Start of a life

Here,

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1620.shtml

Robert Davison quoted Mark Humphrey:

“For example, point out to a religious Pro-Lifer that rights flow from the premise of volitional consciousness, and that the human brain only developes this capacity at say 8 months, and that therefore aborting a six week fetus is not baby killing.”

Then Robert wrote:

“Don't care what your thoughts on abortion are, and ask that you not jump to any conclusions about mine, but you must be more scrupulous about fact. A foetus at 7-8 weeks has all the brain cells the adult will have and it is at this point that brain waves are observed.

Don't know about volitional consciousness. Don't suppose there is anyway to measure it in foetuses. But I do know that many adults never master it.”

My thoughts…

Neither consciousness, nor wiring sufficient for consciousness, nor ‘all the cells’ is enough. (That volitional consciousness is part of the derivation of rights does not mean that this is the trigger that signals the start of a human life.) There must be power to exist as a separate entity. With means available in a cave, the fetus must be extractable and then capable of independent viability. (Whether the woman would survive this is a separate question.) Until, then it is, as much as I dislike the use of this term for anything human, a parasite. If she doesn’t want it, she shouldn’t be forced to keep sustaining it.

However, once it passes “primitive” viability, I will not respect her desire to destroy it, because nothing but a steak knife is keeping that sucker from starting its life, which has really already started. At that point, she should be forced to carry it out. Or, we could cut it out of her if we are not in a cave and this can be done to her safely.

Roe v. Wade gets it roughly correct.

Jon

Post 1

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 9:56pm

And it doesn’t matter if consciousness or wiring sufficient for such is present or not when viability is reached. If we require that consciousness be present, we face the implication that if it didn’t arise until weeks after birth, then parents could “abort” born babies, or mentally retarded ones at any age.

In any case, the formation of ‘all the brain cells’ of an adult, or a beating heart, or a baby’s “shape” don’t count for anything.

Post 2

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:27pm

At what point does a human become viable? Surely as technology advances, it will become "viable" earlier, using this definition:

Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

Viability doesn't mean capability of living without the support of other humans, at that point a young human being most certainly needs protection and nutrition, both of which it is incapable of providing itself on its own.

There are some pre-requisites before I'd even consider it moral to force a woman to go through some sort of operation to remove the developing human from her. You would first have to find someone who non-coercively willing to finance the operation and someone who is non-coercively willing to raise the baby. If those two are taken care of, and the operation will not cause permanent damage or pain to the woman (especially compared to a fetal-destroying operation), then I may consider it moral to force her through the operation... in that case to do the fetal-destroying operation instead of the fetal-saving operation would be murder.

If no one consents to paying for the operation, and if no one consents to raising the young human, then I wouldn't find it moral to force the woman to do anything. I don't like it when an individual's property is taken, used, or destroyed without consent from the owner.

Post 3

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:53pm

Dean,

No technology. That’s why I said “in a cave.” Think of a piece of bread (fertilized egg) placed into a toaster (woman). Viability is when you can peer inside and see that it is sufficiently browned and is now a slice of toast (baby). We don’t have to wait for the spring to fire (birth), we know we can pop it manually and would have in hand a slice of toast. Not just a piece of bread that can, somehow, become toast, but actual toast. Toast that is done and ready—but the spring hasn’t popped it out yet. We can’t allow technology into the viability test, because that would amount to removing the unbrowned bread from the toaster and putting it under a broiler. Sure, that will get it toasted, but that means that what was removed from the toaster was just a piece of bread (fertilized egg). Allowing technology into the viability test would also lead to absurdities. Some day, each of the millions of skin cells that fall off of us will be clonable.

By viability, I don’t mean “capability of living without the support of other humans” but, physiological independence as a separate entity that is not physiologically dependent on others.

Regarding an operation to remove the baby, this is just a conceptual point. I mean that if we took it out of her, it would live. This is the argument for making it stay there. Taking it out is just a default position if she wants that (and let her pay) over keeping it to term. Going back to toast: If we manually popped the spring, there would be a slice of toast, therefore we will not allow her a dousing of water, but will make her keep toasting. If the bread is not browned and she wants a dousing, she can have it.

Jon

Post 4

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:10pm

Jon, your dropping the context by ignoring technology.

that is not physiologically dependent on others

That doesn't really happen until the child produces more value than it consumes. Please take another look at what I'm saying, and determine whether what I said was moral or not.

Sure, we could clone all of our skin cells, but is anyone willing to do that? I said, "You would first have to find someone who non-coercively willing to finance the operation and someone who is non-coercively willing to raise the baby."

Hmmm... but does a person have full ownership and usage rights over their own DNA and cellular blueprints? Would it be or would it not be in my self interest to be in a society that allowed/disallowed cloning of a person when that person doesn't want to be cloned? The DNA doesn't have to be "stolen" in a physically destructive way. It could be picked up from skin, hair, or other body wastes.

