Sketches on Atheism

Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma

How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

This is arguably the most significant question in any discussion concerning the legality of abortion, and because facts matter, the following seventeen words are critical in understanding that before gestational week 25, although more accurately week 28, there is no ethical dilemma in terminating a pregnancy because nothing is being killed—or worse, to use the careless language of some, murdered.

At no stage does life magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a foetus.

Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and has not been interrupted since. There is no ‘divine spark,’ no ensorcelled moment when the inanimate abruptly transforms into the animate. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. The egg and the sperm are already parts of the living system—a 3.8 billion years old system driven by chemiosmosis, where the rechargeable chemical battery for life, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), is first broken down and then re-formed during respiration to release energy used to power every living reaction.

This is a fixed, unmovable fact. It is not up for debate, and from this cardinal truth it becomes immediately clear that when discussing foetal development, and the ethical-cum-legal guidelines concerning the decision to terminate a pregnancy, we are never talking about the inception of life, rather the beginning of a human organism, and the first defining feature of a living human organism—long before self-awareness, direct experience and memories shape an individual’s personality—is that a living human organism can die.

In as few words as possible (and ignoring the critical issue of the mother’s complete autonomy, and foetal developmental anomalies), defined human life begins the moment its twin, death, also springs into existence. Without death there is no life. The former begets the latter. The latter assigns meaning to the former. One delineates the other, and the definition of human death is not in dispute. Death is the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions. Or more simply put: death is when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. That’s it. That’s death, and a 2002 survey published in the journal Neurology comparing worldwide standards and regulations of death found brain death to be the universal legal and medical measure accepted across the globe. In the U.S., laws on brain death vary by state, but all states recognise that death is determined by the irreversible cessation of brain function, or as bluntly stated in the journal, Nature Reviews, Neuroscience: “Brain death means human death”—And for very good reason. Consider this simple fact: Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human being, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing through the body, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still working naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment.

On first inspection, it follows quite naturally that the onset of a defined human life appears to be when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained activity, and this occurs consistently around week 25. It is an important milestone when considering the ethical-cum-legal lines of abortion, but it is crucial to note that the brain’s major physical substrates—those structures essential for consciousness—are not, however, complete until week 28, after which the process to full bilateral synchronisation begins.

There is no approximation or inference here. Research into foetal brain development started in earnest in the early 1960’s, and today we have a precise picture of what is happening, when and where.

Simply put, foetal brain development is a process of continuous specification and refinement of brain areas that begins at the end of the third gestational week with the formation of the neural tube. This is not a ‘little brain,’ rather the first rung of scaffolding that marks the beginning of a construction process triggering the production of specialised ectodermal neural stem cells. These neural progenitors are produced along the neural plate, and through division can differentiate into committed neural sub-types such as neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes which then migrate around the developing brain (and central nervous system) like modular construction blocks. Upon reaching their target region, the young neurons need to then become part of information processing networks, developing axons and dendrites and synaptic terminals that allow the cells to communicate with other neurons.

At 20 weeks, the first intermittent firings in both cerebral hemispheres can be detected, but these are little more than blind test-firings. By week 24, as electroencephalographic activity nears constancy, there is still no coherent information flowing down major pathways because those pathways have not yet formed. For example, two of the most essential structures for consciousness, the thalamocortical and corticothalamic pathways that transmit sensorimotor information, only begin to form 4 weeks after those first intermittent firings, at the very end of the second trimester, but are only complete by gestational week 28. After which, as noted by neuroscientist and chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Christof Koch, the electroencephalographic rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration.

And with that a complete human organism begins to exist. Despite sharing the same metabolic rate as the mother (the foetus behaving more as an organ—a part of a larger whole—than an individual), and although it will not be until week 32 that the brain is ready to control respiration (a decisive moment in the process to autonomy), it is at this point when the ethicist can call the foetus truly “On,” and only after something is “On” can it be turned “Off,” meeting the universally recognised definition of human death.

So, how can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

You can’t.

Without a continuously functioning, synchronised brain there is no full human organism—a fact noted by Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Development of the Fetal Brain:

“When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

524 thoughts on “Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma

    • Indeed, and here is the so-called ”Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement,” Jack Willke:

      “Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?” (Dr. Jack Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers)

      The interesting part of this quote is that Willke accidently shot himself in the foot. This statement was based on a factoid taken from a mistranslated Japanese study which appeared to say brain activity was detected much earlier.

      Liked by 4 people

      • You Stated — “The only way you can open this subject up to meaningful debate is if you can demonstrate some other—previously unknown—element constituting a human organism”

        My Response — Genetic copyright. Corporations have won court cases based solely on genetic information within cell samples to prove that their patented product was copied. The claim is that a single strand of DNA not only proves the legitimacy of the potential of a living organism but constitutes a threat of loss if destroyed before its full future potential is realized.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You Stated — “DNA (the genome) is just a plan. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a functioning building.”

        My Response — Not according to corporations. They see genetic material as living potential, that has a $ value.

        Their lawyers are much more convincing than your opinion. I hate to speak of the great evil by name but Monsanto has been very successful in proving this.

        Your position is becoming dated. It won’t be long now before they are patenting human DNA lines for potential future benefits. Parents will sue for future revenue or family line advantages in abortion cases.

        Keep in mind that they were also the ones who convinced the world that companies are people ;

        Just saying

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lander, don’t play dumb. I know you’re bright. Act like it. They’re patenting the plan, the map.

        But sure, if you want to go down this path, I’ll meet you at three O’clock at St. George’s Grumpy Pony and you and I and a strand of human DNA can have a beer and discuss it like three sentient beings 😉

        Liked by 3 people

    • In your opinion.

      What if you’re wrong?

      It’s funny, I’ve never met anyone on the pro-death side who could answer that question. They always bluster on, calling “indisputable fact” things that are obvious opinions, then they take their ball and, shouting imprecations the whole way, go home to Mommy.

      Best,

      — x

      Liked by 2 people

      • There is no “opinion” in the physical development of foetal neural hardware. The physical structures are either there, or they’re not. But feel free to dissect the brains of thousands of premature babies (dead, naturally) and compare your physical findings with similar studies across the planet… then get back to me if you find some error in the literature.

        The only way you can open this subject up to meaningful debate is if you can demonstrate some other—previously unknown—element constituting a human organism; a soul, for example. If you can demonstrate that, then everything would have to be reassessed. Until then, the brain is the beginning and the end of the subject.

        Liked by 2 people

    • You Stated — ” If the end of brain activity is the end of an individual’s life, then before there is coherent brain activity, individual life has not yet begun.”

      My Response — Then if it is not, life has begun. Maybe we should hold off until we can get past the if statements… just to be sure.

      Like

    • If you wish to break this debate open to meaningful discussion you will have to demonstrate the existence of some previously unknown element (a soul, for example) in the human organism. If such a thing can be demonstrated then the entire subject has to be re-examined. Until then, however, facts are simply facts.

      Liked by 9 people

    • There is no soul and the “mind” or consciousness would come much later and gradually and not fully complete until well after biological birth.

      Liked by 4 people

      • You Stated — “There is no soul and the “mind” or consciousness would come much later and gradually and not fully complete until well after biological birth.”

        My Response — To date, there is no proof of a mind in science, only a brain. At best a mind would be a temporary patter of neurons existing for the briefest of time, unique in all of creation for but a moment.

        One could argue that a soul may be similar since both have not been proven by science as of yet.

        Like

      • late to the dance, but still; one of the most important reasons for banning abortion is to control women (and girls) entirely. If the law has a say in what someone else can do to your body, and you have no say in the matter at all, be it your husband, your father, the rapist, or the courts, you are no longer the owner of that body. You’re a rental.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “dualism is just so ridiculous”

        My Response — Maybe back in the stone age but we have computers now and have already proven that it works the same way with central systems using dumb terminals.

        The central server (fully operational and intact) transfers its code to dumb terminals that act as duplicates to the original BUT if they suffer damage they function oddly in respect to the master copy.

        AI has similar issues with environment versus core self.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s quite amusing since computers and networks demonstrate that dualism is entirely false. There is no magic “soul” or “mind” that exists without a body nor is the any network or artificial intelligence without hardware.

        You’ve done a great job in showing your claim is nonsense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “That’s quite amusing since computers and networks demonstrate that dualism is entirely false. There is no magic “soul” or “mind” that exists without a body nor is the any network or artificial intelligence without hardware.”

        My Response — That’s an interesting perspective but still dated. We have known for an extensive period now that there is no “hardware”. Matter is only energy and there is nothing else from a scientific perspective. Every form of mental state is simply a momentary connectivity of particles at a given polarity. So, our conversation is not void of the knowledge that “hardware” is fictional and energy is the only reality we now live in.

        Dualism is also an interesting perspective but is at best only a beginner’s guide to understanding the complexity of human consciousness. We are not dualistic in nature we are somewhere to the googol power of that observation. Our minds are less like a system and more like a slide show so, who we are is either momentary or vast (1 slide or millions of slides).

        Our physical properties are just positions of particles – like those of an electron. The same is true or our mental properties, they too are just the position of particles. This is to say that all states of being are just quantum states of position and polarity.

        I would imagine that your argument is just one of theology and has nothing to do with science. You want to quickly dismiss any theist who might suggest a spirit mind connection of any type. My correct reference to dualistic computer systems that prove we can have a single mind in more than one location is dismissed by moving the goal post to maintain a theology objection. You moved it by stating that it doesn’t count since both parts of that mind need hardware.

        I’ve heard that if you must keep moving the goal post then you live in a gap of understanding that continuously shrinks until you are against a wall of some type.

        Dualism in artificial intelligence is producible and functional, I’m not convinced by your soul reference that it is not.
        Just saying

        Liked by 1 person

      • We have known for an extensive period now that there is no “hardware”.

        So we spend our lives floating on a sea of repelling electrons. We never actually touch anything. Does this, in your mind, lend itself to a simulation?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Asked — “Does this, in your mind, lend itself to a simulation?”

        My Response — No

        BUT

        The universe is, at it’s core, a photonic structure. We can’t escape that fact but it doesn’t mean we are a simulation.

        When we make holograms we simply make them from photons because it’s the easiest way to do it.

        Just to keep myself honest, It’s still a possibility that we are but I am not convinced of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Asked — “What makes you convinced we’re not in a Sim?”

        My Answer — I’m not convinced that we are not in a sim. I’m just not convinced that we are in one.

        I’m sim agnostic.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Right, why are you not convinced that we are in one? You must have your reasons – reasons that run contrary to little persuasive things (evidence?) like us never actually touching anything.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You Asked — “Right, why are you not convinced that we are in one?”

        My Answer — Because Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhin proved that the universe was not a simulation a few years back. They pretty much ended the argument. That is the first reason why I am not convinced we are living in a simulation. The second being positrons since they defy the notion of a simulation.

        BUT

        The reason I am not convinced that we are not living in a simulation is because of the excessive use of photons in our reality. It’s as though everything hinges on them. They also defy explanation and suggest we are not real.

        Just saying

        On the fence I am.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fair enough, but I would have thought photons would be considered evidence for the contrary position, and as you must know, Kovrizhin and Ringel drew their conclusion on the capabilities of ‘classical’ computers. If this is a sim, then we would have no concept of the computers used to generate it, or the universe and physics and limitations outside it. Also, to me, rather than a hard boundary (which could conceivably be found by some adventurous soul), wouldn’t the very best sim simply melt into the cul de sac of the quantum foam?

        A debate for another day!

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “I would have thought photons would be considered evidence for the contrary position”

        My Response — The problem with photons (for me) is that they don’t exist and that is almost like a wink. They are the one thing that doesn’t make any sense and wouldn’t the one thing, in any reality, that is the only real thing be the one thing that gives it away?

        I had some fun once with this since it fascinates me so:

        https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/10/12/that-force-you-feel-when-pushing-two-magnets-against-each-other-is-light-and-it-doesnt-exist/

        You Stated — “you must know, Kovrizhin and Ringel drew their conclusion on the capabilities of ‘classical’ computers. If this is a sim, then we would have no concept of the computers used to generate it”

        My Response — So that puts us back in the 13th floor paradox where we never know if we are the core reality or not.

        And that’s the rub, I can’t let go of the possibility because it’s too strong. We have real scientific evidence that we are not in a sim, while at the same time, we are surrounded with simulation residue all over the place.

        You Stated — “Also, to me, rather than a hard boundary (which could conceivably be found by some adventurous soul), wouldn’t the very best sim simply melt into the cul de sac of the quantum foam?”

        My Response — It would (agreed)… unless they had hardware/software limits or if they wanted you to find it. O.o

        Maybe we can never really know if we are in a sim because it’s near impossible.

        BUT

        I do know one aspect of the mental trap for sure, if we are in a sim then the people who made the sim no longer get good sleep because they must now know that they are most likely also in a sim.

        Just saying

        Like

      • if we are in a sim then the people who made the sim no longer get good sleep because they must now know that they are most likely also in a sim.

        If you haven’t already, you absolutely MUST read David Brin’s short story, Stones of Significance.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Looks interesting I will give it a read, thanks!

        Side Note:
        The Amazon link you sent doesn’t let you read the book for some reason. It may have been pulled.

        I found this link that let’s you read it:

        Click to access david_brin_-_stones_of_significance.pdf

        Also here is my post on the singularity:

        https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/11/22/this-is-what-the-singularity-is-and-why-people-are-so-scared-of-it/

        It would seem John that we have some common ground.

        Liked by 1 person

      • IT’s not dated at all. There is indeed hardware and I’m always amused with theists who try to claim that matter is “only” energy”. Matter is energy, and energy is matter, that is the scientific perspective. Yep, brains are electrochemical and they are based on matter, so your magical “soul” that exists separately apart from matter/energy doesn’t exist.
        Dualism is not interesting since it is not real. It is funny that you find you must try to discount it too in your need to pretend you know some secret. There is nothing to support your claims of “We are not dualistic in nature we are somewhere to the googol power of that observation. Our minds are less like a system and more like a slide show so, who we are is either momentary or vast (1 slide or millions of slides).” at all. You need contradictory nonsense like “momentary or vast” to try to sound impressive.

        Yep, our physical properties are indeed positions of particle aka matter/energy. No magic god or soul needed or found.

        As many theists do, you try to use quantum physics to give a gap for your god, and you quickly bastardize it since you have no idea what it actually says. Christians, pagans, etc all use the same hope that vagueness give their gods a chance. And nice lies that you find you must tell that I’ve supposedly moved the goalposts. You can’t show that anyone’s mind is anywhere but in their skull. You try to lie about others since you have no evidence.

        And dear, do show how dualism is producible and functional in AI. I’ll be waiting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “I’m always amused with theists who try to claim that matter is “only” energy”.”

        My Response — Matter being energy is not a theological perspective, it’s a scientific fact. Most people are just not educated enough on the topic.

        Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space (volume). Anything that can be touched by human hands is only a grouping of atoms, which are themselves just subatomic particles. Quantum nature forces Point particles to keep a distance from other particles thus creating the property of matter which appears to us as things we can touch.

        You Stated – “your magical “soul” that exists separately apart from matter/energy doesn’t exist.”

        My Response – You are the only person bringing up references to a “soul”, which by the way, is a physical form that can be touched. Most people are just not educated enough on the topic.

        Genesis 2:7 – 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

        You Stated – “Dualism is not interesting since it is not real. It is funny that you find you must try to discount it too in your need to pretend you know some secret.”

        My Response – You may not understand what I am saying about Dualism.
        Dualism is real and has been created in the lab, I stated that in my first few responses. Where there may be some confusion is that I also stated that human beings are not dualistic since the way our brains process information is much more complex. Just at the base level we would exceed the limits of dualism because of our two hemispheres working independently. Any thought of an external source of mental capacity would start at a bare minimum of 3 object layers. An external layer would also have direct access to who we were at say 5 years of age, 55 years, and 105 years (as an example). The reference point would be to broad and complex for dualism. With a machine it would be obviously easy but not with a human being.

        You Stated – “You need contradictory nonsense like “momentary or vast” to try to sound impressive.”

        My Response – It may sound impressive to you but it’s just basic understanding of neuroplasticity. It will most like be taught in high school within the next ten years. It’s easy to see that who we are (in our entirety) can be fully mapped from moment to moment. Those moments from when we were younger to now is why I said vast, keeping in mind that I also stated that we may just be the one moment itself.

        You Stated – “As many theists do, you try to use quantum physics to give a gap for your god”

        My Response – I haven’t mentioned anything about god and quantum just means “small”. When we talk about large objects, we refer to classical physics. When we talk about light, waves, energy, etc. we are talking about small objects or rather fundamental particles. I referred to quantum because we were talking about what matter is made of.

        You Stated – “And dear, do show how dualism is producible and functional in AI. I’ll be waiting.”

        My Response – There are many ways to see this, one being distributed artificial intelligence. DAI uses large scale computation and spatial distribution of computing resources to solve problems that require the processing of very large data sets. Many nodes but one mind. With an ability to concentrate the AI mind within larger node sets or in plain english, to become dualistic from time to time given a nodes computational power.

        You could also combine this with NLP (natural language processing) and ML (machine learning) on a powerful node and get dualism between the core data system and the end node within an AI mind.

        Like

      • You have tried to claim this: “Matter is only energy and there is nothing else from a scientific perspective.” And you are wrong in your need to pretend that there is some magical energy out there, aka a “soul”.

        You are inadvertently right, most people, including *you*, have no education on the topic and spew nonsense in your need to come up with a reason some god exists. You hope that ignorance will let your nonsense spread.
        And always grand fun to see the theist try to take refuge in claiming that since he didn’t literally say “soul” that means he isn’t talking about one with his need for dualism. It’s even more hilarious to see you try to claim that the bible means that a soul is “really” a human and physical.

        You have yet to show how dualism e.g. “In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. “ has been shown in some lab. You have yet to show where and how.

        You also keep insisting how “complex” this is, but again you can’t show this at all. It seems that you use that nonsense to avoid having to explain your claims. You also have no clue about how the brain actually works with this bit here “our two hemispheres working independently”. They don’t. That’s what the corpus calosum does.

        I also love the complete meaningless nonsense of “Any thought of an external source of mental capacity would start at a bare minimum of 3 object layers.”. So, lander, tell us what an “object layer” is.

        This should be fun.

        No, you don’t sound impressive to me at all. And hilarious to see you try to claim that neuroplasticity says anything about “momentary or vast”. Do show where it does. I also think it’s great that you think your nonsense will be taught in high school. No sign of that either. Do also tell us how people can be “fully mapped moment to moment”. How is this done?

        Yawn, and here we go with the theist denying he is talking about his god and souls, and then trying to claim that quantum physics “just means small”. It’s about quite a lot more than that. And alas, lander, you admitted this about yourself “You want to quickly dismiss any theist who might suggest a spirit mind connection of any type.”

        Still no evidence that no hardware is needed and this: “ We have known for an extensive period now that there is no “hardware”. Matter is only energy and there is nothing else from a scientific perspective. Every form of mental state is simply a momentary connectivity of particles at a given polarity. So, our conversation is not void of the knowledge that “hardware” is fictional and energy is the only reality we now live in” is still false.

        Distributed AI still needs hardware. It never becomes ““In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. “ at any time or from “time to time”, no matter what “node” is involved.

        Liked by 3 people

      • You Stated – “You have tried to claim this: “Matter is only energy and there is nothing else from a scientific perspective.””

        My Response – I’m not claiming that matter is energy lol, that’s a basic scientific fact but I think the reason it’s frustrating you is because you think in absolutes rather than states or relational physics.

        Try this:

        Fact — Matter is real
        Fact – Energy is real
        Fact – Matter is made of particles
        Fact — Particles are made of energy

        Nuance:

        • Matter is the material substance that constitutes the observable universe. Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.
        • Energy is the capacity for doing work as a potential force (thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, etc.). It can be transferred between objects and converted in form.

        Matter is made up of particles called atoms and molecules.
        Atoms are particles of elements – substances that cannot be broken down further.

        When someone refers to “everything is energy” they are stating a fact because of fundamental particles and when you are referring to “hardware” you are also stating a fact because of a state of particles. Both statements are true and there is no argument.

        This is because energy and mass are related through special relativity while mass and space are related through general relativity.

        That should end this nonsensical part of the argument.

        You Stated – “And you are wrong in your need to pretend that there is some magical energy out there, aka a “soul”.”

        My Response – I never mentioned a soul that was you. A soul has nothing to do with dualism since it would still just be an individual. You are using religion to ignore my first response, my guess is that you couldn’t disprove what I stated so you tried to change the topic.

        You Stated – “dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing.”

        My Response – Incorrect.
        du·al·ism
        noun
        1. the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided.
        2. the quality or condition of being dual; duality.

        You are referring to a philosophy or what some call the “mind body problem”.

        You Stated – “You also keep insisting how “complex” this is.”

        My Response – Nope, I keep telling you how basic this is… repeatedly. Nothing we are talking about is complex or challenging to understand. I made a reference that the human brain has a process of processing data that is more complex than dualism but it’s not hard to understand said process.

        You Stated – “You also have no clue about how the brain actually works with this bit here “our two hemispheres working independently”. They don’t. That’s what the corpus calosum does.”

        My Response – Incorrect and you gave it away in your response. The corpus callosum is a connection between the two brain hemispheres, permitting communication between the right and left sides of the brain. They need that communication because they work separately from each.

        How they officially differ in job duties remains a mystery. This only changes with age as the lateralized patterns of brain activity found in younger people changes to bilateral patterns as they become older.

        You Stated – “I also love the complete meaningless nonsense of “Any thought of an external source of mental capacity would start at a bare minimum of 3 object layers.”. So, lander, tell us what an “object layer” is.”

        My Response – It’s just a reference point for data.

        A good example would be the emerging extension of human memory into stored cloud data or external smart devices. Smart devices are an extension of our own memories, so they are an additional reference point.

        Layers of data control perception:
        Left Brain / Right Brain recall capability, which relies on the amount of data flow between the two hemispheres is the first two layers.

        Data stored in the external cloud or smart device is an additional layer

        A corporation manipulating that stored data is the fourth layer and so on.

        Simply put:
        How much you can remember…
        Then how much you stored online…
        Then ho much was tampered with…

        Results in your actions, such as storming the capitol or standing up for gay rights.

        Science is attempting two major changes to this dynamic which are very important.
        They want total recall within the human mind (which will have a direct impact on our social behavior) and they want the cloud to become the primary reference point (or first layer), which you see as impossible but it is most likely inevitable. This is why I provided you with the DAI example since it’s a roadmap to that realization.

        You Stated – “neuroplasticity says anything about “momentary or vast”. Do show where it does.”

        My Response – Sure:

        Neuroplasticity is the ability of neural networks to change through reorganization. These changes range from neuron pathways making new connections, to systematic adjustments like cortical remapping or even external environmental influences.

        Neuroplasticity momentary:
        This would indicate that there is no such thing as dualism. We are nothing more than a single mind. Each moment of the day we are a different person and no more than the sum of billions of neurons. Who we are is not the same as who we were 10 minutes ago. This is easier to understand if you compare yourself to a 10-year-old version of you.

        Neuroplasticity vast:
        Same concept but we are not who we are now but rather we are every version of our selves all the time. This means that each mapping of the brain has a connection to all older mappings. Since it’s moment to moment there are a “vast” amount of mappings to reference. This is easier to understand if you just see it as one per year of your life. This is why it may be dangerous to allow for total human recall of memories. We could accidently loose our ability to know what time we are in since a memory (or past mapping of neurons) would be as real as the present.

        You Asked – “Do also tell us how people can be “fully mapped moment to moment”. How is this done?“

        My Response – The human brain rewires from moment to moment. There are over 80 billion neurons with over a quadrillion connections between them. You are a different person than you were a week ago or even a year ago. We now have the ability to map those connections as they happen.

        The most popular methods are based electroencephalogram technologies. The results show brain wave patterns in different parts of the brain from moment to moment. There are also other methods.

        You Stated – “trying to claim that quantum physics “just means small”.”

        My Response – I stated that “quantum” means small (and it does). Quantum physics is the literal study of small things. But keep it in context, not small like a small child.

        quantum
        (noun);
        1. a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

        These would be the smallest in all of existence.

        You Stated — “You want to quickly dismiss any theist who might suggest a spirit mind connection of any type.”

        My Response – I have no reason to dismiss anyone for anything, what would I care what people believe. I talk to people all the time about theism, science, politics, religion, culture, you name it. If you want to talk about theism, we can but it’s a different conversation (don’t get side tracked).

        Liked by 1 person

      • And yet more attempts at retconning and more made up nonsense about physics. Do tell what “relational physics” is. That should be great fun to see you mangle that idea too.

        You still try so very hard to ignore that matter is energy. Your “nuance” is nonsense. It’s even more fun to see you try this: “Matter is made up of particles called atoms and molecules. Atoms are particles of elements – substances that cannot be broken down further.“

        Hmmm, atoms can’t be broken down any further? Elements can’t be broken down any further since they cease to be what defines an element.
        “Energy is the capacity for doing work as a potential force (thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, etc.). It can be transferred between objects and converted in form.
        So we still have you trying to make matter and energy different things.
        You have claimed duality in the mind and thus you are stuck with a soul, a thing that is not dependent on “hardware”. I did not ignore you response, I showed that it failed. I do like you chose a definition of duality that has nothing to do with the context of your claims, lander. “My Response — To date, there is no proof of a mind in science, only a brain. At best a mind would be a temporary patter of neurons existing for the briefest of time, unique in all of creation for but a moment.
        One could argue that a soul may be similar since both have not been proven by science as of yet.”

        nice mind body problem here.

        You claimed complexity: “Dualism is also an interesting perspective but is at best only a beginner’s guide to understanding the complexity of human consciousness. We are not dualistic in nature we are somewhere to the googol power of that observation. Our minds are less like a system and more like a slide show so, who we are is either momentary or vast (1 slide or millions of slides).”
        Seems that claiming that we are so complex to the “googol” power, is rather complex and not “not hard to understand said process”.

