Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I expect that one day a machine will be invented to incubate a foetus from blastula stage through to nine months.

However, at the moment, the viability limit is about 24 weeks.

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect that one day a machine will be invented to incubate a foetus from blastula stage through to nine months.

However, at the moment, the viability limit is about 24 weeks.

How does changing technology justify whether something is or isn't life?

"Ms Johnson, last month you aborted your 24 weeks old pregnancy."
"Yes, it would not be sustainable outside the womb so it isn't life and therefore I can legally abort."
"Ah, but Ms Johnson, there was a breakthrough just this year in medical technology, we can now sustain a foetus outside the womb at just 16 weeks. You should have kept up your reading with the latest medical journals. Come with us, Ms Johnson."


I mean, it's as convenient a point as any other, but it's hardly definitive. In fact, it's just another arbitrary point for when life begins.

Because it does.

Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.

There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it does.

Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.

There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.

But when technology is applied to keeping a person alive after they stopped breathing, we're actually keeping their brain functioning. That is, technology is being used to maintain an important part of what we consider life (a functioning brain).

But in your example the foetus itself is unchanged, it remains in the womb developing as it does whether its 1811 or 2011, so the idea that it becomes life sooner in 2011 because it could survive with modern technology if it were taken out of the womb in 2011 is a bit of a nonsense.

The thing is, if we're to get to the basics of the issue and talk about what human life really is and what we find precious about it, we end up looking at consciousness, personality, and things like that. Unfortunately, those things develop slowly, with no clearly defined changes from one moment to the next. So instead we create these arbitrary points where human life has begun.

Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.

sebster wrote:Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.

I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?

Already there has been much debate on when someone should be taken off life support systems and left to "die naturally" due to our increased ability to keep a body functioning long after it would otherwise have perished.

SilverMK2 wrote:I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?

But the point is that 'able to survive outside the womb' is just as arbitrary a point as any other, only it has the added disadvantage of moving with technological breakthroughs that have nothing to do with the actual foetus.

We don't have a point where the procedure should not be carried out, nor do we have a means of determining such. Because what makes life sacred isn't it's ability to survive outside the womb, or the promise that it'll one day be a person, what makes life sacred is consciousness, is the unique personality of that individual. Unfortunately that develops very slowly, so that you can't ever point to one specific moment and declare 'that is now a person that deserves the right to life'.

So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.

I think we are coming at the same point from different angles. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I am simply saying that we can only hope determine, to the best of our abilities, what we determine a suitable (arbitrary) point at which abortion should be and should not be considered at.

As technology advances, we may be able to detect the point at which consiousness develops, we may not. We may discover or use some other yard stick for assessing when we should be able to terminate a pregnancy, we may not.

The point remains however that no matter how able we are to support life outside the womb, there will still be a point when a bundle of cells "becomes" a human being. How we choose to define that point is, as you say, decided arbitrarily. However, I would hope that it is determined as scientifically as possible, rather than based on emotional or religious grounds.

sebster wrote:
So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.

In terms of personhood, you're correct, it is almost completely arbitrary.

However, what often goes amiss in these debates, often because many people get caught up in the self-righteousness inherent in making moral proclamations, is that any matter of ethics is necessarily going to be limited by practicality. Life begins at conception, we might even argue that personhood begins at conception, but until we develop technology to permit that life to develop without the aid of its mother the question of whether or not that life has the same rights as any similar life is always going to be nebulous. Technology might not change the moment at which life becomes itself, or even when a person becomes a person, but definitely changes the way we are able to treat both life and people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
The point remains however that no matter how able we are to support life outside the womb, there will still be a point when a bundle of cells "becomes" a human being. How we choose to define that point is, as you say, decided arbitrarily. However, I would hope that it is determined as scientifically as possible, rather than based on emotional or religious grounds.

First we have to decide what a human being actually is.

There's a a relatively famous story about Diogenes plucking a chicken in order to refute Socrates' definition of a man as a "featherless biped".

dogma wrote:First we have to decide what a human being actually is.

There's a a relatively famous story about Diogenes plucking a chicken in order to refute Socrates' definition of a man as a "featherless biped".

