Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

Parents are the legal gaurdians for children until they reach the age of majority. They agree, by becoming parents, to that responsibility. That is the nature of parenthood. They must provide their children with a basic education (doesn't matter in what manner, but it has to have reading, writing, and basic math skills, enough to survive on its own in society), food, shelter, clothing, etc. They have to do this because they must naturally take over for the child his responsibilities for self-care and provision until the end of that necessity, which is the age of majority.

I'm with you thus far. Baby pops out, the biological parents raise their hands and say "we volunteer to raise this child" and become legal guardians. So far, so good. However, this is only meaningful because it is possible to volunteer at this point (after birth). There can be no volunteers while the fetus is still in the womb. Same principle as above. Any attempt to become a legal guardian of the fetus against the biological mother's will requires force, i.e. is a violation of her rights.

I am saying that the fetus is human, to be a volitional rational consciousness, at the time it has fully recognizable human brain activity which is at 30 weeks into the pregnancy, and thus the beginning of that legal responsibility of the parent begins at that time. Before that it is simply a potentiality, without any rights and no contractual obligations, it can be killed without a moral issue at all. But when it "wakes up" so to speak, when its brain becomes distinctly human, and thus has the structure upon which a human's mind is built, it is a human child. The pregnant woman has chosen to create this human consciousness, and as a result they have chosen to be the only caregiver for a select length of time, and must also take on the responsibility of caring for it outside the womb unless she gets rid of her legal responsibility by putting it up for adoption. She can even, in most cases in developed countries, immediately end her responsibility for the child by having it removed via early induced birth or c-section. No one forced her to enter into the obligation she has as a parent, she chose to, and so no coercion can be said to occur.

First, brain waves are not a claim on someone else's life. You said it yourself, "No one has the right to exist at the expense of another."

Second, this imaginary "contract" you speak of does not exist. If you start doing something, actively or passively, without receiving compensation or making promises, there is no magic that happens at some point that creates some sort of unchosen duty to see it through to the end. If you tacitly let someone live in or on your property for some time without evicting them, they do not acquire any rights to your property ("squatter's rights"). If a woman engages in sexual intercourse, she is not obligated to "finish" it after X amount of foreplay.

As Mixon pointed out, a contract is a quite specific thing. First, a fetus does not pay rent for the uterus. Second, a fetus, with brain waves or without, cannot accept an offer, even if one is made. At best(!) you can argue that the mother made this contract with herself, as the fetus' legal guardian, and since a contract must have at least two parties, there cannot possibly be any "contract".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parenthood has legal requirements, because it is an implicit contract defined by the nature of human beings and in particular young ones.
Apparently you don't understand what a contract is: there can be no contract between a woman and a fetus. The fetus is simply incapable of agreeing, and without an agreement, there can be no contract.
I am saying that the fetus is human, to be a volitional rational consciousness, at the time it has fully recognizable human brain activity which is at 30 weeks into the pregnancy, and thus the beginning of that legal responsibility of the parent begins at that time.
In order to be a rational being, it must first be a being, which means it must be separate from any other being -- your brain, for example, is not a rational being.
The pregnant woman has chosen to create this human consciousness
Potential human consciousness. And if she does sustain that decision to pursue the creation of a human being to the point of birth, she will have accepted certain legal obligations, but only then will she have accepted them. The obligation does not exist until a separate human exists.
No one forced her to enter into the obligation she has as a parent, she chose to, and so no coercion can be said to occur.
No, of course not, because she retains the right to have an abortion up to birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to be a rational being, it must first be a being, which means it must be separate from any other being -- your brain, for example, is not a rational being.

The above I think is the most important point that can be made.

Please let me know if this is too off topic or needs to be split, but knowing as we do that a fetus is NOT in fact a being what of murders that involve the killing of a fetus? Either killing a pregnant woman or intentionally hurting a pregnant woman in such a way that the fetus is killed? How would/could these actions be justly punished once the govt fully recognizes the right to abortion?

Would it be just then for someone who stabs a pregnant woman in the abdomin killing the fetus to be tried only for assault or a similar charge? I imagine that a 7 month pregnant woman would want a harsher charge then that, yet any charge of murder would imply that it is also murder if the woman chooses to abort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no volunteers while the fetus is still in the womb.

