![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Abortion: Defining where the line is
Mar. 1st, 2005 12:58 amOK, so I'm going to do my best at a layperson's attempt to understand some science that is not in my field so that I can apply it to my life. Please correct me if you know more about this stuff.
Some of the sources I'm reading on brain development imply to my ignorant eyes that synapses formed in the brain may have a direct connection to learning, experience, memory, formation of personality based on experience, etc.
To me, that seems like an essential part of being conscious, being alive. Since brains don't finish maturing until age 21, we can't use the whole brain as a measure. But I thought, if synapses are what I get the impression they are, then when they start forming is when the living experience begins.
If that's the case, then I can posit that in my view, a fetus becomes a human when those synapses begin to form, which is sometime in the mid to late second trimester.
I think the difficulty with the whole abortion debate is not only that we don't have a full scientific understanding of the development of a fetus from conception to birth, but also that we haven't defined what makes humans so damned valuable, nor when a being transitions from being tissue to being alive to being conscious.
Most people would agree that an adult human's life is definitely worth more than the life of some animal (yes, some of you may disagree, but work with me here). Although some animal lovers would go through pregnancy and the disruption to their life to save an animal's life, most people would consider it reasonable to choose to not go through the inconvenience and let the animal die. On the other hand, if I was told that my friend Bob would die if I didn't go through pregnancy for 9 months, would I do it? Would you? Most people would, I think, or at least, would believe that they ought to even if they didn't have the moral "whatever," strength, etc. to go through with it.
Somewhere between an animal and my friend Bob (and actually, this may not be a spectrum, exactly), there's a line that each individual person draws. Once you've found that line, the question is, what about the being on one side of the line makes their life more valuable, more worth going through discomfort, life disruption, etc. than the beings on the other side of the line? Answering that question may help you figure out where you think the line should be drawn as far as abortions.
Chimpanzees are turning out to be way smarter than we thought. A brilliant chimpanzee is smarter than a severely retarded human, iirc. Should we go through pregnancy for such a being? If not, what makes them different from the human that makes you draw the line there?
Have at, but please play nice. I mean it. If you can't handle the heat, take a break or leave the discussion entirely.
Comments are being screened just to keep it coming slowly and avoid any particular nastiness.
Some of the sources I'm reading on brain development imply to my ignorant eyes that synapses formed in the brain may have a direct connection to learning, experience, memory, formation of personality based on experience, etc.
To me, that seems like an essential part of being conscious, being alive. Since brains don't finish maturing until age 21, we can't use the whole brain as a measure. But I thought, if synapses are what I get the impression they are, then when they start forming is when the living experience begins.
If that's the case, then I can posit that in my view, a fetus becomes a human when those synapses begin to form, which is sometime in the mid to late second trimester.
I think the difficulty with the whole abortion debate is not only that we don't have a full scientific understanding of the development of a fetus from conception to birth, but also that we haven't defined what makes humans so damned valuable, nor when a being transitions from being tissue to being alive to being conscious.
Most people would agree that an adult human's life is definitely worth more than the life of some animal (yes, some of you may disagree, but work with me here). Although some animal lovers would go through pregnancy and the disruption to their life to save an animal's life, most people would consider it reasonable to choose to not go through the inconvenience and let the animal die. On the other hand, if I was told that my friend Bob would die if I didn't go through pregnancy for 9 months, would I do it? Would you? Most people would, I think, or at least, would believe that they ought to even if they didn't have the moral "whatever," strength, etc. to go through with it.
Somewhere between an animal and my friend Bob (and actually, this may not be a spectrum, exactly), there's a line that each individual person draws. Once you've found that line, the question is, what about the being on one side of the line makes their life more valuable, more worth going through discomfort, life disruption, etc. than the beings on the other side of the line? Answering that question may help you figure out where you think the line should be drawn as far as abortions.
Chimpanzees are turning out to be way smarter than we thought. A brilliant chimpanzee is smarter than a severely retarded human, iirc. Should we go through pregnancy for such a being? If not, what makes them different from the human that makes you draw the line there?
Have at, but please play nice. I mean it. If you can't handle the heat, take a break or leave the discussion entirely.
Comments are being screened just to keep it coming slowly and avoid any particular nastiness.
