Cerebral Cortex Activity

[HRE]

1. Humans are considered legally dead when cerebral cortex activity ceases -- that is, the brain flat-lines.

1.1. Thus, a human can be considered alive when cerebral cortex activity begins.

2. Cerebral cortex activity begins in the 22nd week of gestation.

2.1. Thus, before the 22nd week of gestation, the fetus is not alive -- by any type of definition.

2.2. Add a two week period for ethical safety.

2.2.1. Thus, a fetus can be ethically aborted with a margin of safety before the 20th week of pregnancy (the third trimester).

3. There are some objections, but one in particular -- potentiality for life. This argument is absurd. Many things have the potentiality for human life that you do not hesitate to kill.

3.1. Sperm and egg cells have the potential for life. However, every time a condom is used, every time a woman has a period, every time someone kills a kitten, egg and sperm cells die.

3.1.1 Some might say that a sperm and egg need a counterpart -- thus, they do not have the potential for life. Does not a fetus, however, also need a counterpart -- the mother?

3.2. Skin cells, bone marrow cells, umbilical cords -- they all have the potential for life. Umbilical cords are stem cells. Put them with an egg and you have a human. Bone marrow cells are stage 1 cells. They only need be regressed slightly to become the most variable of stem cells. They have the potential to become human. Skin cells can also be regressed to stem cells, and thus become human. Think -- every time you take a shower, you are killing a literal infinite of potential humans.

3.3. The potentiality argument is ridiculous in the extreme. Simply because something has the potential for life does not mean that it is life. Should we lock people away because they have the potential to become murderers? Should we enlist Secret Service agents to every child because they have the potential to become President? Be a little rational.

Whether or not you can stomach the thought of aborting a dangerous, unliving essentially cancerous mass of cells has no bearing on the general ethics of the situation.

1. David A Jones, "The UK Definition of death," at: http://www.linacre.org/death.html
2. Stuart J Youngner, et al. eds., "The Definition of Death: Contemporary Controversies," Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0 8018 5985 9
3. Richard C. Carrier, "Abortion is not immoral and should not be illegal," at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
4. Ruth Colker, "Abortion & Dialogue: Pro-choice, pro-life and American law," Indiana Univ. Press, (1992), Note 9, Page 126.
5. Debra Rosenberg, "' When Can It Feel Pain?' For this philosopher, 'viability' makes the moral difference," Newsweek, 2003-JUN-9, at: http://www.msnbc.com/
6. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

 

[hernyaccent]

Good arguement. Neverknow that about the cortex.

 

[Jwal]

Down to 2.2 I agree. The cortex function I was unaware of. I think I know some people who have flat lines normally .

Past 2.2, a bit weak, you intro with absurdity as a conclusion but I don't see that you have demonstrated it. I don't see bits of skin and the like as a useful example, the potential exists but has it ever been realised. The potential for fertilised eggs certainly have, we are here.

 

[HRE]

I was attempting to demonstrate that morality based on potentiality was not a valid reason to object.

 

[Marek]

I was attempting to demonstrate that morality based on potentiality was not a valid reason to object.

I believe that you failed to show this though. Would you please go over your line of reasoning as to why ending the potential future of a fetus is not immoral?

 

[HRE]

I argued that potentiality holds no merit in a logical debate on this matter, because many things hold the 'potentiality' for human life. In addition, potentiality does not make something something else; i.e., potentiality for murder does not make an innocent man a murderer and potentiality for the Presidency does not make you the President.

 

[Marek]

I argued that potentiality holds no merit in a logical debate on this matter, because many things hold the 'potentiality' for human life. In addition, potentiality does not make something something else; i.e., potentiality for murder does not make an innocent man a murderer and potentiality for the Presidency does not make you the President.

First of all, many things do not hold the potentiality for human life. Clearly, there is no way a sperm cell could become a human on its own nor could millions of sperm cells. A single egg could, in no way, become a human life on its own. Therefore sperm and eggs have no potentiality for human life. The combination of a sperm cell and an egg is what has this potential. In the same way, wheat alone has no potential to become a loaf of bread. It requires other ingredients.
In the case of a fetus, the potentiality of it to become a human being is stronger in the sense that it will become a human if it is not destroyed. When referring to sperm cells or eggs, they will not become human if they are not interfered with.
The potentiality of a fetus is exactly what makes abortion just as morally unacceptable as the murder of any living human. Murder is wrong strickly in the sense that it deprives someone of a future of good. Abortion deprives a being of a future of the same type. Therefore, morally, abortion is on the same level of murder.

 

[Marek]

Anyone mind responding to this?

 

[seebs]

I don't think potential and actual are the same; if they were, we wouldn't have words for them.

So I don't think it's true that it's "exactly as bad". It may be bad, and I think it is, but it's not the same kind of bad.

For another way of looking at it: Imagine that you're shooting a gun at paper targets. This is probably moral. Now imagine shooting a gun at an innocent person. This is immoral, right?

