Late Term Abortion

[whYNOT]

Eiuol, I think "more facts" definitely change the *values* involved. If not directly the [moral] "principles" - which should change accordingly. Fact -> value, as is known.

For much of that said "thousands of years", the conceiving and bearing of new life evidently carried great mystical overtones. Of course, not surprising. It all looked like wondrous magic to our predecessors, and with fair justification, considering the intermix of sensations/emotions by mother and others intimately involved. The mother was seen as the actual *creator* of an infant by some mysterious process, giving rise to all the superstitions and myths. We know now her essential role. The exact moment of birth was seen as immutable, the "given", determined by another mystery (of nature), for one aspect, not yet completely overturned, creating astrological beliefs about the newborn.

Today and for a relatively short while, we have the know-how, skills and equipment to intervene and pre-empt 'natural' birth (in emergencies or other reasons), safely ensuring a baby's viable life. 

Life, if defined by the physiology: brain and physical formation and activities - measurable and observable - by a fetus, begins earlier than was traditionally thought. Here is a new(-ish) fact, and what to do about it, since there still has not been applied a clear, objective ethical standard.

Edited April 30, 2019 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/1134891021068693505?s=17

 

[Eiuol]

1) It's a fetus, not an infant. The procedure is done before viability. In the video linked in the article linked in tweet, it isn't even talking about partial-birth abortion in the most extreme example of late-term abortion. Our whole discussion here had a lot to do with viability, and you seemed to agree, so you should be in support of partial-birth abortions.

2) The tweet manipulates the reader by showing a picture that doesn't represent the procedure.

3) A partial-birth abortion is an invasive medical procedure. Describing any medical procedure is often going to sound gruesome.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/partial+birth+abortion

[softwareNerd]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/1134891021068693505?s=17

Good to see some states are going in the opposite direction from the Christian radicals.

[whYNOT]

10 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Good to see some states are going in the opposite direction from the Christian radicals.

Well, quite 'naturally' so, Snerd. As long as this issue is left up to only politicians playing political football with it. I saw there'd be extreme reaction and over-reactions both ways in this infernal tug o war when I earlier called out the Dems as foolish for messing with a very reasonable, defendable solution, one taking into account, fetal development - the Roe v. Wade judgment.

Virginia, then Alabama, then, Georgia and then Illinois... "radicals" on both sides lacking rationally moral advisement.

IF- the third trimester fetus is ever objectively defined as viable, human life, and the biological findings about viability and brain activity are well known, the rest follows logically. The law must uphold its right to life over the mother's wishes, same as if it were a newborn infant. Her recourse, after her leaving things so close to full term: start calling reputable adoption agencies.

How and why does formal birth and the emergence of the baby - mysteriously - confer human-life status upon him/her? Tradition? Clearly, this stage must have occurred earlier than birth. 

[softwareNerd]

10 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Well, quite 'naturally' so, Snerd. As long as this issue is left up to only politicians playing political football with it. I saw there'd be extreme reaction and over-reactions both ways in this infernal tug o war when I earlier called out the Dems as foolish for messing with a very reasonable, defendable solution, one taking into account, fetal development - the Roe v. Wade judgment.

Virginia, then Alabama, then, Georgia and then Illinois... "radicals" on both sides lacking rationally moral advisement.

I think the most likely outcome is the division we're seeing between states with strongly Christian voters, and states with a strong Democratic base. Given a likely Trump victory in 2020, I guess the SCOTUS will finally erode Roe v. Wade.
However, the SCOTUS will decide that an individual state has the right to make a law moving the line from Roe to some shorter duration. It is unlikely to say that the line must be draw at least at some minimum number of weeks. So, the liberal states will be unaffected by the SCOTUS's decision. 

Bottom line, some southern states will end up with restrictive laws... too bad for the citizens there. And, it's likely to take at least another generation for rollback to start in the south, at a state level. 
Meanwhile, at least there will be some liberal states that draw the line pretty close to birth. The closer the better. 