        You claimed that the two hemisphere worked independently: “Just at the base level we would exceed the limits of dualism because of our two hemispheres working independently.”. That is completely wrong since there is indeed a connection that allows the brain hemispheres to work together. If there is a connection, there is no independence. The corpus callosum must be cut to have the hemispheres work independently. A normal brain has them working together and communicating.

        And unsurprisingly, still no definition of “object layer”. How is it a reference point for data? What is a “reference point for data”? You keep piling vague nonsense upon vague nonsense. Human memory is also not extending into the cloud as memory. The cloud may store references to things, be they events, facts, etc, but it is not the process of memory. Those references may trigger memory.

        I see nothing that “science”, whatever that is to you, is wanting total recall or everything to be stored on the “cloud” (the cloud that is dependent on hardware).

        Yep, neuroplasticity is as you say, and not one bit of that definition has anything about “momentary or vast”. You’ve made that up. We also cannot be shown to be a “different person” every moment, that is rather hilarious since memory prevents that. We cannot be a different person if we have memory. Can we change? Yep. Can we change so completely to be a different person? No. I am still me with my anxieties, desires and hatreds.

        We also can’t be every version of ourselves at once, if we constantly differ. This is what often happens to metaphysical bullshit; it is self-contradictory, a quality that phiolsophers seem to value for no reason other than obfuscation. There is of course nothing to support your claim of a slippery slope in knowledge since you would have to explain how knowing the past would confuse knowing what time we are in now. Nothing shows that memory would be confused with the present.

        We do indeed have encephalograms, but fully mapping every connection? Do tell when and where that happens. We can see some interaction. That’s it.

        Quantum physics is quite a bit more than the study of “small things”. I am quite aware of the context since again we have you trying to invoke quantum physics to explain your baseless nonsense, like many many woo masters.

        I didn’t say this ““You want to quickly dismiss any theist who might suggest a spirit mind connection of any type.”

        You did. So here we have you indeed referring to religions and their common parts, like souls.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Unsurprisingly, my be an American, I disagree with your statement. That being said, at least you are one of the too far below 1% who understand the actual argument over abortion. So, cheers!

    Like

      • I disagree with your criteria for humanity / personhood. But, as I said, at least it the right argument to argue, somethig so freaking few on either side seem to understand.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Fair enough, but if it’s not a functioning, synchronised brain (consciousness), then what other measure do you suggest we use to define a living human organism?

        Like

      • Chromosomes and cellular activity. I see a human as a human irrespective of the state of their mind. Or, at least pretty close to that. After all, that is the definition of a living homo sapiens, i.e., human.

        Note also: I do think abortion should be treated as the crime of murder – another point where I find sooooooo many of my side of the issue failing basic understanding.

        Yep! Murder. Remember, however, that murder has limits, the most commonly accepted being the saving of one’s own life and limb or that of others. No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term at reasonable risk to her life anymore than a woman should have to endure a crime upon her body rather than kill the aggressor.

        I’m also in favor of arguments where a nonviable – Anencephaly and other terminal birth defects or things like Tay–Sachs – are merely taking a person who will not live or recover off life support.

        And …. because there ARE idiot pro-Lifers out there – if the unborn baby is dead, it can’t be murder. Hell! Forcing the mother to carry to term should be Attempted Murder 2 in my opinion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The genome is simply the plan, and until seconds after birth the foetus has the same metabolic rate as the mother. A mammal it’s size has a far, far, far speedier metabolic rate. At birth a switch is thrown and the baby’s metabolic rate goes through the roof (becoming that of a mammal its same size) and it transitions from being an organ to an individual.

        Good points you make in the rest of the comment. I’m in Brazil and am appalled at the number of Zika babies.

        Like

      • Jz, do you really believe that the foetus is just an organ of the mother, like having an extra kidney? I wouldn’t think many doctors or biologists, and I am neither, would agree to that hyperbole.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, I’m not presenting that as an argument. I believe full bilateral synchronisation determines the beginning of the living human being, but to put it simply, a baby in the womb behaves as if it were a part of the mother, not a unique entity. Its cells have about the same metabolic rate (the same speed of life) as its mother’s organs. It’s a part of a bigger whole, rather than an individual… Until it’s not anymore. The very moment a baby is born a switch is flipped and all its internal processes speed up rapidly, and at 36 hours after birth, the baby’s cells have the same activity rate as a mammal its size. In this sense, babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours.

        It’s a curious fact, but a fact it is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jz, I’m coming back to this post because I’m still not quite getting it. I’ll be chewing on it all day to try an understand it better. I might even do a post once I can grasp it and come to an opinion. Thx again for your patience.

        Like

    • “Chromosomes and cellular activity. I see a human as a human irrespective of the state of their mind. Or, at least pretty close to that. After all, that is the definition of a living homo sapiens, i.e., human”

      so this seems to be an argument that eggs and sperm are “human”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Only to the abortionists, since that’s a straw man that the baby killers favor when called upon their beliefs and actions.

        Now, when they combine – that’s a human being…if the parents aren’t otters. 😉

        But hey! I’m Southern. I’m not going to argue too much about things not being people if you’re going to go there.

        Like

      • what does being southern have to do with this? if you are only concerned about chromosome and cell activity, then you do want them considered equal to human, or you really haven’t thought this through.

        and baby killers? Hmmm, like the Christian god? This god, if one believes the myths, murdered a child for the actions of its parents.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Well, idiot, being a Southern man of modern age DOES “color” my view of personhood, both because 500K+ Whites died in the war that ended up giving the Blacks that legal status and MY WIFE is one of those PEOPLE who got that boon by default / inheritance.

        So yeah. Maybe my science might be overcome by my reality.

        As for the God of the Christians – I wouldn’t propitiate, much less worship, that psychopath. That DOESN’T mean I don’t think the unborn aren’t people.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hmmm, in a war that whites started because they wanted to enslave people and wanted the new territories to be able to enslave people. It is interesting that evidently your wife is black, yes?

        As has been pointed out, cellular activity and chromosomes doesn’t make a person. Your “reality” is no more than your baseless opinion. And you apparently want this baseless nonsense to be why you can tell a woman that she must risk her life.

        Like

  2. Fascinating post, my friend and quite informative. Oh, your post contains one factual mistake, however. You state, “Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and has not been interrupted since.” This isn’t true. Around 2.7 billion years ago, God, evil, hateful bastard that he is, decided, “Ya know, all this ‘life’ I’m creating seems to suffer a lot. Maybe, before it becomes highly sentient in another 2.69 billion years, I should just stop it and end all the pain I’m causing.” Thus God, the evil bastard, stopped all life and went to the moon to have a ham sandwich. However, he soon got bored of having nothing to watch suffer. So, he once again started life up on earth, and, evil bastard that he is, has enjoyed the wails and screams of pain and death in living things ever since. Oh, he also moved up to having steak on Mars rather than ham sandwiches on the moon. Something about liking the color red more than whitish yellow. Go figure.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Isn’t there a more fundamental and perhaps more significant question? This relates to the prevention of the existence of another human being. The Catholic church tries to prohibit some forms of contraception but it does not prohibit human existence prevention by means of abstinence and um.. celibacy.

    Any potential human not permitted to exist by whatever means is denied life and the precise mean by which that denial is enacted seems rather irrelevant in comparison to the fact of non-existence.

    Anyone who actively pursued all possible opportunities for procreation would be rapidly sanctioned by both church and state.

    In short: Everybody actively denies life to potential human beings that could exist if they acted otherwise. This includes the Pope. And that is as it should be.

    Like

    • Hi John, I’m not quite sure I understand your point. My apologies. If I’m reading you correctly, masturbation is preventing a possible human life… Not having sex is preventing a possible human life… space travel is preventing a possible human life.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I think he is arguing we are all “abortionists” as he very, very broadly defines it (stymying the creation of life). Which is his way of noting the absurdity of the “pro-life” position?

        Liked by 1 person

    • You Stated — “Any potential human not permitted to exist by whatever means is denied life and the precise mean by which that denial is enacted seems rather irrelevant in comparison to the fact of non-existence.”

      My Response — Incorrect. Rape is always relevant to any related fact for conception.

      Like

  4. A very novel (and good) argument, John. Well argued … and the number of minds changed on the issue will probably be close to zero. I argue this issue at the “do you want to give the state that much power over our bodies (to make that decision for us) or do you want to leave it up to us and our families as advised by doctors and, yes, even clergy? Anyone wanting to give the state that much power is a zealot, probably a religious zealot.

    This is in spite of the Bible saying clearly that life begins when the baby takes it’s first breath (the Breath of Life) and, in addition, according to the bible, the punishment for destroying a fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being.

    So, this is an emotional argument stirred by whom? I suggest it is stirred by politicians/citizens with ulterior motives.

    Liked by 9 people

    • ACTUALLY Steve… 😄 the Bible does say more about the beginning of life, but you must FIRST have the proper hermeneutical (exegetical) method in place for the Holy Spirit to move throughout your neurological transmitters and receivers in order to FIND all the 100’s of Biblical passages that speak directly to abortion or non-abortion! 😁

      Liked by 2 people

  5. @JZ

    It’s nice to see the complete thought all in one place. Thank you for that JZ.

    The other, larger part of the equation is that, astonishingly, the facts of the matter regarding foetal development matter little to the men who wish to maintain reproductive control over woman’s bodies.

    As your summary clearly demonstrates the anti-woman crowd does not have a leg to stand on. Yet the debate continues because patriarchal religious inanity trumps factual science and human rights in a good portion of the world.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Been meaning to put it all down in one essay, and as it appears this rodeo is about to spark up again, figured I should pull my finger out. Keeping it to 1,000 words was a challenge, though.

      We’ve talked about this before, but I just don’t understand this urge by some to impose their perceived ‘authority’ over women. It makes no logical sense to me.

      Liked by 3 people

      • @JZ

        “It makes no logical sense to me.”

        Most of the constructed hierarchies in our social domains don’t make sense and cause more trouble than what they are worth. That just may be a different post though…. 🙂

        Liked by 4 people

  6. JZ, let me get this straight. Are you saying that abortion is not ‘killing’ because it does not cause ‘death’ because up to a certain point, brain activity, the unborn baby isn’t ‘alive’ yet to be killed, ie. Cessation of brain activity?

    Liked by 1 person

      • So Are you saying that the unborn baby is not human… or alive… until brain activity? DNA alone doesn’t determine what organism it is? And chemical and biological funtion alone doesnt mean it’s alive? My fear is that you are defining so narrowly in order to avoid obvious facts. That the unborn child actually is living tissue and is already a human organism in the womb, developing yes… but already a human organism by DNA and already alive by biological and chemical activity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think you’re misapplying his idea. Would he agree with you that the baby isn’t really human life or yet a human organism before foetal brain activity?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Was he talking about foetal development? Would he agree with you? Have you reached out to ask him? I think you’re misapplying him

        Like

      • So in that article is there a quote that addresses the question you raise in your post? The one you quoted is dealing with brain death or an already alive person.

        Like

      • The quote is self-explanatory, and talking about the development of the foetal brain: “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops.”

        See the words: Before full brain differentiation….

        Liked by 1 person

      • What does he define as full brain differentiation? Is it full electrical brain activity? Or is it just the development of the brain structure as a separate organ?

        Like

      • He is speaking about the brain death of an already living person. You are trying to apply this to determine when a foetus can be considered fully alive, or a fully human organism.
        I think you are trying to make his words say more than he would agree on a completely different question.

        Like

      • You seem to be happy to be alive. If you wanted to be aborted I doubt this conversation would be happening right now.

        Perhaps you now have some bias.. having had access to life and what it has to offer.

        Like

      • Wrong again 🙂 I don’t think there’s anything particularly good about human life, my own included. My non-existence would have been of no impact on the world. My current existence is of no great impact either. I stay alive mostly out of a sense of obligation, but also animal instinct.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your reasons for staying alive seem valid enough to prove the need for your existence. It’s a good thing you’re hear to meet those obligations.

        As for instinct, I believe that’s the bias I was talking about before. It’s quite the dilemma.

        Like

      • I’ve considered not being alive many times; to the point of studying methods for a plan for achieving it in some detail. But in the end I thought it would be spectacularly unfair to my partner who’s done a ton to make life more bearable for me.
        When I talk about instinct, I mean the unconscious (or perhaps subconscious) will animals have to avoid harm. The fly doesn’t think it has a wonderful life, and if you pull off its wings it doesn’t wonder why you did it. That being said, it will still, instinctively, avoid death.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You Stated — “I’ve considered not being alive many times”

        My Response — Like most of us I would imagine.

        You Stated — “I thought it would be spectacularly unfair to my partner who’s done a ton to make life more bearable for me.”

        My Response — That speaks to your selflessness, which I may add is a good attribute to have in the world at the moment. It would seem that greed is taking over (at least in America).

        You Stated — “When I talk about instinct, I mean the unconscious”

        My Response — It’s irrelevant, the process for self-preservation is relative to the individual and ultimately changes the level of resistance to removal. Your bias is obvious as is everyone else who wakes in the morning and struggles to survive until the end of the day.

        As for a wonderful life I may not have provided enough nuance. I don’t mean story book wonderful, life can be hard. What I mean is that you have “want” and/or “care” driving your need to stay. I have someone in my life who I think is deserving of living so I fight for her. I think she is wonderful so I struggle with the world to help her. To me that is a wonderful life but to each their own.

        There will always be an Ethical Dilemma when it comes to abortion. I myself feel that we should end such a practice.

        BUT

        I believe the choice belongs to the woman who is pregnant and the rest of us should stay out of it. Because it’s none of our business.

        Just saying

        Liked by 2 people

  7. The argument is very sound, but somehow lacks an emotional parallel, and religion is all based on tugging at ones emotions. What we need is to compile some feel good stories about how having an abortion positively impacted women’s lives, then they will listen to sound science. Great post John. And all (almost) in one place. Lol

    Liked by 8 people

  8. I’d like to add some more links to support John Zande’s ideas and views of abortion.

    But first, let me define what I mean by HUMAN life. According to me HUMAN life demands the presence of consciousness.

    Today’s mainstream theory in neuroscience says that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex.

    It’s also an overwhelming consensus that human consciousness includes the ability to think and to feel.

    A fetus without a cortex in its brain can still survive (for example breathe). But without the cortex, such a fetus is to be compared with a stimulus-response apparatus, governed by reflexes. (Reflexes are actions performed as a response to a stimulus and these actions take place WITHOUT conscious thought.)

    Thus HUMAN life is more than just breathing and using reflexes.

    To call it HUMAN life, it’s reasonable to demand that the fetus must be able to interact with its environment in more ways than just using subcortical reflexes.

    In order to be able to interact with its environment in a more sophisticated way than just using reflexes there must be:

    a) an ability for incoming signals from the sense organs to be registered and perceived by the brain (this “reception disk” is located at the thalamus); and

    b) an ability to forward (send) these signals from the thalamus to the cortex of the brain.

    Such a connection – called the thalamocortical connection – doesn’t arise/emerge before gestational week 24. That is, before week 24 the signals, at best, can get to the thalamus area of the brain, but not be forwarded to the cortex (where consciousness mainly arises and works).

    Also the thalamus has to become mature “in itself” before it’s able to receive and to know where to forward the information received.

    Before gestational week 20 the thalamus can be likened to a tabula rasa, that is, the thalamus is in a blank or “empty” state unable to receive and process outside impressions soming from the sense organs..

    So the presence of (some sort of) consciousness demands the ability to react on to the brain incoming signals from the sense organs. And that can’t be done until the thalamus is mature enough.

    And there must also be a functioning thalamocortical connection (normally established geational week 24 or even later).

    I myself like the “global neuronal workspace” (GNW) model of consciousness. The GNW means that the whole brain – the different parts of the brain – are more or less connected and, thus, able to cooperate by creating a continuously changing and dynamic “flow of consciousness”.

    This continously changing and dynamic “flow of consciousness” can be seen in (maybe above all) the default mode network (DMN), which plays a key role in allowing us to perform tasks on autopilot.The DMN is activated when we think of nothing special (cf. daydreaming).

    John Zande explains all this In a more summarizing way, both in the blog post and in the comment field (see for example July 22, 2018 at 2:43 pm) to KIA, where Zande writes, “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists.”

    (I think that John Zande with “the full human organism” means the same thing as I do, that is a fetus able to be sentient and/or aware, thus demonstrating important parts of what we often call consciousness.)

    Anyway, here are the links I recommend KIA and others interested in the topic to explore further:

    1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25160864 ;

    2) https://philarchive.org/archive/LAGTEO-5v1

    Liked by 4 people

    • Just to add, it’s interesting that it’s not until 36 months *after* birth that the frantic process of arborisation finally slows and the brain can begin to actually store and retrieve memories.

      Liked by 3 people

    • So…unconscious people aren’t “human life” interesting…. As per my comment below the foetus is clearly alive in some sense as dead things don’t grow. And they certainly don’t develop ever increasing brain function. If it’s not alive why must it be either spooned or dismembered to “terminate” “it”. And it’s lack of consciousness is at best temporary. So unless we’re going to pull the plug on all coma patients I don’t think this works….

      Like

      • I posted a longer comment which doesn’t appear to have come through so I’ll try summarize here again:

        – the foetus is clearly living as dead things don’t grow no matter what you plug them into, certainly not in any way comparable to the way a foetus grows. This is why is has to be either poisoned or dismembered to “terminate” it.. So it’s defintely living to start with.

        – if being dead is the permamanent and irreversible absence of brain function then the argument fails for a foetus as it will,left to its own devices, develop that function. So try pull the plug on a patient in a coma that has an almost certain chance of developing full brain function in a matter of weeks.

        – so it starts off living, must be terminated, and has no permanent absence of brain function. The only basis for regarding that as not equivalent to a patient ina coma is the arbitrary requirement that there must previously have been brain activity – why is THAT the requirement?

        – fortunes born as early as 22 weeks have a 6% *survival* rate – ie born alive and then live. So at best for you you need to move the age limit to 22 weeks

        Like

      • Looks like it went through to spam.

        I’ve never said the foetus was not part of the living system. The egg and the sperm are parts of this system that began 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since.

        That is the requirement because he/she is a human organism.

        Premature babies are kept alive on full artificial life support systems. It is not until week 32 that the foetal brain is ready to control respiration.

        Like

      • The foetus is not simply part of a living system – it is alive and developing itself. Unless you would like to say that all out of womb humans are simply part of a living system and can be terminated as well. A sperm and egg separately will never develop into anything. A foetus absolutely will – which is why people have abortions in the first place.

        The fact that a foetus can be kept alive on life support is also fatal to your argument – once it is out the womb it is legally a person – and if you were to poison or dismember it then you would commit murder – no question about it. So if it is a living person outside the womb there is no logical reason to not treat it as a living person inside.

        You’re opening point was you can’t be living if you can’t die – the foetus clearly can die and so I think your whole argument fails on that point alone. If you have any response on the temporary absence of brain activity I’m keen to hear it but as far as I can tell it similarly fails.

        Like

      • No, it is not ‘developing by itself.’ The energy required for growth comes from the mother. All life on earth is powered by chemiosmosis, where the rechargeable chemical battery for life, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), is first broken down and then re-formed during respiration to release energy used to drive every living reaction (see the cellular metabolic map below). That is not happening independently in the foetus. And as already mentioned, it is not until week 32 that the foetal brain has developed enough to control respiration.

        Artificial life support actually supports the argument. A human organism can survive by itself, relying on its own mechanics to persist. You should read the 2006 Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on premature babies. It spells it out in detail, noting that there is just a 1% chance of survival at week 22 with intensive care and are almost certain to suffer severe disability. Premature babies require as many as 50 interventions a day, everything from continual needle pricks, to having a tube in their throat, to brain surgery. By 25 weeks (the point in which the report’s authors state we should fight to save the baby), the survival rate is around 50%, with the risk of severe disability at 40%.

        You’re opening point was you can’t be living if you can’t die

        No, the central point concerns the onset of a “human organism,” and that is quite clearly marked with full bilateral synchronisation. Please stop making this mistake. Constantly correcting you is tiresome, and it demonstrates that you’re not thinking.

        Like

      • Once again your own words are your worst enemy.

        I’m obviously not the first to observe this: :

        It is unfortunate that John Zande was very close in writing a very good book; however….he appears to have been bewitched by his thesis

        To quote you – “a 1% *survival* rate at week 22”. Only living things can survive. And all the interventions you refer to are to keep the baby “alive”!

        Medically and legally premature babies are absolutely 100% alive and human persons. THAT is a fact regardless of ATP synthesis or any other singular aspect of cellular functioning.

        Please do me a favor and plug a rock into an umbilical cord and show me what happens. Yes the foetus is supported by the mother but it is the foetuses *own* cellular reproduction that results in a fully formed out of womb human. The fact that it requires support is irrelevant as to whether it is living at that point in time.

        It was you who made the point in the opening paragraphs of your post that if something can’t die it can’t be alive – and you equated this with the permanent and irreversible absence of brain activity. Which is clearly not the case for foetuses as you have just unwittingly pointed out.

        You wrote a post arguing that it cannot be a human organism without meeting your test for dying – check out the opening paragraph if you have already forgotten.

        Perhaps don’t propagate such easily refutable propositions if you’re not willing or able to engage with critique.

        Like

      • Yes, part of the living system that began 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. You appear to be having tremendous difficulty understanding this point. To repeat the seventeen words from the beginning of the post which I stated were critical: At no stage does life magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a foetus.. You keep ignoring this… why?

        Medically and legally premature babies are absolutely 100% alive and human persons.

        Never not a part of the living system, and potential to develop into complete persons, yes, provided the developing brain becomes bilaterally synchronous. See post for explanation, and perhaps actually *read* it, a few times if necessary.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A living system is by definition made up of living things. How exactly is a foetus not living if it is part of a living system? Your use of living system is simply a fudge to avoid dealing with the specifics – a poor attempt to side step the logical difficulties that pepper your proposition. And you seemingly forget that “living systems” is simply a theory not some sort of iron clad fact. And even with in it the basic units are alive.

        You confidently assert no magical moment when life springs into being yet how then is it possible that something that is currently living has not *always* been living?

        But actually you assert your own magical moment being adequate brain functioning. Yet this somehow magically develops in an organism with its own dna, and cellular functionality (and organ functioning from a very early stage) but that miraculously is not living. A true marvel of biological and philosophical thought!

        Yet should this “not living being” emerge from the womb it has a chance of survival and is legally and medically a person to be kept alive. A few inches movement from inside to outside the womb and your argument evaporates.

        You still have not addressed the principal weakness in your original position which is that any absence of brain activity (to your satisfaction ) is at best temporary and without this your proposition fails.

        Like

      • And you seemingly forget that “living systems” is simply a theory not some sort of iron clad fact.

        Huh? Do you know the difference between inorganic and organic systems?

        You confidently assert no magical moment when life springs into being yet how then is it possible that something that is currently living has not *always* been living?

        Confident, yes, because it’s a fact. Deal with it. And perhaps you should look up “animal reproduction” to understand how babies are made… or mitosis if you’re interested bacterial propagation. It all bubbles up from within, not injected in from the outside.

        But actually you assert your own magical moment being adequate brain functioning. Yet this somehow magically develops in an organism with its own dna, and cellular functionality (and organ functioning from a very early stage) but that miraculously is not living. A true marvel of biological and philosophical thought!

        Nothing magical about a brain developing then coming online. It’s simply following a map. And the brain is not the full human organism, but without a bilaterally synchronised brain you don’t have a human organism. As I wrote:

        Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human being, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing through the body, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still working naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment.

        Meditate on that truism.

        You still have not addressed the principal weakness in your original position which is that any absence of brain activity (to your satisfaction ) is at best temporary and without this your proposition fails.

        Is at best temporary? What on earth are trying to say here? As stated in the Nature Reviews, Neuroscience article: “Brain death means human death.” There is no reanimation.

        Like

      • Lets recap:

        You have put forward a proposition that there is no ethical issue on abortion prior to either 25 or 28 weeks (you’re not clear on the age but lets take the earlier stage of 25) because the foetus can’t die – or more specifically can’t die a human death.

        What can render your hypothesis false? For a start showing that human life starts prior to that. This is easily done with a 22 week old baby – its alive, it has a non-zero chance of survival and this is supported (unwittingly I’m sure) by YOUR comments. It matters not that if the life support is withdrawn it will die. While it is supported it is alive and it is a human. OR DO YOU SAY THAT A VIABLE 22 WEEK OLD FOETUS IS NOT A HUMAN?

        But beyond the empirical problems you face, you have a logical one. The foetus has not suffered permanent or irreversible absence of brain activity. This is the standard you have proposed and you must stand by it if you want your proposition to hold. Clearly the foetus has not suffered this. The whole point of the abortion is to make this happen.

        In any event you are making the logical fallacy of thinning that simply because death occurs in a certain way life must necessarily occur in a correspondingly similar way. Yet a moments reflection on the difference between a corpse and a foetus will show you that the mere fact they display similar brain functions does not tell you anything about their state of their life. You can plug a dead person (not someone on life support – an already dead person) into anything you want, they will remain dead. A foetus will however grow to form the wonderful complex human being it is.

        Despite this we think we can stand at the end of 3.8 billion years and boldly proclaim that this is not human life – its life but some other form that we can discard without any further thought. Its not even remotely valuable and therefore there is no ethical issue. Thankfully nature disagrees and wonderfully endows women with a system to nurture and develop this life into fuller form – it is so valuable because without it no-one would be here – YOU wouldn’t be here unless nature had treasured the formative you.

        Read this article and tell me that the 22-week baby isn’t a human being. I’ll truly pity you if you can.

        I’ll say no more. My sincere regards and best wishes. May the truth on this issue shine through for al of us.