She chose to create the fetus, so she volunteered automatically. The creation of the fetus and allowing it to reach the point where it has a human brain and can survive outside the body (at 30 weeks this isn't a problem) is an acceptance of the responsibility for that life.

If you start doing something, actively or passively, without receiving compensation or making promises, there is no magic that happens at some point that creates some sort of unchosen duty to see it through to the end.

Actually, you can. If you choose to perform surgery on someone, then you must complete it, you can't just change your mind in the middle and leave him bleeding on the operating table. If you choose to have another life put into your hands and only your hands than you must complete that responsibility or give it to someone else. If giving it away isn't an option, then you have to complete the responsibility regardless of your wishes. You agreed when you started out, and can't back out now simply because you want to. Not without consequences in the ethical and legal realms.

Apparently you don't understand what a contract is: there can be no contract between a woman and a fetus. The fetus is simply incapable of agreeing, and without an agreement, there can be no contract.

And so how does parenthood begin? Who is the contract with? You automatically discount society as an option, or yourself. It can't be the infant, small child, or even a teenager because by legal standards they are not capable of entering into a contract. What is you basis for how a parent takes on the responsibilities I outlined in my previous post? If not by the simple decision to have a child, then by what possible standard could there be?

In order to be a rational being, it must first be a being, which means it must be separate from any other being...

Then by that definition before the baby has taken its first breath and as long as the umbilical cord is intact I can bash it with a rock and it is nothing more than destroying a tumor or growth. It is not "separate" from all other beings as yet. If you say "no no, the umbilical cord doesn't count", well then in utero doesn't count either since the infant gets all its nutrients through the umbilical cord. By the time the fetus has developed a brain of its own it can safely be removed from the mother without time in the ICU. At that point, the only thing that must be done is to induce a birth or remove it surgically. In fact, in order to do an abortion at that point you have to do a partial-birth abortion, which involves killing the fetus and then removing all of it intact. Why not simply remove it without killing it?

The obligation does not exist until a separate human exists.No, of course not, because she retains the right to have an abortion up to birth.

A separate human life does exist at that point. It has a human brain, has short-term memory, is fully capable of surviving outside the womb. The only difference between it and an infant at that point is location. The woman does not have to be the only caregiver, she can get it out of her and give it to someone else to care for. She has decided to allow it to reach that point, has decided to create it. I don't understand how her decision to keep it within her unnecessarily when she doesn't want to be the caregiver allows her to decide to kill it, that is an irrational decision that shows a gross disrespect for human life, and there is no conceivable rational purpose in doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so how does parenthood begin?
Well, a man and a woman meet, and they have sex. You don't need the whole thing explained, so you? The state of being "a parent" arises either when a child is born, in which case the woman bearing the child is one of the parents (there's paperwork involved for the other parent), or through adoption.
Who is the contract with?
There is no contract. Why would you even think that there is?
What is you basis for how a parent takes on the responsibilities I outlined in my previous post?
Are asking how a person psychologically becomes prepared to do what parents do? Or are you asking about the psycho-epistemology of "taking responsibility"? I don't understand your question.
Then by that definition before the baby has taken its first breath and as long as the umbilical cord is intact I can bash it with a rock and it is nothing more than destroying a tumor or growth.
Where would you get that idea? FYI, the sequence of events is that first a child is born, that is, a separate person comes into existence (persons have rights), and then someone ties off and cuts the umbilical cord (the cutting part is optional). Think about what the concept "separate" means. It means "not contained in". It has nothing to do with source of nutrition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems completely arbitrary that a fetus can somehow have less rights 1 second before it is birthed than 1 second after. It is definitely not the acorn: oak tree analogy here. It is scientifically and observably exactly the same after birth as before birth. Rand defines Man as "A Rational Animal," meaning an animal that possesses "the faculty of reason." And only a Man can have rights.

An un-birthed fetus most certainly does not posses the faculty of reason, not to mention language. And they do not somehow attain the "faculty of reason" the moment they are born.

