RoR: Forum

Mark,

As usual you offer a well-reasoned, cogent argument.

You write, “The development of the minimal capacity for reason within the fetus marks the starting point of a distinct human life, because that capacity primarily distinguishes human life from non-human and pre-human life.”

I think this misses the point of the task at hand. We aren’t trying to distinguish human life from lower forms, but a human life from its absence, that is, a human life from non-life. In other words, the status to discern is not, ‘when does a fetus distinguish itself from a cat,’ but instead, ‘when does a fetus distinguish itself from a potential life and become an actual.’

For that task, I continue see this: “Medical science clearly proves that it is a seperate biological entity whose viability substantially depends on its own biological processes” as being the marker we are looking for.

Jon

Post 21

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:32am

Jon,

Not doing what you thought, just took you too literally.

If you are looking for a 'marker' and by that you mean when a baby can be "untimely ripped from its mother's womb" and survive (albeit with help) that would be 24-26 weeks. Full term is 36 weeks +or-.

Johns Hopkins reported the following survivors:

- at 22 weeks = none

- at 23 weeks = 15%

- at 24 weeks = 56%

- at 25 weeks = 79%

The Limit of Viability, M. Allen et al., N. Eng. J. Med. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No.22, pg. 1597

World's Tiniest Premature Baby Born in England (London Guardian no date available)
The world's smallest surviving premature baby, born in London 16 weeks early and weighing only 21.14 ounces, is now six months old and is a healthy nine pounds. Christopher Williams was born November 21 at Whipps Cross Hospital, and is expected to be included in the next edition of the Guinness Book of World Records...

Christopher underwent weeks of oxygen therapy and had two hernia operations, spending the first five months of his life in the hospital...

The previous record-holder was James Elgin Gill of Canada, who was born 128 days premature and weighing 21.84 ounces...

Post 22

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:09am

OK, Robert. Thanks for the elaboration. Sorry I snapped a bit.

I will try to be more patient, as it sure seems I am missing some aspect of the point you, Mark and Tibor seem to find unanswerable: the business about viability always meaning “with some help”

Perhaps I can express why I don’t see any “with help” in the concept of viability…

---Is the fetus disconnected from the woman, a separate entity?
Yes.

---Is it breathing, and not via ventilator but on it’s own?
Yes. Then, its lungs are functioning.

---Is it nourishing itself by swallowing human breast milk and digesting it, and not just getting by because someone is injecting it with glucose so it won’t have to digest anything?
Yes. Then its digestive system is working on its own.

---Etc., etc.

If all the answers are yes, it’s viable on its own. If any are no, then it is only surviving because substitutes (pure glucose, etc.) are being provided for what is missing—the woman’s body. If substitutes for being connected to the woman are required for it’s continued survival, then it isn’t viable in the sense I mean.

I am not seeing the relevance of the response, “But someone has to help it by providing the milk.” By this logic, something has to help me, too—the sun, because without it I couldn’t grow any food. This misses the point. The point being that if she can digest the milk and live, then her body is performing per design, it is ready and capable of living as a separate entity. Prior to this, her digestive system is not ready, and she can survive only by providing her with substitutes for a woman’s body until that day she will reach the point I am talking about and be disconnected from those substitutes.

Jon

Post 23

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:48am

Jon, take the viability argument to its ultimate conclusion. By that logic if I were to be hospitalized and kept artificially alive by machines only, by this standard I would have lost my status as "officially" a living human being. Self-sustaining physical viability cannot be the standard to define the point at which a fetus is officially a living human being, and thus has rights. Independent breathing is not what makes one a living human being, but rather, independent thinking of a uniquely human type (concept formation). In this respect I am in agreement with Dr. Machan in one of his past statements on the subject, where to my understanding, he contends that for the purposes of the abortion debate, that cerebral development to a certain functioning level (I forgot the specifics he gave) is the most rational standard to employ when arguing about when a fetus has reached a developmental stage where it should legally be considered an individual human life.

Would this be a "moving target" without a neat and tidy obvious point of agreement, probably so, but be that as it may, given the present level of knowledge on the subject, I cannot see another reasonable alternative.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/25, 10:51am)

Post 24

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:45pm

Do not confuse potential functioning to actual functioning - that is, that the ability to do so is in fact being done so... to what necessity would the actualizing take place, the 'turning on' of the conceptual consciousness, unless it is at the point of need - the birthing, when it is indeed on its own... remember, all things involving living organisms which pertain to their survival are there because of its pertaining to their survival, and thus come into operation as is needed, not as superfluousness [far less superfluousness for the sake of political agendas or religious proscriptions]...

Post 25

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:10pm

George,

Your analogy may be helpful. I will think about it some more.