[MisterSwig]

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

IF- the third trimester fetus is ever objectively defined as viable, human life, and the biological findings about viability and brain activity are well known, the rest follows logically. The law must uphold its right to life over the mother's wishes, same as if it were a newborn infant. Her recourse, after her leaving things so close to full term: start calling reputable adoption agencies.

Why should she be allowed to give away her baby? If a fetus has a right to life with its mother, it doesn't lose that right just because it was born, does it? It seems awfully cruel to let a child be born to its mother, only then to let the mother abandon it.

[Eiuol]

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

How and why does formal birth and the emergence of the baby - mysteriously - confer human-life status upon him/her? Tradition? Clearly, this stage must have occurred earlier than birth. 

Because it is a clear and definite start to a life. That is, a baby emerges because fetal development has been completed. It's not like a baby develops, waits a while, then pops out. The only question I think is when the birthing process starts. In this way, clearly this stage cannot occur any earlier than birth. I've actually changed my mind a bit more since first talking about this a while back, I'm leaning more towards a stance that abortion is okay all the way up to the moment of birth.

[whYNOT]

On 6/3/2019 at 9:19 PM, Eiuol said:

Because it is a clear and definite start to a life. That is, a baby emerges because fetal development has been completed. It's not like a baby develops, waits a while, then pops out. The only question I think is when the birthing process starts. In this way, clearly this stage cannot occur any earlier than birth. I've actually changed my mind a bit more since first talking about this a while back, I'm leaning more towards a stance that abortion is okay all the way up to the moment of birth.

The whole debate hinges on what and when is the "clear and definite start to a [human] life". I am basically claiming the "what" is more critical than the "when?" 

That is: What is the physical state of the last trimester fetus? In objective terms, what is its identity?

"When it "pops out" is not dictated any longer, or entirely, by nature. A mother has the choice, or on medical advice, to have a premature birth, by C section. Many have and do.

Therefore, the "start" - defined by birth - is flexible. 

Next comes :- is the fetus capable of further life? Obviously, by the previous criterion of early birth, YES.

Late and full-term abortion denies an infant its *capability*. 

(An aside, in the last fortnight a 23week old fetus in California has survived, a "record".)

Edited June 5, 2019 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

(This old post was posted by Peter Taylor on Objectivist Living, recently. Roger Bissell on the Atlantis forum made a cohesive argument, better than I have}.

 

Posted February 26

Roger nails the philosophical / political ramifications of late term abortions. Peter

From: RogerEBissell To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Individual Freedom Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:22:27 EST. Yet another vicious lie from Ellen Moore, who writes: >Roger Bissell once again claimed to defend what he calls "natural rights" but he is an anti-abortionist.  He is not a defender of individual rights

Ellen Moore knows ~very well~ that I favor keeping the ~vast~ majority of abortions safe and legal, and that I want to outlaw ~only~ those abortions of third-trimester fetuses that are normal and not threatening the life of the mother. This is a ~miniscule~ fraction of the total number of abortions. Yet, she persists in calling me an "anti-abortionist." That's like calling me anti-cinema, because I want to make "snuff films" illegal; or anti-sports, because I want to make "human hunting" or "death boxing" illegal. The analogies are not far-fetched -- except, of course, to those who are intransigently in denial about the basic developmental and behavioral and cognitive similarity of third-trimester fetuses to newborn babies. But then, that's exactly the problem with Ellen Moore's unending attempts to prevent recognition of the right to life of late-term fetuses, and with her unjust accusation that I am not a ~defender~ of rights.

The basic fact about human beings relevant to rights is their having a rational faculty. When do they have it? Bill Dwyer says not until they engage in reasoning. I say as soon as they begin perceiving, for perceiving, for humans, is the beginning of reasoning. Bill does not want to argue for some kind of weeding out or evaluative process of deciding what person does or does not have the ability to reason conceptually, so instead he uses the arbitrary "bright line" of birth, which cuts off fetuses every bit as capable or more so than some live babies. Thus, he is suggesting that the latter have rights and the former don't, which I strenuously disagree with. I also disagree strenuously with his other arguments about whether a fetus is a "part" of the mother's body ~even when~ it has a distinct center of consciousness, which is building up a store of perceptual experiences that will be incorporated later into concepts and propositions, etc. His whole understanding of the physical and biological relationship between a fetus and its mother seems ill-informed. One reductio, at least, is the odd conclusion that a pregnant mother has a body part that has its own brain and is accumulating perceptual experiences that the mother has no direct knowledge of. Talk about being alienated from the evidence of "your" senses! Like I said, it's absurd. I'm hoping that Bill will rethink his position and spare himself further embarrassment.