So, like I said, using birth as the standard for defining when the fetus becomes a Man with Rights, is completely arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state of being "a parent" arises either when a child is born, in which case the woman bearing the child is one of the parents (there's paperwork involved for the other parent), or through adoption.There is no contract. Why would you even think that there is?Are asking how a person psychologically becomes prepared to do what parents do? Or are you asking about the psycho-epistemology of "taking responsibility"? I don't understand your question.

I mean how does someone take on the responsibilites of being a "parent" in a legal sense? If it is not a contract of some form, then what is it? My point in bringing it up is that you seem to simply be defining "parenthood" to necessarily only start at birth, and give no explanation for how parenthood comes about. Someone automatically agrees to be a parent unless they renounce that responsibility if they create the child (which by your definition happens at precisely the moment of birth. My point is that is not the proper demarcation point and saying "parenthood only begins at birth" without an explanation for why does not suffice. I don't see why a 30+ week old fetus isn't a human being.

Where would you get that idea? FYI, the sequence of events is that first a child is born, that is, a separate person comes into existence (persons have rights), and then someone ties off and cuts the umbilical cord (the cutting part is optional). Think about what the concept "separate" means. It means "not contained in". It has nothing to do with source of nutrition.

No, actually, a person is born when it becomes a separate entity, by your definition. It is not a separate entity until its umbilical cord is "cut" (the connection is severed, in whatever way you want to do it) and the baby takes a breath (thereby becoming self-sufficent). Separate means unconnected, not "not contained in." Until the baby has taken a breath and the umbilical connection is severed, the connection between mother and infant is not a trivial one, it is still a necessity for the child. Its not like two buildings connected by a walkway, they are separate, because neither needs the walkway. If the walkway is structurally significant to one or both buildings, then they are not "separate" buildings but one building divided into two section.

All that is required for a fetus to gain rights is for it to be taken out, by your definition. But for the fetus, and the mother, nothing changes except location until the cord is severed and it is breathing independently. They are still a connected biological entity, with one dependent on the other for the requirements of life. Location, without anything else changing, cannot possibly grant rights, the idea is ridiculous on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a separate entity until its umbilical cord is "cut" (the connection is severed, in whatever way you want to do it) and the baby takes a breath (thereby becoming self-sufficent). Separate means unconnected, not "not contained in." Until the baby has taken a breath and the umbilical connection is severed, the connection between mother and infant is not a trivial one, it is still a necessity for the child.
If we're discussing the legal aspect (as opposed to the moral one) I don't see how the "before cut/after cut" question is important. It is a borderline question of where the legal system draws a line, that can thenceforth be objectively identified. (FWIW, Dr. Peikoff has described a post-cut scenario as the place to draw the legal line. Podcast 33, 04:14) A similar question comes up all the time about a legal age: if it is 18 years, surely it can be 17 years and 364 days. It is not as if rights are some type of metaphysical attribute that suddenly enter the body at some point that we are merely trying to identify. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would draw the line sooner, not later. Infanticide is evil by almost any standard.
Sure, but if we're talking political philosophy, as opposed to emotional reactions, it is not enough to simply appeal to "almost any standard". We have to spell out the standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would draw the line sooner, not later.

Right, one cannot draw a standard.

Individual rights must be allowed. Anything beyond that must come from your ability to persuade that individual based on your intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once brain activity has begun, and the fetus is essentially fully developed it must have some inherent value. Just because the child "violates the rights of the mother" does that really give her the right to kill a scientifically fully developed human being?

Just because a thief violates your right to property, essentially enslaving you to their life, that does not give you the right to blow their brains out if you happen to see the guy walking down the street.

Infanticide is evil, bottom line, for the same reason it is evil to kill a full grown adult. It would be a violation of their right to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birth is not the rational place to make the dividing line for "independent living thing", because it can happen at any time, can be induced for any reason, etc.

Wow. So close and yet... so far.

Actually, birth is the PERFECT place. It's an elegant and highly satisfactory dividing line between entity with no rights and individual human with rights. That the infant's level of dependency on others has changed very little does not detract from the fact that its level of dependency HAS changed.

Birth happens when the fetus has finished growing and is ready to be born. The idea that there needs to be a set number of months, days, weeks & hours at which every human fetus is declared a human individual with rights is absurd.