        Like

      • It matters not that if the life support is withdrawn it will die.

        Yes, it does. It matters a lot because it is NOT viable at 22 weeks, hence the whole “life support” thing.

        Like

      • No, because it has yet to pass that critical threshold of bilateral synchronisation. You’re really having trouble with this, aren’t you. And if an adult human requires full life support (which is to mean machines taking full control of their breathing) then they are brain dead. Once again:

        Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human being, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing through the body, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still working naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment.

        Like

      • I apologize for calling you a twit – I was out of line.

        I’m just flabbergasted that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

        The 22 week old baby pictured in The NY Times article clutching a finger is not a human by your definition?!? It could be butchered, burned, tossed into an alley without even the slightest qualm?!?

        All of the babies pictured in that article were born before your cut off and lived till after it. Yet you would say there is no issue in doing whatever you please with them outside the womb (in this debate in or out of the womb is irrelevant – I use it just to illustrate).

        I beg you to reconsider.

        This really is the last thing I’m going to say on this.

        Like

      • I’ve never said what time I think the cut off should be, and you’ve never asked. If you were to ask, I’d say (excluding medical emergencies, of course) week 20; four weeks before regular neural activity, and eight weeks before the critical start of bilateral synchronisation.

        Like

  9. (TRIES to be the uninformed, run-of-the-mill Christian antagonist here…)

    This is what God’s Word says specifically about the pre-born:

    When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. (Luke 1:41, 44)

    Then some evangelical-fundamentalists claim that from this passage — about the “Son of God Jesus” — that human life (other than this incarnation of Jesus) starts as an embryo and grows into a fetus:

    While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:6-7)

    As far as the “Holy Scriptures” or “God’s Word” says, these are the ONLY two passages remotely extrapolated as possibly being related to abortion. Period. Anything other passages yanked out of the Bible are simply twisted and distorted way out of their intended genre and context.

    What many/most evangelical fly-by-night apologists do when it comes to extracting specific legal guidance from their Holy Scriptures are that they forget to pay attention to the genre of the biblical passage they are studying or pulling out of thin air before interpreting (not proper hermeneutics!) the specific verses. On these exegetical principles Christians and Christian seminaries are GREATLY divided and nowhere near unanimous on all the specifics of hermeneutics. For example, TRY to reconcile the morality of a most popular anti-abortion passage used in Exodus 21:22-25. Notice the different assigning of life-values(?):

    If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    The only final conclusion in a religious debate is that the claimed Christian “God” really has nothing specific to say, certainly not medically, scientifically, or factually with zero ambiguity, about when human life actually begins in the womb. Obviously the Bible is NOT an exhaustive genetic, embryological, or neurological encyclopedia. Attempting to use the Bible as a legal foundation for abortion would be no different than using it for the exploration of Mars.

    Despite this glaring ambiguity that hasn’t changed the last 2,000 years and never will… there will always be Christians pronouncing themselves — and their own interpretive methods of Scripture — as right, as true and hence self-proclaim THEY are the “True Christians.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Profession, you wrote … passages yanked out of the Bible are simply twisted and distorted way out of their intended genre and context.

      HOW can you say such a thing??? Don’t you know the BIBLE says (to prove itself) that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (KJV). Sheesh! Did you forget all your larnin’?

      Liked by 2 people

      • 😄 (appreciates Nan’s biblical reminder of omni-everything supercedes all human knowledge and reasoning power then, now, and forever will be…) 🤪

        WOMAN! Why do you have to go slam the door on me like that with such miraculous exegesis and biblical recall!? That said, come join me in going to Mars and all space exploration AND with me into the 22nd century of geneticism-stem cell research cuz… we only need ONE reference book/encyclopedia to DO IT ALL don’t we!? 😇

        Let all the world scream “Hallelujah AMEN!!!” 🤭

        Liked by 3 people

    • The Jews were actually quite specific. Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person):
      “…a baby…becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a ‘partial life.’ ”

      Liked by 2 people

      • (notice my evangy-fundy antagonistic sarcasm…)

        John! I cannot find the Book of Halacha in my 4th-century CE Hellenistic canonical Bible! 😠 What are you blabbering about man!? Btw, can I use this Talmudic jurisprudence to explore Mars and stem-cells too!? 😛

        On a serious sidenote, THIS is an example of why Hellenistic Christological Faith-followers have no real clue about their inescapeable Jewish roots or Second Temple Judaism/Messianism. They ignorantly defer to Saul of Tarsus. LOL

        Liked by 1 person

      • For Mars colonization, multiple vials of Donald Trump’s orange sperm has been collected and every woman who takes the trip will need to be impregnated with it so that the first Martians will come out genetically superior, tied emotionally to Vladimir Putin, and orange. 😀

        Liked by 3 people

  10. I think you have to be a little careful with purely functional definitions, though I think you are making a bit of a reductio argument regarding the ‘potential argument’ on the other side when you bring it all down to neurological mechanisms.
    If it were strictly the case that the function of neurological mechanisms created value, then we had best not go to sleep, and anesthesia should be outlawed.
    By the same token, if genetic potential is the gold standard, we should all be sitting on our hands in a dark room, lest we somehow limit genetic potential somewhere.
    “At no stage does life magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a foetus.
    .. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. The egg and the sperm are already parts of the living system—a 3.8 billion years old system…” – Great statement, with all the relevant facts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Keith, good to see you around

      You’re right, it is a reductionist argument, but that is what we have. If new information were to come to light demonstrating some other (previously unknown) element in a human organism then I’d have to re-assess everything and alter my thinking accordingly. Regarding sleep and anaesthetics, the brain is still working, but this starts to hit upon the varying laws concerning brain death: whole or brainstem. The measure I think is rational is when the brain begins to exhibit sustained activity, even though that occurs well before consciousness is even physically possible.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Excellent read and I agree 100%. So logical and reasonable and accurate and therein lies the problem for so many influenced by religion, emotion and cultural influence.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. John, btw… forgot to say this is an excellent all-in-one post on a topic that in truth has very little controversy in the realm of science — the ONLY place the prenatal ‘life debate‘ rests — and any attempts to try and force the science into another domain is ludicrous and pure imaginative fiction.

    So very well done John. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  13. You bring up some fair points, JZ. I don’t think it’s a stretch to attach human rights to a developing fetus so long as the fetus is capable of being declared dead. Upon death, those rights don’t exist. Socially, there are fewer taboos regarding termination of rights in a human who has developed and then ceased brain function than one who hasn’t developed them yet. In the abstract, it shouldn’t be difficult to conceptualize the issue in this way to make it easier to see why abortions do not have to carry such artificial weight.

    I do wonder if you’re intending to go further than Dr. Goldenring went in the quote at the end of the post. He was very clear to qualify his position with the word “full,” ostensibly to avoid quibbling over whether a fetus was some other version of a human organism or not (that is, issues of homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction). You stated near the end of your post, “Without a continuously functioning, synchronised brain there is no human organism[.]” If that’s the case, someone might argue that it would disqualify many living things as being organisms because they lack qualified brain systems. I’m not sure it’s necessary to take that extra step, as limiting it to some “full” human organism would satisfy your thesis just fine.

    There are some other issues that this essay passes on which could be relevant to other things, like whether or not a mother owes a duty of care to a full human organism growing inside her. That said, in all fairness there’s always a landmine to step on with this issue. Still, I think it’s a great way of framing the issue in general.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Sirius

      Goldenring is actually a staunch anti-abortionist, which is why I like quoting his paper. And I agree with the “full,” being full bilateral synchronisation. Ethically, though, the cut-off date should be earlier, with valid arguments for week 24/25 (when the foetus, much like a sea slug, can begin to respond to aversive stimuli, and activity in the brain becomes continuous), or week 20 (when activity in both hemispheres can first be detected). Personally, I’d err on the side of extreme caution and say 20 weeks. I mean, that’s 5 months. Decisions to terminate should be (and most are) made inside weeks. No one should *need* 5 months. Of course, medical emergencies should be treated separately.

      Homeostasis is a hallmark of the living system, so it’s not a defining marker, and until birth, the foetus has the same metabolic rate as the mother. I mentioned it above somewhere, but the foetus behaves much like an organ. It’s a part of a bigger whole, rather than an individual. The very moment a baby is born all its internal processes speed up rapidly, and at 36 hours after birth, the baby’s cells have the same activity rate as a mammal its size. In this sense, babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours. At 32 weeks, the brain is ready to control respiration, meaning, if premature, it can assume responsibility for energy production.

      All in all, we’re talking about an emergent system which becomes an individual, a human organism, and the brain is that single defining thing. As everything is part of the living system (which is why Goldenring says “living brain”), the task is to identify the onset of the complete organism. The genome, for example, is no more the human organism than an architect’s sketch is a physical building. If the legality of abortion becomes a subject again (which it looks like it might in the US), then the arguments have to cemented in reality, in facts, and it’s simply factually wrong to use words like “kill.” And I think anti-abortionists have to be confronted, and confronted hard, when they try to muddy the subject with lies.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. I of course agree with your assessment here, but I don’t think that it’s going to be very persuasive with many. Because really what we’re dealing with is a much more emotional definition of personhood from the other side. Any sort of warped Bible arguments aside, I think it largely stems from a focus, not on “what is”, but rather on “what will be. I’ve always been uncomfortable with that sort of thinking, because this requires a certain degree of prediction that I think is unwise for the law to get involved. I also think that this can be termed killing, as it is the extinguishing of life, but I don’t think we are killing a person, and it is most certainly not murder.

    For me it all boils down to three things related to what is the most humane and moral options for the mother, child, and society in general.

    1. What is not debatable is that a woman who has reached sexual maturity is in person, and this person should simply have the right to not have their body legislated.

    2. The goal of reducing abortions is not a matter of illegality. This is not why abortions happen. If we are truly interested in reducing abortions then we must also be interested in the care of women and children in our society. We must have things like easy access to birth control, adequate family leave from work, adequate sex education, and for fuck sake’s stop judging women who have sex out of wedlock because of some religious bullshit! The countries that have the least amount of abortions, aren’t the ones that have made it illegal.

    3. Overpopulation is also an important moral concern. This is ultimately why abortions happen, because of a real or perceived feeling that they will be unable adequately take care of the child. Ultimately abortion (and prior to that infanticide) was practiced because of low resources, for the size of the tribe. This could because of environmental factors that led to a low food supply, or simply an accidental pregnancy that would have made the tribe too large putting stress on their ability to survive given the resources that were normally available. It’s hard-wired into us by evolution. Now I’m not one to say we are slaves to our evolutionary roots, but we do have to understand this truth, and use that fact to help us build solutions to reduce the number of abortions if we feel that abortion is wrong. If all abortions that happen were actually brought to term in the U.S. this would be nearly 700,000 new people a year. Coincidentally that’s slightly higher than the estimate of how many illegal aliens we gain a year, and yet that number is said to be a strain on our economy. At least illegal aliens are performing a job and paying taxes. This would not be the case for many of these babies. The very things that anti-abortion people are generally against like taxes and welfare would skyrocket. Ironically many if not most Latin Americans are catholic and would be the least likely group of people to get abortions. Republicans really are just the most confused people out there. Bottom line is that we can’t just get all dreamy thinking about what a fetus is going to be in the future, but we have to think about the big picture and all those extra children there would be and how much suffering kids in poverty experience and what all that is going to cost.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Swarn

      From experience, the argument does make the anti-choicer stop and think, and then wrap themselves up in frustrated knots. I don’t think it ever changes their minds, they’re not actually interested in learning anything, but it does get them thinking about the actual facts of foetal development and the faulty language they use. Ultimately, though, the argument is directed to rational thinkers, not the religious, and is critical in shaping any sensible (informed) conversation concerning legality and ethically sound cut-off dates.

      Your 2nd point is right on the money. We should be talking about prevention, not arguing over access. Your 3rd point is also right on the money, and it strikes the religious in the heart. Rational (and thoroughly justified) antinatalism informed by a man-caused global mess (overpopulation/resource depletion) forces the diehard believer to confront the corporeality of this captain-less spaceship Earth.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Perhaps, you’ve been more successful than I have in using the argument then, because reactions I’ve received haven’t been overly charitable. lol Perhaps it is because for most people who are pro-abortion they are also the type to not see the brain as a physical organ, and like a commenter above prefers to think about soul and mind. For many it seems like beating heart is more important than brain development, or that pictures on an ultrasound look baby shaped.

        Being a parent has certainly multiplied my love for children, but certainly hasn’t changed my views on abortion. In fact both my wife and I, in honest reflection know that are grief would be much greater at the loss of our 4 year old over the loss of a newborn. The difference in personhood is enormous between those ages. In the moment, there is simply much more to lose in a 4 year old and a newborn. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be sadness, but I do think that we’d get over it sooner. I’ve noticed this also in people who have lost children, as opposed to lost babies. They are far more deeply impacted by the loss of an older child. Instinctually it makes sense, and must be this way. To me there is simply no comparison to actual murder and abortion.

        On the other side I did concede a point to a anti-abortionist who said that there are cases of pregnant women being shot and both the fetus and mother dying, and that person has been charged with a double homicide. I think that it’s not fair to call it a double homicide.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh John, John, John… a birth certificate is of no consequence on account:

        Ephesians 1:4
        “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”

        It’s your aseity model at play….

        Like

    • The level of prediction required is limited at best – we know that the typical result is birth. After all, that is why people seek abortions in the first place.

      From a legal perspective I think there is a very strong property argument to be made. Was there ever a time when you hand was not your hand? Or your head your head. Or any of your cells, your cells.? They have your dna. So on what basis can they be taken from you? And if they can’t be taken from you outside the womb, why can they be taken from inside? Simply because you cannot defend yourself?

      Like

  15. Like others have said, nice to see all these familiar sentences put together in one post. It’s a very clear and factual presentation of one aspect of the debate. But I still think abortion should be outlawed because a fully formed baby/child/adult could have lived that will never have the chance to live. And that means something. Especially if you’re religious and believe your god has a plan. My other observation is that when abortion is illegal, women don’t have as many abortions and therefore more unplanned and unwanted children get to exist. This is a good thing (based on facts). Obviously the ideal situation is that abortion is illegal, that women submit to sex on the whim of men and then accept all consequential pregnancies – this is achievable and fair – exactly as the invisible creator deity intended. All these are facts that can be verified by my blogging buddies like Wally, Insanity and KIA, who all base their understanding on FACTS, not on hazy feelings about babies underpinned by a patriarchal suspicion of women making decisions about their own lives.

    Like

  16. It’s a case of examining what one’s basic premises about life are. It’s a personal evaluation too, irrespective of scientific facts which continue to be workable sution until proven otherwise. Until consciousness can indeed be measured, this is is all rather moot. I do commend your very clear argument though, and to some extent I agree with it, but then my beliefs are non-conformist and non-conventional, so my opinion too is moot. 🙂

    It’s lovely to read your work, dear friend.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. This is very interesting! Have a look at: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-generate-key-life-event-in-artificial-mouse-embryo-created-from-stem-cells

    Scientists are now able to make artificial mouse embryos in a culture dish in the laboratory. These embryos even undergo gastrulation, often called the most important event in life after the moment of fertilization of the egg.

    Gastrulation means the embryo can organize itself into the three body layers that all animals have: an inner layer (endoderm), a middle layer (mesoderm) and an outer layer (ectoderm), determining which tissues or organs the cells will then develop into. (Read more about these three body layers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_layer .) .

    And maybe best of all: the timing, architecture and patterns of gene activity reflected that of natural embryo development!

    To develop further, in order to get a real living mouse individual, this artificial embryo probably “just” has to be implanted into the body of a real mouse mother or an artificial placenta.

    Now God, the Creator, seemingly must handle competition not only from J. Craig Venter but also these scientists at University of Cambridge.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I read this post today after spotting that Paul Braterman had re-blogged it recently. You say: “the onset of a defined human life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained activity…”.

    You may be interested to know that around an hour ago young earth creationist Ken Ham tweeted the following:
    “Do these protestors also carry signs saying “humans in mother’s wombs feel pain & want to live?” They want to protect fish (which are animals, not humans who are made in God’s image), but what about the millions of children murdered yearly by abortion?”

    I know that Ham believes a foetus is ‘alive’ from conception, but he is also apparently claiming that any foetus or ‘human’ in the womb can feel pain (or any in cases where abortion is legal). Speaking as a layman, and risking over-simplification, I thought that the human nervous system controlled how we process and feel pain (the central nervous system – brain and spinal cord – and the peripheral nervous system).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Ashley. Yep, if the physical mechanisms/networks to process information are not in place, then the foetus cannot feel anything. Ham is simply wrong, but that has never stopped him spouting his nonsense.

      A good article on foetal pain (linked below) was published in JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association ): Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

      A pertinent section reads:

      Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

      Liked by 1 person

      • From your article John:

        No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception. The developmental age at which thalamic pain fibers reach the cortex has been inferred from studies of other thalamocortical circuits, which may or may not develop at the same time as thalamic fibers mediating cortical perception of pain.

        Like

      • “While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • John…. you don’t know how to understand science papers… if we summarise your paragraph above, it reads:

        <b<It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality.

        Like

      • You say “Yes” … but you haven’t a clue how to put the information together..

        No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception.

        What don’t you understand about the above conclusion of the paper?

        Is it really that difficult?

        Like

      • Seems you’re having trouble understanding the conclusions of the paper. But do feel free to conduct your own research and publish a paper on the subject, as these actual experts in the field have.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Interesting…. so you admit that:
        No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception.

        Like

      • I did….

        CONCLUSION: No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception.

        It would appear that the review paper would support the view that your “theory” is based entirely on conjecture.

        Like

      • The conclusion is:

        Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception …

        Because pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should be noncompulsory. Fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for the woman. Instead, further research should focus on when pain-related thalamocortical pathways become functional in humans. If the fetus can feel pain, additional research may lead to effective fetal anesthesia or analgesia techniques that are also safe for women.

        If you wish to demonstrate that thalamocortical fibers begin to form sometime before 23 and 30 weeks, as all studies have demonstrated, and that these pathways only begin to function around 29 to 30 weeks, as all studies have demonstrated, then do so.

        And you’re also missing the point of the paper, and the post, which is establishing the ethical cut-off date for abortion quite some time before consciousness (which requires complete and functioning thalamocortical pathways) is even physically possible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John you really are hard work… again, summarise your above post:

        Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, BUT THESE STUDIES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINE THALAMOCORTICAL PATHWAYS ACTIVE IN PAIN PERCEPTION. Pain perception PROBABLY does not function before the third trimester, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should be noncompulsory.

        Like

      • Exactly, and if there’s any evidence for thalamocortical fibres forming before the repeatedly observed time (no earlier than 23 weeks), and those thalamocortical fibres becoming functioning pathways up to 6 weeks later, then present it. You seem to be missing the fact that what is being discussed here is the specific ‘hardware’ required.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Philip Rand:

        Sorry to say, Philip, nut you remind me of the Miguel de Cervantes novel Don Quixote, wherein the delusional protagonist fights windmills that he imagines are giants.

        I’m not sure you can understand my message, Philip, but nevertheless I’d like to have a try.

        First of all, it is utterly important to understand the difference between nociception and pain.

        According to Wikipedia, nociception (a.k.a. nociperception, from Latin nocere ‘to harm or hurt’) is the sensory nervous system’s response to certain harmful or potentially harmful stimuli.

        And Wikipedia defines pain in this way: Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. The International Association for the Study of Pain’s widely used definition defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage.

        Please, Phiulip, notice the use of words like “feeling” and “emotional” in the definition used above, which indicates that some kind of higher-level processing capacity is needed. That is, a more or less mature connection between thalamus and cortex must be implemented/present before pain can be experienced in a proper way (representative of how we normally use the noun pain today). .

        From this we can also draw the conclusion that pain is a product of higher brain center (read: cortical) processing. Whereas nociception, which can occur in the absence of pain, should be viewed more as a neural pathway called reflex (or reflex arc). That is, no cognition (no “mind”) – worth mentioning – is involved in the response to a nociceptive stimulus. But is needed when it comes to experiencing pain.

        BTW, Philip, here’s a paper describing the difference between nociception and pain in a more scholarly way than I do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32659/.

        And here’s another link I recommend you to read carefully: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32659/ .

        Some quotes from that second paper:

        Quote #1:

        According to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.2 The traditional standpoint is that the registering of a nociceptive stimulus with a sensory system and perceiving a nociceptive stimulus as painful are not the same process.3 Nociception includes registering noxious stimuli with specialized free nerve endings and transmitting information about it. Data provided with nociception are imperfect and incomplete for the CNS to make a direct copy for current events. Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment.4

        Quote #2:

        The classical view of the proper perception of pain is related to the processing of afferent nociceptive signals at the level of the cortex cerebri. […] The perception of pain among adults encompasses the subject’s consciousness and active cortex cerebri, which enables learning and activates memory and emotions in the process of pain processing.9

        Quote “3:

        Based on EEG analysis, Burgess and Tawia concluded that a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks gestation and consequently feels pain in this period.13 Based on behavioral reactions to noxious stimulation, comparable to the adult or older child, Rogers concluded that the fetus feels pain as early as the 26th week of gestation.14 Derbyshire concludes, based on the necessity of cortex cerebri activity in processing pain perception, that the earliest period when the fetus can feel pain is the 23rd gestation week. That is the week when thalamic projections, which can transmit information about nociception to the cortical plate, are formed.5 The maturity of the thalamus and associated subcortical structures with proper thalamocortical connections at the 20th gestation week accompanied by a coordinating electroencephalogram rhythm, provide the possibility for the fetus to experience something approximating “pain”.6

        Quote #4:

        Glover and Fisk also take into account the activity of cortex cerebri in pain processing and consider that the 16th gestation week is the earliest possible period for the fetus to feel pain.7 The 16th week sees the first contact of subplate zone with outer fibers which belong to the group of monoamine fibers and originate at the brain stem.8 The subplate zone is a temporary formation of the future mature cortex cerebri.

        Quote #5:

        Fetuses start to respond to vibroacoustic stimulation from the 23rd to the 24th gestational week. By the 30th week of gestation, all fetuses respond.35 The blink-startle response appears from the 24th to the 25th week of gestation and is consistently present after the 28th gestational week.36

        Finally, here’s a third paper I recommend you to read, Philip Rand: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/ .

        Allow me to quote from that paper too:

        Notwithstanding limitations, it is useful to view the pain system as an alarm system […] At this time, however, the nervous system has yet to fully mature. No laminar structure is evident in the thalamus or cortex, a defining feature of maturity.4,5 The external wall of the brain is about 1 mm thick and consists of an inner and outer layer with no cortical plate. The neuronal cell density of the outer layer is much higher than that of a newborn infant or adult and at seven weeks’ gestation has yet to receive any thalamic projections. Without thalamic projections, these neuronal cells cannot process noxious information from the periphery.

        The first projections from the thalamus to cortex (the higher alarm) appear at 12-16 weeks’ gestation. By this stage the brain’s outer layer has split into an outer cortical rim, with a subplate developing below. The thalamic projections that develop from 12-16 weeks penetrate the subplate. Within the subplate, cortical afferents establish prolonged synaptic contacts before entering the cortical plate. The subplate is a “waiting compartment,” required for mature connections in the cortex.6,7 The major afferent fibres (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) can wait in the subplate for several weeks, before they penetrate and form synapses within the cortical plate from 23-25 weeks’ gestation. Subsequent dissolution of the subplate occurs through prolonged growth and maturation of associative connections in the human cerebral cortex.

        Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience.9,10 In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience.9 Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation.10 These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks’ gestation. The period 23-25 weeks’ gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity.1 By 26 weeks’ gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain,6,7 and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks.11 Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation.

        In short, and to summarize, this is, in principle, the same message as John Zande is launching in this blog post and in his comments. Actually, I don’t understand why you continue to act like a delusional Don Quixote, Philip. Do you belong to the science denial movement?

        Liked by 2 people

      • @Philip Rand: Not only histology. Also anatomy.

        If there are no connections between the thalamus and the cortex area in the brain, the signals/information from the thalamus can’t reach their destination in the cortex. The signals dont have any route to follow, and these signals don’t know what their destination is, if there are no routes for them to follow.

        Maybe it’ll be easier for you to understand if you read this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_blindness .

        From the eyes the visual stimuli/signals go to the thalamus and from that “reception desk” the signals are relayed to the visual processing areas in the brain’s occipital cortex. But if that area is damaged, or missing, the brain (read: the individual) can’t experience anything (at least not consciously). There is no awareness of what the eyes have seen if the processing area is dysfunctional or out of order.

        Here’s another example for you to consider, Philip: https://www.livescience.com/63216-brain-plasticity-lobectomy.html .

        A quote from this latter article (about a child who got parts of his brain lobes removed surgically because he suffered from severe epileptic seizures):

        But there’s nothing wrong with his eyes, Behrmann told Live Science. U.D. can still “see” in the sense that both of his eyes pick up light information from the left side of his world. But because the right side of his brain [after the surgery] lacks a processing center, there’s nowhere for that information to go. So it gets lost, she said.

        “I suspect that he doesn’t have obvious awareness that he is missing that information,” Behrmann said. “It’s a little bit like, everybody’s got a blind spot,” but we aren’t really aware of it, she added.

        Philip, if you want to know more about the thalamocortical system/circuit, then you should read this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055433/ .

        Or at least read this quote from that paper:

        Similar to the mature cortex, the developing cortical plate consists of 3–6 cellular layers. Depending on the specific cortical region, cortical layer I is formed between GA weeks 24 and 34, and layers III and IV appear between GA weeks 32 and 34 (Kostovic et al, 1995). Each layer contains a distinct array of cells types, the morphology, and laminar location of which dictate the pattern of local and distant projections that each cell may send or receive (Figure 3).

