@JamesYanik,
Yes, but either way that is not a relevant argument because we know that that is simply not the case.

@civwarbuff

can you elaborate?

We know that a human foetus can feel and respond to sensation.

"and there's still an argument to be made: why does sentience matter, if sentience is assured to be developed?"

Like I said, this is not something I took a viewpoint on. But I suppose your argument is close to the case, which would be that if there is no sentience, there is no capacity to harm. Preventing the development of a sentient being is, harm-wise, no different just before sentience develops than before the gametes merge in the first place.

"But a human foetus is sentient, at least after around 13 weeks gestation, probably earlier."

[citation needed]

@Lethologica,
This is fairly common knowledge in the field. You can go pick up basically any book on the subject.

-"Neuromaturation of the human fetus," MJ Flower (1985) would be a good place to start.

@"civwarbuff
We know that a human foetus can feel and respond to sensation."

We know that is true of adult cows. They also miss their calves when you take thek away and fight to keep them. But for some reason most people don't seem to care when offered a steak.

The issue of a mother's health is a pretty signifigant one. In Ireland (where abortion is all but banned) if a pregnant woman is discovered to have cancer, she may not be able to get treatment because chemo therapy may kill a foetus.

In other countries an abortion would be performed first, and then the chemo.

So where do you draw the line??

Help, I picked up a report on the subject and it didn't immediately confirm your assertion, wat do.

"Summary

Connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation. Most pain neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception; cortical activation correlates strongly with pain experience and an absence of cortical activity generally indicates an absence of pain experience.52–54 The lack of cortical connections before 24 weeks, therefore, implies that pain is not possible until after 24 weeks."

https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

Also, from the abstract of your cited evidence:

"What importance ought to be attached to such regulatory activity is uncertain. Some argue that it represents a level of integrated activity sufficient to bolster an argument for conferring some measure of standing at this point. Our thinking about sentience is not advanced a great deal, as we as yet have no good way of talking about it at the brainstem level."

Sounds like Mr. Flower isn't sure whether to call this sentience or not. So why should I?

(Dr. Flower, to be fair.)

@Lethologica

"But I suppose your argument is close to the case, which would be that if there is no sentience, there is no capacity to harm. Preventing the development of a sentient being is, harm-wise, no different just before sentience develops than before the gametes merge in the first place."

of course the problem with that is, you are still ending a distinct life. the only "harm" not being done is the sensation of pain.

of course, we have the ability to kill adults without pain right now...

@letholgica

also the neuroscience is a very shaky field. remember the frenchman with 90% of his brain missing? his IQ was 84: socially apt.

theories around consciousness have no expanded drastically

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

"SUSAN BONNER: It is such a stunning case. I'm wondering, what kind of a larger lesson it offers about our brains?

AXEL CLEEREMANS: One of the lessons is that plasticity is probably more pervasive than we thought it was … It is truly incredible that the brain can continue to function, more or less, within the normal range — with probably many fewer neurons than in a typical brain.

[There's a]
second lesson perhaps, if you're interested in consciousness — that is the manner in which the biological activity of the brain produces awareness ... One idea that I'm defending is the idea that awareness depends on the brain's ability to learn.

SB: So, does that mean then that there is not one region of the brain responsible for consciousness?

AC: Precisely. These cases are definitely a challenge for any theory of consciousness that depends on very specific neuro-anatomical assumptions."

@Lethologica,
In the very first sentence of the abstract, it is clearly stated that the nervous system is fully active at around 8 weeks gestation. Hence, we know that the fetus can already feel sensation.

@civwarbuff

it can process stimuli and react, though neural cognition is not always functional. prepare for an argument of extreme semantics

@JamesYanik,
The child can feel sensation though. This is just a fact.

Stimulus-response and experiencing sensation are different things, civwarbuff.

I'm glad you're just ignoring my citation, though. Makes for a very stimulating non-conversation.

@James
"of course the problem with that is, you are still ending a distinct life."

Which is we enter the "what value is a life?" conversation that leads people to propose sentience as a standard in the first place.

"also the neuroscience is a very shaky field."

Then I shouldn't be having to deal with confident nonsense from civwarbuff about sentience beginning at 8 weeks based on his inability to read the abstract of a thirty-year-old study in a rapidly developing field (or, for that matter, a research review that's 25 years younger).

@lethologica

i guess it is kind of circular... most people say it doesn't have rights until sentience, though that point is arguable as follows:

it still will in fact have sentience in the future. The only thing it needs to achieve sentience is resources and a stable environment (micro chimerism in early gestational stages, let's assume allow for abortion to be an option). to what extent is the mother, who consensually had sex (not in cases of rape) and thus created a life which could only develop with her support, responsible for that life, given that it might detract from her own resources; assuming it does not several threaten her life at any point?