So. Let's say you're shooting at paper targets, and someone tells you that there's a chance that there's an innocent person behind the paper target. Is it exactly as immoral to shoot at the target which might conceal a person as it is to shoot the person? What if you think it's only 1% likely? .01%? One in a million?

 

[Radagast]

1. Humans are considered legally dead when cerebral cortex activity ceases -- that is, the brain flat-lines.

1.1. Thus, a human can be considered alive when cerebral cortex activity begins.

Doesn't follow.

2. Cerebral cortex activity begins in the 22nd week of gestation.

Have you got a reference for that?

2.1. Thus, before the 22nd week of gestation, the fetus is not alive -- by any type of definition.

No, only by yours.

-- Radagast

 

[David Gould]

First of all, many things do not hold the potentiality for human life. Clearly, there is no way a sperm cell could become a human on its own nor could millions of sperm cells. A single egg could, in no way, become a human life on its own. Therefore sperm and eggs have no potentiality for human life. The combination of a sperm cell and an egg is what has this potential. In the same way, wheat alone has no potential to become a loaf of bread. It requires other ingredients.
In the case of a fetus, the potentiality of it to become a human being is stronger in the sense that it will become a human if it is not destroyed. When referring to sperm cells or eggs, they will not become human if they are not interfered with.

The combination of a sperm and an egg alone is not sufficient to produce a human being, either. You need, for example, an input of energy. If a woman dies, the sperm and egg will not produce a human. Further, there are many complexities that arise during pregnancy. More than half of all conceptions do not result in a child when left to their own devices, for example.

I think what you are really arguing here is this:


1.) Of the trillions of sperm produced by a man throughout his life, only a few will go through the processes necessary to become human.
2.) Of the one or two million eggs that a female has when she is born, only a few will go through the processes necessary to become human.
3.) However, of the conceptions, nearly half will go on to become human.
4.) Therefore, they are more valuable than sperm and eggs.

In other words, you are only arguing degree here, with the percentage chance of something making it to personhood determining whether you wish to protect that something or not.

The potentiality of a fetus is exactly what makes abortion just as morally unacceptable as the murder of any living human. Murder is wrong strickly in the sense that it deprives someone of a future of good. Abortion deprives a being of a future of the same type. Therefore, morally, abortion is on the same level of murder.

I disagree. There are multiple aspects to murder: 'It's a terrible thing to kill a man. You take away all that he has ever had, all that he has and all that he will ever have.' Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven.

In other words, you take away his past, his present and his future. A fetus does not have the first two, and only might have the last one. A big difference.

 

[HRE]

Doesn't follow.


Have you got a reference for that?


No, only by yours.

-- Radagast

1. Sure does. The end is also the beginning. A car is working when it runs -- when it no longer works, it doesn't run.

2. I have a stinkin' list of them.

3. You're right, I really need to change that 'any'.

 

[dkara]

I read this a while ago, looked some things up and I think you may be right. Now, I've got to copy it so I can keep reading and looking things up until I make up my mind.

Thanks for the imput.

 

[Marek]

The combination of a sperm and an egg alone is not sufficient to produce a human being, either. You need, for example, an input of energy. If a woman dies, the sperm and egg will not produce a human. Further, there are many complexities that arise during pregnancy. More than half of all conceptions do not result in a child when left to their own devices, for example.

I think what you are really arguing here is this:


1.) Of the trillions of sperm produced by a man throughout his life, only a few will go through the processes necessary to become human.
2.) Of the one or two million eggs that a female has when she is born, only a few will go through the processes necessary to become human.
3.) However, of the conceptions, nearly half will go on to become human.
4.) Therefore, they are more valuable than sperm and eggs.

In other words, you are only arguing degree here, with the percentage chance of something making it to personhood determining whether you wish to protect that something or not.

This in fact, is not what I was trying to argue. Let me put it in a different way. When a fetus is aborted, it is clear that the fetus wronged in that it was denied it's future. Aside from natural processes and/or the death of the mother, this fetus would have had a future. Intentional deprivation of this future is what makes abortion wrong. Now, if sperm is killed by the use of a contraceptive, who is wronged? Who is deprived of their future? It seems that it would be the fetus that would/could have resulted had a contraceptive not been used. But this being does not exist, and because of the contraceptive, it will never exist. Is it wrong to hurt something that does not and never will exist?

I disagree. There are multiple aspects to murder: 'It's a terrible thing to kill a man. You take away all that he has ever had, all that he has and all that he will ever have.' Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven.

In other words, you take away his past, his present and his future. A fetus does not have the first two, and only might have the last one. A big difference.

I disagree. You say it is wrong to take away someone's past. I don't believe this can be done. 'Past' can be defined as no longer current, gone by, or over. Clearly if it is alread gone, you cannot take it away. If you mean by past, memories or things gained such as family or material goods, this does not constitute as 'past'. Clearly, one can only enjoy this such as memories or wealth in their future. If you kill someone, you are not depriving them of their past, it is already gone, you are depriving them of their future. The same holds true for one's present. You cannot take away someone's present. As long as they exist, they are in their present state of mind. Once they cease to exist, they are no longer in their present state. A being cannot be deprived of it's present, for if it is, that being no longer exists.