        Liked by 1 person

      • By the way John… I did examine the research (including BB’s)… and I have the nutshell of a paper that would answer your “hardware” challenge (it isn’t difficult|)…. answer the above question and I’ll show you….

        Like

      • Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, Philip, but a March 2010 report from the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concluded exactly as the 2005 synthesis study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded:

        RCOG, 2010: In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.

        Click to access rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

        And in 2012, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agreed with both RCOG’s and the JAMA study’s findings.

        https://www.acog.org/About%20ACOG/404.aspx

        And as you can see from BBNEWSAB detailed work, this opinion is solid and shared across the field… and for very good reason. There is no conspiracy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • On the whole from what you chap’s have offered the research is pretty piss-poor… none of it is quantitative ALL of it is simply qualitative.

        Like

      • Yeah, you’re right. It’s a global conspiracy of neuroscientists, obstetricians, gynaecologists, researchers, dozens of medical journals, and every university campus on the planet. You caught us, Philip.

        Liked by 1 person

      • What I enjoy about you (and Stephen Law) is that both of you use your blogs in a zero-sum manner. What is particularly interesting is that both your “behaviour” can be formalised (yet another demonstration of the strength of information -physics).

        Well, at least you are retreating from your: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

        Turns out, that it isn’t the most important question after all…

        Like

      • uniform? Oh! In that case the information bandwidth is broad….meaning it contains no information…. meaning your idea is non-sense (again one can formalise this notion quite easily)

        Like

  19. @Philip Rand: One of the papers I linked to earlier today – this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055433/ – has around 350 references to corroborate what’s asserted in the paper.

    So I ask you to give me just one or maybe even two references/links that validate your view.

    As far as I can remember, you have not linked to any paper yet. Why not? Are you a solipsist? They are known for being unable to differentiate between their own subjective reality and the objective reality that is accepted by the vast majority of us humans.

    Liked by 1 person

    • BB

      My comments were quotes from the paper John referenced; for example|:

      No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception.

      The above conclusion for John’s referenced paper also applies to ALL your referenced paperS. All you have provided is qualitative not quantitative.

      This is the reason I asked you about histology (which you declined to answer; most probably because you don’t know what it is)>

      Only latter did I made a comment concerning the quality and methodology of the work; which is poor.

      Like

      • @Philip Rand:

        Your quote says that No HUMAN studies are available.

        And that, in turn, depends on ethical holdbacks. There is no conspiracy involved here.

        There are, of course, plenty of studies on (other) animals (for example mammals and fish) focusing how pain is experienced.

        So your objection is relevant only if you consider the human brain being totally different from all other (animal/mammalian) brains at ALL brain levels, not only the (neo)cortical level.

        The thalamus of other mammals functions in exactly the same way as the human thalamus. There is a total consensus of this among leading neuroscientists today. (Or link to a leading neuroscientist denying this, Philip.)

        To be able to experience pain there must be a connection between the thalamus and the cortex, that is a well-functioning thalamocortical system.

        Feeling/Experiencing pain takes place in the cortex. It’s not the same thing as responding to a nociceptive stimulus. That kind of response can be “processed” and executed at a subcortical level. No cognitive activity in the (neo)cortex is needed to simply respond to a nociceptive stimulus.

        So, please, link to some scholarly papers that validate your view. And don’t forget to link to papers that also conclude that the research John Zande and I have linked to “is pretty piss-poor” (to use your own words, Philip).

        Here’s a paper describing the evolution of brains from early mammals to humans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/ I recommend you to read it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • BB

        Let’s consider just one of your points:

        Your objection is relevant only if you consider the human brain being totally different from all other brains at ALL brain levels, not only the cortical level.

        And let’s link the above with an experiment that is relevant to one of the methodologies that is used in the papers you quote from, i.e. fMRI.

        Check out this paper and then give me your views (I did state in a previous post that fMRI is a poor tool in the research you & John are interested in, i.e. it blurs measurements):

        NEUROSCIENCE PRIZE: Craig Bennett, Abigail Baird, Michael Miller, and George Wolford [USA], for demonstrating that brain researchers, by using complicated instruments and simple statistics, can see meaningful brain activity anywhere — even in a dead salmon.

        REFERENCE: “Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction,” Craig M. Bennett, Abigail A. Baird, Michael B. Miller, and George L. Wolford, poster, 15th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, San Francisco, CA, June 2009.
        REFERENCE: “Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument For Multiple Comparisons Correction,” Craig M. Bennett, Abigail A. Baird, Michael B. Miller, and George L. Wolford, Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results, vol. 1, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1-5.

        Like

  20. This is probably the most convincing argument I’ve come across concerning pro-choice. That being said, there is one thing in specific that troubles me. I accept the definition of human death provided: “the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem function,” though I think you may be neglecting the word capacity. Capacity implies that something has the ability or power to do. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or what have you, has the capacity to gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone. Therefore, it is alive, and it can be killed.

    You stated that, “defined human life begins the moment its twin, death, also springs into existence.” At the moment of conception, a living human system with its own personal DNA has commenced a process which will inevitably end with the termination of the process, and the termination of the process is death. In other words, human life is the process and death is the termination of that process.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Sam, yes, you’re absolutely right, and what you’re talking about is potential, much like a chassis has the potential to become a car if it’s construction continues. A chassis, though, is not a car. DNA (the genome) is just the plan. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a building.

      I think I understand the point you’re making at the end, but the genome in and by itself does not determine death. Death can come from a car crash, an acquired disease, starvation, a bolide impact. If a person’s lucky enough (or unlucky enough, depending on the circumstances) to die of old age, then it is mitochondria that determines death. This alien species (with its own DNA) living inside every cell makes the decision to stop energy production, and the cell dies. In this sense, we’re being murdered, and it raises an interesting conundrum of life.

      I, like you, have been entirely and completely remade from the inside out a number of times. This is the literal truth. Not one cell in my body today was present the day I was born. After roughly every 7 to 10 years every cell in a healthy human body has been replaced. Some organs and tissue of course churn through the replacements faster than others, but as a rule of thumb every decade the body, including the brain, has physically remade itself. Or at least sort of. The pulmonary trunk heart cell being fashioned inside me right now to replace one that’s perhaps 4 years old and fast approaching its use-by date will not, sadly, be made as “new.” Instead it will be a heart cell with all new parts – new molecular strings – pretending to be my age. The cell is new, yes, but it is a copy of the used cell. Age is not reversed. No organism lives ten years then remakes itself as it was; younger and healthier.

      Dive a little deeper and things get even looser. Presently I’m composed of about 7, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 flavoured atoms bundled together to make up 30,000,000,000,000 cells. Supremely more complex than the 5,939 words that make up King Lear, but also frightfully less stable. Virtually every one of those atoms – 98% of them – will have divorced me by this time next year. The atoms presently making my left hand today (an energetic basket of mostly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, iron, potassium, sulphur, sodium, and magnesium) have absolutely no relation to the hand that existed 12 months ago. In this sense, at the atomic level, I’ve been remade – reborn – countless times.

      Admittedly, that is a bit farfetched. Atoms don’t just pack their bags and vacate in one foul swoop like 7 billion, billion, billion lemmings jumping off a cliff all at once. They come and go quite fluidly through every sandwich we eat, every breath we take, every trip to the toilet we make, and every kiss we plant. We are showered with atoms by just stepping out into the sun and we will shed hundreds of thousands of them on our way to the shops to buy dog shampoo. The carbon atoms though that make my left hand today are not pretending to be my age. They’re just being an atom, ageless in any true sense of the word but with a sort of birth as the discarded waste product of helium fusion and, if the conditions are right, a sort of death in their own fusion into sodium and neon.

      So, it’s not atoms, not the genome, and not even cells that “make” the person.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John you state:

        The cell is new, yes, but it is a copy of the used cell.

        You forgot to mention that it is an error correcting copy of the used cell.

        Like

      • I don’t know that I agree with your analogies… You’re right that a chassis isn’t a car, and that it has the potential to become a car, “if it’s construction continues.” But, if you leave a chassis alone in a garage for ten years it will remain the same, and if you leave a zygote alone it will certainly develop into a human. When’s the last time you met an architect that could sketch out a building that could build itself? An architect can sketch out a building, but unless another action happens (construction workers start building) it will just remain a sketch. With human life there is one continuous process, and what you are comparing it to has two.

        “Potential,” refers to a currently unrealized ability. Someone in a coma does not realized that they have the potential/ability to regain consciousness. So, if you think it’s fine to dispose of a zygote, foetus, etc, that doesn’t realize they have ability, why not dispose of those who are comatose as they can be burdens as well?

        I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at with the body remaking itself periodically… What does make the person? It sounds like what you’re describing is development, which is another characteristic of being a human.

        Like

      • and if you leave a zygote alone it will certainly develop into a human

        Not at all. 75% of all pregnancies are terminated naturally.

        A comatosed patient has a synchronised brain. If the brain stem stops working then they are a vegetable existing only on life support.

        Like

      • Could you link to that statistic? Maybe I should have used my words more carefully. Regardless, let’s go with the majority instead of focusing on the minority and basing stuff off of that. Most of the time it will develop into a human on its own.

        I don’t see the relevance in your final two facts, perhaps you could elaborate?

        Like

      • Apologies, it’s 70%

        From the U.S. National Library of Medicine:

        “Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%.”

        50+20 =

        Like

      • Tell me, what’s the percentage of buildings that build themselves should you leave the sketches to sit? I was mistaken and I accept that most fertilized eggs don’t make it, but this is irrelevant to my actual point.

        A comatose patient having a synchronized brain doesn’t change the fact that the patient is unaware they have potential. I’m curious as to whether you’re arguing that brain activity is the beginning of life, or that potential isn’t the beginning of life?

        Like

      • Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago. what we’re talking about is the beginning of a defined human organism. You simply can’t equate an unconscious adult with a foetus that lacks even the physical mechanisms for consciousness.

        Like

      • I believe the beginning of a defined human organism is at the moment of conception. Why can’t you equate those two?

        Like

      • Because a human organism can die.

        Here is the legal, scientific and medical definition of human death:

        In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.”

        This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.”

        Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

        This is mirrored in US law:

        U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

        It is also mirrored in Australian law:

        The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation define death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

        You can find the same defintion of human death across the planet.

        Like

      • I’m going to say that it’s living and so therefore it can die – and I think you’re going to say that that may be but its not comparable to a human death. Either way, I think we’re arguing in circles.

        Let’s try something else, if you’re up for it. If abortions weren’t in demand then we wouldn’t need to have the conversation of morality and abortion. Under what circumstances do you condone the use of abortion?

        Like

      • I said this above somewhere, but will repeat it here: If you wish to break this debate open to meaningful discussion you will have to demonstrate the existence of some previously unknown element (a soul, for example) in the human organism. If such a thing can be demonstrated then the entire subject has to be re-examined. Until then, facts are simply facts.

        Under what conditions? Any and all applicable conditions. That’s what “choice” means, and after a reasoned cut-off date, as necessitated should there be a medical emergency.

        Like

      • Allow me to backtrack for a second. So you say a comatose victim isn’t equal to an embryo because the embryo can’t yet die a human death (because it isn’t a human.) Once again, I’m not arguing that an embryo is a human but that it is as valuable because it is becoming one, and it’s mission is to become one regardless of whether it stalls naturally or not. By your suggested cut-off date it is about 80% likely to carry out, regardless of when the real beginning of human/valuable life is. You can’t argue that, “it may or it may not become a human so you can do whatever you want with it.”

        I understand your reasoning that life can’t exist without death and vice versa. As I’ve been saying, I think that at the moment of conception a defined human organism begins a process. As you correctly stated, most of the time the process doesn’t carry out. But a miscarriage/an embryo stalling on its own is not the same as intervening in the affair and manually aborting.

        I’d like to return to your rebuttal to my first comment. You stated:

        “but as a rule of thumb every decade the body, including the brain, has physically remade itself. Or at least sort of. The pulmonary trunk heart cell being fashioned inside me right now to replace one that’s perhaps 4 years old and fast approaching its use-by date will not, sadly, be made as “new.” Instead it will be a heart cell with all new parts – new molecular strings – pretending to be my age. The cell is new, yes, but it is a copy of the used cell. Age is not reversed.”

        I’m not exactly arguing that the genome, atoms, or cells is what makes the person, although that’s part of it. I’m more saying that the process of aging marks life, and when you stop aging you’re dead. The reason you can’t find a definition of death that says, “when you stop aging,” is because a foetus isn’t a person (but it should be respected as such).

        Liked by 1 person

      • I didn’t give a cut-off date in the post. If asked, i’d say week 20 is a good ethical line, well before sustained activity, and well-well-well before synchronisation.

        I’m more saying that the process of aging marks life

        OK, but by that measure then the human organism only begins after birth. The foetus shares the same metabolic rate (the speed of life) as the mother, which is that of a mammal her size. A mammal the size of a foetus has a metabolic rate equal to that of, say, a possum. At birth, the baby’s metabolic rate speeds right up and in a matter of hours it has the same metabolic rate as, say, a possum (a mammal its own size), and that rate decreases as the child grows and matures into adulthood.

        Of course, you can see the enormous ethical problem here in using that as our measure, and so we return to brain activity as the far better (more ethical and better informed) measure.

        Like

      • “It follows quite naturally therefore that the onset of a defined human life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained activity, and this occurs consistently around week 25.”

        My apologies John, I guess you didn’t say specifically, but this quote lead me to believe you thought the cut-off date should be at 25 weeks. Why 20 weeks? (I’m guessing it’s to provide a safety net, but I wouldn’t mind confirmation in case).

        What is it you mean when you say, “week 20” … 20 weeks from what? My answer would be 20 weeks from the moment it started its development; a development that will continue until it ends, or in other words dies.

        While a foetus shares metabolic rate with it’s mother, it is still developing and growing independently and this is what I mean by aging. Admittedly I should have used those words from the start.

        Like

      • Yeah, 20 weeks being a good “safe” ethical line with plenty of room to spare.

        While a foetus shares metabolic rate with it’s mother, it is still developing and growing independently and this is what I mean by aging.

        Actually, this is not exactly true. It’s not independent at all. In the video you see the narrator say’s [at birth] babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours.

        Like

      • I don’t mean that it exists independently. It may rely on the mother, but it grows independently from the mother in the sense that it’s developing body parts, etc.

        Also, it’s a little far fetched to say that a foetus is equal to an organ up until birth, don’t you think? If that’s the case why not allow abortion up until birth?

        Like

      • Yeah, no one’s saying it *is* an organ, but that is certainly how it behaves. If, for example, you had an instrument that could only measure metabolic rate, then the foetus would be invisible.

        Like

      • I fail to see how this refutes my point. There’s no question that it’s still there developing “independently.”

        Like

      • Well, your original point was aging, and that is lorded over by an individual’s metabolic rate; the speed of life. All mammals have about 1 billion heartbeats. Humans have cheated a little, with medicines, diet etc. we’ve pushed that out to close to 2 billion, but the fact remains, the metabolic rate is inseparable from aging, and whilst in the womb, the foetus is not ‘aging’ as a unique individual organism.

        As to developing, I’ve never questioned that fact. There is no question. I’m not even entirely sure why anyone would question that.

        Like

      • You were right about aging. There is a reason why we start back at zero on one’s birthday.

        I guess what I was really trying to say is that development is life so the start of development is the start of life and the end of development is death. It all comes back to “the process” I referred to in my original comment

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh John!

        Not at all. 75% of all pregnancies are terminated naturally.

        You are playing with stats….is that value calculated from fertilization or implantation?

        My guess is you are using fertilization…. and in that case, the woman wouldn’t even realise that she is pregnant…even science wouldn’t be able to discern if she were pregnant.

        Like

  21. @Philip Rand:

    Your link is interesting. But almost totally irrelevant in this case.

    fMRI measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. When an area of the brain is in use, blood flow to that region also increases.

    Therefore the fMRI technique should be combined with other methods that can confirm/validate the findings from the fMRI exploration of the brain.

    Let me state it this way: You don’t use fMRI – at least not primarily and absolutely not alone – to find out how neuronal arborization takes place. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite#Dendrite_development .

    You study the arborization better in a microscope and/or by examining different biochemicals (including proteins) in vivo or in vitro.

    What your reference, with focus on a still today “famous” dead salmon analysis, shows is that fMRI is much about statistics. (Cf. the saying “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”.)

    All this is explained in (some) detail, hopefully understandable for laymen in this article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/

    Here is a quote from that article clarifying what went wrong in the fMRI finding analysis of the dead salmon:

    Now, to clarify: what exactly were they doing? Well, when you do fMRI studies in the brain, there’s a ton of information there. The information is generally broken down into sections called voxels. Up 130,000 of them in a single study and contrast selection, looking at each one to see if it is ‘activated’ compared to the others. And doing the statistics on these studies gets to be a problem. You have to do thousands of comparisons, and you being to run into something called the “multiple comparisons problem”. If you do a lot of tests, at least some of them will come out positive, even if they are not real. These are called false positives, and they are something you really want to watch out for.

    To solve this problem, there are various methods for correcting the multiple comparisons, but this also means that you lose a lot of statistical power. In other words, you get rid of your false positives, but it might mean you don’t see things that are really there, you might find false negatives instead. There is a running debate in the fMRI field over whether false positives or false negatives are more dangerous. The authors of this study contend (and I am inclined to agree) that the false positives are more likely to get overblown and lead to problems down the line. For a really good wrapup on the stats questions, I recommend neuroskeptic’s piece on the topic.
    Advertisement

    So in the final results, the authors compared the normal multiple comparisons, with the multiple CORRECTED comparisons. When they used the multiple corrected comparisons, the dead salmon showed nothing. When they did the multiple comparisons without the correction, the salmon showed significant increases in “activation”, coincidentally, in the brain and spinal cord. This shows the importance of correcting for multiple comparisons and avoiding false positives.

    So, Philip Rand, your only reference so far is highly irrelevant in two ways: 1) Neuronal arborization (how neurons build connections with each other) is not primarily studied by using fMRI (at least not fMRI alone). 2) Every scholarly neuroscientist knows that fMRI data must be properly analyzed, otherwise things can go wrong (and a dead salmon can seem to be alive).

    BTW, This is in a way similar to how laymen misunderstand how today’s DNA testing for diseases functions. Such DNA testing is just ONE important way to assess a person’s susceptibility to a disease. Before drawing conclusions about the risk of developing a specific disease you also should examine environmental factors and so on. Not rely on the DNA testing alone.

    You need to come back with some more RELEVANT links/references, Philip Rand. Otherwise I will consider you being a “simple” conspiracy theorist. The dead salmon analysis rather reminds me of the Piltdown man hoax because in both cases the right conclusion is present from the beginning if only you examine the data/findings in a proper way.

    Liked by 1 person

    • BB

      If the paper is irrelevant, then why do the papers you & John quote from use brain imaging techniques?

      You miss the point of the measurement result (which the authors missed as well):

      Measurement is intrinsic to the phenomena and arise out of measurement

      There is a better way than the corrected method the authors used in the statistics. It is a method I have used in condensed matter experimental results.

      Like

      • @Phiip Rand:

        At least the papers I linked to build on the use of many different techniques. Not only fMRI.

        Do you really believe, Philip, that the paper I mentioned yesterday, the one with around 350 references, only referred to fMRI studies of the brain in all these references?

        You just showed that you haven’t read the papers I linked to. (Or you haven’t understood what you read.)

        BTW, Philip, that is typical for conspiracy theorists.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BB

        Go back to that paper and examine the protocols used ( for example look at the statistical methods). The very fact that they are using multiple techniques indicates that they cannot measure the phenomenon they wish. Hence, recourse to a deductive argument; that is the anomaly in the method.

        Like

      • @Philip Rand:

        For example, you can see, in a microscope, if there is neuronal arborization taking place or not. Or in in vivo and/or in vitro studies/experiments.

        Of course the scientists use different techniques depending on what they examine/study.

        And sometimes the used techniques/methods can confirm each other, indicating that the findings are real, and not a statistical artifact. That’s good, according to me. .

        But you, Philip, seem to insinuate that the scientists often (?) use the same techniques/methods only to get the findings they want to have, thereby using their experiments and studies to suit their own wishful thinking and purposes.

        Genuine science doesn’t function in that way.

        Just face it! You are spreading conspiracy thoughts and fake news, Philip.

        Sp come on, link to some scholarly papers instead of misusing your own solipsistic thoughts and reasoning. Try to be serious. Don’t denigrate scientific research!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t need to…. your papers conclusion does it for me when they state:

        The body of knowledge supporting our understanding of normal neural circuits development in human beings, however, is still highly imperfect, as it is derived largely from cross-sectional studies of animal, primarily rodents. These reports supplement a relatively small number of studies in human and nonhuman primates that compare measures of brain structure and function across narrow developmental windows. Thus, although studies in rodents and invertebrates have provided invaluable insights into the genetic, molecular, and cellular events that guide and regulate the development of neural circuits, extrapolating these findings to human beings is hazardous and only partially remedied by scant, but important data from nonhuman primates (Liu et al, 2008). Similarly, the all too common use of data on neural circuit structure and function that are derived at one developmental period to infer prior or subsequent developmental events has fundamental limitations. Therefore, our understanding of the cellular and molecular events that subserve neural circuit maturation during childhood and adolescence in human beings remains provisional and incomplete.

        By the way John referenced a paper using MRI as well….

        Like

      • I am not evading anything John…

        So, how do they measure the physical structure?

        Get that correct and we can proceed.(one word answer)…..

        Like

  22. @Sam Freeze:

    You wrote: The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or what have you, has the capacity to gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone. Therefore, it is alive, and it can be killed.

    Yes, they all have the capcity to some day hopefully gain consciousness (at least if we are talking about humans). But your conclusion, that they are alive (at least full of potential life), does not automatically follow from that proposition/statement.

    Among many things, how do you define life and how you define the start of life? For example, having the capacity to be alive (become a living being) is not the same as being alive (all the time).

    For example, why start with the zygote? Suppose a coitus interruptus or using a condom. If you didn’t use those methods to avoid fertlizing the egg, the fertilized egg would have “the capacity to [one day] gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone”.

    Is everyone using contraceptives or practicing coitus interruptus – or consider masturbation – a potential murderer?

    Do you see what I mean? Why start with the zygote? Why not start your reasoning before the zygote is formed?

    Liked by 1 person

    • BB

      You have defeated John Zande’s idea when you state:

      how do you define life and how you define the start of life?

      Because it reveals the non-sense of John Zande’s question:

      How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

      Like

    • A correction:

      I wrote: Suppose a coitus interruptus or using a condom. If you didn’t use those methods to avoid fertlizing the egg, the fertilized egg would have “the capacity to [one day] gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone”.

      If you didn’t use those methods to avoid fertlizing the egg, you can say that also the unfertilized egg would have had “the capacity to [one day] gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone [and by allowing it to become fertilized]”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • BB

      Your thinking is ill-disciplined… look at the type of questions you ask:

      Is everyone using contraceptives or practicing coitus interruptus – or consider masturbation – a potential murderer?

      Well, BB…. prepubescent children have committed murder… so that answers your lost-in-the-woods question….

      Like

    • You’re correct, being alive/conscious and having the potential to be alive isn’t the same, but they are equally as valuable. To be clear, I’m not arguing that a zygote and human are the same thing, obviously they are not. I’m saying they have the same value.

      I actually don’t know what you’re trying to say in the latter half of your statement, perhaps you could rephrase? I would argue that everyone is a “potential murderer” but thats a conversation for another time. Those who practice contraception/masturbation aren’t murderers because it’s just one set of DNA that will die off in about a week anyway, and it’s their own. It’s only when two sets come together and make an individual set that I consider it to be unjust.

      Like

  23. @Philip Rand:

    You wrote: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

    I think John Zande already has explained to you what he meant by asking that question.

    At least I understand what his message is.

    But obviously you don’t understand his answers. Neither do you seem to understand what I write in my comments.

    I find this debate becoming a waste of time, if you don’t come up with some scholarly references/links, I’ll stop commenting your fake news and misunderstandings here and now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • But I did reference your scholarly article provided by yourself that came to the conclusion (I figure it represents your position):

      The body of knowledge supporting our understanding of normal neural circuits development in human beings, however, is still highly imperfect, as it is derived largely from cross-sectional studies of animal, primarily rodents. These reports supplement a relatively small number of studies in human and nonhuman primates that compare measures of brain structure and function across narrow developmental windows. Thus, although studies in rodents and invertebrates have provided invaluable insights into the genetic, molecular, and cellular events that guide and regulate the development of neural circuits, extrapolating these findings to human beings is hazardous and only partially remedied by scant, but important data from nonhuman primates (Liu et al, 2008). Similarly, the all too common use of data on neural circuit structure and function that are derived at one developmental period to infer prior or subsequent developmental events has fundamental limitations. Therefore, our understanding of the cellular and molecular events that subserve neural circuit maturation during childhood and adolescence in human beings remains provisional and incomplete.

      Like

      • @Philip Rand:

        Do you know what a microcope is and why and how it is used by scientists?

        With the help of a microscope you can see IF there is a neuronal arborization taking place and how far that process has proceeded/gone at every gestational week.

        You want a clarification of a correction I submitted earlier today. Yes, I agree. The clarification I submitted became a bit truncated. Sorry for that.

        Anyway, here’s my clarification of the earlier clarification I submitted a little while ago. :

        1) I apostrophized Sam Freeze, but the comment landed below one of your many, as usual, irrelevant comments, Philip. .

        2) In my first comment to Sam Freeze I wrote: Suppose a coitus interruptus or using a condom. If you didn’t use those methods to avoid fertlizing the egg, the fertilized egg would have “the capacity to [one day] gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone”.

        WHAT I MEANT is this:

        Suppose a coitus interruptus or using a condom. If you didn’t use those methods to avoid fertlizing the egg, you can say that also the unfertilized egg would have had “the capacity to [one day] gain consciousness, and it certainly will if left alone [and by allowing it to become fertilized]”.