There are very good reasons for a woman to wish to retain the right to terminate a pregnancy in its late stages. One of them is to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Another is if the fetus is developing abnormally or with genetic defects and she does not wish to take on the onerous and lifelong responsibility of raising such a child, it is and ought to be her right to terminate the pregnancy.

You people who prattle about the rights of fetuses make me sick. It's a charade of caring, a masquerade, an act. Quit your posturing. You don't give a good goddam about living human adults, whose lives you are perfectly willing to destroy and throttle in your insane obsession with dictating to others how we may live our lives.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once brain activity has begun
Why? Snakes have brain activity.
and the fetus is essentially fully developed
A child is not "essentially fully developed" until about age 18. So what do you mean by "essentially fully developed"? A fetus is not "essentially fully developed" until it stops being a fetus and is born.
it must have some inherent value.
Is that different from intrinsic value? What is the "inherent value" of a fetus? Valuable to whom, for what purpose? Why must something be of intrinsic value because it is "developed", and why it is not valuable before it is developed?

Suppose we follow your lead and decide that there is no general, easily applicable principle for determining that a being has rights: instead, we must determine if they "are rational". No behavioral test of rationality can objectively make that determination until the child is maybe a year old, which means that there is no way to prove the existence of a rational faculty until way much later than the point at which we can apply the simple rule "Men have rights".

How do you propose to determine that a rational faculty exists? Is it present in sperm and egg? How do you prove that it is not? Is it present in an 8 month old fetus? How do you prove that it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...why is it illogical to say that she has a responsibility to the living thing she has inside her (once it can live on its own), or even to a potentiality (alcohol consumption in the first 6 months for instance can cause a whole host of problems, espcially mental retardation)?

Perhaps we should say "allegedly cause a whole host of problems." It seems to me that people have become even more stupid and irrational ever since women stopped drinking & smoking during pregnancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why is it illogical to say that she has a responsibility to the living thing she has inside her (once it can live on its own)"

Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that text looks at least a bit weird. I've heard of course of people claiming somebody's or something's need of you made you responsible for them, but I think this might be the first time I personally have seen it put forward that the specific lack of need of you is to be a criteria for making you responsible to them. o_O

Now as for how much you are allowed to do to stop the violation of your rights, if you need to kill a person trying to rape you to get them to stop you are entirely free to do so. That's also a case where it is your body being violated and that it is temporary and may not necessarily in itself kill you, as with pregnancy. In that case it is even probably a grown adult person with full rights and for a much lesser period of time and probably even less physical changes forced on you than in a pregnancy. I did say though that in the rape case it was ok to kill them if you *needed* to in order to stop it (as far as you can tell within reasonable expectations under the circumstances.) Once viability has been reached, unless maybe for some reason either vaginal birth or having it cut out of you whole would both probably do more damage to you than an abortion at that point somehow, you probably really don't need to kill it to get your bodily integrity back to normal. On the other hand again though, if the fetus still doesn't have rights yet, than it still doesn't matter and you could choose to do it freely anyway since the reasons you aren't supposed to do more than you need to with a typical criminal don't apply here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once brain activity has begun, and the fetus is essentially fully developed it must have some inherent value. Just because the child "violates the rights of the mother" does that really give her the right to kill a scientifically fully developed human being?

Just because a thief violates your right to property, essentially enslaving you to their life, that does not give you the right to blow their brains out if you happen to see the guy walking down the street.

Infanticide is evil, bottom line, for the same reason it is evil to kill a full grown adult. It would be a violation of their right to live.

Define "right to live." In my reading of objectivism no where have I seen it written that one person has the right to live at the expense of another. If I don't feed my neighbors' children and they die am I guilty of interfering with their right to live? Infanticide/murder is not equitable with abortion. Murder/infantcide by definition both involve an initiation of force. However, if a mother chooses to withhold nourishment from a fetus by seperating it from her body (abortion) or from her infant by refusing to nurse it that does not violate the force principle. I'm not sure what you mean by a "scientifically fully developed human being." A fetus, infant, or young child is not developed enough to survive on its own. If a fetus/infant/child is to survive he/she must be cared for by someone by an act of volitional choice in order to be moral by objectivist ethics. Using force or coersion is expressly forbidden regardless of motive, be it the motive to feed one child or all the children of the world.