Now, I know that my own criterion, perception's onset, is not an easy thing to apply, but it ~is~ based on an observable attribute of the fetus, namely, its structurally and functionally possessing a rational faculty. This happens more or less around the 26th week of pregnancy. You've all heard me argue the evidence, both in terms of capabilities of preemies and in terms of the EEG measurements of preemies and fetuses. This should no longer be any more controversial than the fact that newborn babies already are visually perceiving entities and not just the Jamesian "bloomin', buzzin'" confusion of sensations, as Rand thought back in the 1960s. Yet, many Objectivists are strangely resistant to incorporating this information into their thinking about human nature and rights, and they prefer to sweep it all under the rug and instead insist on the fully developed rational faculty or nothing -- then, inconsistently, to extend legal protection on down to newborns who could not conceivably be reasoning conceptually, and even more inconsistently ~deny~ that same protection to fetuses who are as or more capable cognitively. <sigh>

My own proposal for implementing the perception criterion is to use the lower bound of EEG readings that show preemies or fetuses to have brain waves and perceptual ability that is essentially similar to that of newborns and adult humans, and essentially dissimilar to first-and-second-trimester fetuses.

Then, add 4 weeks buffer (since women can be a month off in calculating the beginning of pregnancy and thus the age of their fetus) and set that as the latest date to allow abortion. E.g., if the buffer date would be 26 weeks minus 4 weeks, or 22 weeks, then a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant could ~not~ automatically get an abortion. She would have to rebut the "margin of error" presumption by having EEG measurements to detect whether her fetus was in fact well enough developed to have crossed the threshold of perception (and thus the onset of functioning of its rational faculty). If the EEG readings came up blank, then she could go ahead. And naturally, if she wanted an abortion at any later point, and could show that the fetus was brain dead or that her own health was at grave risk, then she could have an abortion.

Sure, there is a more sophisticated process here than we have seen applied in some cases of rights controversies, and it involves more "red tape" and meeting of legal standards for carrying out an abortion. But the whole point is to ~establish~ an ~objective criterion~ ("bright line") that can be used as the ~rebuttable presumption~ for a woman's freedom to get an abortion. That criterion/line is how I propose that the law determine the status of any given fetus's rights when they are at issue. I want all women to have the unclouded freedom to obtain an abortion during the period in which there is no question that their zygote, embryo, or fetus has a functioning rational faculty -- and the obligation to live up to their own ~chosen~ legal responsibility toward the helpless rational being she has created by ~voluntarily allowing~ it to develop into the third trimester and thus become essentially similar to newborn babies in cognitive and behavioral capabilities.

The specter of imprisoning women and forcing them to bear their unwanted babies has some people very upset. Well, I'll tell you: it doesn't upset me any more than imprisoning people who attempt to physically maim or kill their children. Such parents need to be restrained until the children can be removed to safety. And so does a pregnant woman who attempts to abort her late-term fetus that is healthy and not a real threat to her own survival. (Needless to say, I am 100% opposed to any such actions being taken against the vast majority of pregnant women; those seeking abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, would in no way be threatened by such a legal measure.)

So, can we stick to my ~stated views~ and bash ~them~ around for a change? Thanks!  🙂 Best to all, Roger Bissell

[Eiuol]

41 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"When it "pops out" is not dictated any longer, or entirely, by nature. A mother has the choice, or on medical advice, to have a premature birth, by C section.