I'd like to note, for those not too familiar with cloning and the human mind, that: When you clone, what you are copying is the physical body and its mental potential. Cloning doesn't copy memories or behaviors learned through life. Cloning will copy "instinctive" behaviors though, which are your behavioral tendencies, some of what drives to to act, and your temperament to an extent. This means that you can easily learn passwords and use techniques like Zero-knowledge password proof authentication to verify your identity (and prove a clone is an imposter). It would reduce the usefulness of DNA in court, since now DNA would not necessarily be unique... but cloning would be a very expensive way to plant evidence and frame... it would require that someone raised a clone of you and somehow convinced that clone to do their dirty work. It seems more likely that the clone would have a simular hierarchy of values as you, and would end up living in harmony of interest.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/21, 11:28pm)

Post 5

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:26pm

Dean,

I may still not be getting your meaning about the child producing more value than it consumes. Sorry if that’s the case, I am trying.

It sounds like you are talking about independence. By viability, I don’t mean independence in the sense of being on their own feet financially, rather I mean biological viability. I mean the difference between a fetus that, if you brought it out would die quickly because it’s lungs are not ready, it is physiologically unformed, so cannot carry out the functions required to remain alive—and a fetus that, if you brought it out would live.

Post 6

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:38pm

Jon,

I don't think your "viability" matters at all. Whats important to me is that individuals that live in harmony of interest with me have full control over their own bodies and their own property.

It may only be moral to force a woman to do something that will save the baby if: it can live independent from her AND it wouldn't "harm" her more to save the baby than to allow her to destroy it AND someone is willing to pay for the operation AND someone is willing to raise the baby.

We'd have to have very good evidence about the "harm" and risks involved with the various options, and very high confidence that someone will perform the operation, pay for the operation, and raise the baby with consent.

Post 7

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:28am

Dean,

I am not understanding you.

Are you taking the position that an individual’s life begins at birth, and therefore the state is justified in using force to protect an individual’s right to life only if that individual has been born? It’s a respectable position.

It has problems, though. What about a woman having contractions who demands an abortion?

Jon

Post 8

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:33am

And please don’t say it depends upon non-coercive financing. She’s Paris Hilton. She wants an abortion, right now, before the next highly-annoying contraction comes.

Now what?

Post 9

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 3:30am

Jon wrote:

Roe v. Wade gets it roughly correct.

I basically agree with this statement.

Interestingly, a young lady of my Internet acquaintance some years ago, a senior in high school and new to Objectivism, engaged me over e-mail in a lengthy exchange because she could not understand why Ayn Rand favored abortion. After some dialogue covering some of the same facts this thread covers, she finally yielded that a woman should have the legal right to abort per Roe v. Wade. But she said she could never have one herself because she found the idea too disturbing.

Like a twist in a novel, she got pregnant with her boyfriend during her freshman year in college. He wanted nothing to do with parenthood and they split over the issue. She agonized over her personal values and waited until near the end of her first trimester before finally deciding to abort. She told me this after I asked how college had been going for her. So when push comes to shove and reality imposes itself, one needs a total clarity of values in areas like this one.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/22, 3:33am)

Post 10

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:28am

Hmm, trying to define the starting point of life for the purpose of whether or not to abort...it may just be as well to use one's own common sense.

Post 11

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:55am

There are no conflicts of rights, else they could not be rights. There are conflicts of interests, but interests are not rights. As Rand pointed out [see Ayn Rand Answers], much to the consterntion of many, a human organism becomes an individual at birth. "The fact of birth is an absolute - that is, up to that moment, the child is not an independent, living organism. It is a part of the body of its mother. But at birth, a child is an individual, and has the rights inherent in the nature of a human individual. Until the moment of birth,the child is physically the property of the mother." [emphasis mine] She made it very clear there was a crucial distinction between a potential and an actual, with the woman being an actual and the fetus a potential, and that rights of the woman as such are not diminished, because of the nature of rights being not in conflict, else they not be real rights. Biologically, that fits, as consciousness - the activation of the conscious mind - takes place when the breathing begins upon birthing, and the fetus becomes on its own as an individual, and it is the mind, the consciousness, which make the person, the human being.

Post 12

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 8:01am

Hong:

Hmm, trying to define the starting point of life for the purpose of whether or not to abort...it may just be as well to use one's own common sense.

Exactly! You still can try to rationalize your answer afterwards...

Post 13

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 8:52am

Jon,

I'm not defining life, or when it starts. I'm not defining human life, or when it starts. I'm simply declaring the principle that no one and absolutely nothing intrinsically has the "right" to another's property, time, thoughts, resources, etc. I'm applying this principal to pregnancy. I'm trying to maximize others ability to produce things of value to me, not at the expense of others, but through production and consensual trade.

It may only be moral to force a woman to do something that will save the baby if all of the following apply (I'm assuming she doesn't consent to raising the baby):
1. It can live independent from her body.
2. It wouldn't "harm" her more to save the baby than to allow her to destroy it. By "harm" I mean physically destroy parts of her body, both temporary and permanent.
3. The process to save the baby will take less of the mother's time than the process of her destroying it.
4. Someone is willing to pay for the operation.
5. Someone is willing to raise the baby.