Edited by Mixon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. So close and yet... so far.

Actually, birth is the PERFECT place. It's an elegant and highly satisfactory dividing line between entity with no rights and individual human with rights. That the infant's level of dependency on others has changed very little does not detract from the fact that its level of dependency HAS changed.

Birth happens when the fetus has finished growing and is ready to be born. The idea that there needs to be a set number of months, days, weeks & hours at which every human fetus is declared a human individual with rights is absurd.

Pregnancies happen for a wide variety of reasons, not when "the fetus is ready to be born." That's a silly thing to say (look at all the severely premature babies for example). Every human fetus develops at about the same rate, and so giving a time delineation for where exactly on the developmental scale they have to be is exactly what would be rational. Birth can range from the nonhuman, massively underdeveloped and without a truly human brain at 4.5 months, all the way up to the infant stage of 10 months or so. Human brain activity is at 30 weeks, almost on the button, for the vast majority of fetuses.

There are very good reasons for a woman to wish to retain the right to terminate a pregnancy in its late stages. One of them is to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Another is if the fetus is developing abnormally or with genetic defects and she does not wish to take on the onerous and lifelong responsibility of raising such a child, it is and ought to be her right to terminate the pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancies would be found way before the end of the 7th month, so that's a nonissue. Even if it got to the point where for whatever reason the fetus was endangering the mothers life and the only way to save her was to kill it, then you must do so. After all, the fetus (who, by my definition, is a human) is killing the mother, thereby infringing on her rights, and so can legitimately be killed if that's the only way you can safely do it.

You know about genetic defects (if you want to know that is) well before 7 months comes along. And what about women who have a premature baby that develops incorrectly, why shouldn't they be able to kill it? Its abnormal, and they shouldn't have to take responsibility for the choice they made (namely, to have a child even though there is the possibility it will be deformed somehow). If you choose to have a baby, and let it get all the way to the end of the 7th month, then you have definitely made the choice to do so even with the chance that it might be deformed. If you try to play the lottery, but don't win, you don't get to demand your money back. Plus, you can always put it in an orphanage and up for adoption if you don't want to care for it.

You people who prattle about the rights of fetuses make me sick. It's a charade of caring, a masquerade, an act. Quit your posturing. You don't give a good goddam about living human adults, whose lives you are perfectly willing to destroy and throttle in your insane obsession with dictating to others how we may live our lives.

I don't give them much in the way of rights, just the last 2 months of pregnancy. I care a great deal about adult humans, and I agree with the Objectivist political position in every respect other than this issue (well, except I think a land value tax is legitimate, but that is a different thing). No regulations on business, no regulation of personal matters. Just enforce contracts and protect rights (no coercion, including fraud, murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.). I have no sympathy for someone if they choose to do something and it blows up in their face and then they come begging for something they have no right to ask for. They made a choice, now live with the consequences. By 30 weeks fetuses are viable without specialized medical care, so if the woman really doesn't want it inside her she can have it removed and then given up for adoption if she so desires. There isn't a reason to kill it except whim or malice. I find your post offensive, since I am being absolutely honest in my discussion, not posturing, lying, evading, or anything like that, my motives are laid out in my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Snakes have brain activity.A child is not "essentially fully developed" until about age 18. So what do you mean by "essentially fully developed"? A fetus is not "essentially fully developed" until it stops being a fetus and is born.Is that different from intrinsic value? What is the "inherent value" of a fetus? Valuable to whom, for what purpose? Why must something be of intrinsic value because it is "developed", and why it is not valuable before it is developed?

Suppose we follow your lead and decide that there is no general, easily applicable principle for determining that a being has rights: instead, we must determine if they "are rational". No behavioral test of rationality can objectively make that determination until the child is maybe a year old, which means that there is no way to prove the existence of a rational faculty until way much later than the point at which we can apply the simple rule "Men have rights".

How do you propose to determine that a rational faculty exists? Is it present in sperm and egg? How do you prove that it is not? Is it present in an 8 month old fetus? How do you prove that it is?

What I meant to convey was that the fetus is basically just as developed as a 1 minute old baby.