A C section isn't a "premature" birth as much as it is a method of making delivery go a different way. I already stated that there is some range, by saying the question is about when exactly does a birth start. "Being birthed" is what I'm saying makes something a baby. The what and the when is the same thing - what a thing does is sometimes its crucial distinguishing feature. In this case, what the thing does (being birthed) defines its identity (a newly born animal - a baby).

44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That is: What is the physical state of the last trimester fetus? In objective terms, what is its identity?

You already answered in your question, it's a fetus.

50 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Late and full-term abortion denies an infant its *capability*. 

Which is it, a fetus or a baby?

 

[whYNOT]

 

 

 

2

34 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

A C section isn't a "premature" birth as much as it is a method of making delivery go a different way. I already stated that there is some range, by saying the question is about when exactly does a birth start. "Being birthed" is what I'm saying makes something a baby. The what and the when is the same thing - what a thing does is sometimes its crucial distinguishing feature. In this case, what the thing does (being birthed) defines its identity (a newly born animal - a baby).

You already answered in your question, it's a fetus.

Which is it, a fetus or a baby?

 

"It's a fetus". Yes, and what is "a fetus"? what characteristics, attributes, properties does it have? Does it have a "center of consciousness"? Is it a sentient being? Given that a newborn also remains dependent for years after, with care, the late fetus is able to survive separate from its mother. Autonomous - but dependent - as it was in utero. We need identify, then one can go about placing value in it, or not.

""Being birthed" is what I'm saying makes something a baby"--indicates to me that 'attachment' to its mother is your criterion for what defines a baby from a fetus. I agree - when (whenever, for whatever reason) it pops out alive, it is a baby. 

But that doesn't define what is human life. That a fetus ~would be~ viable as a baby, at some stage earlier on, delineates a "bright line", after which there are two human lives to be considered.

 

[softwareNerd]

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The whole debate hinges on what and when is the "clear and definite start to a [human] life". I am basically claiming the "what" is more critical than the "when?" 

Posing it that way makes it seem it is primarily about biology, whereas it is actually about the nature and origin of rights.

[MisterSwig]

You have to solve the "life" question before you can solve the "rights" question. Life is not equal to brain activity or perception, as we have discussed in this thread already.

[whYNOT]

22 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Posing it that way makes it seem it is primarily about biology, whereas it is actually about the nature and origin of rights.

Well, what else is there to go on, but biology and fetology to detect a fetus' vital signs?

When anyone dies the identical methods are utilized to establish time of death, so why not too, to establish initial human life?

I notice no one has answered satisfactorily to the queries of why it is assumed human life begins at birth. Because the baby is visible to us for the first time? Because it's separated from its mother? Because the umbilical chord is cut? It breathes air for the first time? These are some traditional (and quite mystical-intrinsic) premises. 

In all logic, the physical state of the fetus doesn't transform instantly to personhood when it is birthed, by the sheer fact of emergence; its nature must have been very much the same for quite a while.

"Actually about the nature and origin of rights". Yes, as a helpless baby has rights not be abused or killed, at the mercy of any adults who could choose to do so, so should have the late term fetus. 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by whYNOT

[MisterSwig]

Even if a 26-week fetus had a rational faculty (which it doesn't), this would not mark the beginning of a right to life. The right to life doesn't come from simply having or using one's faculties. It comes from the need to use one's faculties to survive. A fetus does not rely on perception or reason to survive. It's automatically sustained in utero by the mother. It has therefore not crossed the threshold into the realm of natural rights.

Edited June 7, 2019 by MisterSwig

[softwareNerd]

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Well, what else is there to go on, but biology and fetology to detect a fetus' vital signs?

Well, we still have the foundational questions: what are rights? why do we recognize them ... indeed, pretty much create them. And why we should allow equal rights to all ... which of course we do not do, because we do make exceptions and draw specific lines around specific humans... and those exceptions and delineations are objectively justifiable by the very nature of rights, and by their very purpose.

