[Vision2020] Response to Ted on Abortion (perhaps again)

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greetings:

Forgive me  if you've already seen this, but the archives do not show that I sent this when it is in fact in my "sent mail" box.  Why doesn't every post get automatically archived?

Dear Ted:

You place a lot of weight on viability, which means that the fetus can live on its own outside the womb. So let's take a close look at this criterion.

Some critics of viability misunderstand the concept. Objections that fetal transfers from one womb to another, now done in some animals, could be done in humans or that artificial wombs and placentae will soon be available miss the point. These new procedures would not change the fact that the fetus is still in a womb and still completely dependent upon it. 

The argument that fetuses are dependent in a significant way on other people until they are three or four years old also misunderstands the concept of viability: even though the infant still needs care, it is physically independent from its mother. 

Critics have focused on dependence when the crux of the matter is separate existence. Siamese twins using the same vital organs, people on kidney dialysis, and the disembodied brain of science fiction are all dependent beings; but they are persons because they are independent centers of conscious awareness with their own personal identity. 

Returning to the artificial womb scenario, it is clear that current natal intensive care units (NICU) are the closest we have now come to this goal.  Just because these fetuses in NICUs are outside of their mothers wombs does not make them viable.  The example that you gave is telling: Isaiah was delivered prematurely at 24 weeks, and then spent 3 months in a NICU and 31 days on antibiotics. The question of abortion is moot for at least two reasons: (1) the parents of these fetuses obviously want these children to survive; (2) Isaiah was in a "womb" far into the third trimester and his right to life was protected by the state.  

I reject the viability criterion primarily because it fails to establish a moral difference between animals and humans.  Does a puppy get to a moral right to life just because it can survive outside its mother’s womb?  The same objection applies to the old criterion of "quickening," when the fetus moves in the womb, along with all other mammalian fetuses!  Good law, even against running a red light, is based on moral, not arbitrary, reasons.

Our moral, legal, and religious tradition has granted a serious moral right to life to persons and that tradition, starting with Aristotle, holds that persons are rational beings.  The internet article that you recommended assumed that this must mean some spooky substance, for which there is of course no evidence and which could not be part of any secular legislation anyway.  

That's why a Humean or Buddhist view of the person is so brilliant and appropriate.  For them a terrestrial person's self comes into being when certain physical and mental conditions come together; no spirits are necessary for this "bundle" theory of the self.  If you look at the slide of the fetal brain at 25 weeks (www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/fetalbrain.htm), you can see that there are neural connections and a neocortex even at this point and somewhat before, and I now want to amend my theory to include protection of the human fetus during the latter part of the second trimester.  

As I understand it, the 1973 decision allowed states and their medical boards to determine viability.  Under my theory they could also determine the level of brain activity necessary for beginning personhood.  I believe that viability is now set at 24 weeks and that corresponds to the beginning of the explosive brain activity that makes the fetal mind significantly different from most animal brains.  Therefore, the switch from viability to mentality would give the same standards of protection for the fetus. Please note that I am leaving open the possibility of whale, chimp, gorilla, and dolphin persons, and I take very seriously a Seattle group that is proposing that chimps be declared legal persons.

In an earlier post Melynda implied that we do not know anything about the mental life of fetuses.  I used to show a video in my classes about work done with premature babies, and one part of that film really sticks in my mind.  (I showed this particular segment during my debate with Doug Wilson in Februray of 1983.) Preemies spend most of their time in REM sleep and medical experts believe that this means that thousands of neural connections are being made at this time.  I can still see in my mind the EEG jumping all over the place, indicating both fetal dreaming and a significant mental life.

Ted, you again raise the fact that a human conceptus is a potential person, but please read the section of my article before you continue with this thesis.  Your cloning example leads to a reduction ad absurdum, namely, that we would have to protect every single our somatic cell (they are falling to the floor as I write) because they are potential persons.

Simply listing Warren's criteria for an actual, adult person ignores Puccetti's all-important and coherent concept of a beginning person (=child) with rights but not duties.  This would include all fetuses and infants with brain defects.  Those with severe defects, such as Baby Ashley (born with only a brain stem found in a dumpster at BSU), simply do not survive even with the best technology available. Ashley's brain stem could not even support basic physical activities.  Nature takes care of those not meant to survive, including up to 60 percent of implanted embryos that spontaneously abort.  Christian opponents of abortion have to face the fact that their God is the greatest abortionist in human history.
 
If I have not replied to all of your objections, please let me know.

Thanks for the debate,

Nick Gier