 

[Phred]

First of all, many things do not hold the potentiality for human life. Clearly, there is no way a sperm cell could become a human on its own nor could millions of sperm cells. A single egg could, in no way, become a human life on its own. Therefore sperm and eggs have no potentiality for human life. The combination of a sperm cell and an egg is what has this potential. In the same way, wheat alone has no potential to become a loaf of bread. It requires other ingredients.

Let's clarify a few things. "Human life" is different than a "human being". Technically, sperm and egg cells are a form of "human life" but they are not human beings. Can a sperm become a human being? Yes. Does it require other "ingredients"? Yes. So does a blastocyst an embryo and a fetus. If you insist that something cannot potentially be a human being unless it no longer requires other "ingredients" then you've just argued that abortion should be allowed until birth and maybe after.

In the case of a fetus, the potentiality of it to become a human being is stronger in the sense that it will become a human if it is not destroyed.

Convenient logic. I won't die unless I'm destroyed either. A fetus is NOT a human being. To say that because it "might" become a human being we should accord it all the rights of a human being is simply not logical.

When referring to sperm cells or eggs, they will not become human if they are not interfered with.

A fetus will not become a human being if it's not "interfered" with.

The potentiality of a fetus is exactly what makes abortion just as morally unacceptable as the murder of any living human.

"morally unacceptable" Who's morals? Mine don't say any such thing.

Murder is wrong strickly in the sense that it deprives someone of a future of good.

"future of good" of course, it could also remove a potential serial killer or dictator from our midst. If the only reason we shouldn't murder people is that they "might" do something wonderful one day... how do you justify executions? Sure, John Wayne Gacy killed 30+ young men but tomorrow he just "might" discover a cure for cancer.

Murder is wrong... make no mistake. It's just that your reasons don't make much sense.

Abortion deprives a being of a future of the same type. Therefore, morally, abortion is on the same level of murder.

So then turning off the respirator on a person with no brain activity is also murder? After all, the person just "might" regain brain function... no?

.
​

 

[If Not For Grace]

Does not the word pregnat have a certain connotation of Life? If you want to have an abortion, it is legal, that will never make it Morally Right. If you want to committ sucicide, you can, that does not mean you SHOULD.

 

[Shane Roach]

1. Sure does. The end is also the beginning. A car is working when it runs -- when it no longer works, it doesn't run.

2. I have a stinkin' list of them.

3. You're right, I really need to change that 'any'.

Implied in the request for sources is the desire to see some of them.

 

[Shane Roach]

Peering around the web for a while, I find that what is actually true is that there are not sufficient connections between the cerebral cortex and thalamus to allow conscious control of the body until week 22. What exactly constitutes 'consciousness' is an extremely contentious debate, as is the idea of when exactly the fetus might feel pain. Some things are certain. The fetus is formed basically by week 9 and reacts to outside stimuli even before then. If one wants to draw a line as to when the fetus becomes 'human' in any legal sense, it seems to me that this area in the development is much more sensible than the third trimester.

 

[HRE]

Implied in the request for sources is the desire to see some of them.

There is a list at the end of the OP.

 

[Shane Roach]

There is a list at the end of the OP.

The question was specifically addressed to your claim that the 22nd week was the beginning of cerebral cortex activity. Two of your links are effectively dead. That is, one does not respond when I click it, and the other is just the home page to a news site which does not appear to have the article in question listed. the single reference you have seems to be something you already quoted, and somewhat out of context at that.

The cerebral cortex, as far as I have been able to tell, begins showing some activity well before the fifth month. I have yet to bump into an article that says precisely when it starts, though I have found a vague reference to 40 days. Certainly nothing you have posted has helped at all in that search. If you actually know of one, it would be nice to see.

There is a lack of certain connections that some medical experts deem necessary for determining the possibility of 'consiousness' until about 22 weeks is all I find mentioned in your list. Another point you conveniently left out is that it is not merely the lack of cerebral cortex activity that indicates death. Contained within the definition is also that it is not capable of coming back, a requirement which obviously doesn't apply at all to the situation being discussed.

Still, I am heartened by a supporter of abortion rights being at least willing to go beyond the simplistic "my body my choice (even if the head is already protruding from the uterus)" mindset. It looks as if a consensus could easily be had, were anyone to persue it, that 9 weeks is a real break point in human development, and since the vast majority of abortions are done by 12 weeks, it seems this would be a workable point before which abortion on demand could be supported without a person seeing the prodedure not discovering that it makes them sick to the pit of their soul what has been done. Even a mere week earlier, the fetus looks distinctly non-human.

Admittedly, many will not be pleased with this argument of "looking human", but it is augmented by developmental completion of various organ systems and other such things. I don't know. Barring the very obvious breakpoint at conception, the 9th week seems to be the most obvious and supportable one.

I'd also just like to add, according to Roe V. Wade, it was actually science and not religion that started the move towards considering a child alive before birth. I am always struck by the irony there.