That's not an argument, that's just a question. Your 'most people' would comfortably answer 'zero' or something not substantially different from zero, and nothing you've said gives them reason to conclude otherwise.

You could attempt to argue for a moral duty to actualize potential sentient and/or human life--I find that dubious, but have at it.

@Lethologica

I'm not arguing this though, I AM asking it. Furthermore, I'd imagine it'd have to be less of a moral duty, and more one that the government deems ethical

Also I know my "most people" would answer no, but the entire country doesn't equal most people on his forum (perhaps I'm being disingenuous when I say "most" now...)

I disagree with Ogion when he says "it's just a clump of cells"... as if life has ever been any more than just that.

This is not an argument for pro-choice or pro-life, this is a tangent addressing motives:

when pro-life people look at this situation, they see the future of America, of humanity, of the world. They see a kid who in less than a year will be crying and undeniably a part of this world, and in less than 2 will be crawling around and saying basic words.

They don't immediately think "how can i oppress women, to enslave their bodies" and the fact that Ogion has said that I THINK THAT WAY, is really obnoxious. @letholigica you've refrained from doing this which is greatly respect, so we can have a fruitful debate, but I hate all the ad hominems that occur when serious questions need to be answered.

nematodes can respond to pain and sensation. So can brain dead people. That's not much of a test of whether we've got more than that.

Well, James, your argument would have more credibility if it weren't for the fact that most of the anti-choice movement is made up of religious types who have been oppressing women and suppressing healthy sexual behavior for centuries. You'd have more credibility if they didn't turn out to be the same people opposing sex ed and birth control. Or for that matter, sexual harrassment laws, gender equity laws and all other manners of protection for women. If the anti-choice movement were not part of that wider context, i'd give your argument a little more credibility.

And as for emotional arguments, I'm not the one saying that women who want to control their bodies are "murdering babies" which is 100% pure nonsense. if you're going to persist in that, I'm going to be very blunt about the fact that you're advocating slavery.

And you are also showing signs of that same repression of sex argument that "ooh, she had sex" as if that had any bearing. You are arguing that because a woman has sex, she deserves to be enslaved. That's a pretty damned ugly look.

It is purely a matter of whether anyone can be compelled to risk their lives and well being for the sake of someone else. At no point does your approach apply to any other person, and the ONLY distinguishing characteristic you can point to is that a woman had sex (OMG!)

And you want to still have credibility that your position isn't about wanting to control women and their sexuality? Good luck with that.

How about this: If a pregnant woman dies, we prosecute the father for murder.

That makes about as much sense, since he also is culpable for having sex.

@leth

You're asking a conservative to understand science? You realize that scientific literacy is a very rare trait among those folks right?

@Ogion

"Well, James, your argument would have more credibility if it weren't for the fact that most of the anti-choice movement is made up of religious types who have been oppressing women and suppressing healthy sexual behavior for centuries. You'd have more credibility if they didn't turn out to be the same people opposing sex ed and birth control. Or for that matter, sexual harrassment laws, gender equity laws and all other manners of protection for women. If the anti-choice movement were not part of that wider context, i'd give your argument a little more credibility."

no, that detracts from THEIR argument. Humans don't work as a hive mind.

"And as for emotional arguments, I'm not the one saying that women who want to control their bodies are "murdering babies" which is 100% pure nonsense. if you're going to persist in that, I'm going to be very blunt about the fact that you're advocating slavery."

that wasn't an argument, READ WHAT I SAID. That was me showing the motive behind much of modern pro-lifers.

"And you are also showing signs of that same repression of sex argument that "ooh, she had sex" as if that had any bearing. You are arguing that because a woman has sex, she deserves to be enslaved. That's a pretty damned ugly look."

I have zero problem with women having sex, but if you create a child, then there are things we must consider: that is what we're discussing here.

"It is purely a matter of whether anyone can be compelled to risk their lives and well being for the sake of someone else. At no point does your approach apply to any other person, and the ONLY distinguishing characteristic you can point to is that a woman had sex (OMG!)"

OMG SEX EW COOTIES!!! are we done with the pointless attacks now?

furthermore, you're not framing the argument correctly.

you're making it sound like the sex is not connected to the issue at all.

if a woman consensually has sex, then she is accepting that there is a certain level of risk that she will create a child.

more than just that, by having sex, you are creating a human life, that is dependent on you.

this isn't "i've had sex" and "i'm not giving up my bodily rights to another person"

it is: "i had sex which created another person, so should i have to give up my bodily rights to help this life which i helped create?"

it's why we force fathers to pay alimony: they are responsible for the child.

so back to the main argument (And away from your personal attacks): do we consider a fetus to have rights, and if so, at what point in development does it get to have them?