Ah, for the times when you could just throw a plucked chicken at someone to win your argument

sebster wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I think that is kind of the point KK is making. With increased levels of technological ability it will be possible to do what was once impossible. The point then is do we move the goal posts because technology has improved, or do we find another way of more "accurately" determining a point at which a procedure should not be carried out?

But the point is that 'able to survive outside the womb' is just as arbitrary a point as any other, only it has the added disadvantage of moving with technological breakthroughs that have nothing to do with the actual foetus.

We don't have a point where the procedure should not be carried out, nor do we have a means of determining such. Because what makes life sacred isn't it's ability to survive outside the womb, or the promise that it'll one day be a person, what makes life sacred is consciousness, is the unique personality of that individual. Unfortunately that develops very slowly, so that you can't ever point to one specific moment and declare 'that is now a person that deserves the right to life'.

So instead we pick a point, conception, first trimester, second, birth, whenever else, and declare that the point, no matter how arbitrary that point is. Which is all we can do, we just need to recognise it as such.

What you say is true. Conception, gestation and birth is a continuing process without discrete steps.

US abortion law rests partly on the concept of viability, though, so any medical advances affect the meaning of the law.

Of course, this is all science fiction at the moment. If and when "exowombs" become available, there will be a much wider argument than just about the abortion issue.

You have a test tube with sperm in it, and a test tube with an egg in it, and you tip it down the sink, is that murder? Had you combined them you would have had a group of cells that could have matured into human life.

Not murder - just 2 seperate gamete cells.

What about if you tip the sperm into the test tube with the egg, wait two minutes then tip it down the sink, is that murder? All it needed was more time to become human life.

(Despite the lack of sterility and odds of nothing actuall happening. Assuming conception occured then yes, otherwise no.

What about if you place it in an artificial womb, leave it for three months, then turn the artificial womb off? Is that murder?

Yes, as there is life created, and you've ended it by destroying its environment

What about if you left it for nine months until it left the artificial womb, then killed the baby? Is that murder?

As above, 3 months, 6 months, 9, months 40 weeks,, neonatal.... timing is irrelevant.

A person can be mentally disabled, but still capable of thought, ideas, and emotions. This is entirely different to a foetus. Where we get a person with the mental faculties of a foetus, that is to say none at all... we pull the plug.

If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?

And when abortion isn't available, we see girls born and then abandoned. The problem here is culture failing to value both genders, not access to abortion.

I think it's failing to vaue PEOPLE, not geneders.

I wasn't talking about masturbation. Your body kills groups of its cells on a regular basis through apoptosis, and nevermind shedding of skin and hair.

And people die in famines everyday ergo it's ok form e to kill somone?

Actually if you put a sperm and an egg together it would need an environment around it or something to guide the sperm to the egg. Sperm dies within minutes of ejaculation and if you put a small egg and a single sperm in a test tube I doubt conception would happen. Sperm, like the men they come from, are fething slowed and don't ask for directions. Chances are the sperm would bounce off of the edge of the glass until it died.

Sperm can live for upto 7 days. Generally 3-4. They can survive being in a washing machine. Artificial insemination generally happens in a controlled lab. You don't 'mix two tubes'. Neither are sperm 'slowed' (slow is a verb, meaning 'to hold back' by the way) they will swim into the environment of the uterus almost 'instinctively' but being single cell gametes the don't possess an intelligence.

Apoptosis is vastly different from killing a cell. One is natural thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes, the other is just killing cells.

Apoptosis doens't just happen due 'thanks to telomeres on the chromosomes'...

To demonstrate the arbitrary nature of when we consider life to have begun

It's not arbitrary. Clearly life beings at a specific time, that time is conception, ie the fusing of a sperm and egg to produce a human zygote.
Additionally whay makes it idifferent from any other cells that you might randomly scrape off is that it can develop into any required tissues in the body being pluripotent and all that.

The limit to the date is 21 weeks and will most likely stay at 21 weeks. If you want at least a 50% chance of survival you're looking at 25 weeks.

So that (rare) 18 week old who survived without permaent damage isn't human?
Also the woman who survived being aborted isn't human either as clearly we don't abort 'humans' or 'people'?

Weasel word all you want, apoptosis is still the body killing off cells which are undesirable to the body.

Yes... programmed cell death... IE the body killing off its cells. No matter how much you attempt to word it otherwise, that's still what it is.'.