[whYNOT]

On 6/7/2019 at 12:37 PM, softwareNerd said:

Well, we still have the foundational questions: what are rights? why do we recognize them ... indeed, pretty much create them. And why we should allow equal rights to all ... which of course we do not do, because we do make exceptions and draw specific lines around specific humans... and those exceptions and delineations are objectively justifiable by the very nature of rights, and by their very purpose.

It is always worth returning:

Life, Right to

¶

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

“Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness

How does "man's right to his own life" interfere with another man's right to his own life? Well covered in O'ism and simply answered by: my right to swing my fist ends short of the tip of your nose.

"A social context" in this case, abortion, correlates with the relationship between mother and her viable fetus (as I maintain). In other - post-birth - circumstances, the mother or father haven't the right to arbitrarily make or deny "life-or-death" choices with their baby's/ child's life which may culminate in its harm or death. That's properly illegal. Tantamount to initiating force. The baby is a distinct being from its mother, not e.g. covered by her "property rights". As I understand. And the pre-rational infant doesn't yet have full individual rights "in a social context" - however - it has the "one fundamental right" ... the right to life (present and future), the grounds and justification for individual rights. 

With her right to action (e.g. to choose motherhood) and the happiness she finds and anticipates in a growing youngster, comes an obligation to take further actions to sustain and generate her helpless child's life, on its behalf, until it too is "self-sustaining"/"self-generating". (Freedom comes with responsibility). I argue that the stage requiring of life-preservation occurs with a formed fetus. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 6/7/2019 at 10:37 AM, MisterSwig said:

Even if a 26-week fetus had a rational faculty (which it doesn't), this would not mark the beginning of a right to life. The right to life doesn't come from simply having or using one's faculties. It comes from the need to use one's faculties to survive. A fetus does not rely on perception or reason to survive. It's automatically sustained in utero by the mother. It has therefore not crossed the threshold into the realm of natural rights.

MisterSwig, There's a sometime sticking point which turns on the meaning of "faculty", I think.

A "rational animal" defines man as having the "Essential characteristic" of reason.

But that doesn't determine that a man will use it, nor use it consistently and rigorously, since the function is not automatic while the faculty is 'a given'. One can be "a rational animal" and be largely irrational, in short.

 I'm simply saying the "faculty" or "characteristic" is in place by dint of sufficient development of the late fetus' brain, as it obviously has to be in the brain of every newborn. Which of course *also*, for some period - "does not rely on perception or reason to survive". That's the function of parenting. Thinking of the fetus-baby as one uninterrupted continuum helps.

The right to life I tried to tackle above.

Edited June 8, 2019 by whYNOT

[MisterSwig]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I'm simply saying the "faculty" or "characteristic" is in place in the late fetus' brain, as it obviously has to be in the brain of every newborn which of course *also* - "does not rely on perception or reason to survive".

If neither a fetus nor a newborn relies on perception or reason to survive, why do these faculties "obviously have to be in the brain" already? Why can't they develop later when the child needs them, like several other characteristics?

[Eiuol]

On 6/8/2019 at 12:38 PM, whYNOT said:

 I'm simply saying the "faculty" or "characteristic" is in place by dint of sufficient development of the late fetus' brain, as it obviously has to be in the brain of every newborn.

Citation needed. There is actually more and stronger evidence that any such faculty or characteristic develops after birth. Babies begin with some inborn capacities, but possessing such capacities his not the same as using them.

On 6/8/2019 at 12:38 PM, whYNOT said:

Which of course *also*, for some period - "does not rely on perception or reason to survive". That's the function of parenting.

Strictly speaking, this is false. It's not like parents tell kids what to listen to to learn language, or tell them that ledges are dangerous, or anything much at all besides physical protection. On some level, babies are proactive about their survival. Sure, the parents are feeding their baby, but as soon as the baby is born, they are engaging in perception and reason in order to further their existence. It would be like saying I don't need reason to survive, because Amazon provides all the products I need to survive.

[whYNOT]

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Citation needed. There is actually more and stronger evidence that any such faculty or characteristic develops after birth. Babies begin with some inborn capacities, but possessing such capacities his not the same as using them.