If #1 isn't true, then we would have involuntary servitude by means of initiation of force. We would have to force her to make sure she provides for the baby to make sure it gets what it needs.
If #2 isn't true, then we would net be destroying her body, we would be performing an initiation of force.
If #3 isn't true, then we would be preventing her from doing what she wants to do with her own body, we would be performing an initiation of force.
If #4 isn't true, then the operation would be financed coercively, an initiation of force.
If #5 isn't true, then it would be ridiculous to momentarily save the baby-- unless you are suggesting that we force someone to raise the baby, which would be an initiation of force.

But really, initiation of force is simply a principal. Its a tool I can use to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Now, you might claim that in many cases to allow her to abort the baby would be to allow her to perform an initiation of force against the baby. Right... so we can't just look and see if there is a case of initiation of force in an action, and then declare it right or wrong. We have to look at what is performing an initiation of force against what.

Ask yourself, what will promote my goals more:
1. To force the woman to go through the process of saving the baby, so that the baby can live.
2. To allow the woman to do what she wants with her own body.

In the case of most adult human beings, I care way more that they are able to do what they want with their own bodies than I care about an infant human being. I don't intrinsically value infant humans. I don't intrinsically value adult humans. What do they do? Do they promote my goals or do they hinder my goals?

Now what we really need is an example. What point of pregnancy is your "Paris Hilton" in? Are my 1-5 true? If they are not true, then to what degree are they not met? What has "Paris Hilton" done in the past, and what do we think she will do in the future if she is forced to save the baby vs allowed to do what she wants with her own body? What have others done in the past, and what do we think they will do if we force "Paris Hilton" to save the baby vs allow her to do what she wants with her own body? What do we think this infant will do if we force her to save it?

Post 14

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 10:31am

Robert M.,

Birth has the strength of being clear and objective, no denying that. But what about Paris in the delivery room, “I had no idea contractions would hurt so much, I demand an abortion!”? What if she pulls this four days before her due date?

Another analogy I like:

You have a bum chained to your couch. He’s there at your invite. You’ve been feeding him and so forth while he takes courses on cable TV. If, early into his studies, you decide you want him out, you can cut him loose and put him outside. He’ll quickly die, but that’s not your problem.

But if, toward the end of his studies, you decide you want him out, again, you have the right to put him out, and luckily for him, he’ll survive out there. I am saying you have the right to cut the chain and toss him, but you can’t slit his throat as he leaves.

If he cannot be safely cut from the chain, then you don’t have the right to kill him anyway. You have to wait a day or two more when the chain will evaporate naturally and he can walk out. Remember, we are well into this process, and he’s been there at your invite, month, after month after month.

Does that make sense?

In any case, what would you do about Paris demanding an abortion four days prior to her expected due date?

Jon

Post 15

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 11:00am

Four days before the expected due date:
1. true
2. very well could be true
3. very well could be true, or the time would be so little compared to the value the baby could produce that it would be ridiculous for her to object.
4. still not established, but very well could be true
5. still not established, but very well could be true

I'd agree with your analogy to an extent, its not exactly right, the chains do not exist, its actually the woman's body you'll have to cut and deform. To claim otherwise would be the fallacy of equivocation.

Post 16

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 11:22am

Dean,

Please let go of the operation. It’s not a proposal; it’s a component in an argument:

IF, we were to cut the fetus from the woman, and it would live, then it is viable and we disallow her an abortion. We don’t proceed to cut her open; we proceed by disallowing an abortion, forcing her to carry to delivery.

Jon

Post 17

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:08pm

The process of delivery itself can be very destructive and even deadly to a woman. I'm not dropping "operation". I consider natural delivery a form of an "operation".

To put some evidence behind my words, realize that a woman's birth canal is not a slippery infinitely flexible rubber tube for the baby to slip through that instantly returns to its original state un-harmed. You could easily do a quick google search to find women that have died or been severely damaged through natural delivery. "Complications of Labor", "Delivery complications" "Child birth complications". I found Pregnancy: Labor and Delivery which seems to have a great deal of objective information on the delivery process in whole. Notice that childbirth is not a simple procedure. Notice that because of evolution, eventually very few women will be capable of natural childbirth (since children from parents who are incapable of performing natural childbirth survive, and natural childbirth isn't required to live anymore) until we start engineering our own bodies.

Edit: only my first sentence was originally sanctioned.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/22, 12:28pm)

Post 18

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:18pm

I sanctioned Dean’s post 17 by accident.

It can be, destructive and deadly, Dean, but it is she who got herself to this point.

Incidentally, until birth, I do resolve any health conflict in favor of the woman. So if it becomes true that her viable fetus would likely kill her at delivery, I would resolve that by allowing her an abortion, no doubt about it, even if she’s in the middle of delivery.

If delivery would merely cause her health complications, or destroy her fertility, I wouldn’t allow an abortion. These are very debatable issues, however, I’m not seeing my answer as very provable.

These complicate the issue that interests me for this thread, however. I am interested in the ‘start of a life’ question under “clean” circumstances: Healthy fetus, healthy woman, no complications expected, etc.

Jon

Post 19

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:54pm