For now I can say I am still uncomfortable with the ‘wiring sufficient for consciousness’ threshold, because for one, that’s not consciousness. Also, as you point out that’s just today’s understanding. If later we discover that such wiring is actually present at 30 days, we face an absurdity: Protecting as a separate human life something that is many, many months from being able to exist separately. The capacity to stand alone, as a physiologically independent entity, seems required in order to avoid this.

Jon

Post 26

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:58pm

George,

I thought it through. No dice.

While I readily admit that your threshold makes more sense when applied to grown adults than mine does, the analogy is invalid as it introduces a fundamental switch in context.

As another example, think of Rand’s position: birth. If we pass her position through your analogy, we get:

What about an adult, who finds himself, through no fault of his own, stuffed into a woman? (You are invited to have fun with that.)

My threshold failed your analogy because a grown man who needs dialysis is still an individual with right to life, yet my position would imply he’s back to being not-quite-that. Her position fairs no better as it ends up implying the same thing. Her position dissolves into incoherence in your analogy, yet there is nothing incoherent about it.

The context we are dealing with is: Finding the point where a developing fetus reaches the status of being a new, separate human being. Your analogy switches to adults, who by definition long ago passed every conceivable threshold. We shouldn’t expect any threshold from the present context to make sense when applied to adults.

Jon

Post 27

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:22am

Jon,

If the correct definition of "human" is: That known being with the potentiality for volitional rationality (and I think this is the correct -- ie. differentiating -- definition), then the following syllogism is sound ...

Humans are that which have the potentiality for volitional rationality.
A mature nervous system is required for the potentiality for volitional rationality.
---------------------------------
Therefore, if there is no mature nervous system present, then there is no human being present (ie. 1-8 week-old embryos aren't "human").

Ed

Post 28

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 8:51am

Ed,

I wouldn’t think the word “potentiality” belongs in the definition of human being.

The word “mature” in your syllogism causes problems. The Tibor/Cordero/Humphrey position uses not “mature, “but ‘minimally formed brain tissue that will eventually be associated with conceptual consciousness.’ This position amounts to protecting a fetus on the basis of its mere potential for consciousness. I propose protecting a fetus only if and when it has the actual ability to exist as a separate entity.

In any case, I don’t disagree with your last sentence.

What I reject is the proposal to protect as a separate human life, something that is incapable of existing separately.

Jon

Post 29

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:03am

Jon,

==================
What I reject is the proposal to protect as a separate human life, something that is incapable of existing separately.
==================

Whoa, that one was a "doozie."

Ed
[back to the drawing board, checking his premises]

Post 30

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:03am

The essential defining characteristic of a form of life that distinguishes it from other forms of life is not the criterion to use for the purpose of discerning the point where an individual passes from potential to actual.

Try it with another life form: Plants.

What is the essential defining characteristic of plants that distinguishes them from other forms of life? Chlorophyll.

Seeds contain Chlorophyll.

Therefore, seeds are plants.

Edit for more:

Possessing the essential defining characteristic that places one in the category of planthood or humanhood, does not answer or even address our question, which is: Is it an instance of a potential plant or human, or is it an actual one?

Edit for more, again:

Possession of the brain structures that will eventually be associated with conceptual consciousness is not possession of conceptual consciousness.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 1/28, 11:34am)
(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 1/28, 11:41am)

Post 31

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 1:51pm

One should do it a little better Jon - birds lay eggs - at what point does the egg become a bird........ when it hatches.

Post 32

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 2:56pm

The essential defining characteristic of birds that distinguishes them from other species is the possession of feathers. The chick has its feathers prior to hatching.

If it would survive if you cracked it open early, I say it’s a bird, not for reason of possessing feathers, though. I would say it was now a bird even if it didn’t yet possess them. It is now a bird because we know it is indeed a ‘developing bird,’ and one that has reached the point of being capable of existing as a separate entity. If feathers came later, so what?

If she wouldn’t survive if you cracked her open early, then she isn’t a bird yet, despite the feathers.

Is that better?

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 1/28, 3:06pm)

Post 33

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 5:23pm

Robert,

You never got back to me about Paris Hilton [from another thread.]

Please respond to the Paris question, or at least to this:

The cook at a diner sets out to make your eggs. He cracks one open over the pan. A chick falls out, hits the pan, then jumps off the pan, and jumps, and jumps. He catches it in the air and whacks it with the spatula. The fat lady delivers the plate to your table and preempts your objection with, “shut up and enjoy your egg.”

Post 34

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:30pm

Now that was definitely a fowl tale if ever there was one.......;-)

Regarding the Parisian event -
I would almost wager you that you couldn't find just one certifiable such scenerio in reality as what you propose - in other words, you're doing, as said, a 'lifeboat situation' as as means of making a general moral statement. As such, without knowing the context, no answer could properly be given.

(Edited by robert malcom on 1/28, 6:35pm)

(Edited by robert malcom on 1/28, 6:36pm)

Post 35

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:07pm