t used my cerebral cortex once!
I dunno, you say “no longer fully dependant on the mother means that she no longer has sole dispensation” that almost makes it a viability issue doesn’t it? Where is that pegged now? 4-5 mos?
Our one month difference seems to exist because you accept today’s laws which uses averages for brain development.
That’s kind of an obscene standard though, isn’t it?
It would be a real bitch to be murdered just for being a precocius fetus.
Which is more valuable?
A full month’s safety margin to ensure that their is no possibility whatsoever that a thinking person dies
or
An extra month to make a tough decision?
No, it’s not a “personhood” issue to me here, it’s “right to dispensation” issue. Even if it is an unconcious nonsentient human body, once it is no longer wholly parasitic on you alone for its life I don’t believe you have sole rights over its life. If the infant is currently surviving outside the woman’s body, I think the father, and to a lesser degree, the state, have a certain degree of interest in the matter. The mother alone can hardly kill a brain-dead child, after all, nor can she do so without consulting doctors to make sure the child really is brain-dead, even though brain-dead humans are generally no longer considered persons. The mother has sole claim on the dispensation of a nonsentient fetus currently living within her body because it is in her body.
Murder is overstating things a wee bit, Scylla; neither the mother or the doctor would have had a reasonable expectation that they were killing a person, so it was not murder. It’s like you decide you need to blow up an island 1000 miles away from land. You don’t see any sign that there is any life there and there’s no reason to expect that there would be, but unbeknowst to you some amazingly good swimmer has swum all that way and is hanging out there. Blowing the island up, while regrettable, is hardly murder; you didn’t know anyone was there. If you have no reasonable evidence to believe there might be a conscious person living anywhere and it seems exceedingly likely that there is not, you don’t have to refuse to blow up the island forever because there might be a person living there. Anything might be, but we need not let that make us refuse to ever take any action; we use our current knowledge and our judgment of likelihood of all the possibilities to judge what we should do.
Do you have any evidence that a fetus may be a full month precocious in cerebral cortex development? I don’t like making decision without evidence, and I would think you wouldn’t either. Personally, I feel I am being sufficiently conservative, since my “at-will abortion” line is drawn when it seems consciousness is impossible; though I believe genuine consciousness doesn’t occur until the 6th month or so, I’m willing enough to hedge my bets that I move the “at-will abortion” line back a full month to a point when the physical features necessary to consciousness are undeveloped.
EKGs measure heart activity. EEGs measure brain activity.
You’re welcome.
I, of course, knew this. I only pretended to go along so as not to hurt Gaudere’s feeling.
Frankly I’m surprised that you would be so callous as to point this out. You should be ashamed of yourself.
…And you call yourself a Doctor.
::Straight face completely maintained::
Gaudere:
It seems to me that we are in substantial agreement on this issue. Our remaining differences seem to be ones that result from different interpretations of data that neither of us is really expert in.
I would prefer an extra month to be sure, weighing the protection of innocents favorably against protracting choice.
Given a suitably high degree of certainty, I would have no problem going up a month, as I’m sure that your would have no problem dropping down a month given a reasonable statistical probability of suitable brain development at 4 months. (I’d draw the line at 99.5%, wherever that falls)
Failing a ruling from a leading research embryologist (as this stuff seems to be pretty cutting edge with some disagreement among experts,) I think this is as close as we’re going to get.
I’d say we agree.
I think that a fetus should have no citizen’s right and that they should be reserved for individuals who have been born. I like the resultant society better that way and the fetuses (fetii?) whatever they are in the plural, don’t have enough investment in the life they are living to allow them (or people concerned on their behalf) to overrule the wishes of the pregnant person in whom they reside.
PS–I know how to perform them and would consider it my duty to make that service available if legal provision thereof were eliminated and my skills were wanted and needed.
A3hunter:
I hope you exagerate. Unless you have a medical license, you’d be dangerous butcher.
I know how to do lots of things that are dangerous and that I’m not qualified to do.
Their is a Huge gulf between knowledge and competancy.
Apparently dogs have a cerebral cortex and brain wave activity measurable with an EEG.
http://www.neurovet.org/HollidayandWilliamsEEG/HollidayandWilliamsEEG.htm
I don’t know what to make of that either. Furthermore, I don’t know how human EEGs compare with dog EEGs.