Strictly speaking, this is false. It's not like parents tell kids what to listen to to learn language, or tell them that ledges are dangerous, or anything much at all besides physical protection. On some level, babies are proactive about their survival. Sure, the parents are feeding their baby, but as soon as the baby is born, they are engaging in perception and reason in order to further their existence. It would be like saying I don't need reason to survive, because Amazon provides all the products I need to survive.

"Strictly speaking", in terms of physical "survival', this is ~not~ false. Parenting is vital. Consider an infant left to nature (on a hilltop, as is/was the superstitious treatment of twins, by some African tribes). It will die. As for its survival-awareness it is true that a baby's consciousness at an increasing rate is becoming proactive, perceptually.

Once the "faculty" is established by brain formation, we can make an educated assumption that the fetus is gaining sensory images of its surroundings in the womb. Feeling the warmth and hearing its mother's heartbeat and responding to her movements. Some of this is known. It is then and remains tabula rasa until later: 

"Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both".

“The Objectivist Ethics,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 28

¶

"At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness—the mechanism of a human consciousness—but no content". {"The Comprachicos"}

If one backdates the "potential of awareness" by some weeks prior to birth, I don't find any cause for a distinction. That "potential" exists even then. The "using" of its potential of awareness isn't the sole criterion ... the "existence" of it is.

Eioul, the evidence of "fetal viability" is irrefutable. If a human life can and does survive physically - before full term - due to modern advances, we have 'a game-changer'. The old assumptions can't be made any longer. 

As an Objectivist and human I think life and human life has extreme objective value (the precondition, without which none of us would exist). I believe that if it should mean leaning to this most radical extent, some weeks prior to birth, to protect and sustain a formed life, it's a measure that should be taken, morally and legally. Here is the bottom line: esteem for man's life.

And what does it cost for the moral selfishness of a woman's own valuable life, or to her individual right to do as she chooses? I suggest, nothing, or comparatively minimal. A pregnant woman has a long while, up to 20+ weeks of child-bearing to make the choice for abortion. That's plenty, for most - we know this personally and statistically, from the vast majority of women (not forgetting men) who place huge worth in having babies, too much to play fast and loose with "potential" children's lives. Mostly, they rationally decide early and follow through.

After which period, if for some odd reason or severe change in her circumstances - apart from risks to her life and health - she decides against having and raising an infant, she only has to carry the fetus a further +/- 12 weeks until giving birth and to give it up for adoption.

There remains no justifiable cause for late-term abortion. (Apart from health).

Edited June 10, 2019 by whYNOT

[MisterSwig]

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

On 6/8/2019 at 9:38 AM, whYNOT said:

 I'm simply saying the "faculty" or "characteristic" is in place by dint of sufficient development of the late fetus' brain, as it obviously has to be in the brain of every newborn.

Citation needed.

I would also like to see a medical citation for your claims. You don't appear to be familiar with the literature, yet you're making strong claims about the faculties of a fetus.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Once the "faculty" is established by brain formation, we can make an educated assumption that the fetus is gaining sensory images of its surroundings in the womb. Feeling the warmth and hearing its mother's heartbeat and responding to her movements. Some of this is known.

What is a "sensory image"?

Are you saying that feelings, sensations, and reflexes are evidence of a rational faculty?

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If one backdates the "potential of awareness" by some weeks prior to birth, I don't find any cause for a distinction. That "potential" exists even then. The "using" of its potential of awareness isn't the sole criterion ... the "existence" of it is.

Do you know about endogenous sedation? Not only is your position without scientific merit, it's also philosophically problematic. Your attempt to "backdate awareness" is the viability argument applied to consciousness. A potential awareness is not an actual awareness. Whatever pre-conscious experience a fetus has is not the same thing as the consciousness of a newborn.

[whYNOT]

https://frc.org/fetalpainbrief 

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

 

Are you saying that feelings, sensations, and reflexes are evidence of a rational faculty?

 

If it's a monkey fetus, no. If it's a human fetus, yes. A yet latent faculty, but a faculty nonetheless.

"Philosophically problematic". Does existence precede consciousness?