        In short, every female egg has, in a way, a potential to get fertlized and thereby resulting in a living organism, if all the necessary conditions for life are fullfilled.

        So if you try to prevent that from happen, it’s not too far-fetched to state that you are a murderer, AT LEAST if you use the same “logic” and way of reasoning as pro-lifers are so notoriously prone to do.

        If early abortion is murder, then also preventing a fertilzation can be seen as murder. (BTW, why does God allow spontaneous abortions? Is he a murderer, too? In my eyes he is! But I also think that the theistic god concept is nothing but pure bullshit. )

        So, in short, what the pro-life (anti-abortion) movement does is to start their reasoning assuming that we always must begin our thought experiment´chain with the zygote. Why not start with the gamete? Anyway, it’s just thought experiments, both of them, wherever we define to place the first link of the chain.

        Who has decided that we always must begin the reasoning chain just with a zygote, i.e. after a complete fertilization? What’s wrong with starting with a gamete? Both alternatives are only philosophical thought experiments.

        Is it God who has decidet this? Or is it maybe you, Philip?

        Perhaps you ARE God, Philip? At least you seem to pretend that you know all this we debate here much better than all the neuroscientists that John Zande and I refer to. Everything John and I have referred to here is of “piss-poor” quality according to you.

        Even if you ARE omniscient (which I doubt), Philip, why can’t you give John and me some links that validate your hypotheses? How can it be so difficult for you to submit some references where the whole paper – not only a short paragraph of it, a debate method called cherry-picking – shows you are right and all others damned wrong.

        I’m still waiting. How long do I have to wait for your references/links?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You state: “if early abortion is murder, then also preventing a fertilization can be seen as murder.”

        This is absolutely ridiculous. For humans to not be murderers in this scenario, we would have to reproduce as frequently as possible as to not “prevent” a fertilization.

        It is too far-fetched to state you are a murderer for using contraception. An egg is either fertilized or its not, and you can’t “murder” [end] what does not even exist. At the point of fertilization another individual set of DNA exists and it then becomes unjust.

        Like

      • BB…. look at the data you have supplied (concerning emergent brain structures)

        12-16 weeks’ gestation. (range 4 weeks)
        17-22 weeks’ gestation? (no data)
        23-25 weeks’ gestation. (range 2 weeks)

        Notice how the range reduces (though the error is still large).

        There does not appear any data in your references with regard to the period 17-22 weeks’ gestation.

        Now, you ask yourself this: What is the reason for this reduction in range?

        Like

      • By the way “microscope” isn’t exactly the branch of science that is used to measure “structure”. A microscope is simply the meter.

        No, the method is a specific technique used to examine this:

        system + meter + environment

        One inclusive word describes the entire technique, i.e. It is called….

        Like

  24. @Philip Rand:

    Of course you can’t assume that all individuals – or their brains – mature at the exactly same rate. There are always individual differences. That’s why a serious neuroscientist can’t say that exactly gestational day X or gestational week Y the neuronal arboriszation will have to be at level Z.

    There will always be individual differences. Let’s take menarche as an example, i.e. the first menstrual cycle, or first menstrual bleeding, in female humans.

    According to Wikipedia, the average age of menarche is very difficult to estimate accurately and exactly. It varies significantly by geographical region, race, ethnicity and other characteristics.

    Various estimates of the menarche have been done by scientists all over the world. The median age seems to vary quite significantly. I myself – I’m no expert on menarche – propose/suggest that most girls have their menarche at age 11-14.

    This doesn’t mean that menarche can’t occur at age 9 or age 16. But that also doesn’t mean that menarche in a healthy girl can occur at age 3 or so.

    It’s the same with neuronal arborization. Even if there is a broad range within which the population studied can have its neuronal arborization levels plotted, it’s still possible to calculate propabilities like the statistical median value or statistical average value for the population that is studied.

    And of course neuroscientists can say that before that or that gestational date we have never seen arborization being present at level X or Y or Z in the brain.

    A very good indication that the neuroscientists are right in their assumptions concerning arborization is that never has a fetus survived before a completed gestational week 20, not even before a completed gestational week 21.

    Have a look at the statistics in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability .

    The table says/shows that the chance of postnatal survival lies at 0 per cent up to completed gestation week 21! The survival rate AFTER 22 completed gestation weeks lies at 0-10 per cent. Then the survival rate starts to rise clearly and distinctly from day to day.

    Also see: http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm .

    The explanation is, according to the neuroscientists, that the brain before gestation week 20 – and probably also some other inner organs – is/are so immature/incomplete that survival is impossible for that reason.

    Before completed gestational week 20 the fetus is similar to a very simple input-output apparatus. That’s why they can’t process and experience/feel pain stimuli at that age. But the fetus can be seen as an input-output apparatus and is thus able to respond to nociceptive stimuli with the help of subcortical reflexes/circuits.

    When the thalamocortical circuit is established also varies, but it seems to be mature enough some time between (approximately) gestation week 25 and 30.

    This means that a newborn baby can survive even if the thalamocortical circuit is not fully mature. But the brain’s maturation process must apparently at least have started. And that is never the case in a fetus before gestational week 20. (It can be calculated by knowing the maturation/growth rate and then counting/calculating backwards.)

    Finallly, today I’ve learnt, above all, that it’s a waste of time to debate pro-lifers. At the moment I’ve lost interest in trying to explain to pro-lifers what is important to know about the brain’s maturity during different gestation weeks. It’s definitely more fun for me to talk to a wall or a door at home. So maybe this is my last comment in this comment field.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. @Sam Freeze:

    I’m not debating any more (at least not at the moment).

    But I recommend you – and other interested followers of John Zande’s excellent blog – to read these two articles:

    1) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-f-gilbert/countering-republican-claims-embryos_b_8152028.html (about when the individual human life starts); and

    2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_birth_control .(both artificial and natural methods of birth control).

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1) Main point of the article: “there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins.” Exactly. I’m not pretending I know for sure, hence why there’s a debate, and why I’m using words like “believe” as opposed to “know.” I’m arguing that this is the best bet.

      And if we don’t know for sure, shouldn’t we play it safe? The earlier the better, so why not pick day one as opposed to 24-26 weeks in?

      2) Why in the world is this relevant?

      Like

      • Sam Freeze

        John Zande states:
        If you wish to break this debate open to meaningful discussion you will have to demonstrate the existence of some previously unknown element (a soul, for example) in the human organism. If such a thing can be demonstrated then the entire subject has to be re-examined. Until then, however, facts are simply facts.

        Fact is the existence of the soul can be demonstrated. However, Zande would not entire into such a discussion (though it is quite easy to demonstrate).

        Like

      • Sam Freeze

        Your argument does indeed defeat John Zande’s thesis. It does because you recognised that Zande’s main point in his blog piece is:

        In the U.S., laws on brain death vary by state, but all states recognise that death is determined by the irreversible cessation of brain function, or as bluntly stated in the journal, Nature Reviews, Neuroscience: Brain death means human death And for very good reason.

        And obviously a foetus is at the opposite extreme, so it isn’t applicable.. This defeats Zande’s argument entirely. Zande’s argument is ill-posed.

        Like

    • Your hate for religion blinds your thinking.

      I can tell you hate it not only from your blog, but because you try to work it into every argument and every comment, even when the topic is unrelated/not what is being discussed. And your thinking is blinded because of this.

      I understand the need to step back and cool off from debating, it’s necessary to clear one’s mind. But, you chose to leave after my first rebuttal and that doesn’t necessarily bode well for your argument, and I’ll never know if I was wrong or not. Nevertheless, I’ll be here when you return.

      Like

  26. @John Zande: Have you read this blog post: http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2015/01/there-is-no-life-after-death-sorry.html ?

    I think you come very close to Sean Carroll’s view of the religious bullshit concept soul.

    Carroll’s argument begins with a series of propositions:

    The mind is the brain.
    The brain is made of atoms.
    We know how atoms work.
    When you die there is no way for the information that was you to persist.

    Professor Carroll’s propositions are analyzed in the blog post I just linked to.

    Also, I’m sure you’ll like what you can read in this paper: http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf .

    But, please, don’t show it to any pro-lifer because then they can get a deadly heart attack.

    BTW, I wish you a wonderful weekend, John!

    Liked by 2 people

      • @John Zande: We had no rain at all in one month. And tropical temperatures all July. We thought we lived in the Middle East.

        But now God seems to have made us suffer enough. Praise the Lard! Glory to Him!

        Northern Sweden has already had some rain showers. But new fires are popping up almost daily in southern Sweden. But so far they are under control and can be extinguished before they’ve become too big.

        You are really well-informed, John! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • Actually BB… the second site won’t give one a deadly heart attack… but, if one is a mug it wii give your computer exploit…. Dodgy, dodgy, BB…. you can’t be trusted…. why do atheists always insist on attempting it infect other peoples computers when they have lost arguments?

      Like

  27. Imagine standing in a fertility clinic and a fire starts.
    You have the time to save 1 thing and 1 thing only before you escape safely with your life and the thing.
    To your right there is an 8 hour old baby. To your left there is a refrigeration cabinet with 800 fertilised embryos ready for implantation.
    Which do you leave with?

    See, there is no ethical dilemma.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Brexit is like watching someone screaming “you weren’t listening to me, so now I’m going to blow up everyone in this room”, and being concerned and then realising you’re in the room… And then realising everything they had been saying that you weren’t listening to was inane bullshit anyway…
        So… It’s like being held hostage by inane concerns. That’s what it is like.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oh no…. yet another chap who has read Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Art of Being Right…. Stephen Law bases a lot of his work on this book (but never gives credit)

      Like

      • Not familiar with either.
        Can’t really say where I got the analogy from.
        Am I wrong, though? Because you don’t seem to be engaged with any content.

        Like

      • To your right there is an 8 hour old baby. To your left there is a refrigeration cabinet with 800 fertilised embryos ready for implantation. Behind you is a working forklift and you just happen to hold a valid forklift license. Which do you leave with?

        Like

    • In the heat of the moment I would leave with the baby, but that doesn’t make it morally right.

      Consider this: Imagine it’s the end of the world and you’re in a spaceship flying to another habitable planet. The only survivors are on your spaceship – yourself, and a five year old. Now there’s a fire on your ship and you can either save the five year old and you can both die alone and that’s the end of the human race, or you could save a box with a thousand viable embryo’s that you can ensure would be born from artificial wombs. Which do you choose?

      Like

      • I appreciate the fact that a snap decision isn’t necessarily indicative of the truth of the morality.

        But I also don’t think adding an existential risk to the species doesn’t preserve the analogy on highlighting the question of the value of the two things…

        Like

      • Adding the existential link simply highlights the absurdity of the original proposition.

        Besides, your proposition doesn’t question the value of two things (you’ve got that wrong)…. it is questioning the value of 801 things!

        Like

  28. Thanks! Philip is maybe a lier as well, but a LIAR he definitely is. Trying to persuade people not to open the links I provide, by insinuating I load them with malware, that’s offensive and outrageous.

    BTW, John, I have noticed that different kinds of thought experiments have begun to appear in the comment field. That’s good! I like that.

    Therefore now allow me to introduce yet another thought experiment.

    Pro-lifers often claim that the human zygote has the potential to become a unique adult human being some day (with a unique personhood). And this uniqueness is in a way so sacred, according to many pro-lifers, that when the zygote is turned into an embryo or fetus it must not be aborted.

    Now time for a small – but yet important – digression.

    What does the Bible tell us about the sanctity of life and of fetuses? Consider these four verses (Exodus 21:22-25):

    22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    Clearly the Mosaic law doesn’t protect the life of fetuses AS MUCH AS it protects the lives of living persons who once managed to leave the womb, i.e. who have been “born” = who have begun to live their own lives outside their mother’s body. According to the Mosaic law fetuses apparently have a lower “human” value than those individuals have who have started to live their own individual lives (each of them with a unique personhood) outside the womb.

    So why don’t pro-lifers like to refer to these Bible verses? My own answer to that question is that pro-lifers are sanctimonious persons a.k.a. hypocrites.

    But now over to the new thought experiment I promised.

    Have a look at this paper: https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040422/full/news040419-8.html .

    In a Japanese lab scientists have created a unique mouse, by fusing DNA from two different eggs (from two different female mice). This must mean that the mouse fetus in question is a unique (mouse) individual (with a unique “personhood”), with around 50% of the DNA coming from one mouse and the other 50% of the DNA coming from another mouse.

    This is something else than ordinary cloning, in which the uniqueness of the fetuses can be questioned.

    Now suppose that the same technique is used on human eggs. If you fuse the DNA from two human eggs – one from woman X and one from woman Y – then the zygote Z that follows (at least can follow) surely will be unique (= have it’s own “personhood”).

    If uniqueness is the important factor here, which pro-lifers claim it is, shouldn’t we then expect pro-lifers to stand up and yell, in tandem, “Such a human fetus is unique and also has a unique personhood and therefore has the right to be born and must not be aborted!”?

    That is the thought experiment I wanted to share with you your followers, John!

    Liked by 2 people

    • I see what you mean. Things start to get a tad confusing when an individual can be created that is not a *traditional* individual.

      This starts to touch on the rights of Artificial Intelligences. Have you ever read David Brin’s, Stones of Significance? I think it’s one of the best short stories i’ve ever read. You can get it on Amazon for 55 cents, but I’ll past the PDF below. It’s fascinating as it details the level of “human” rights afforded to AI’s, with a superb twist in the end.

      Click to access david_brin_-_stones_of_significance.pdf

      Liked by 2 people

    • Very interesting, John! Thanks once again! You are both broad-minded and deep-minded! And very kind!

      Talking of intelligence and mind, have you read this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/computer-programs-can-learn-what-other-programs-are-thinking ?

      A quote: After some training, ToMnet could not only identify a character’s species after just a few steps, but it could also correctly predict its future behavior, researchers reported this month at the International Conference on Machine Learning in Stockholm.
      A final test revealed ToMnet could even understand when a character held a false belief, a crucial stage in developing theory of mind in humans and other animals.

      Maybe we’ll see (the equivalence of) consciousness in an AI robot before I die and come to Hell?

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Hi again, John!

    Here’s a newspaper article from The Guardian I think you’ll like: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth

    About people who distrust science and are extremely good at confirmation bias and cherry-picking..

    Have you met such people here in the comment field lately, John? 🙂

    I myself can’t remember seeing them. But I’m an old man, so my memory may deceive me.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Here are some new thought experiments – and questions – to consider.

    Pro-lifers seem to build their case on three propostions:

    1) God created humans in a special way, i.e. He created them/us to be the crown of the divine creation act/process (cf. Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    2) “In the image of God” means that human beings have a soul. Without this soul humans would more resemble an animal than a divine being.

    3) If God has inserted a soul in something that one day has the potential of becoming an adult man or woman, it’s morally wrong (= against God’s will) to stop the development of that something that is meant to one day become an adult man or woman.

    So abortion can be seen as a way to alter God’s creation plan. Which, in turn, can be regarded as a rebellion – or at least a mutiny – against God himself.

    Now, let’s have a closer look at these propositions.

    For example:

    When does the divine soul enter that something which is meant to one day become an adult man or woman?

    Some pro-lifers mean the soul is inserted when the zygote (the fertilized egg) is formed. But these pro-lifers must then explain how it’s possible for the zygote to divide into two or more separate embryos. If there is just ONE soul at the start, how can that soul ensoul TWO or more embryos? Is the one soul split in two? Does each embryo become ensouled with only .5 souls? Or from where does the extra soul originate?

    The simplest solution to this dilemma is that there is no soul, at least not so early in the gestation process.

    The next simplest solution to this dilemma is that the ensoulment takes place AFTER the gastrulation process is completed (around gestational day 14 or so). The concept gastrulation means that from now on the embryo no longer is able to divide in order to become two or even more separate beings.

    So how can pro-lifers claim that the soul is inserted already when the zygote is formed? I really want to know the answer to that question.

    BTW, here are some extra questions to ask pro-lifers, for example:

    i) Who inserts the soul? Or: What does the process of ensoulment look like? Please describe it in detail.

    ii) What does a soul consist of? Is it atoms or something else? Is it energy or matter or both energy and matter?

    iii) From where does the soul (to be inserted) arrive (before it’s inserted to the zygote)?

    iv) Is the soul created at the same time as the zygote is formed? If so, is that view compatible with the by most Christians held view that both God and we humans now live in the seventh day of the creation week? That is, shouldn’t we rather conclude that God is resting from the creation at the moment? Cf. Genesis 2:2-3: And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

    On the other hand, if God – in order to don’t violate His own day of rest – created all the souls beforehand, where do all these souls exist at the moment?

    Read more about this by clicking on the following link: https://www.gotquestions.org/souls-created.html .

    In that article you can read, among other things, that maybe “God designed the human reproductive process to also reproduce a soul”. If so, please explain this in more detail. Does it mean, which the Bible seems to endorse, that the soul doesn’t enter the newborn baby’s body until it takes its first breath? If so, that might explain the event told in Numbers 5:11-28, where we can read about a woman, accused of adultery, who is forced to drink “bitter water” designed to cause a miscarriage.

    Verses 19-22: 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb MISCARRIES.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Why do you consistently make the assumption that all pro-lifers are Christian? You seem to be confused over the actual topic of the debate.

    Like

  32. Do you apostrophize my comments, Sam Freeze? Then I want you to know that I’ve never made that kind of assumption.

    But nevertheless I think that most pro-lifers who follow John Zande’s outstanding blog are Christians.

    I’ve also have debated Muslim pro-lifers. Their view(s) seem to be rather similar to what you can read here: http://www.ilmgate.org/when-does-the-soul-enter-the-fetus/ .

    A quote from that article.

    “Each one of you is constituted in the womb of the mother for forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him…” (Sahih al-Bukhari no: 3036).

    Based on the above Qur’anic verse and Hadith, the jurists (fuqaha) have inferred that the soul (ruh) enters the foetus at around 4 months/120 days after gestation.

    Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) states:

    “The soul enters the foetus at 120 days (4 months), as established by the Hadith.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala Durr al-Mukhtar 1/202)

    Thus, when the age of the unborn child reaches 120 days (4 months), it no longer remains a lifeless object; rather, it is a living human being. At this point, all organ differentiation is almost completed and the child acquires the shape of a human body.

    And Allah knows best.

    A question to you, Sam Freeze: Maybe you have changed your view from what you told us the other day (that human life probably starts at the moment of conception) to the Muslim views of when human life begins, expressed in my quote above?

    Why I continue to comment here in the comment field is not to debate different debaters. I just want to provide more information about questions pro-lifers ought to try to answer if they are honest people.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Funny you should respond with more religious material. My apologies, I should have said: “Why do you consistently make the assumption that all pro-lifers are religious?”

    Although, to be fair, all of your pro-life critiques have been directed to the Christian view of abortion…

    Why not leave religion out of it for a change?

    What makes you think I’ve changed my views?

    “I just want to provide more information about questions pro-lifers ought to answer if they are honest people” – I don’t want, nor do I feel the need to answer your religious questions when discussing abortion. I’ll say this one more time – it’s not relevant to the current discussion.

    Should you have secular questions/thought experiments I could ponder over, I would love to consider them.

    Like

    • Sam Freeze

      Don’t interact with the old man (BBNEWSAB)… BBNEWSAB SPREADS MALWARE!

      And it appears that John Zande supports his endeavours (as Zande hasn’t blocked him from his site)

      Like

  34. According to me, and I’m not alone having that view, whatever your position regarding abortion is, that position is at least partly founded upon what could be described as nothing other than religious belief.

    Yes, I know there are also atheists who are against abortion. But they are a minority.

    The best arguments against abortion are no doubt the religious ones. That’s why I prefer to address them

    Just an example: Suppose a woman is pro-life. Maybe she is because she thinks that there is an inherent sanctity to human life that must be respected.

    Then this is a view that can be held by both religious and secular/atheist people. And that fact doesn’t automatically make the view nonreligious.

    That same woman might also use exactly the same argument to advocate that since there is an inherent sanctity to human life that must be respected, then every woman must of course have the possibility to decide what will happen to her own body, if she becomes pregnant.

    So, and this is my main point, any discussion of human rights is essentially a discussion of religious belief. More or less.

    It’s hard to argue that inherent human rights are a demonstrable fact like gravity, electromagnetic forces etc. The belief in inherent human rights is just a view, built on feelings (emotions). Not a scientific fact, built on scientific experiments or observations.

    I reiterate: The belief in inherent human rights (for fetuses or ordinary humans) is just a feeling people have.

    They feel it must be an inherent right. They can’t prove it in a scientific way. They can’t know if it’s objectively right or wrong. So it becomes a subjective “truth, not an objective “truth”.

    I dare say that everything grounded on feelings belongs to the magisterium of magical thinking. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking .

    In the magisterium of magical thinking religious beliefs dominate. More or less. The religious beliefs dominate even if you are an atheist who does the magical thinking. Of course atheists need not draw their belief in inherent human rights for fetuses and ordinary people from statements made in an ancient holy (religious) book. Nevertheless the magisterium of magical thinking is loaded with religious thoughts.

    Do you now understand better why I make so many religious references when I write my comments in this comment field?

    Like

  35. Philip Rand apparently doesn’t know that an antivirus program signaling it has detected malware NOT always means that malware de facto is being present.

    If all antivirus programs – not only the one Philip Rand uses – signal that they have detected potential malware, then you should be careful.

    If just one antivirus program signals that it has detected potential malware, but other antivirus programs don’t, then it is more probable to believe that there is NOT malware built into the link in question. But I doubt that Philip Rand can understand that because he is blinded by hate against me.

    I always open (click on) every link before I post them in my comments. If my antivirus program then doesn’t warn me of potential malware, but maybe Philip Rand’s antivirus program does, you can’t conclude that I’m spreading malware. If you persist claiming – which Philip Rand does – that I’m spreading malware, then I dare say that Philip Rand is a liar and probably a crackpot as well.

    If I really were spreading malware, why doesn’t the malware infect my laptop? I’ve opened the same “infectious” link that Philip Rand’s antivirus program warned him to open. And I suppose that Philip didn’t open the link after the warning he received from his antivirus program. Otherwise he is very stupid.

    And why doesn’t John Zande ban me, if I really were spreading malware?

    I can tell you, Philip Rand, that, as a matter of fact, I always open the links myself BEFORE I post them. No one of all my posted links here in the comment field has my own antivirus program warned me to open.

    And believe it or not, Philip Rand, my laptop didn’t become infected! That indicates that your own antivirus program sent you a false alarm.

    Maybe the explanation is that my malware is so intricate and strange that it only infects computers/laptops belonging to Philip Rand? At least Philip Rand seems to believe that is the case.

    Perhaps I should start to call Philip the Liar Philip Rant from now on? I’ll think about it.

    Anyway, you should be ashamed, Philip Rant!

    Shame on you, Philip Rant, for accusing me of spreading malware.

    I suppose that at least one more reader/follower has clicked on that same link without being warned by his/her antivirus program. Why hasn’t that reader/follower given you support, Philip Rant? Isn’t it peculiar?

    Like

  36. A clarification.

    I wrote: Why hasn’t that reader/follower given you support, Philip Rant?

    What I mean is that all those who clicked on my link should now have infected computers/laptops regardless if their antivirus programs warned them or not of any malware. So why don’t they say that the link was infected?

    You, Philip Rant, are the only one yelling and ranting here.

    Like

    • -Blocked Website Details-
      Malicious Website: 1
      , , Blocked, [-1], [-1],0.0.0

      -Website Data-
      Category: Exploit
      Domain: science.jburroughs.org
      IP Address: 174.47.106.104
      Port: [58875]
      Type: Outbound
      File: C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe

      Like

      • Once more, Philip Rant.

        I’ve never denied that you received a warning from your antivirus program.

        Receiving a warning from one’s antivirus program is NOT always equivalent of there being a real threat detected. It can also be that the antivirus program in question is “oversensitive”. A warning can be correct or it can be wrong.

        But I doubt you can understand that. You’ve got a huge cognitive problem since you seemingly are unable to listen to – and take in – other explanations than the one you have decided must be the only right one,

        And that, in turn, is so typical of religious & woo solipsists. They can’t discriminate between subjective truths and objective truths.

        So it’s easy to understand that – and why – you hate me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dear John, I’ve been spreading malware I’ve collected from this fine site all over my tomato garden this summer. The tomatoes I’ve grown are DELICIOUS!!! Problem is, whenever I eat one, porn sites pop up on my computer. (I NEVER knew such sites existed!) I’m thinking perhaps you need to allow slightly better malware on your site so that when I spread it, the fruits I grow from it will lead me to better websites. You know, ones that try to collect money form me to help religious pastors buy a fleet of airplanes so they can more readily spread the good word of flying pink unicorns throughout the world. Thanks, and have a malware-full day. Oh, here’s a link with no malware but, nevertheless, is fun, educational, and joyous; #deporttrump2russia

        Liked by 3 people

  37. Hello again, John Zande!

    This afternoon I just stumbled upon an interesting phenomenon: triploidy

    Read more about it here: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603799,00.html .

    A quote: In the first scenario, the egg might have divided in two (without separating) and then each part fertilized by one sperm. Egg division before fertilization is very rare, says Minkin. The second, more likely possibility is that the egg fused with two sperm cells and created a triploid cell.

    Then I googled polyspermy, the second possibility according to the quote above, so, please, also have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyspermy .

    All this makes me wonder, Why would a soul enter a zygote doomed to die, either by miscarriage or soon after birth? See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1013003/ (the paper’s title is Three Further Cases of Triploidy in Man Surviving to Birth).

