![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldSpeaking of DJ Blasted Bill, we had a fun time at his broadcast last night of The Toad Elevating Moment. Between breaks while the music was playing the co-hosts argued about abortion. There were not even two people there who took the same position on it. Narf is pro-life, Minion is pro-choice, Bill is pro-death, and I believe in limiting abortions to the first two trimesters except in cases of danger to the mother. As usual I am the only one who doesn't join an absolutist all-or-nothing camp, and can't encapsulate my stance in a duosyllabic catch-word.
Most people are caught up in conventional thinking when it comes to matters of biology and personhood. But notice that even in conventional thinking we don't have two classes of things in the world, the non-persons such as rocks and trees given no rights, and the full persons such as human adults given full rights. We have always restricted the freedom of juveniles, yet freedom is a fundamental human right. So there already exists an intermediate level on a scale of human rights, as uncomfortable as it may be to point this out to a pro-lifer. I wish it were simple enough to suffice to say that a body always belongs to the individual in it. That's a completely true statement, but doesn't help us so much with a two-headed woman. To whom do the shared parts of conjoined twins belong? Perhaps we'd have an easier time with such a case than we do with abortion, because each personality inhabiting the body could argue for his or her ownership. But ultimately I think it's that very fact that would force them to come up with a settlement that they could both live with.
My views on abortion, like on so many things, infuriate activists on both sides. I think I'm cursed with a destiny to argue with everybody. On the one hand, the pro-lifers are disgusted with me because I favor RU-486 and limitless medical experimentation on human embryos. On the other hand, the pro-choicers despise me because I'd like to see abortion rights limited, to be previous to the third trimester except in cases of danger to the mother. As far as I can tell, the activists see it as an all-or-nothing issue because they honor one or the other out of a set of valid competing values, life and choice.
On the one hand, science has indeed verified that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features, the lights are on and somebody's home. On the other hand, previous to attachment to the womb wall, we're talking about a mindless single cell here, with none of those features. Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics' Society, had an interesting perspective in his article The Secular Sphinx.
"Obviously neither egg nor sperm is a human individual, nor is the zygote, since it might split to become twins, or develop into less than one individual and naturally abort. Not after two weeks, since twinning can still occur. Nor by eight weeks-while there are recognizable human features such as the face, hands, and feet, neuronal synaptic connections are still being made. Only after eight weeks do embryos begin to show primitive response movements. Between eight and 24 weeks, however, the organism could not exist on its own (Pleasure, et al., 1984; Milner and Beard, 1984; Koops, et al., 1982).
There is provisional assent amongst most physicians and scientists-i.e., it is a "fact"-that fetus viability is 24 weeks of gestation. That is six months. It appears that it cannot be earlier because critical organs-lungs and kidneys-do not mature before that time. For example, air sac development sufficient for gas exchange does not occur until at least 23 weeks after gestation, and often later (Beddis, et al., 1979).
Additionally, not until after 28 weeks of gestation does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately 30 weeks. In other words, the capacity for human thought cannot exist until 28 to 30 weeks of gestation (Flower, 1989; Purpura, 1975; Molliver, et al., 1973). Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be "human," the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important."
One may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. There's a long way to go before it becomes a human fetus, much less a human baby. Every human sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which has the potential to become a fetus, but it'll just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall. They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
Why do people argue when life begins? There is no beginning to human life. I am the tail end of one long living continuum from my parents, who weren't the beginning of it either. At no point was this process dead when I sprung out of it. If a human sperm and human egg are previous to the beginning of life, then what are they, dead? If they're pre-human then what are they? They have human DNA. I believe that sperm and eggs are both human and alive... there's nothing else for them to be. And note carefully or you'll miss the whole point: I do not regard them as people. I've been using the words "human" and "person" with great care. As a transhumanist, what species they are isn't the deciding factor for me. The important thing is the set of experiences which have not begun. Take for instance the sperm or the egg that were going to later become me, and let's say they had died, or combined and aborted as an embryo. My set of experiences would never have begun and I would never have existed. We say about a dead person, "the shell is here but the nut is gone." The nut, the mind, would never have been there, so I would not have been killed by destroying the shell. I would have been prevented from ever existing and not even known the difference.
So what do we mean when we say, "the story of someone's life," or, "get a life," or "life is good right now"? We aren't talking about the opposite of biological death in these phrases. I'll tell you what I mean by it. My life is my series of experiences. That's why the important difference to me, is whether the lights are on and somebody's home. Somebody in a coma is merely "on pause," whereas a corpse is permanently post-experiences. A fetus in the third trimester has started having measurable experiences. Science shows that at a point, before birth, they can perceive, they can learn, there are brainwaves. Their series of experiences has begun in a tiny way. As far as I'm concerned, that carries a certain degree of rights. They have embarked on the lowest end of the sliding scale.