There is no way whatsoever to determine whether a fetus or infant is rational, simply because they are not capable of it.

I am not proposing that an 8 month old fetus possesses the faculty of reason. Our rights come from our mind and its amazing abilities. Why are then rights endowed upon infants that do not posses rationality?

Mixon, I wasn't trying to equate abortion with infanticide. I'm sorry if it sounded like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the moral concept which is to be enforced by the government is very simple principle: every human being has rights.

Well yes, but man is a rational animal. If you don't have the capacity for rational thought yet, then you aren't really human in that sense. You have no volition when you are fresh out of the womb, you cannot choose to live or not to live. As a result, you are basically an animal, which I can kill if I so desire. The only difference between a newborn and an animal is that the newborn has the basic brain architecture that allows rational thought to be possible in the human sense, and simply needs experience and time to develop his faculties. But the same can be said for a 30 week old fetus, the only difference between a 30 week old fetus in the womb and one outside the womb is location, and since a 30 week fetus can be removed without much trouble and remain alive, and in order to abort one you have to do almost everything required to remove it anyway, there isn't any real difference between a 30 week fetus inside and outside the womb. That's why I say that at that point abortion should be banned except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, but man is a rational animal. If you don't have the capacity for rational thought yet, then you aren't really human in that sense.
Given that stance, even a 6 month old child would not be an instance of "man" and would have no rights, which you claim you could kill if you desire.
The only difference between a newborn and an animal is that the newborn has the basic brain architecture that allows rational thought to be possible in the human sense, and simply needs experience and time to develop his faculties.
First, as a statement about the structure of the brain is concerned it is simply false to imply that a human brain does not develop further after birth. Second, you are switching the "rules" now, not depending on "actual" rational thought to "potential" rational thought. But then a fetus at 10 weeks has that potential. So if you are basing your law regarding the superiority of the rights of the fetus over those of the mother on the potential for rational thought, then you would have to prohibit abortions much earlier. In fact, the potential exists in un-united sperm and egg. So are you proposing to outlaw male masturbation?

You have to decide, if you are going to advocate this blatantly anti-Objectivist position whether rights pertain to the actual or the potential; and you have to justify the conclusion that a potential person has rights that overcome those of an actual human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should say "allegedly cause a whole host of problems." It seems to me that people have become even more stupid and irrational ever since women stopped drinking & smoking during pregnancy.

That was my first laugh out loud moment in a very difficult day at work. Thank you, I also couldn't agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that stance, even a 6 month old child would not be an instance of "man" and would have no rights, which you claim you could kill if you desire.First, as a statement about the structure of the brain is concerned it is simply false to imply that a human brain does not develop further after birth. Second, you are switching the "rules" now, not depending on "actual" rational thought to "potential" rational thought. But then a fetus at 10 weeks has that potential. So if you are basing your law regarding the superiority of the rights of the fetus over those of the mother on the potential for rational thought, then you would have to prohibit abortions much earlier. In fact, the potential exists in un-united sperm and egg. So are you proposing to outlaw male masturbation?

You have to decide, if you are going to advocate this blatantly anti-Objectivist position whether rights pertain to the actual or the potential; and you have to justify the conclusion that a potential person has rights that overcome those of an actual human.

The fetus's brain becomes distinctly human, meaning that the brain has all the structures of the human brain and has distinctly human brain activity patterns (as opposed to any other animal), at 30 weeks. It has, at that point, the basic structures required for rational thought, it is human, as opposed to any other sort of brain. A sperm does not have those structures, it is not human. A 4 month old fetus does not have those structures, it is not human. A 1 month old (plus a normal length of pregnancy) infant has those structures and is human. An 18 year old has learned how to use those structures properly (at least, hopefully so).

My point is that the brain's basic architecture is all in place at 30 weeks, it is human as opposed to anything else. After that point it is all about maturing and learning what processes to use to think in a rational manner, but the groundwork, the infrastructure necessary for that is all there at 30 weeks. Prior to that point, those structures don't exist. Man is an animal that is capable of reason, not one that uses it. A fetus at 30 weeks is capable of reason, it has the structures that are necessary. A brain-dead 30 year old or a 10 week old fetus do not, and cannot be said to be human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...