    So I also googled Triploid syndrome and found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triploid_syndrome . Here’s a quote from that arfticle:

    Causes

    Triploidy can result from either two sperm fertilizing one egg (60%) or from one sperm fertilizing an egg with two copies of every chromosome (40%).[2]

    Prognosis

    Most fetuses with triploidy do not survive to birth, and those that do usually die within days. As there is no treatment for triploidy, palliative care is given if a baby survives to birth. If triploidy is diagnosed during the pregnancy, termination is often offered as an option due to the additional health risks for the mother (preeclampsia, a life-threatening condition, or choriocarcinoma, a type of cancer). Should a mother decide to carry until term or until a spontaneous miscarriage occurs, doctors will monitor her closely in case either condition develops.

    Mosaic triploidy has an improved prognosis, but affected individuals have moderate to severe cognitive disabilities.[2]
    Epidemiology

    Triploidy affects approximately 1–2% of pregnancies, but most miscarry early in development. At birth, males with triploidy are 1.5 times more common than females.[2]

    After reading all these articles I turned to Wikipedia once again, now in order to learn more about ensoulment. I found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment .

    Among the things I learned is why so many people, belonging to various religions, believe that ensoulment starts just at the conception.

    If this is true (that ensoulment starts at the conception), why then does a soul choose to enter a triploid zygote that sooner or later must miscarriage or is doomed to die at the latest within hours after birth? How can any divine soul accept these odds? How can the divine being accept this?

    Isn’t it a waste of both time and souls here? If the deity itself doesn’t seem to consider the soul as being a sacred entity, why then should we humans do it?

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Excuse me!?! From the moment of conception, a baby is alive and breathing while in the mother’s womb and out of it. Simple fact. Or weren’t you alive in your mother’s womb? Women – INCLUDING MY MOTHER – have felt their baby kick and move around WHILE IN THE WOMB!!! That indicates that they ARE ALIVE!
    If they are not alive, then what do you call it?

    Like

    • Hi Rue

      Perhaps you should actually *read* the post. The foetus is as much a part of the living system as the egg and sperm BEFORE fertilisation. That is not the subject.

      And no, the foetus does not breathe. Indeed, it’s not until week 32 when the brain is even ready to control respiration.

      Like

  39. So some very basic problems with this:

    – the most basic is that you are simply referring to whether something is living or dead. A dead thing doesn’t grow no matter what pump you plug it into. A foetus does grow and is therefore, prima facie, living. It must either be poisoned or dismembered to “terminate” it or as some like to say terminate the “pregnancy”. You’d be far better off arguing personhood rather than life because lots of life exists without brain function. But to suggest it isn’t alive is, well, brain dead…

    – if death is the *permanent* ceasing of brain activity then we know that that is not the case for a foetus, as, left to its own devices its brain *will* show activity. So any current absence of it is certainly not a sign that it is “dead” In The same way as an out of womb person dies. So this argument falls flat on its face in the starting block. I dare you to go to a&e and suggest they pull the plug on a patient who has an almost certain chance of their brain activity reviving in a few weeks. Good luck with that!

    – any argument that life has not yet started fails because of point 1 above.

    – foetuses born as early as 22 weeks have a reported 6% *survival* rate – I.e. Are born alive and survive. So at best for you the legal abortion age should be moved back to 22 weeks.

    Like

  40. @Clapham common tree, rue202 and others:

    Of course a normal fetus is alive on a CELLULAR basis even if it is unable to function on its own as a human being. Who denies that?

    The relevant question here should rather be, Is life on a CELLULAR basis equivalent of what we consider to be HUMAN life? That is, full of sensory processing, cognitive activities, memory formation and so on (all going on in an organ called BRAIN).

    And that, in turn, is primarily a philosophic question, not a religious one

    Another important question to ask is, Is only HUMAN life sacred?

    If the answer to that question is YES, Why is HUMAN life the only life form that is sacred?

    To me the word/adjective “sacred” is full of religious connotations. So why introduce a religious concept to be used in a (first and foremost) philosophic analysis of what life is?

    Thereafter it’s about time to ask, Why is HUMAN life more sacred than all other life forms?

    And, Why do so many of us, especially religious people, like to attribute sanctity – at least more sanctity than for all other earthly life forms – to just HUMAN life?

    Most of these questions are discussed here, https://www.quora.com/Why-is-human-life-more-sacred-than-every-other-animal . Let’s debate them here, too.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. As far as I remember I’ve already posted the following link once before in this comment field. Now I’m doing it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Medical_viability . Please note that gestational age is considered to be two weeks more than the time gone since the fertilization of the egg.

    According to the statistics published in that Wikipedia article, the chance of a postnatal survival is, in principle, 0 (zero) percent if the number of completed weeks of gestation at birth are less than 22.

    There are a few exceptions from this “rule”. In that same Wikipedia article two cases are mentioned, a baby boy born at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age, and a baby girl born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age.

    According to this article, from 2017, the so far youngest ever baby to be born did so at 21 weeks and 4 days gestational age: https://www.today.com/health/born-21-weeks-she-may-be-most-premature-surviving-baby-t118610 .

    Probably the most important reason why babies born before 22 gestational weeks don’t survive is that their brains are not mature enough. For more information about this fact/explanation, please read also this third article:https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html . There you learn what is demanded of a brain so that it can help the baby to survive outside the womb TOGETHER with necessary medical support. That is, BOTH these requisites must be present at the same time. Just one of these two requisites is not enought. You need BOTH a sufficiently mature brain AND advanced medical support.

    Here are two important quotes from that third article I just linked to::

    QUOTE #1: By week 13 the fetus has begun to move. Around this time the corpus callosum, the massive collection of fibers (the axons of neurons) that allow for communication between the hemispheres, begins to develop, forming the infrastructure for the major part of the cross talk between the two sides of the brain. Yet the fetus is not a sentient, self-aware organism at this point; it is more like a sea slug, a writhing, reflex-bound hunk of sensory-motor processes that does not respond to anything in a directed, purposeful way. Laying down the infrastructure for a mature brain and possessing a mature brain are two very different states of being.

    My comment: Read the last two sentences of that quote more than once, carefully and slowly. Contemplate what you just read. Maybe especially the two words “sea slug”.

    QUOTE #2: Synapses – the points where two neurons, the basic building blocks of the nervous system, come together to interact – form in large numbers during the seventeenth and following weeks, allowing for communication between individual neurons. Synaptic activity underlies all brain functions. Synaptic growth does not skyrocket until around postconception day 200 (week 28). Nonetheless, at around week 23 the fetus can survive outside the womb, with medical support; also around this time the fetus can respond to aversive stimuli.

    My comment: Read the second and fourth sentences of this quote more than once, carefully and slowly. Contemplate what you just read.

    My conclusion: There is an important reason why there is a limit of survival ar around gestational week 22. The reason is the baby needs BOTH a sufficiently mature brain AND advanced medical support in order to survive. Of course medical support is available before gestational week 22. But the brain is at that time not mature enough. It’s not yet a human person (with a personality, kind of). It’s more like a stimulus-response machine. In need of its mother to survive, by being in her womb. Without its mother – i.e. outside of her womb – the fetus can’t survive.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Should abortion of human fetuses be forbidden because abortion in some way or other is equivalent to murder?

    Behind that kind of reasoning lies the premise that every fertlized egg has the potential to one day become an adult human being, full of emotions and cognitive performances.

    But if you choose to answer YES to that question above, then you should not stop there. Instead you should ask yourself if not all kinds of preventing an egg from being fertilized in some way is the equivalence of murder.

    I recommend you all, maybe especially Clapham common tree and rue202, to read this article with the headline’ Murder before conception’: https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/murder-before-conception/ .

    The message is that it’s not only fertilized eggs that have the potential to one day become adult human beings. If you try to stop the egg from being fertilized, by using contraceptive methods or techniques, then you, in fact, also act like a murderer!

    Had the egg been fertilized, it would have had the possibility – the potential – to one day become an adult human.

    So if you want to use the word “potential” when debating the morality of abortions, then most os us are “real” murderers, not only “potential” ones.

    It’s logical to conclude that both abortion and contraception (birth control) are in a way the same stuff. We deprive the egg the possibility/potential to one day end up as an adult human being.

    Why can’t members of the Pro-life or Anti-abortion movement admit this is a logical way of reasoning, if the word “potential” is embedded/used in your argumentation? There are many many things that have the potential to one day become something else than it was in the beginning.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. @John Zande:

    I just read this news article:

    BREAKING NEWS Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:26 PM EST

    Brazil has joined the ranks of countries tilting to the far right, choosing Jair Bolsonaro, a fiery and divisive populist, as president.

    The new president has exalted the country’s military dictatorship, advocated torture and threatened to destroy, jail or drive into exile his political opponents.

    He won by tapping into a deep well of resentment at the status quo in Brazil — a country whiplashed by rising crime and two years of political and economic turmoil — and by presenting himself as the alternative.

    My question to you, John: Do you think that President Trump is Mr. Bolsonaro’s mentor? Or all is just a coincidence?

    Or maybe I’ve fallen asleep and am having a nightmare?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Unfortunately, the (justified) hatred of PT blinded the voters. It’s going to be a wild and ugly few years.

      Is there a link between Trump and Bolsonaro? No. The corruption and incompetence of PT + the inability of established parties to present a new candidate (a new face) drove this vote.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your political analysis, John, seems trustworthy. Cf. this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46013408 .

        And we all know, of course, that corruption is frequent especially in religious countries. So I can’t say I’m surprised that far-right Jair Bolsonaro won when Brazil went to the polls.

        Vestigia terrrent! Just look at what happened in the United States of America. in 2016.

        But is the End of Time near now? I doubt it, even if the Jehovah’s witnesses have waited so long time (since the 1840’s) for the End of Time dogma to become true.

        Liked by 1 person

      • They’ve been saying the end was nigh ever since the Hammer of the Arians (Bishop Hilary of Poitiers) predicted the mass liquidation of all earthly species in 365CE, making Christianity the longest lasting death cult in the history of humanity… which is a rather strange title to hold 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Death cult John? Afraid you’ve got even that wrong John…. No, the death cult are the followers of Dawkins… I mean, read Dawkins strap-line:

        “DNA the book of the dead.” [Richard Dawkins]

        Just like Stephen Law you are aspect blind.

        p.s. I love the fact that Law actually does regularly check the internet to read what people are saying about him…. I wrote something about him to see if it would have consequences…. and guess what?

        It did!!!!!!!!!!!

        Like

  44. I’m always learning something new by following your blog, John. Thank you for spreading your knowledge!

    But I disagree that it’s a “rather strange title” for Christianity to hold.

    IMHO it’s a very strange, and even extremely inglorious, not to say disgraceful, title. But at the same time, Christianity really deserves it. Nobody can deny that.without sinning at the same time.

    If wou want to be prepared, John, read this article: http://www.signs-of-end-times.com/ .

    Unfortunately, in that article there is no mention at all that the sun soon will rise in the west and set in the east. So we all have to watch the behavior of the sun carefully from now on. .

    Liked by 1 person

  45. While I have no qualms with abortion, I’m not convinced you’ve satisfied the premise of your post (Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma). Because if there were no ethical considerations, there’d be no need to define the stage of development at which abortion becomes legally or morally impermissible. Or am I missing something?

    Like

    • Well, as there are ethical considerations (and attached punishments) surrounding the killing of a human being (murder/2nd, 3rd degree manslaughter/euthanasia etc.) it is a matter (when considering terminating a pregnancy) of establishing when the human being *begins* to exist in a recognisable legal/medical framework. There is a line, and that line marks the beginning of ethical considerations.

      Like

      • Right. But medical ethics (which is what I’m focusing on) concerns itself primarily with life and death decisions having moral implications, and abortion falls within that category of concerns. Also, keep in mind that the Hippocratic Oath forbade physicians from inducing a miscarriage, so this is not a recent topic of discussion.

        Moreover, Dr. JM Goldenring, whom you cited above, proposed setting the cutoff at eight weeks gestation, so deciding where to draw the line is still under contention, even within the medical profession.

        Click to access jmedeth00255-0032.pdf

        Like

      • Sure, it falls within those concerns if and only when we’re dealing with a human organism. Until full bilateral synchronisation the human organism simply does not exist. Before that moment the foetus cannot meet the legal/medical definitions of human death. Didn’t I make that perfectly clear? If asked, I would not however say 28 weeks as the legal cut-off date, rather bring it back to week 24 when continuous activity becomes established, albeit not coordinated as a single conscious entity.

        The Hippocratic Oath is applied to the one autonomous individual in the equation: the woman, her care, her health.

        Goldenring is anti-abortion (which is precisely why I used his words), so we should expect him to low ball. Doesn’t change the truth of his statement, and that’s what is critical here.

        Like

      • Again, my concern isn’t with your stance on abortion (or where to draw the line) so much as your contention that it isn’t an ethical issue — because the constant debates on this topic suggest otherwise. I want to present solid arguments to counter the opposition and denying it’s an ethical concern seems counterproductive to that goal.

        According to the National Library of Medicine, the Hippocratic Oath states:

        I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

        https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

        I mentioned it only to point out that Greek physicians considered abortion and euthanasia unethical long before the advent of Christendom. Nonetheless, I do take issue with any suggestion that pregnancy be treated as just another pathology. To me, such an argument opens the door to eugenics.

        BTW, how many links are we permitted to put in a comment before it goes to moderation?

        Like

      • Links? Two, I think.

        my concern isn’t with your stance on abortion (or where to draw the line) so much as your contention that it isn’t an ethical issue

        Not sure I’m following you. The line *is* when ethical considerations of another human being come into play. Before that line there is only one autonomous, sentient human being: the mother.

        It is unethical to plant a bomb in a building. Are you trying to say the *same* ethical considerations should apply to the architect’s sketch of that building?

        Sorry if I’m missing your point, but I’m just not getting it.

        because the constant debates on this topic suggest otherwise

        Irrational debates based not on facts, but emotion, and oftentimes straight out lies. The religious right in the US (which drives the global anti-abortion movement) only became interested in the subject for political reasons (defeating Carter to protect segregated schools) in 1979. The science doesn’t support them, it never has, and the more and more we learn the less and less their arguments mean anything other than what they truly are: a political rallying cry.

        https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

        From the article:

        Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

        This is why sticking to the *actual* facts is critical. It’s also why I often I say to an interlocutor that the only way they can crack this subject open to meaningful debate is if they can demonstrate some other (previously unknown) element in a human organism; a soul, for example. If they can, then everything would have to be reassessed.

        I mentioned it only to point out that Greek physicians considered abortion and euthanasia unethical long before the advent of Christendom.

        Sure, and the original oath (which contrary to popular opinion is not part of modern medical schools, and has been re-written to fit multiple cultures and times) starts with this:

        I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

        Now, we all know it is essential to appease Apollo before an operation, but Panacea? Come on… Talk about out-dated 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • I agree with your perspective, John, but consider how often “Christians” refuse to accept anything that smacks of “Science.” As one individual (!) has derisively and repeatedly claimed … it’s all “scientism.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’d never even heard the term before Mel!

        Thing is, the pro-forced birther is free to crack the debate open. I’ve repeatedly said I would have no problems at all reassessing my position if they can demonstrate something other than the functioning/coordinated cortex representing the human being. “I have this feeling…” isn’t exactly what a rational state bases its laws on.

        Liked by 1 person

  46. The thing about God is that, right now, we will never know for sure.

    Yet, while we breath air we have faith.

    But having faith is still, not knowing.

    In death, in not breathing, that is when you will know.

    God’s promise is He will meet you from here to there.

    He will meet you when it’s time and bring you from a living breathing human to a non-breathing, living soul.

    You will be transformed.

    He will bring you to a thing full of faith, yet unsure, to a soul now very sure. You will surely forget the blessing of ever breathing air.

    You will find yourself in the presence of PROMISE. It will be Glorious. You will see things and know things.

    Those that have passed on have something I don’t. I have been given this word, “Blessed our those who seek my face.”

    Like

      • Some are not in the business of censorship Nan. What I speak of are promises made written down by those who are from a much different place than we are in. To define this as a fairy tale tells me you lack an understanding of written history, that things happened a while ago, call it history really, and these things we never lived through are dismissed by you as fairy tales. The truth is, people lived 2,000 plus years ago, they recorded and wrote down what they experienced just like we do today. Today we write happenings and people back then, the time Christians came into being, also wrote about the happenings they experienced. It is no different, today and then, we write about happenings. Just because you think it’s a fairy tale does not make it a fairy tale.

        Like

      • You are correct. People do write things down and future generations do read what was written. Whether the recorded events actually happened is often a matter of debate. Most certainly this is true when it comes to the stories recorded in the bible.

        Millions of individuals read these stories and base their life’s decisions on the contents. By the same token, many more millions consider them nothing more than “fairy tales.” I happen to be one of the latter.

        P.S. My initial comment had nothing to do with “censorship.” I was being facetious. Too bad you live in such a regimented world that you were unable to recognize that.

        Like

      • Most scholars do not reject what is recorded by historians. Historians are not a new thing. There were historians 2,000 years ago. Back then there where historians, Jewish and Roman. There is one thing that is outside debate and that is at a specific moment in time there burst upon the scene Christians. WHY? And why would the Roman rulers in Judea persecute them?

        You not believing in a Creator, or that you do not believe that he found it necessary to come and teach, and be a living sacrifice, doesn’t render it a fairy tale. You and the other millions can not just wave your hand and declare it all fake. You can not just wipe out history and all the things written by historians.

        Like

      • Somebody says, “I was just being facetious”. Who ever uses this word? What does it even mean? It means, joking. Someone trying to communicate, being serious and using facetious, instead of joking, is trying to look much smarter and intelligent than they really are.

        Like

  47. Pingback: Abortion and Brain Activity – Philosophic Truth with Stephen Irby

  48. Personally, I am a pro-life Atheist and I am against abortion, not based on any belief system, but simply because abortion to me mean termination of life.

    I saw a meme few days ago saying:

    We go to Mars searching for life and we consider a one-cell to be a form of life, yet early embryos composed of thousands of cells, for some people here on earth aren’t!

    Ciao John!

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yea, with G+ dying I’m not going to other social networks… Maybe I’ll post more here.

        I guess the issue starts from the definition of life itself here.

        I had this thought experiment, thinking about my own kids, as seeing two films contemporary on the same screen divided in two.

        One part is my life with my kids, and the other part is my life had I terminated their life even at day 1…

        I can’t tell you how glad I am I didn’t even think of that

        But this is my personal opinion and I wouldn’t go throwing bombs on abortion clinics!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Life isn’t the issue. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. The egg and the sperm are already parts of the living system. What we’re really talking about is the onset of a complete human organism.

        I hope you do post more on WP. I like seeing Sagan’s face pop up 🙂

        You still in Rome?

        Like

      • Yeah, but he likes beer. He drinks beer! HE LIKES BEER!!!! Wadda YOU drink, John, huh? WHAT??? BEER?? Like Brett?? “Brett like beer!!! Brett drink beer!!! Brett SMASH Roe v Wade!!! ARRRGH!! Brett is the strongest one there is!!!”

        Liked by 1 person

  49. The bottom line is given time, and health, every pregnant women will give birth. That is the design whereby a man and women procreate and nine months, or so, a child is born. It’s called copulation and it’s sole purpose is the males sperm make their way to towards the uterus to fertilize an egg. The whole purpose in copulation is the give birth. To purposely interrupt the process and forcibly end the the life of the thing that ultimately is a living human, is murder. What is most damaging is the psyche of the woman who allows her child to be terminated knowing there are dozens upon dozens of couples who can’t have children and would give their last dollar to adopt the viable life they just killed.

    Like

    • Leroy, here’s a reality check: There are an estimated 153 million children worldwide who are orphans (UNICEF).

      According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. Most are under the age of 5. Disabled children can remain in institutionalized care for life. Young adults raised in institutions are 500 times more likely to kill themselves. Where are those “dozens of couples you speak of who would give their last dollar to adopt?

      The U.S. foster care system is dysfunctional. Studies show that most of the children living in these institutions and foster care systems become psychologically damaged.

      Cont next comment

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Languishing in foster care harms children’s wellbeing in a number of ways. The longer a child remains in temporary care, the more likely he or she will experience multiple placement changes and the disrupted relationships caused by such changes.

      Studies suggest that as many as 70 percent of placement changes have nothing to do with improving the wellbeing of the children moved.

      Disruptions make it difficult for children to form the kind of stable attachments that undergird healthy social and emotional development. This is an especially grave concern for children ages five and under – by far the largest group of children in foster care – given the critical role that strong and stable early life attachments play in healthy human development.

      For children of all ages, multiple changes in placements often lead to severe, long-term behavior and emotional problems. Frequent moves also contribute to other mental health problems and poor educational achievement, as children are shuttled from school to school. Moreover, each change in foster placement decreases the likelihood that a child will return home or be adopted.

      A much more widespread problem is that children in foster care don’t get the services they need, and many wind up dropping out of school, pregnant, or incarcerated. (The outcomes would be far worse and tragedy more common if those children came from orphanages.) Foster care is neglected and underfunded.

      “Critical research, however, has portrayed orphanages as a breeding ground for psychopathology.”

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216886072_Psychiatric_disorders_among_children_living_in_orphanages_-_Experience_from_Kashmir

      Cont next comment

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Child violence experiences in institutionalised/orphanage care.”

      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13548506.2016.1271951

      Women who have abortions are far more ethical and merciful than those who call them murderers. Abortion was banned in Romania for 2 decades by a dictator. Parents could not afford to take care of more children. The results were a proliferation of children in institutions. After the fall of the dictators, these institutions were visited by the media and professionals. They reported finding babies “stacked on carts like loaves of bread.” Most of the children had acquired severe mental illness while in state institutions.

      A long-term study found that most of these children who were eventually adopted to loving homes in other countries still had/have severe mental health problems in adulthood, even after intense therapy.

      Cont next comment

      Liked by 1 person

    • Approximately 56 million abortions occur each year worldwide.

      https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

      Now you tell me, with both dysfunctional foster care systems and abusive orphanages overflowing with unwanted children, who’s going to take care of another 56 million unwanted children born annually? Certainly not your god.

      Here’s another reality check: The Worldwide Health Organization states that “An estimated 6.3 million children under the age of 15 years died in 2017. 5.4 million of them were under the age of 5 and 2.5 million of those children died within the first month of life. This translates into 15 000 under-five deaths per day.

      Leading causes of death in children under-5 years are preterm birth complications, pneumonia, birth asphyxia, diarrhea and malaria. Nearly half of these deaths are in newborns.”

      https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/children-reducing-mortality

      **There are 69 million children worldwide who suffer from malnutrition (World Bank)
      **Nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5 can be attributed to undernutrition.
      https://www.sos-usa.org/our-impact/focus-areas/advocacy-movement-building/childrens-statistics

      Pro-life or pro-suffering?

      Liked by 1 person

  50. Hi John, I’m still trying to catch up after being on hiatus. This was yet another superb post from you.

    Would you please delete the duplicate post, the one right above this one. I posted it in the wrong spot, so I reposted it in the nested thread of Leroy’s comment above it.

    Thank you. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  51. You are confusing how we determine human death with what human death is. The article you site clearly talks about how we “determine” human death. But we understand things without brains can die. Plants can die. Cells can die etc.

    Your argument that life goes on etc would justify any sort of death.

    But anyway would you agree that killing a fetus after it has brain function is murder?

    Like

    • Yes, plants can die. A plant is not an animal, let alone a human being.

      No, it is not murder (a legal term) because the foetus is not legally considered a “person.”

      1 U.S. Code: § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

      (a)
      In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

      Like

      • You quote the law to support the law. This is called begging the question.

        Is there something about the birth canal that scientifically changes us into humans? How can the view expressed in law be justified. It seems to cut against your theory that brain waves are the key to something being a human life.

        Like

      • The law should always be driven by facts.

        Is there something about the birth canal that scientifically changes us into humans?

        As a matter of fact, yes. An ‘individual’ has its own unique metabolic rate, the speed of life. In the third trimester, a foetus should have the same metabolic rate as a mammal its size, say, a possum. It doesn’t. In the womb, a foetus has the same metabolic rate (the same speed of life) as its mother. Like an organ, it’s a part of a larger whole, rather than an individual… Until it’s not anymore. The very moment a baby is born a switch is flipped and all its internal processes speed up rapidly, and at 36 hours after birth, the baby’s cells have the same activity rate as a mammal its size: a possum. In this sense, babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours.

        Similarly, a human being is autonomous. A defining element in autonomy is the capacity to breathe by itself. This is because all life on earth is powered by chemiosmosis, where the rechargeable chemical battery for life, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), is first broken down and then re-formed during respiration to release energy used to drive every living reaction. That is not happening independently in the foetus. In fact, it is not until week 32 that the foetal brain has developed enough to control respiration.

        It seems to cut against your theory that brain waves are the key to something being a human life.

        Bilaterally synchronous, to be accurate. That is to say, the demonstrable capacity for sustained consciousness. And in some respects you’re correct. At week 28 we can *begin* to say a human being *begins* to exist. It’s by no means complete, but it may be said that this point marks the beginning of ethical considerations. Regarding ethics, primary consideration should always err on the side of the only autonomous human being in the equation: the woman.

        Like

      • Of course all sorts of physiological changes happen through life. The question is why should some count as defining us human and others not. Metabolic rates seems an odd pick. Can we kill the child before it’s born but not after before it’s metabolic rate is what we think it should be?

        You write a blog about brain waves and confuse how we determine a person being dead with what it means to be a living person. But then you drop that whole analysis and instead turn to metabolism when it’s pointed out that the reasons you claim to base your argument on don’t get to the conclusion you want to rationalize.

        There is an actual understanding in science as to what it means to be alive. You can google that if you want to know what it is and yes plants can be alive and you can kill a plant by not watering it. Pro life people don’t need to redefine what it means to be alive or dead or killed – like you attempt to do.

        They also have what seems the most obvious way to distinguish two different life forms. DNA. Your saying this does not distinguish individual animals is not unlike saying h2o is not water. That somehow in some cases something is h2o but its still not quite water yet.

        Like

      • Of course all sorts of physiological changes happen through life.