But just as a corpse is post-experiences, an embryo is without question pre-experiences. When I talk about ending a person's life, I mean interrupting an ongoing series of experiences in progress. When it starts, there's a person in that body. Before and after, it's just tissue.
Most people are caught up in conventional thinking when it comes to matters of biology and personhood. But notice that even in conventional thinking we don't have two classes of things in the world, the non-persons such as rocks and trees given no rights, and the full persons such as human adults given full rights. We have always restricted the freedom of juveniles, yet freedom is a fundamental human right. So there already exists an intermediate level on a scale of human rights, as uncomfortable as it may be to point this out to a pro-lifer. I wish it were simple enough to suffice to say that a body always belongs to the individual in it. That's a completely true statement, but doesn't help us so much with a two-headed woman. To whom do the shared parts of conjoined twins belong? Perhaps we'd have an easier time with such a case than we do with abortion, because each personality inhabiting the body could argue for his or her ownership. But ultimately I think it's that very fact that would force them to come up with a settlement that they could both live with.
My views on abortion, like on so many things, infuriate activists on both sides. I think I'm cursed with a destiny to argue with everybody. On the one hand, the pro-lifers are disgusted with me because I favor RU-486 and limitless medical experimentation on human embryos. On the other hand, the pro-choicers despise me because I'd like to see abortion rights limited, to be previous to the third trimester except in cases of danger to the mother. As far as I can tell, the activists see it as an all-or-nothing issue because they honor one or the other out of a set of valid competing values, life and choice.
On the one hand, science has indeed verified that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features, the lights are on and somebody's home. On the other hand, previous to attachment to the womb wall, we're talking about a mindless single cell here, with none of those features. Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics' Society, had an interesting perspective in his article The Secular Sphinx.
"Obviously neither egg nor sperm is a human individual, nor is the zygote, since it might split to become twins, or develop into less than one individual and naturally abort. Not after two weeks, since twinning can still occur. Nor by eight weeks-while there are recognizable human features such as the face, hands, and feet, neuronal synaptic connections are still being made. Only after eight weeks do embryos begin to show primitive response movements. Between eight and 24 weeks, however, the organism could not exist on its own (Pleasure, et al., 1984; Milner and Beard, 1984; Koops, et al., 1982).
There is provisional assent amongst most physicians and scientists-i.e., it is a "fact"-that fetus viability is 24 weeks of gestation. That is six months. It appears that it cannot be earlier because critical organs-lungs and kidneys-do not mature before that time. For example, air sac development sufficient for gas exchange does not occur until at least 23 weeks after gestation, and often later (Beddis, et al., 1979).
Additionally, not until after 28 weeks of gestation does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately 30 weeks. In other words, the capacity for human thought cannot exist until 28 to 30 weeks of gestation (Flower, 1989; Purpura, 1975; Molliver, et al., 1973). Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be "human," the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important."
One may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. There's a long way to go before it becomes a human fetus, much less a human baby. Every human sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which has the potential to become a fetus, but it'll just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall. They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
Why do people argue when life begins? There is no beginning to human life. I am the tail end of one long living continuum from my parents, who weren't the beginning of it either. At no point was this process dead when I sprung out of it. If a human sperm and human egg are previous to the beginning of life, then what are they, dead? If they're pre-human then what are they? They have human DNA. I believe that sperm and eggs are both human and alive... there's nothing else for them to be. And note carefully or you'll miss the whole point: I do not regard them as people. I've been using the words "human" and "person" with great care. As a transhumanist, what species they are isn't the deciding factor for me. The important thing is the set of experiences which have not begun. Take for instance the sperm or the egg that were going to later become me, and let's say they had died, or combined and aborted as an embryo. My set of experiences would never have begun and I would never have existed. We say about a dead person, "the shell is here but the nut is gone." The nut, the mind, would never have been there, so I would not have been killed by destroying the shell. I would have been prevented from ever existing and not even known the difference.
So what do we mean when we say, "the story of someone's life," or, "get a life," or "life is good right now"? We aren't talking about the opposite of biological death in these phrases. I'll tell you what I mean by it. My life is my series of experiences. That's why the important difference to me, is whether the lights are on and somebody's home. Somebody in a coma is merely "on pause," whereas a corpse is permanently post-experiences. A fetus in the third trimester has started having measurable experiences. Science shows that at a point, before birth, they can perceive, they can learn, there are brainwaves. Their series of experiences has begun in a tiny way. As far as I'm concerned, that carries a certain degree of rights. They have embarked on the lowest end of the sliding scale.
But just as a corpse is post-experiences, an embryo is without question pre-experiences. When I talk about ending a person's life, I mean interrupting an ongoing series of experiences in progress. When it starts, there's a person in that body. Before and after, it's just tissue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
hear hear
Date: 2004-06-10 01:55 pm (UTC)