Eh.... no! Certain other things can cause apoptosis other than the body wanting to rid itself of cells that are 'undesirable. They body might do the killing but it doens't always do the triggering. The cells may be desirable but the body is 'tricked' into destroying it.

Its guilty of being a thing that is necessarily dependent upon its mother for life, which certainly bear consideration when considering what rights it might have when those rights are in competition with those of the mother.

How humane.
A neonatal infant is dependant on its mother fully. It's right to food competes with her right to food. It's right to time, attention and love compete with hers. It is still 'parasitic.' Yet killing it is not ok for some reason even thought it is fully and wholly dependent on its mother/other adult for its survival.

Please read more carefully. I didn't ask for a description of the differences between the two, I asked for the point at which one thing, lacking whatever it is that grants the right to life, becomes a thing that has whatever grants the right to life. In the 22 year peiod, at what point exactly does it go from being a pile of cells and become a human with the right to life?

It doens't sebster-- we're all just piles of cells haven't you heard?

Medicine has to deal with various aspects of life and death. It used to be considered that someone was dead if they had stopped breathing. Modern medicine uses the brain death test, which of course was impossible in earlier times.

There's no reason why this sort of change in technology should not be applied at the start of life.

Because by its nature a start is definitive and an ending isn't. A play definitely starts with the first scene, but it could end after the 2nd 3rd 4th and so on. We could write extra scenes for it while its being performed. But the start has always been the start, the end we can change, the start we can't because it's already started.

Which is fine, because there's no alternative really, but we should recognise them as being as arbitrary as they are.

There is an 'alternative' - the same 'alternative' that was agreed apon before the spread of abortion - human life beigns at conception. Of course if despite being alive it's not a person, or a human, or congitave, or is a parasite then sure we can kill it. But all of these are arbitrary re-definitions to suit an agenda.

In terms of personhood, you're correct, it is almost completely arbitrary

This is the issue. To some blacks aren't people, or Jews or Irish or whatever... its totally subjective in highly in line with today's era of moral relativism. And yes Godwin all you like but the fact remains that it is a relevant reference.

It's nice to know that the odds of this law passing aren't good, that even if it does it will in all likelihood be struck down as unconstitutional on both the state and federal level, and to top it all off abortion is still legal.

Phototoxin wrote:

If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?

Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.

An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...

I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.

The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming fetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.

This is the same as a jump as saying people who euthanize prisoners on death row murderers. They are performed LEGALLY.


Also... if you were aware that harming the mom can harm the fetus... I don't understand your first comment...

This is argument of the bill's author. Its doesn't effect abortionists, as that is legal. Its designed for the proverbial "stopping someone from punching mom in the gut" scenario. Evidently there was a lot of that in South Dakota.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?

Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.

An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.

Nope - death includes but is not limited to no brain function - cessation of the hear, breathing and all other vital functions including brain activity.

your heart can stop in a heart attack - does that make you dead?

Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?

Phototoxin wrote:Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?

You can look at them on various scanners. One of the joys of medical physics is being able to look at stuff going on inside the body as it is happening without having to slice everything open

Phototoxin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

If you think foetus have no mental capacity then I sugges you begin to study some embryology. In addition is a person in a vegetive state with no brain function 'not alive' anymore?

Actually, yes. That is the modern medical definition of dead -- zero brain function.

An embryo cannot have any mental capacity until the brain has formed.

Nope - death includes but is not limited to no brain function - cessation of the hear, breathing and all other vital functions including brain activity.

your heart can stop in a heart attack - does that make you dead?

Also how do you know when an embryo forms a brain cell and they function?

Definition of Death

Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

From here... http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438

You can see from this that a heart attack isn't death, since it is possible that the heart could be restarted.

A brain cell isn't a brain.

Embryology is the study of the development of embryos. I would refer you to a medical embryology text book for an overview of the development of the brain in the human embryo.

Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.

Phototoxin wrote:Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.

I learnt it at medical school.

You don't have to be a medical student. Anyone can buy medical textbooks, or borrow them out of the library. Obviously it helps to go to lectures and tutorials but you can learn a lot just by reading.

No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!

Believing something doesn't make it fact.

