There is no right to have an abortion

You continue to make the "sentient human being" distinction, when I am telling you that harm can be done before sentience, that is suffered after sentience. Should that harm be protected from or not?

 

If you think a fetus is a person prior to the third trimester. Then make some kind of argument validating that claim.

So far you have not done so.

I have not given my "theory" of what a person is ? You are claiming that a person exists prior to the third trimester.

The problem is that you have not supported this claim.

 

So are you saying that someone can intentionally harm you before you are a person?

 

There have been fetuses who survived coming out before the third trimester, so we know the third trimester is not an absolute cut-off point for viability (not that viability should be used as the criteria for personhood).

 

Yes of course

 

While the fetus is being formed (before it is sentient) it exists as a part of the pregnant woman, so she has the ultimate authority over what should happen. If she did NOT chose to have a baby then she should be allowed to evict the fetus as soon as possible, so there is no fetus to harm and no potential harm to the fetus in the future.

If she has chosen to have a baby then we should not interfere with that decision either. But I think I see where you are trying to go with this. IF she has freely chosen to have a baby, but she is doing things that could harm the development of the fetus (e.g. excessive drinking), it suggests that she has some emotional problems so we should (a) recommend abortion because she is not a suitable mother (b) recommend counseling to avoid the harmful behavior so her actions will not eventually impair her newborn. We do not act on behalf of a fetus because a fetus is not yet a sentient human.

 

But because a woman should have the choice to abort, we shouldn't protect people from such harm?

 

Of course we should protect potential people. Right up until they are born or an abortion takes place.

 

Viability is different from sentience. As medical science improves, it might be possible someday to incubate a human being from the initial fertilized egg. That fertilized egg is clearly not a sentient human being.

 

I say we should "act", because we have a duty to prevent some in our society from harming others. If some sick doctor screwed you up for life while you were in the womb, before you were a "person" as defined legally today, and with your pregnant mother's consent, then that doctor must face justice. And it would be justice on your behalf, not your pregnant mother's behalf. And it would be justice for an act that was committed before you were a person as legally defined today.

 

It should be mandated treatment not prison.

 

No. Someone can intentionally harm anything. The question is whether or not that someone is harming is a person.

We do not have prohibitions against harming "life" in general. It is a fact that we much kill life in order to survive.

We do not have prohibitions against harming "human life". There is no protection for sperm, egg, human heart cells or human cells in general.

We do have a prohibition against harming "living humans".

 

Not much prior. The start of the third trimester is 26 weeks. I would have no problem pushing this back to 20.

The Neurological perspective - (human does not exist until significant brain function exists)- makes sense to me. Meaning I have trouble arguing that this is not a person at this point.

Significant Brain Function (ability to feel pain, have cognition and so on) requires (giving the Cole's notes version) that the wiring of the brain be connected. This does not happen until 20-24 weeks.

I do not think it is possible for a fetus to be "viable" prior to this point.

A quick google https://www.google.ca/#q=viability+outside+the+womb comes up with.

The completion of the wiring varies from fetus to fetus. We can see from these stats appears to be directly related to completion of that wiring.

If it were up to me I would suggest that a test to check the status of that wiring be done prior to conducting the abortion. (Its an easy test ... when the wiring is complete the brain lights up like an xmas tree... and when one dies the xmas tree lights go off)

It the xmas tree lights are on. I then have to claim that a living human exists as I lack the ability to come up with a valid argument to the contrary.

 

I didn't dodge the question, I answered and you posted the answer.

Now you have a new questions (that's called "moving the goalposts").


You: ""Should we protect the fetus from experimentation or drug use before the third trimester?""

Illegal drugs use? Or legal experimental drugs?

 

Sounds like something out of a movie... and since pro-lifers tend to disregard anything with low probability (like rape or condom failure) I am astonished that you would be worried about such an improbable scenario as an "Evil Doctor" who gets the pregnant mother's consent to deliberately inflict injury on her fetus. We are assuming here that the woman WANTS to have a baby (otherwise she would get an abortion) so can you fill in the blanks a bit to provide a tangible, and realistic, scenario?

 

That seems logical to me.

Here is an article from Scientific American that covers the issue of sentience:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
It says:
"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester."

 

I see... So you are thinking in terms of Mengele type experiments. I believe that happened in Nazi Germany with the blessing of their leaders. If somebody in America set out to perform experiments like that, we would find out about it (a) because a woman or an assistant reported it, or (b) because we see the resulting injury in a newborn and investigate the source. It would be considered a crime against humanity, and (case b) we could prosecute or sue on behalf of the newborn.

 

I have read similar stuff. One Journal Article I read on Fetal Pain put it at 20-24 weeks. (that could have been older as I know the research in this area continues)

Regardless, it is pretty much unanimous that the wiring in the brain prior to 20 weeks is simply not in place for the electrical connections required for "Sentience".

I say that if a woman is too (not pretty word) to have an abortion prior to 20 weeks ... I have little sympathy for her as it gets darn hard to argue that the entity growing in her belly is not a person.

If she is stupid enough to not realize that she is pregnant after 5 months... she is then, in my mind, not capable of making decisions for herself.

 

I believe a woman who is already in the third trimester either WANTS to have a baby, is either remarkably unaware of her body (as you suggested), or has been blocked from getting an abortion earlier by people who were violating her rights. If a woman WANTS to have the baby and is suddenly contemplating abortion in the last 2-3 months, it is probably the result of a serious condition and I am not convinced we should have the right to second-guess her decision.

 

There are many complicating factors. A far more complex conversation than in the early stages... that is for sure.

 

And there are probably about 5,000-10,000 babies in hospitals right now, who are living humans, and they have been harmed. You said there was a prohibition against that. Go tell them.

 

I did not say any such thing. Quit talking nonsense.

 

You know, reality winds up being weird far beyond any reasonable expectation
Who would have expected this bizarre election cycle?

The unbelievable FACT is that there a surprising number of women have no idea they are pregnant until they actually give birth ...how is THAT possible? But apparently it does happen

 

The goalpost has always been: anything that would cause harm to a born human. Should acts committed before birth, that harm after birth, be illegal? With the explosion of babies being born addicted, I think it is a relevant question for our society. And again, not only drug use, but any experimentation with a fetus that harms the baby after birth should be protected from as well. The reason these should be illegal, is because the fetus is a person, and what you do to it, affects the born person.

- - - Updated - - -

You said there was a prohibition against harming living humans. The babies are living persons. They have been intentionally harmed by another person. So what gives?

 

Not a person but a potential person.