        You asked a specific question regarding physiological changes at birth. I answered. If you didn’t want an answer, why did you ask the question?

        But then you drop that whole analysis and instead turn to metabolism when it’s pointed out that the reasons you claim to base your argument on don’t get to the conclusion you want to rationalize.

        I haven’t “dropped” the analysis to metabolic rates. Again, you asked the specific question, I answered. I also gave you the example of respiration. My argument is, and remains, that there is no ethical dilemma in terminating a pregnancy prior to full bilateral synchronisation. That is when a human organism demonstrably begins to exist, and therefore week 28 is a sensible marker for anyone wishing to discus (or write) laws. Ethically speaking though, primary concern/consideration remains always with the only autonomous entity in the equation: the woman.

        They also have what seems the most obvious way to distinguish two different life forms. DNA.

        DNA is a map. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a functioning building.

        Like

      • John you are dancing around. do you think we are killing a human being if woman receives an abortion in the 9th month or not?

        You write a blog saying it is all about he brain and pretend to be basing your views on science but then the first time I ask you, you just reference the law in the US as if that was some scientific opinion.

        Like

      • Already answered. I’ll cut n paste it again, if that helps:

        Bilaterally synchronous, to be accurate. That is to say, the demonstrable capacity for sustained consciousness. And in some respects you’re correct. At week 28 we can *begin* to say a human being *begins* to exist. It’s by no means complete, but it may be said that this point marks the beginning of ethical considerations. Regarding ethics, primary consideration should always err on the side of the only autonomous human being in the equation: the woman.

        And to explain further: If the woman’s health is compromised, or if the foetus has a condition that is not compatible with life (most anatomic anomalies cannot even be diagnosed until after 20 weeks), then a termination is the ethically correct response even after week 28.

        Like

      • More Dancing John.

        This is the question *again*:
        “John you are dancing around. do you think we are killing a human being if woman receives an abortion in the 9th month or not?”

        Assume a normal child. The question is whether this is killing a human or not. Whether the mom will have health issues is a separate question. Of course it can impact whether we decide we should kill an innocent human being or not but that is separate from whether it is in fact a human being that we are killing.

        Do you agree that in the 9th month we are killing a human being when an abortion is performed or not?

        If you ever stop dodging that question maybe we can get to other questions like:

        What do you mean we should err on the side of the only autonomous human being? Is a new born autonomous?

        And whether your view of humanism is really rational or cares much about humans.

        Like

      • Is English your first language? I’m sensing you have terrible trouble in comprehending the written word. So, again, I refer you to my answer provided twice. And just to be certain you’ve understood, Yes: post-28 weeks we can say a human being (provided it has a bilaterally synchronised brain, which is not guaranteed if there are neural development problems) is being killed. In these instances, either a never-born human with severe anatomic anomalies is being saved from a brief existence (if any existence at all) of pain and misery, or the life of the only autonomous human in the equation—the woman’s life—is being saved. Both instances are ethically correct responses.

        Below is a tweet Robert Kahne which I copied a few weeks ago. It will shed some light on these difficult instances.

        Robert Kahne‏ @rkahne

        This was the most devastating week of my life. We had our 20 week ultrasound and discovered that our baby’s brain had not developed, and that it would likely die before it was born and would only live a few hours if carried to term. We terminated the pregnancy.

        We intended to have the procedure at UofL hospital, but that was not possible, so we had it at EMW Women’s Center. The people who work there are incredible, but the experience was harrowing. And the @LouClinicEscort group is made up of angels.

        One horrifying wrinkle in this world-shattering situation was that SB 9, the fetal heartbeat bill, was poised to pass on Thursday. If it had, we wouldn’t have been able to have the procedure at all. While our daughter had no brain and a malformed spine, she had a heartbeat.

        There is so much to this story that infuriates me, and we are in so much grief, but it is nice to know in the midst of this that we are loved by so many. We are trying to focus on the many things that are good about our lives. Be good to each other.

        One last thing: I’ve said it reflexively many times, but the reality of “trust women and their doctors” doesn’t truly sink in until you are looking at the malformed brain of the child you conceived via fertility treatments and hear “now we need to talk about some legal questions”

        And here is a recent article which you should really read. It’s titled: I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter By Dina Zirlott.

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/late-term-abortion-rape_us_5c630b8de4b0a8731aeabbd6

        A small section:

        I was raped when I was 17 years old. I had a baby when I was 18 years old. My baby died when I was 19 years old.

        The doctor came to us and spread the ultrasound pictures across the table. She pointed to darkness where gray brain matter ought to be. She called it hydranencephaly, a congenital defect in which the brain fails to develop either cerebral hemisphere, instead filling with cerebrospinal fluid. The fetus continued to experience development because the brain stem was still intact, but she would be born blind, deaf, completely cognitively stunted, prone to seizures, diabetes insipidus, insomnia, hypothermia and more. The list of every agonizing disorder she would suffer was tremendous.

        “This condition is not compatible with life,” she said with the sort of neutrality someone uses when they are a spectator to disaster.

        A short, painful existence. I thought it was my fault and that I had done this to her. No one could convince me otherwise. I was both victim and perpetrator, in the unique position of having no agency in either.

        My mother asked what our options were, but I was already eight months along and would have to see this pregnancy through to the end. At the time, abortions were allowed in Alabama “up to the stage of fetal viability, usually between 24 and 26 weeks gestation.” It was already too late for me. Even if I was able to go out of state to seek out the possibility of a “late-term abortion,” I would still be obstructed by time, paperwork, politics and money.

        My daughter was born Oct. 27, 2005. I named her Zoe Lily. I did not want to touch her at first, convinced I would cause her more pain. I was afraid she would die in my arms, afraid I would look at her and feel the same disgust I felt for myself. They took her away. The neurologist came and asked how we wanted to proceed. He asked if we wanted to intubate her because she lacked the instinct to suck and inquired about what other lifesaving measures we wanted to take. The most basic functions of her body were being controlled by her brainstem, but that was it. It would be a kindness, he explained, to make her comfortable and let her go in peace.

        Like

      • “So, again, I refer you to my answer provided twice. And just to be certain you’ve understood, Yes: post-28 weeks we can say a human being (provided it has a bilaterally synchronised brain, which is not guaranteed if there are neural development problems) is being killed. In these instances, either a never-born human with severe anatomic anomalies is being saved from a brief existence (if any existence at all) of pain and misery, or the life of the only autonomous human in the equation—the woman’s life—is being saved. Both instances are ethically correct responses.”

        Ok so assume neither of these is the case and you have a normal pregnancy and a normal fetus that is over 28 weeks old. If an abortion was performed then would that be the killing of an innocent human being?

        You already seem to admit it is the killing of a human being correct?

        Do you agree that human being/the post 28 week fetus is “innocent”?

        Like

      • To your first question, yes, but your scenario is a pantomime. It has no grounding in reality. Those *are* the cases. I’ll let Dr. Jennifer Conti, an OBGYN, explain:

        “Nobody arrives at the decision to have an abortion after 24 weeks carelessly. Rather, it’s the rare case of rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease or a delayed diagnosis of anencephaly, where the fetus forms without a complete brain or skull, that bring people to these decisions.

        And here is Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

        Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus.

        Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.

        It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.

        Joe, by asking questions that are essentially pantomime material you’re just creating noise rather than contributing to an adult discussion. Reality is important, it’s critical, and ignoring it (to the profit of a pantomime) makes talking to you somewhat difficult. So, in an attempt to drag you back to reality, may I ask you if in Robert Kahne’s case, was the abortion (by your understanding) ethically correct; Yes, or No?

        Like

      • As a woman, let me add something … under normal circumstances, most women WANT their baby. They are NOT looking to abort. In fact, most are devastated when the discovery is made the baby is malformed and/or won’t survive and/or will demand round-the-clock care after birth.

        To continue to quibble over viability of the fetus (at any stage) is a waste of time. Women are going to do what they must, depending on the circumstances. And, as I unequivocally believe and have stated before … in the end, it is the woman’s choice/decision.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother.”

        Do you know that the word “typically” is not the same as “always”? So setting aside how vague we can get with “health of the mother”, do you agree that in those not typical cases we have the unjustified killing of an innocent human being?

        You can say it’s pantomime but even your own sources concede we are talking about reality.

        Like

      • Are you seriously claiming to know more about reproductive health than OBGYNs?

        And FYI, 80% of post-24 week terminations are due to “severe fetal anomalies” (Dr. Jen Gunter, OBGYN). The remainder, we must assume, concern either 1) the mother’s health, or 2) delays caused by restrictive laws/lack of access. If there are any instances outside these then we must also assume they are exceptional cases and deserve individual attention.

        And why are you repeating a question answered three times already? If you wish to talk about specific cases of post 28 week terminations (not 24, 28) you will have to present those cases for review. As Dr. Jennifer Conti said, “Nobody arrives at the decision to have an abortion after 24 weeks carelessly.”

        And I asked you a question. Did you ignore it deliberately? To repeat: In Robert Kahne’s case (above), was the abortion (by your understanding) ethically correct; Yes, or No?

        Like

      • “Are you seriously claiming to know more about reproductive health than OBGYNs?”

        No I am taking what they said as true. You are equating typical with always. The words don’t mean the same thing.

        Yes I ignored specific cases, because I agree that specific cases can raise a legitimate question as to when killing a human may be justified and I am not interested in getting embroiled in arguments about facts of particular cases.

        Rather I am more interested in broader catagories.

        As for Jennifer Conti thinks is “careless” or not I have no idea. Does she even agree with us that a late stage abortion can be the killing of an innocent human being? Of course if she does not agree with us on that then what she considers careless with respect to killing the fetus might vary.

        But I am glad you at least agree that abortion (at least in late term abortions) can be the killing of an innocent human being. That is a start.

        Like

      • Yes I ignored specific cases, because I agree that specific cases can raise a legitimate question as to when killing a human may be justified and I am not interested in getting embroiled in arguments about facts of particular cases.

        So you accept then that 100% of abortions after week 24 (or even after week 28) where there are foetal anomalies and/or the woman’s health is at risk are ethically correct.

        What about in those cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate) mean an abortion cannot occur until, say, week 24, despite efforts to have it earlier? Is that still ethically correct?

        Like

      • “So you accept then that 100% of abortions after week 24 (or even after week 28) where there are foetal anomalies and/or the woman’s health is at risk are ethically correct.”

        No I recognize that there can be legitimate ethical issues.

        “What about in those cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate) mean an abortion cannot occur until, say, week 24, despite efforts to have it earlier? Is that still ethically correct?”

        I don’t agree with your definition which conflates how we decided if a human died with what it means for a human to die. I believe the best rule would be to protect life from conception.

        Like

      • No I recognize that there can be legitimate ethical issues.

        Well, unless you can give me a *real world* example of some case outside the three reasons given you’ll just have to accept that it’s 100% ethical.

        Here is Dr. D., an East Coast-based OB-GYN and abortion provider who offers abortions later in pregnancy and asked to speak anonymously to Bustle (article linked below).

        “The important thing to remember is that abortions later in pregnancy are not [happening because] people waltz in off the street and say, ‘I’m done being pregnant, I want an abortion”

        https://www.bustle.com/p/abortion-ama-what-is-a-late-term-abortion-16981246

        So, I’ve now given you two OBGYNs stating clearly that terminations in later pregnancy are not a matter of whim.

        I don’t agree with your definition which conflates how we decided if a human died with what it means for a human to die.

        “Conflates” what? I think you’re just talking to yourself here, because you’ve completely ignored the actual question. Could you please address the question? In your understanding, is a later pregnancy termination still ethically correct in cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate) mean an abortion cannot occur until, say, week 24, despite efforts to have it earlier?

        And just to explain this further, below is a small section from the linked article addressing just this:

        A recent study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found that second-trimester abortion increased by 13 percent after House Bill 2 was implemented, an anti-abortion law that resulted in half of the abortion facilities in the state of Texas shutting down. The study showed that people seeking an abortion had to travel longer distances and ended up waiting longer to receive abortion services, prolonging their unwanted pregnancies and requiring later abortion care.

        ;

        So, in recognising the *real world*, could you answer the actual question, please?

        Like

      • The 2013 study starts from 20 weeks. This is nowhere even close to what we would consider ‘later pregnancy’ terminations where ethical considerations begin to come into play, and critically “The study data did not include any women who were having abortions “on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.””

        The 1987 study was 420 woman at 16 weeks, so even less useful.

        So, can you address the question I’ve asked, please?

        In your understanding, is a later pregnancy termination still ethically correct in cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate, see Texas House Bill 2) mean an abortion cannot occur until, say, week 24, or perhaps even later, despite efforts to have it earlier?

        Like

      • No I am not in favor of abortion at any time.

        And the fact that none of the women in that study received abortions on the grounds of fetal anomaly tends to show your claim that this and the health of the mother are the only reasons is false. They were giving all sorts of reasons for the late abortions most of which had absolutely nothing to do with either reason.

        Like

      • And the fact that none of the women in that study received abortions on the grounds of fetal anomaly tends to show your claim that this and the health of the mother are the only reasons is false

        Are you serious? Did you even read the linked page? It *says*, the study DID NOT INCLUDE women who were having abortions “on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” In other words, the study omitted the two principle reasons for later in pregnancy terminations. I pointed this out in the comment above. Do you not read?

        Now, may I ask why you keep avoiding the question I’ve now asked four times?

        Fifth time:

        In your understanding, is a later pregnancy termination still ethically correct in cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate, see Texas House Bill 2) mean an abortion could not occur until, say, week 24, or perhaps even later, despite efforts to have it earlier?

        Like

      • I understand what the study did you seem to misunderstand the import of it. None of the women had a late term abortion for one of the two reasons you said all of them have abortions for. I am not saying that women do not have abortions due to anomolies but I am saying that reason and the health of the mother does not account for all late term abortions. Do you understand the logical difference between these claims?

        The fact that many of these women gave reasons for why they are having late term abortions and those reasons are not all due to health concerns shows your view is false.

        You seem unable to see that logic but it is there nonetheless.

        Like

      • I understand what the study did you seem to misunderstand the import of it. None of the women had a late term abortion for one of the two reasons you said all of them have abortions for

        Are you retarded? The study DIDN’T RECORD women who were having abortions “on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” It’s there, written in black and white. And the sample in both (one worse than the other) is not reflective of actual late pregnancy terminations. Foetal anomalies cannot even be first detected until AFTER 20 weeks.

        Now, please address the question put to you five times now.

        Sixth time:

        In your understanding, is a later pregnancy termination still ethically correct in cases where deliberately restrictive laws and lack of access (also deliberate, see Texas House Bill 2) mean an abortion cannot occur until, say, week 24, or perhaps even later, despite efforts to have it earlier?

        Like

      • Again, No I believe the best view is that a new human life begins at conception so the a late term abortion is not automatically ok because someone did not get an abortion sooner.

        And again before you call me retarded you may want to think about this a bit. You are the one who is claiming all late term abortions are pursued due to health of the mother or fetal abnormalities. Yet I show you an entire study where none of the women who pursued a late term abortion did so due to fetal abnormality and very few indicated that their health was a concern either.

        No for you to not understand how this shows your claim that all late term abortions are due to fetal abnormality or health risks to the mother is not a sign that I am retarded.

        Like

      • I did not ask if you were in favour of it. I asked if you believed it was ethically correct. And just to be clear: The question is not beyond your scope because you’ve already conceded there are, in fact, ethically correct reasons to terminate a pregnancy post 24 weeks.

        Like

      • No I don’t think it is ethically correct to say a late term abortion is ok just because a person could not get an earlier abortion. I do not think an earlier abortion is ethically ok either.

        I am certainly willing to consider that there could be ethical decisions made to take a human life based on compassion if a person were going to be in constant suffering for example and the intent was to end suffering. (this is not dependent on whether the person is born or unborn) I would not be one to condemn such a person who had to make that horrible call that none of us would ever want to have to make.

        But that does not mean every time someone claims that is the goal it is the goal. And yes even mothers can do horrible things to their children and lie about why they did it. The nazis started out by killing disabled people. They might claim that they did for the peoples own good but we do not need to believe that.

        Like

      • How can you possibly rationalise that position given the facts? The woman *wanted* to end the pregnancy earlier, which is her legal and moral right, but was denied that opportunity. How can she be responsible for timeliness when she was forced, against her will, to prolong the pregnancy? Your position on this is not just immoral beyond comprehension, but wickedly cruel.

        I hope you can see that.

        Like

      • But, from what I’ve been reading, this is the point John has been making. It is not a “human being” for several weeks into the pregnancy.

        And something else I’ve noticed in the discussion … I may be uninformed, but I’ve not heard of any woman who chose abortion in the later stages of pregnancy — EXCEPT for health reasons of the child or the mother.

        Like

      • Yes John says we should not consider a fetus a human unless it has brain activity. Why? Because he says we use brain activity to determine if human died. But that is a non-sequitor. Just because we use brain activity to determine if a human died that does not mean brain activity defines what it means to be human or to be alive or dead. Plants are alive and/or dead and they have no brain activity.

        So I think Johns reasoning is flawed. As far as cases where women have late term abortions not due to health of the mother or the fetus I gave a link to a study that showed that indeed women do have late term abortions for reasons other than their health or fetal abnormalities.

        Like

      • Just a slight veering off from the conversation, but how do you feel about discontinuing life support? In essence, based on your perspective, the person making the decision is no different than the woman who chooses an abortion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I can only say I would never condemn someone who made that decision out of love for the person on life support to end their suffering. I do not claim to have all the answers about when such calls should be made etc. On the other hand if the motives are selfish and not focused on the good of the person on life support then I think that is a real problem.

        Like

      • “Love” (or any other reason) notwithstanding, it is still ending a life. And much more so because the “living person” isn’t an undeveloped fetus in a womb.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with you. I think it is at least arguable that there can be times where it is morally permissible to end a human life. I do think the intentions of the person ending the life are very important in determining whether it is moral.

        Like

      • Well, if you actually read (and understood) the post you’d know the defining thing is the physical capacity for sustained, bilaterally synchronous consciousness. But don’t let those facts get in the way of your pretty straw man.

        Like

      • No I read it and you linked to an article that said we *determine* if a human died due to brain activity. That is very different from saying brain activity defines what is alive or dead or human. It is like saying the ref throwing a flag on the field is the foul. No the ref throwing a flag on the field is how we determine he is calling a foul – it is not itself the foul.

        Like

      • I posted the legal, medical, scientific definitions of human death. from a number of countries. I also cited medical and neurological experts explaining why a bilaterally synchronous brain is that critical thing in the beginning of a complete human organism. Re-read the quote at the bottom of the post again.

        Like

      • From your blog:
        “…but all states recognise that death is determined by the irreversible cessation of brain function,…”

        “Determined” not defined. Things are alive without a brain things die without a brain. The fact that we determine if a human died from brain function does not mean that defines what it means to be alive or dead.

        Like

      • Can you tell me when life magically appears in a zygote, or a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus? Can you identify the exact moment a foetus transforms from being inorganic to being organic…

        Like

      • Bingo. You’ve just explained to yourself why “life” is not the critical element. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. The egg and the sperm are already parts of the living system; a system that began 3.8 billion years ago.

        Like

      • Well, we’ve already established that that statement is meaningless before full bilateral synchronisation, and after that point there are clear ethically sound reasons for later pregnancy terminations.

        Like

      • No you tried to argue it is meaningless to talk about killing a human before they had full bilateral synchronization. But your argument tries to redefine what life is and the distinction between what is living and dead in a very tortured way. I think we understand that an abortion is ending in fact killing something. It is not a dog it is not a dolphin it is a human being. I think the fact that it has human dna establishes that better than whether it has a certain type of brain wave.

        Now maybe you disagree with me but it is not the case that anything was established between us on that question.

        Like

      • If you wish to re-write the legal, medical, scientific definition of human death then by all means, go ahead and re-write it. I look forward to reading your published paper on the matter.

        And again, if you’d actually read and understood the article you’d know “life” is not the distinguishing element here. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted. What we’re talking about is the onset of a complete human organism.

        Now maybe you disagree with me but it is not the case that anything was established between us on that question.

        Well, granted, you’ve been making noise, but you haven’t presented an actual counterargument.

        Like

      • I am not rewriting anything. I am giving you links to the law. I did not write the federal rules of evidence. I also did not write the article that clearly said this is how we “determine” whether a human died. It is you that wants to change what was written.

        I do understand that we are talking about the onset of a completely new human organism. And I think the best indicator of whether anything is a new organism is to look at the dna. This is the best way to tell whether something is part of a cow or a new cow. The same is true for a people.

        I explained that your argument is a non-sequitur.

        Like

      • Curious. How do I want to “change what is written” by posting what is written to support my argument?

        And again, DNA is a map. It is NOT a human being. If you wish to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to present an *actual* argument.

        Like

      • You want to pretend that what you are posting is not about how science “determines” whether a human died. You are claiming it is how science and law defines what is a human and what is alive. I think I said this about fifty times already. Do you not understand the distinction between our “determining” a foul was made by the ref throwing a flag and the ref throwing the flag actually being the foul?

        Like

      • I’m not claiming anything. I’m presenting the facts. If you have a problem with those facts then it is up to you to detail some new measure and shift the present scientific/legal/medical paradigm….

        Like

      • Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment.

        What does that tell you about the human organism?

        Like

      • Can you remove all their dna and have them survive? Can you remove their lungs? Can you remove their spinal chord?

        I mean we would die if lots of things were removed. So what? I am not saying that once a human has a brain we can take it away and the person can still live. But that does not mean that before the brain grows the fetus is not alive. It is quite obviously alive since it is killed in an abortion. Something that is not alive can not be killed.

        Like

      • DNA, yes (it doesn’t control a single metabolic process necessary to keep the cell alive). Lungs, easily yes. Spinal cord, easily yes. All can be removed (theoretically) and the person would remain being a “living person” because the brain is still functioning naturally.

        So, again, what does this tell you about the human organism?

        But that does not mean that before the brain grows the fetus is not alive.

        It is part of a 3.8 billion years-old living system, but not yet a complete human organism.

        You seem to be having real trouble understanding this fundamental fact.

        Like

      • I am not so sure about what you are saying. Are you sure removing our dna wouldn’t be a real problem for us to continue living? And I am not so sure removing the lungs or spinal chord can be done easily. But ok lets move on.

        You keep saying it is only a complete human organism once we have this brain function. I am not saying that claim has no merit but I tend to think having our own dna would be a better indicator.

        Consider if we didn’t have our own dna at conception. But rather all people just sort of developed as fetus almost the same as everyone else. It was only after that time at about 26 weeks that we got our own dna. I know that makes no sense based on our biology but maybe up until that point we had our mom’s dna and then suddenly all that dna in us combined with our fathers or something and at that time we started getting new characteristics. If that happened and then our dna was created giving us all our unique blueprint wouldn’t that seem the point we would say we have a unique human?

        Im not completely discounting the brain argument. But don’t you see the attraction to our unique dna as well?

        Like

      • DNA doesn’t control any metabolic function of a cell. The cell will remain working quite diligently for just as long as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is being broken down and then re-formed during respiration. You need DNA for mitosis, yes, but if you just keep the body in living stasis, no problem. Lungs can be removed easily. How do you think premature babies are kept alive… hint, it’s called an artificial lung. Removing the spinal cord would simply mean the person is paralysed.

        Again, DNA is a map. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a functioning building. And as noted above, DNA is not even required if the person is in stasis. I understand where you’re coming from, you *think* it’s a compelling argument, but it’s really not. Yes, DNA directs stem cells to build a unique human being, but a human being is not just a collection of organs, a certain hair colour, teeth, and a tendency to heart attack. A human being is conscious and sentient and aware, we feel, we experience, and we internalise those experiences to make sense of ourselves and the world we interact with. For that to begin—for that to even be physically possible—the brain must reach full bilateral synchronisation.

        Like

      • I think you are underestimating the effects of having no spinal cord or no dna. But that is a bit of a tangent, because I am not impressed with the overall logic that just because X is critical for human life X is what it means for something to have a human life.

        I agree that we are not just a collection of organs. That is why I am less then comfortable linking being human with one organ even if it the most important ogran. I am also not entirely comfortable with linking it to dna btw. I just think there is a logical gap between X is very important for humans therefore X is what it means to be human.

        Like

      • The point is, you *cannot* do the reverse of these (theoretical) experiments and still have a living human being. And again, “life” is NOT the unique ingredient in a complete human organism. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. That has been explained multiple times already.

        And I’m sorry, but what you’re “comfortable” with, or not “comfortable” with, really doesn’t matter. If your beliefs are in conflict with reality, then it is your beliefs that have to adjust, not reality.

        Listen, Joe, this is becoming quite tiresome. Despite dropping reams of text, you’ve failed to present a single credible counterpoint to the post, and have contributed nothing even vaguely compelling to the subsequent discussion. You’ve been making noises, yes, but you haven’t moved the dial one millimetre. Don’t get me wrong, dialogue is good, but it has to be productive to be meaningful. I’m certain you mean well, but perhaps you need to take a moment by yourself and think—really think—about this subject.

        Like

      • “The point is, you *cannot* do the reverse of these (theoretical) experiments and still have a living human being.”

        Again even if I accept that point that does not mean that something that is required for a human to survive is what makes a human a human. I already explained this. You did not address this point and of course you don’t have to. But don’t pretend you are tired of the discussion when your logic is shown to be lacking.

        “And again, “life” is NOT the unique ingredient in a complete human organism. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. That has been explained multiple times already.”

        I never said that is what happened. The question is what is the best way to differentiate between 2 life forms. And I think the answer is dna. So a fetus is alive and it is separate from the mother. We know that much. You say it is not yet human. Its not a dog or dolphin or any other animal. You want to create some new sort of life form and say it is that. Not a human animal not cat or any other animal we know but we know it is not just a part of the mother – due to the different dna. I am just not convinced your arguments get there. I am open to the ideas and I don’t think they are bad or just unreasonable. I will also say to your credit that you have admitted that a fetus is an innocent human being before it is born. (at least as far as science is concerned). And that demonstrates you are not just crazy biased.