"And you want to still have credibility that your position isn't about wanting to control women and their sexuality? Good luck with that."

back to the straw man. you can have sex all you want, but if you create another life, a life which will surely wither and die without you: now we have to consider the rights of that life too.

"How about this: If a pregnant woman dies, we prosecute the father for murder. "

THE MOST SINGULARLY IDIOTIC SENTENCE EVER UTTERED.

was the father responsible for the death? they had consensual sex, remember? (in case of rape i'm pro-choice, and at any risk to the mother's life as well)

"That makes about as much sense, since he also is culpable for having sex."

ok... no what you're saying doesn't make sense, but in all our babble there's a legitimate question in there. if the mother must give up bodily rights, shouldn't the father? well, basic biology says that the father can't really give up rights, but i say if the father abandons a pregnant mother, he has to start paying alimony right then and there. otherwise, he has to be responsible for his actions.

"You're asking a conservative to understand science? You realize that scientific literacy is a very rare trait among those folks right?"

*more ad hominem*


Here's a question Ogion:

if there is a pregnant woman, at 1 month, an a guy in the middle of a street goes up to her and hits her so hard in the stomach with a baseball bat, the fetus dies:

what is the charge against him? assault only?

nope. we have fetal homicide laws, because people realize this is not just an unimportant clump of cells.


so if you'd like to get back to the main point of query: at what point do we have to respect this "clump of cells?" at what point are we simply not allowed to kill it? at what point does the mother not get a say anymore?

We've been over your "main question" about a zillion times. Use the same standard for the beginning of personhood as is used at the end: sentience. A clump of cells has no more claim to rights than a tumor. A brain dead person is also recognized as not being a living person, even if the body is active, feeling pain, etc.

Which is where the current law is.

So, before there's a structured brain capable of self awareness and consciousness, there's only the weakest of arguments for special rights for the fetus.

On the flip side that gets ignored, those special rights do not provide adequate justification for enslaving a woman in a highly intrusive way and forcing bodily risk on someone. We don't force anyone else in any circumstances to risk their bodies or well beings for others in any other circumstance whatsoever, whether they caused it or not. Serious questions need to be asked as to why such an exception is only carved out for women.

And actually, if you are holding people culpable as a consequence of causing circumstances, charging the father in case of maternal death is the logical consequence of your argument.

Look, conservatives are so stupidly anti-science and have been forever that that's just a simply statement of fact. Stop railing aginst evolution and climate change science and that will start being an ad hominem. As it is, it's just a hallmark of conservativism, and people should understand scientific arguments aren't going to carry any weight. never have, never will.

We have fetal homicide laws because anti-choice advocates are trying to manufacture "fetal rights." however, what might be actionable here is that the assailant is not only assaulting the mother, but potentially terminating her pregnancy against her will. Again, it's very telling that in your analogy, it doesn't even occur to you that the woman actually has reproductive rights or interest. it's like they're entirely invisible to you.

Also, if the fetus threatens the life or health of the mother, then that trumps whatever claim to actions for the mother. We don't force people to rescue people from burning buildings and we CERTAINLY don't criminalize them to declining to die in the attempt. Also, if the fetus is dead, severely disabled, or certain to die even shortly after birth, there's no argument for carrying that pregnancy forward. Shit goes wrong in development all the time (most of the time, in fact) and the interests of the fetus also become vanishingly small in the balance here at that point.

"Which is where the current law is."

As of Casey, the law is based on viability. I'm not aware of any US statute or case law making sentience the standard.

@Ogion

"And actually, if you are holding people culpable as a consequence of causing circumstances, charging the father in case of maternal death is the logical consequence of your argument."

no, because the mother consented to the sex. she accepted the risk of getting pregnant.

"We have fetal homicide laws because anti-choice advocates are trying to manufacture "fetal rights." however, what might be actionable here is that the assailant is not only assaulting the mother, but potentially terminating her pregnancy against her will."

interesting... so the mother has ownership over the pregnancy?

"Again, it's very telling that in your analogy, it doesn't even occur to you that the woman actually has reproductive rights or interest. it's like they're entirely invisible to you."

clearly she has rights, i'm questioning where those start, and where those end.

"Also, if the fetus threatens the life or health of the mother, then that trumps whatever claim to actions for the mother. We don't force people to rescue people from burning buildings and we CERTAINLY don't criminalize them to declining to die in the attempt. Also, if the fetus is dead, severely disabled, or certain to die even shortly after birth, there's no argument for carrying that pregnancy forward. Shit goes wrong in development all the time (most of the time, in fact) and the interests of the fetus also become vanishingly small in the balance here at that point. "

agree 99%, there is one caveat: "health" of the mother is a fairly subjective term. the pregnancy will always have SOME affect on the health of the mother, the question is the extent to which is deleterious.

i can't respond fully to each sentence, i got a lab but i'll be back in a bit