Phototoxin wrote:Really - as scanners aren't that high of a resolution usually. Additionally it tends to be from disecting foetuses that we get most of our info. But I was specifically asking how Killkrazy knew.

You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).

mattyrm wrote:No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!

Believing something doesn't make it fact.

Well, duh. Life begins prior to conception. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive.

Sure, you need the little death for them to meet, but I think that's taking things a bit too literally.

mattyrm wrote:Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.

As seb said, suck it up and be a man!

lol

Most wives are going to let their husbands have a say in the matter anyway, it's the nature of marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!

Believing something doesn't make it fact.

Well, duh. Life begins prior to conception. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive.

Sure, you need the little death for them to meet, but I think that's taking things a bit too literally.

I think Warboss saved this thread.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Aye I've no time for the male argument, sure it would suck if my missus wanted am abortion and I wanted the kid, but she puts the most effort into pregnancy, It's her body. We don't play an equal part in carrying it, so we shouldnt have an equal say in keeping it.

As seb said, suck it up and be a man!

lol

Most wives are going to let their husbands have a say in the matter anyway, it's the nature of marriage.

That depends on who's the daddy doesn't it...

Dysfunctional families will always be dysfunctional, whether or not abortion is illegal.

Phototoxin wrote:
This is the issue. To some blacks aren't people, or Jews or Irish or whatever... its totally subjective in highly in line with today's era of moral relativism. And yes Godwin all you like but the fact remains that it is a relevant reference.

But see, that's just it, personhood isn't really the issue at all. Even if you want to say that personhood starts at conception, that still isn't sufficient to rule out the legitimacy of abortion.

It should also be noted that while personhood is almost completely arbitrary, its often distinguished from simple humanity according to agency. Not colloquially of course, which is why this thread is a jumble of nonsense, and the abortion debate is so juvenile.

dogma wrote:the abortion debate is so juvenile.

No pun intended?

Every time I see "blastula" I picture a vampire with a Plasma Cannon.

You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).

That’s not what the nice clear IHC pictures in my embryology seminar said.. granted it was heart development but its still major organ development.

No photo life does NOT begin at conception, you just happen to believe that it does... just like Sarah Palin!

Believing something doesn't make it fact.

You believe it does not… which does not make it fact. Factually : on conception a cell displays all of the requirements for life and is its own organism. Indeed it indeed my medical deifiition alive. This has been the case until relatively recently where people, like yourself have attemped to 'redefine' the fetus as not being alive.

I don’t see why I believe what Sarah Palin believes. She might believe that life begins at conception because a moose on an LSD trip told her so. She might belive it because the Qu'ran says so.

But see, that's just it, personhood isn't really the issue at all. Even if you want to say that personhood starts at conception, that still isn't sufficient to rule out the legitimacy of abortion.

Well what *is* the issue? This is typical of an abortion debate as essentially many terms get to be re-defined. So the fetus is a person – but then you don’t care. But yet magically this doesn’t correlate to adult people. Killing unborn people is ok … just because? So if that is the case killing adult people should be ok just because it is. Or because you believe it is?

It's obfuscation. I don't *want* to say that 'personhood' (a non-term essentially') starts at conception. I'm telling you, factually, indisputably, that unique human life is created at conception. It is very small and immature but it is human life, and according to the laws of our societies no one has the right to end another humans life (unless it would save another persons life and even then there are issues). All abortion does is kill a small child. Anything else about trimester, brain function et cetera is simply obfuscation of the issue with an attempted veneer of legitimacy based on the child's size.

To enable abortion to be legitimate you would need to explain when is it ever permissible to kill a human. The only reason I can think of is : defense of anothers life (such as a pregnant mother with cancer who needs chemotherapy, or shooting an axe wielding maniac running at people)

(seeing person =/= human in this odd discussion I'm using human.)

Phototoxin wrote:

You have a poor view of how good modern scanners are. Sure, they are not crystal clear but the technology is improving very quickly. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we have not cut up any foeteses to determine developmental milstones for quite some number of years, if not decades (certainly not in large numbers anyway).

That’s not what the nice clear IHC pictures in my embryology seminar said.. granted it was heart development but its still major organ development.

I'm sorry, but can you clarify what it is you are saying here in relation to my post? Might just be me being a bit thick