        So yes I think we often are going at eachother like we are at war but I am not sure our differences are so great.

        “And I’m sorry, but what you’re “comfortable” with, or not “comfortable” with, really doesn’t matter. If your beliefs are in conflict with reality, then it is your beliefs that have to adjust, not reality.”

        I am not sure my view of the reality of the science is different than yours. And to the extent it may be I am not sure it effects much of my view on this. In other words you are trying to say here is the science so this is a human at this point. I can agree with the science but not agree that is the point someone is a human.

        “Listen, Joe, this is becoming quite tiresome. Despite dropping reams of text, you’ve failed to present a single credible counterpoint to the post, and have contributed nothing even vaguely compelling to the subsequent discussion. You’ve been making noises, yes, but you haven’t moved the dial one millimetre.”

        What dial would that be? You mean you haven’t changed your mind? I have presented several problems with your argument – confusting determining death of a human with what it means to be human – logical leaps from this anatomy is important for humans to live to this anatomy is what defines humans. You really haven’t addressed any of them.

        “Don’t get me wrong, dialogue is good, but it has to be productive to be meaningful. I’m certain you mean well, but perhaps you need to take a moment by yourself and think—really think—about this subject.”

        I will. You should to.

        Like

      • Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Development of the Fetal Brain:

        “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

        If you consider yourself more knowledgeable on this subject than Professor Goldenring, then let’s hear your proposition and review your evidences.

        Like

      • He offers no evidence he is just making claims. He says it is just cells and organs before brain function but after it is somehow human. He seems to say the key is that the brain integrates these functions. I am not sure why he thinks that the organ that integrates is the key. Also it seems to me that dna also integrates how where and in what way these organs grow and interact. So I would like to know why he discounts the integration from DNA and only cares about brain function.

        Just because someone has a big degree that does not mean they are the ones who should tell us what it means to be human. Lots of scientists went along with all sorts of terrible views dehumanizing people.

        Like

      • You claimed Goldenring has no evidence upon which he based his statement. He has libraries of evidence. And FYI, Goldenring is actually an anti-abortion advocate, which makes his quote all the more telling.

        Like

      • Just saying the phases of the brain work this way or that way is not evidence in itself that therefore at this phase someone is human.

        Like

      • The question is why should some count as defining us human and others not.

        Good question. And by the same token, why should religious groups make this decision? Seems to be the real answer should be left up to science … which John seems to favor.

        Liked by 3 people

      • I don’t think the law should be decided by a religious group I think it should be decided by our government. Of course I think people who attend religious groups should be allowed to vote just like those who don’t and they of course can take their moral/religious views into account.

        Atheists typically will not think anything is sacred. So that will include human life. In the west most people have viewed human life as sacred. This higher value we assign to human life is shown throughout the law when you consider how it treats human life different than other forms of life. Atheists are free to try to come up with a substitute explanation for treating human life different but religious people are not required to adopt these atheistic rationals for their beliefs before they can vote.

        Like

      • Atheists typically will not think anything is sacred. So that will include human life.

        Errr, are you aware that most atheists (a-theism is content free, of course) are Humanists? The central tenet of Humanism is human life.

        Humanism: a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

        Liked by 2 people

  52. Why is the life of a fetus considered as sacred and inviolable by Christians regardless of how old the fetus is?

    I’ve heard (and seen) many Christian debaters refer to the Bible to justify their view that fetuses should be sacred and inviolable. But do they really know what the Bible says about fetuses and personhood etc? I doubt it.

    Take a look at this article: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html .

    So it’s totally clear and obvious, at least to me, that you can’t refer to the Bible if you are a pro-lifer. Therefore I wonder, Why and how do pro-lifers defend their position that all fetuses are sacred? Do they mean that their God is a liar? Or how do they interpret the verses in the Old Testament cited in the link above?

    Liked by 1 person

  53. Bull’s eye, John Zande. (You’re very good at oneliners!)

    It’s all about pro-forced birth at any cost (even if the woman dies and/or the fetus is not viable for more than a limited period).

    It’s like: Once the show has started then the show must go on and is never allowed to stop. So help me God. And amen to that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s even worse. The religious right in the US (which drives the global anti-abortion movement) only became interested in the subject for political reasons (defeating Carter to protect segregated schools) in 1979. The science doesn’t support them, it never has, and the more and more we learn the less and less their arguments mean anything other than what they truly are: a political rallying cry.

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

      From the article:

      Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

      Liked by 2 people

  54. XPRAETORIUS says:

    June 8, 2019 at 12:28 am Edit

    Lol! Seriously? You put forward this pap by way of reply?
    Again, what if you’re wrong?
    Do you have a way to bring back the 10’s upon 10’s of millions of perfectly innocent victims if you’re wrong?
    You have all manner of finite, relative things on your side — human understanding, human wisdom, human knowledge — I have one single absolute on my side: If you’re wrong, then what you support is an atrocity, an obscenity, an outrage, a crime against all that is decent.
    Please don’t resort to “science this” and “science that” and “everyone knows this,” and “everyone knows that,” and “everyone says,” and all that crap.
    That all gave us a flat earth, leeches, and environmentalism, and a lot more sludge and crap.
    One time, Zande, try not to be the shallow, superficial half-wit you constantly show yourself to be.
    Best,

    You seem to be missing a rather large and rather fundamental point here, so let me write the following words very, very slowly:

    Your question is thoroughly, completely, wholly, utterly meaningless if you can’t first demonstrate that my understanding of the subject is missing some critical (and verifiable) piece of information.

    If you have something, present it. As already stated, I’m not afraid to adjust my thinking should new information come to light. Demonstrate that there is some other—previously unknown—element constituting the human organism.

    I look forward to your answer.

    Like

  55. Dude: you think that to put in the phrase “(and verifiable)” you’ve blocked me into a corner. Sorry. You’re trying to define the discussion in your own limited, pinched, crabbed terms, and I won’t be a part of that. So, I consider that phrase null and void.

    Why? Simple: Here’s a short list of other things that are unverified, unverifiable, and… accepted as fact today:
    • electrons
    • protons
    • atoms
    • quarks
    • neutrinos
    • all sub-atomic particles,
    • quasars
    • black holes
    • quantum theory
    • speed of light velocity limitation
    • the Big Bang, evolution
    • Global Warming
    • dark matter
    • dark energy
    • Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
    • Relativity
    • space curvature
    • countless mathematical hypotheses that appear to be correct for countless numbers
    • a whole lot more.

    • Oh, and your definitions of life and death.

    Some of those — Global Warming and Evolution (some aspects) have been persuasively debunked (Evolution, by Darwin himself)

    At least you had the (probably unknowing) decency to admit that these were generally accepted views. Ie: Subjective, unverifiable. (Hence the reason you don’t get to deny me the “unferifiable.”)

    Biology 101 starts with an admission by the biologist, that not one single scientist on the face of the earth knows what life is. They can describe it, but they can’t tell you what it is. Yet, you presume to tell everyone else that you know. Dude: You’re a barely literate, ignorant half-wit. Know your place. Know your lane.

    Look, I know where this is headed: I point out scientific facts (generally accepted, not “settled”) about things like evolution, environmentalism, global warming, and the like, that you’re not willing to accept, then you accuse me of being an ignorant, retrograde troglodyte, that I’m not worth your time, and you take your ball and go home to mommy. At least I’m willing to admit that we’re going to do little more than talk past each other if I accept your idiotic suggestion that I acquiesce to your definition of what’s “unverifiable.”

    Oh, I’ll be happy to play the “(and verifiable)” game with you on one condition: We use my definition of “unverifiable.”

    You shouldn’t have a problem with that. After all, “unverifiable” is “unverifiable,” right?

    So, I’ll be happy to play your game… but only after you play mine. After all, I proposed it first.

    So, again, what if you’re wrong? And, I guess that implies a corollary: If you’re wrong, do you have a plan to restore to life the tens of millions of innocents that you’ve slaughtered?

    Best,

    — x

    Like

      • Wrong.
        Looks more like you’ve got nothing. Remember, it’s your turn.

        So: What if you’re wrong?

        Not surprised that you weren’t able to answer. No pro-deather has ever been able to answer that simplest of questions.

        Besides, you’re just a dumb leftist… they’re like lemmings. No one really expects them to have anything intelligent to say.

        In failing, yet again, to answer that simplest of questions, you admit publicly that you’re okay with slaughtering lives that you can’t prove aren’t fully human beings, based only on what you know are opinions and scientific guesses.

        Best,

        — x

        Like

      • Yes, I get it: you want to play make-believe.

        Sorry, but I prefer non-fiction when it comes to issues concerning people’s fundamental rights. You can see that preference in the article above. It has lots of things called “facts.” Facts are things rational people address when discussing important issues, when shaping laws, and when establishing/explaining ethical precepts.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. Facts like: The earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, and the universe is 4 billion years old, then 10, then 15, then… And coffee’s bad for you! No, it’s good! No, it’s bad! And, of course, “Global Warming!” Oops. All “facts” that were once unshakable, and are now all debunked. Along with many, many more, all on a massive heap of sad, bedraggled things that were once “facts” and are now… rejected.

        Haven’t you ever seen those headlines: “Discovery Threatens Everything Scientists Believe About [fill in scientific “fact” here]”? I’ve seen a thousand such headlines.

        Einstein conceived of Relativity Theory because he refused to see some “facts” as unshakable. Scientific “facts” are proven wrong every hour of every day. Heisenberg essentially said that there are no such things as facts. Or at least that they’re unknowable, hence non-existent. Schrodinger posited that a cat can be both dead, in fact and alive, in fact at the same time! And he dared anyone to prove him wrong.

        You decided that your boundaries for when a human life is a human life are “facts.” Well, that’s your opinion. Nothing more. Sorry. I’ll laugh very, very hard if you retort with, “Well, everyone else says so too!”

        You try to sound erudite and learned, when you plainly know nothing about how science actually works. Or about what science actually is.

        Dude, you’re nothing more than an armchair philosopher dabbling in realms that are beyond your ken.

        Sorry, dude, there’s nothing less stable, less permanent, or more changeable than your so-called “facts.” Your facts are… fiction.

        And you still haven’t answered my question. However in the spirit of your response to my post, I’ll give you one possible answer that, I’m sure, you’ll agree with: If a fertilized human egg is indeed a human life, than no one has a “fundamental right” to kill it. Even pro-death ghouls like you admit that abortion is the killing of something that’s alive.

        Now, let’s play your silly little game a little bit more: Take belief in God completely out of it, and the question becomes even more urgent: What if you’re wrong? Even from your retarded perspective, you can see that if you’re wrong, then a horrible atrocity has been committed against the most innocent of the innocent.

        No one has a “fundamental right” to commit an atrocity.

        I’d challenge you with another thing. Something of which I’m sure you’ve heard. There are many in Europe and in America who believe that a woman should have the right to “abort” the baby even well after birth. Based on your logic, this is obviously a correct belief.

        Since you hang your hat on “brain activity,” then it remains for the pro-death ghouls to re-define “brain activity” to mean whatever they need it to mean, in order to eliminate those they deem undesirable, or sub-human, or whatever.

        I mean, what if someone has brain activity going on, and plenty of it, but it’s the wrong kind of brain activity? Why not “abort” him? I mean, after all, it’s a fundamental right! Right?

        Oh yeah, I just described the leftist modus operandi for the past nearly two centuries.

        So, after that brief digression, now that we know that your “facts” are merely opinions, how do you justify killing a life that you have no ability to restore based merely on what are obviously shaky opinions? How are you any better than the Nazis who, based solely on their own obviously shaky opinions, killed people they knew they had no ability to bring back?

        Best,

        — x

        Like

      • And yet, you still can’t answer the question.

        The record remains unbroken. I haven’t yet met a pro-deather who could answer the question.

        Just like you, they did everything they could, including the cheapest of tricks like yours, to avoid answering it.

        I once attended a rally at which there were a bunch of pro-deathers marching in a counter rally. In what had to be the ultimate of ironies, many of the ghouls brought young children.

        In my capacity as an observer, I asked one young mother the same question I just asked you. Her response was simple: “We’re not.”

        She and I went back and forth a bit… all very civilly, when her young daughter came up to me and whacked me with her little placard, and yelled at me, “You leave my mommy alone!”

        Since her mommy and I were having a polite discussion, I’m not sure what problem the moppet had with me, but I did have the presence of mind to ask the same question to the little girl: “But, what if she’s wrong?”

        The little girl’s reply was illuminating. She demonstrated that she knew both what abortion is, and had a bit of a grasp of the “issue” itself; ie #1, that some support abortion, and #2, some oppose it, and #3, mommy supports it and #4, mommy believes that those who oppose it are bad. (hence the reason she whacked me with her sign.) Her response showed also that she knew what abortion really is. She said simply, “That would be really bad.” Nothing more, nothing less.

        That, needless to say, was the end of the civil part of my discussion with the pro-death woman. She pulled her daughter away and walked briskly away, pulling her daughter with her.

        I have a feeling that the daughter received an extra special dose of pro-death indoctrination that night!

        Oh, don’t get me wrong, JZ… I’ve posed that question to pro-lifers too… dozens of times. Many more times than I’ve been able to pose it to pro-deathers. And, let’s be honest, I’ve heard my fair share of “We’re not wrong” from pro-lifers too.

        However, I’ve also heard a passel of other responses, and they’ve generally made sense. Things like: “Well, if so, no harm no foul. At least we didn’t kill anyone. The baby can be given up for adoption.” (That’s the most common reply)

        Again, in fairness, that’s not true all over the world. (That, however, is an argument for the spread of liberal democratic capitalism, not for abortion. A discussion for another day, perhaps?)

        However, in America, there’s no rational excuse whatsoever for abortion today. Especially since the entire pro-death crowd can’t answer the same simple question that a six-year old answers easily.

        From pro-lifers, in response to my question, I’ve also heard references to Pascal, Aquinas, Aristotle, Buckley, Mom and Dad, themselves, and more.

        Nat Hentoff himself, the great leftist atheist, opposed abortion! (I liked him a lot, though I disagreed with him vehemently in so many ways. See if you can use that clue to answer my question.)

        Zande, why don’t you make an honest effort? Try to answer my question. You’ve tried to posit your definition of when a person is a person, and if you read what you wrote from a rhetorician’s perspective, you tried manfully to box out any dissenting points-of-view by defining on what terms you would brook dissent: ie: your terms.

        But people don’t live their lives, or think their thoughts, or believe their beliefs by your terms, or with your point-of-view, or with your beliefs. People come at life from all different angles and perspectives. I’ve long said at my own publication, that if something is right, if something “works,” then it works on all levels: the Philosophical, the theological, the practical, the physical, the secular, the intellectual, the emotional. All levels”

        The trick, of course, is to see how.

        Therefore, if your belief about slaughtering babies “works,” If it’s “right,”‘ then it works, and it’s right, on all those levels, and you don’t need to tell believers like me to keep our beliefs out of it at all! (in fairness, if you could do that, then I could tell you to leave your beliefs out of it too, and that would be a legitimate demand and there would be no possibility of debate.) However, you have to prove that your belief is right, because if my belief prevails, then nothing )<– using your vernacular) and no one is dead. However, if your belief prevails than something or someone is dead forever, and the act is absolute and irrevocable. At least by you and me. So… the burden of proof — really, really, very, amazingly, astonishingly, massively logical, irrefutable (on any level) rests on your shoulders.

        Because you can’t being a single one of them back.

        I dare you to prove me wrong. A logical, well-made, persuasive argument will do. No sources, please — I won’t play that silly game with you. Your argument in the original post failed. Why? It didn’t address the question: “What if you’re wrong?

        Anyway, since your argument appears not to work except, that is, for those who just don’t want to have to deal with the responsibility of supporting a pregnancy and a baby (plainly a “first world” problem!), then, you have to spend all your time trying to shoehorn the debate into the pinched, narrow intellectual, moral and rhetorical confines of… someone who simply doesn’t want to deal with the responsibility of supporting a pregnancy and a baby. Which you tried, and failed, manfully to do, above.

        Can you do better? ‘Cause your first thing failed. Badly.

        Best,

        — x

        Like

      • Still can’t answer the question?

        Let’s try something else;

        I can answer that question about any of my most cherished beliefs. Why can’t you?

        Anyone can stonewall by counting words and saying the same thing over and over and over again… in fact, the Left is particularly adept at it, since they have no real arguments. It’s a cute dodge, but a dodge all the same.

        So, how about if you try to break the string and answer the question? I won’t even bind you to your limitations at all.

        Only one thing: If you appeal to the unprovable, or as you say to the unverifiable, then I get to do so as well.

        Here’s a simple truth: your “line” as to when there’s a human and when there’s not is completely arbitrary, and you know it.

        Worse, your “line” is dependent on freakin’ scientists! Heck, they’ve never been wrong before, now have they!?! Lololololololol! 🙂 🙂 🙂

        But, you still think it’s okay to do the absolute, the irrevocable, the absolutely unthinkable… to take a human life that — no one disagrees — is perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. the temptation is to say, “What a feakin’ idiot!” but I’ll resist that temptation.

        Still, you have nothing to justify your absolute act, but a bunch of, let’s face it… guesses.

        Go ahead count the words. Or… answer the question.

        What if you’re wrong.

        Oh, and way more than me are watching. Odds are among those watching this with amusement with me are 94-6 in favor of the resolution: “He’s got no answer.”

        Gonna prove ’em wrong?

        Best,

        — x

        Like

      • Still got nothing, huh?

        Okay, this is well passed being boring.

        As I’ve already said: I’m not into playing make-believe with this subject. You might be, but I’m not. Your question is thoroughly meaningless if you can’t first demonstrate that my understanding of the subject is missing some critical and verifiable piece of information.

        You’ve offered nothing. Zero. Naught. A complete and consummate blank.

        So, either demonstrate that I am missing something and need to revise my position, or expect to be ignored. Fair warning?

        Like

      • Lol! So much effort to dodge a simple question!

        It’s, of course, the question that every philosopher knows has to be answered satisfactorily to all beliefs.

        And, of course, the one who has nothing is always the one who pretends to yawn, proclaims it all so boring and just beneath him, and goes home… beaten, but never having been man enough to admit it.

        The classic behavior of the Left. All too predictable.

        Best,

        — x

        Like

  56. Sorry, I forgot to give evolution its own bullet point in the list of bullet points, above.

    By the way, I believe in most of the bulleted items, but I recognize that they’re all unverified, unverifiable and that I have to believe in them through faith.

    As for evolution, I believe it to be true, except for the “origin of the species” part, which Darwin also indicated would be false if the fossil record were not full to overflowing with the fossils of “missing links.” The fossil record is not “overflowing with the fossils of ‘missing links.'” In fact, no “missing link” has ever been found.

    However, within species, evolution definitely occurs (IMHO) in observable things like height, weight, muscle mass, coloration, intelligence and other such traits.

    Best,

    — x

    Like

  57. One more small correction (the hazards of these ballistic [“fire and forget”] editing tools): Where I said that “we use my definition of ‘unverifiable,'” I, of course, meant, “my definition of ‘verifiable.'”

    Best,

    — x

    Like

  58. Hmmmmmm… The basic premise was: “Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma.

    Four hundred fifty plus replies, many of which in opposition, many of which question, many of which agree.

    Therefore, by definition, the basic premise is: debunked.

    That, at least, should be uncontroversial.

    Best,

    — x

    Like

      • Nope. Take religion entirely out of it. Leave it entirely in the hands of science.

        My question stands as strong as before.

        What if you’re wrong?

        Best,

        — x

        Like

      • Oh, and by the way, if you take religion out of it entirely, that makes the premise of my question even stronger.

        The only hope for the pro-deathers is if religion plays a prominent role in the debate. Then they can demean the pro-lifers of faith as superstitious and all the silly things they say.

        And in that way, they can avoid the question yet again.

        Best,

        — x

        Like

  59. Some premature babies do survive. Is their brain development impeded? And if we have kept them falsely alive (after a miscarriage) on a life support system, should we have done so? Ethical questions are so hard to answer.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Agreed, but there are measures, and we should have confidence in the OBGYN’s research. Many premature babies survive, but it really is a matter of how far along they are. The chances of survival increase with every week after 22 weeks. The 2006 Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on premature babies notes there is just a 1% chance of survival at week 22 with intensive care and are almost certain to suffer severe disability. Premature babies require as many as 50 interventions a day, everything from continual needle pricks, to having a tube in their throat, to brain surgery. By 25 weeks (the point in which the report’s authors state we should fight to save the baby), the survival rate is around 50%, with the risk of severe disability at 40%.

      Like

      • It must be terribly difficult for parents. Your article is a good one, but sadly, there will be people out there who do not take any of the science into account. And sadly, many of them are in powerful positions that can legislate laws with terrible consequences.

        Like

  60. You Stated — “Without death there is no life.”

    My Response — Life came first so you are incorrect.

    Side Note: If everything alive is simply fundamental particles arranged in a persistent order (and they do not die), then life exists without death.

    Also… No one knows what life is so how can you prove what is needed for it to exist?

    Like

    • For the purposes of abortion rights definitions, without death there is no life is factual. Pro-forced birthers in fact say Life “begins” at conception. This of course is nonsense, as I point out, life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. “Life” is a nonsensical measure. We are looking at the onset of a complete human being.

      And I agree with your general side note premise. I actually wrote these few words a couple of weeks ago for a story (a comedy) I’m working on:

      Once thought a little tricky, creating life had turned out to be exceptionally easy, and it was exceptionally easy because everything was, to some degree, alive—which was exactly what the panpsychists had been trying to tell everyone from the start. ‘Creating’ life was as impressive as discovering your thumb. It was always there, but for definitional purposes, non-lifey-looking-things (like quarks) became lifey-looking-things (like an amoeba) when just a little more than just enough non-lifey-looking-things where shoved together for it all to start looking lifey enough for a critical mass of four years olds to get excited about it.

      There hadn’t been one capital ‘G’ Genesis on earth, but countless millions of little ‘g’ geneses. Genesis was a verb, not a noun, and it was still happening every hour of every day on the Earth. And it was happening every hour of every day on every planet where it could happen… and on quite a few where it really shouldn’t happen.

      As it turned out, being thoroughly dead was the really, really hard thing to achieve. So hard in fact that the study of how to make something thoroughly dead quickly became one of the most critical, respected, and urgently needed higher sciences taught in only the very best universities up and down the Spur—and the reason why it was urgently needed was because of Genesis projects.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You Stated — “Pro-forced birthers in fact say Life “begins” at conception”

        My Response — The definition changes per what parties have power. My guess is that when it changes to something you don’t agree with you will no longer reference it in an argument.

        You Stated — “life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago”

        My Response — Incorrect. No one knows when life began only when we could first see evidence of “life”. When life began is still a mystery, so says science.

        Potential is a good way to measure if a being is alive or dead, and that starts with DNA. It is by definition a design of what is to come and what it is capable of doing. The same can be said with program code for computers. Good code has potential but not mass and is guarded like a vault full of gold.

        Like

      • Facts don’t give a shit about ‘who’s in power.’ Life is a nonsensical definer for the onset for a complete human being because the foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. This is irrefutable. And I think we’re in agreement on this point. So, the question is: when is the onset of a complete human being? The answer to that question informs our ethics concerning the termination of a pregnancy.

        Sorry, but your statement Potential is a good way to measure if a being is alive or dead is utter nonsense. Potential is not a coherent argument. Or do you want to debate the ethics of masturbation?

        The answer for the onset of a complete human being is full bilateral synchronisation. But rather than take my word for it, here is Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring (an anti-abortionist) confirming this position in his paper, Development of the Fetal Brain:

        “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • The comment by Goldenring needs to be spread far and wide among the anti-abortionists … but ESPECIALLY among the fundamentalists. With a Personal Delivery to the Texas governor … as well as a few others!

        (I’m actually surprised that this guy claims to be an anti-abortionist.)

        Liked by 2 people

  61. //”At no stage does life magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a foetus.”//

    This is the pivotal issue and to a large measure this assertion is question-begging. Where’s your argument? And no, you cannot simply *assume* materialism.

    Liked by 1 person

      • No I’m not. I’m asking why you dismiss the idea that life suddenly spontaneously appears (i.e the soul “enters” the foetus at some point). I strongly suspect you are simply assuming materialism (an incoherent metaphysic).

        Like

      • Sorry, still confused. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

        “No I’m not” implies that you accept life (as I assert) never magically appears in a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a foetus.

        But then, in the very next sentence, you appear to accuse me of dismissing “the idea that life suddenly spontaneously appears.”

        Am I missing something? Which one is it?

        Like

  62. Wow..just returned to this past post. It’ll take me all morning to read the comments. I like simplicity.
    We are conceived and a brain begins to form especially the involuntary parts like making you breathe, heart pump, digestion work etc. Then birth comes and the whole process continues. Self awareness begins to arrive along with more complex thoughts etc.

    There is no soul..that is purely a religious concept.

    The mind is really just the brain doing it’s thing through neural activities and connections. It becomes fully conscious and memories begin to add to the complexity.
    You get old, die and and consciousness ceases and that’s the end.

    The abortion issue is simply a personal choice and a society can make laws and in the US it is based on religion, although it shouldn’t be. People will still chose what they want to do. No law stops people from doing what they really want to do. We see it everyday in politics and big business.

    The moral issue of abortion is up to the individual. The timing doesn’t really matter whether it’s four weeks or 4 months. It’s still a choice people will make regardless of laws or other people’s religious views.

    You will notice that most European countries and Canada have no problem with abortion, even Catholic Ireland.
    This is because they are not beholden to Christian fanaticism like we are here.

    Women will find a way, especially those with any means, so get over it.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment