An ethics approach to abortion

[themuzicman]

Yeah, ok, it's "life ethics", which we might call morality, but I want to use ethical language to try to get at the abortion issue from another perspective.

I want to talk specifically about intrinsic and extrinsic value.

I think one of the major differences between pro-life and pro-abortion folks is the value they place on human life. To the pro-life person, human life has a high intrinsic value throughout the life of a human being, whether unborn or old, disabled or healthy, etc.

It seem to me, however, that the pro-abortion person has a varying view of the value (extrinsic, I assume) of human life, depending on the human life itself. Thus, unborn humans have less value than born humans, in that the extrinsic value of the convenience of the mother trumps any value (intrinsic or extrinsic) of the life of the unborn human, such that she may terminate at any time.

So, this is a challenge to pro-abortion types to tell us about your value system with respect to human life in its various stages. Why is some human life valuable, and other human life not? What stages of human life are more valuable than others? Are the disabled less valuable than the enabled? Are old people less valuable than teenagers? What value does each stage hold, and why are there differences?

Michael

[ENeGMA]

Yeah, ok, it's "life ethics", which we might call morality, but I want to use ethical language to try to get at the abortion issue from another perspective.

I want to talk specifically about intrinsic and extrinsic value.

I think one of the major differences between pro-life and pro-abortion folks is the value they place on human life.

I disagree.

I think the major difference is how they define "human life".

From my perspective, a fetus isn't a human being at all. It's not "human life" that has less value, it's not "human life" at all. It has human DNA, it will potentially grow into a human life, but in that stage, it isn't.

To the pro-life person, human life has a high intrinsic value throughout the life of a human being, whether unborn or old, disabled or healthy, etc.

It seem to me, however, that the pro-abortion person has a varying view of the value (extrinsic, I assume) of human life, depending on the human life itself.

I think this is an accurate summary of some pro-abortion views.

Peter Singer's, say.

Thus, unborn humans have less value than born humans, in that the extrinsic value of the convenience of the mother trumps any value (intrinsic or extrinsic) of the life of the unborn human, such that she may terminate at any time.

I actually disagree with this, in that I think that if it could be shown that late term fetuses resembled "human beings" in a relevant sense, then I would be against late term abortions regardless of how inconvenient they might be.

So, this is a challenge to pro-abortion types to tell us about your value system with respect to human life in its various stages. Why is some human life valuable, and other human life not?

Because fetuses are not human beings. They don't, in my view, have rights, responsibilities, or even minds beyond what an average mammal has.

And since I don't place an especially high value on the average mammal, I can't place too high a value on fetuses.

What stages of human life are more valuable than others?

I think that any person who is still a person -- is a functioning human agent -- is equally worthy of their status as a human.

But fetuses, those in persistent vegetative states, etc. have different, unique valuations.

Are the disabled less valuable than the enabled? Are old people less valuable than teenagers? What value does each stage hold, and why are there differences?

Michael

I think these are difficult questions for someone like Peter Singer.

But I also think that the falsity of his brand of utilitarianism is not necessarily demonstrated false by the seemingly unsavory answers it produces.

[themuzicman]

Wait.. so, if a human being doesn't have a mind that develops past all the mammals, then it is eligible for termination?

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, ok, it's "life ethics", which we might call morality, but I want to use ethical language to try to get at the abortion issue from another perspective.

I want to talk specifically about intrinsic and extrinsic value.

I think one of the major differences between pro-life and pro-abortion folks is the value they place on human life. To the pro-life person, human life has a high intrinsic value throughout the life of a human being, whether unborn or old, disabled or healthy, etc.

It seem to me, however, that the pro-abortion person has a varying view of the value (extrinsic, I assume) of human life, depending on the human life itself. Thus, unborn humans have less value than born humans, in that the extrinsic value of the convenience of the mother trumps any value (intrinsic or extrinsic) of the life of the unborn human, such that she may terminate at any time.

So, this is a challenge to pro-abortion types to tell us about your value system with respect to human life in its various stages. Why is some human life valuable, and other human life not? What stages of human life are more valuable than others? Are the disabled less valuable than the enabled? Are old people less valuable than teenagers? What value does each stage hold, and why are there differences?

Michael

I will give it some thought, but you are mixing issues here and need to make things clearer. On the surface of this post you are not representing pro-abortion views correctly. The value of the life of an elderly person has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

The issue is when does human life start, and ther is not a clear issue among the anti-abortion proponents. The Roman Church considers the human egg life. and any attempts at contraception, except abstinance (the rythme method) to prevent pregnacy, as immoral, because of the interference in the process of life. This view is not held by all anti-abortion groups.

[ENeGMA]

Wait.. so, if a human being doesn't have a mind that develops past all the mammals, then it is eligible for termination?

No.

I said some mammals. I think that it's immoral to kill great apes, indeed most primates. Dogs seem pretty smart, so I have qualms about killing them. Dolphins too, I guess.

All of these animals are pretty clearly above fetuses in terms of capacities which I think constitute "humanity".

Fetuses, and those in persistent vegetative states, are wholly without self-directed action or (it seems) a conscious sense of self.

But even very "undeveloped" human minds still have the ability to form belief/desire pairs, retain a conscious sense of self, etc.

And if they don't have a conscious sense of self, if there's nothing more going on inside their head than inside of a rock, then I can't see how they could actually be "human beings" in any sense. Presumably fetuses aren't conscious. If they are, it's wrong to kill them. Presumably people in PVSs are unconscious. If so, there's nothing inside to be lost to death.

Not that I "advocate" these killings, necessarily, just that I don't find them morally objectionable.

In fact, I find it to be a barbarous view to think that fetuses cannot be killed (very early fetuses, say 6 weeks in) but that dogs can, when it doesn't take much time around a dog to realize there's something disturbingly human about them.

That's a monstrous view, in my opinion.

To recognize that dogs have (roughly) the mental capacity of a small child, but to deny them the same right to life. It's just untenable.

[technomage]

It seem to me, however, that the pro-abortion person has a varying view of the value (extrinsic, I assume) of human life, depending on the human life itself.

(Necessary disclaimer: I, myself, am against abortion save in medically necessary instances.)

As Enegma pointed out, many (most? all?) pro-abortion people do not view fetuses as "human life." There has never, in my experience, been any pro-abortion argument that a fetus is not alive--the argument is that it's not human. By continuing to paraphrase the pro-abortion arguments in terms few or no pro-abortion advocates use, you are not arguing against pro-abortion views, but against a strawman parody of those views. Such arguments will not be effective.

Fundamentally, this disagreement comes down to one simple question: what is "human?" What necessary traits does a "human being" have? Unless we can define that, in a manner that all parties can agree upon, this debate will never be resolved.

[ChemMJW]

And if they don't have a conscious sense of self, if there's nothing more going on inside their head than inside of a rock, then I can't see how they could actually be "human beings" in any sense. Presumably fetuses aren't conscious. If they are, it's wrong to kill them. Presumably people in PVSs are unconscious. If so, there's nothing inside to be lost to death.

Hi ENeGMA,

Thanks for trying to articulate your position so clearly.

I have some questions about your above statements:

You mention that people in a PVS are unconscious, and therefore there's nothing to be lost to death. I think you need to make a finer distinction between "unconsciousness" and the deeper status of someone in a PVS. PVS is, from what I am told by my physician friends, actually much different than mere unconsciousness. A person who falls and hits his head on the wall might lapse into unconsciousness. Surely you do not equate that accidental state with the same type of deeper, more fundamental lack of normal neural function experienced by those in a PVS? In other words, surely a boxer knocked into unconsciousness by his opponent's punch still has some claim to "life" and cannot be arbitrarily put to death by someone claiming he's no longer fully human, or something similar.

I take it, however, that people in a PVS are no longer really "human" according to your view and that we therefore need not get worked up about terminating their lives. Is that correct? If so, I wonder what you would say to the numerous cases of people "waking up" (for lack of a more precise phrase) from PVS. In these cases, your view seems to lead to a "now you see it, now you don't" type of classification of what constitutes life. One minute, the water-filled bag of skin on the hospital bed is merely an agglomeration of chemical elements, yet the very next minute, it has suddenly become a human being with moral worth and deserving of protection. Could you please comment on the nature of this transition? Additionally, what happens if this cycle of PVS followed by awakening happens several times? Personally, I find it difficult to accept that our "personhood," if you will, is simply switched on and off according to electrical impulses in the brain.

Peace.

[technomage]

If so, I wonder what you would say to the numerous cases of people "waking up" (for lack of a more precise phrase) from PVS.

Do you have any documentation of anyone who has "woken up" from PVS? As you note, PVS is far more profound than mere unconsciousness--one area of that profundity (and a classic component of PVS) is the destruction of neural pathways due to atrophy.

Furthermore, does your documentation (if available) account for misdiagnosis of PVS for other states, such as MCS?

Thank you, in advance, for this information.

[Crow]

Do you have any documentation of anyone who has "woken up" from PVS? As you note, PVS is far more profound than mere unconsciousness--one area of that profundity (and a classic component of PVS) is the destruction of neural pathways due to atrophy.

Furthermore, does your documentation (if available) account for misdiagnosis of PVS for other states, such as MCS?

Thank you, in advance, for this information.

There is some buzz going around in nursing circles about Ambien being able to arouse people in PVS and MCS. I had a tough time locating anything from a site that isn't likely to be biased, but I did find this. Apparantly the UK is in the forefront of trying this as a therapy from what I'm hearing.

(we might want to split the PVS/MCS discussion off if the OP wants to)

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/sto...2154940&page=1

[ChemMJW]

Do you have any documentation of anyone who has "woken up" from PVS? As you note, PVS is far more profound than mere unconsciousness--one area of that profundity (and a classic component of PVS) is the destruction of neural pathways due to atrophy.

Furthermore, does your documentation (if available) account for misdiagnosis of PVS for other states, such as MCS?

Thank you, in advance, for this information.

Hi,

I found a few basic references you might be interested in:

These first couple are media and popular science examples (i.e., not direct scientific literature):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5008744.stm
http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pe/pers...tive_state.htm

This is from the New England Journal of Medicine, so I think it can certainly be counted as "expert testimony":
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/21/1499

I found these doing a Google search using phrases like "waking up from PVS" and other permutation of similar terms. I'm no doctor, but they seem to me to suggest that it is possible to "wake up" from PVS, although I think everybody agrees that it is not a commonplace event.

Some of the sources I perused from Google do suggest that some diagnoses of PVS may really be other neurological conditions, as you mentioned above, but I am simply not competent to comment at length on that possibility, as I know nothing of the clinical technicalities of neurological conditions. I certainly think part of the difficulty and confusion is that there appears to be no foolproof way to concretely differentiate one condition from another with certainty. In that light, I am fulling willing to accept that a certain number of PVS "wake ups" might never have been PVS at all.

Still, even if it is the case that PVS is sometimes or even often misdiagnosed, such that people are really "waking up" from other, less serious conditions, I don't believe that it changes my original question in a substantial way. Suppose a person is in MCS (which, after much confusion, I finally realized means "minimally conscious state." Correct?). Objectively, he still most likely has a severe brain injury. In the framework of ENeGMA's original comments, would this mean the person is merely hanging on to his humanity by a thread, that the person is oscillating within some kind of "meta-human" state? Not really all there, but not really all gone either. Does that make it only somewhat okay to terminate his life, a la, we can still do it, but not completely with a clean conscience, as we could for a person of no neural capacity whatsoever?

I am very interested by this topic, so I am eager to hear what you and others have to say.

Also, this thread was originally about an ethic of abortion, so if a moderator or ENeGMA would like to spin this off to a new thread so that the original can stay focused strictly on abortion (instead of matters relating to euthanasia into which we have strayed), I have no objection whatsoever. I don't want to hijack the original topic, but I am also interested in this new topic. Thanks.

[technomage]

Thank you, Crow and Chem, for this fascinating (and hopeful) news. However, you are both correct that this is not the main topic of the thread. (And yes, Chem, I did mean "minimally conscious state"--sorry for the confusion.)

[CommanderVimes]

I agree that the main difference is how we define human life. Religious people believe all humans possess souls including a fetus and so I can understand why they equate abortions with murder.

Why I am ok with abortion is I personally don't believe in souls and I view a fetus as a potential human being only. Initially the fetus is not conscious and is basically a blank template without thoughts or feelings. At this stage I have no problem with parents choosing to have abortions.

Once the fetus develops enough to be able to feel pain then abortion should no longer be an option as the fetus is now thinking. I'm against abortion at this stage not only because I consider the fetus to be human now, but also because I feel it's morally wrong to cause pain to any living creature that is able to feel it.

I guess the values of each humans life varies depending on the situation. In a population and resource rich environment, the value of all human life is equal. In an under populated environment, a fertile human has more value than a non fertile human etc.

[Carrikature]

Religious people believe all humans possess souls including a fetus and so I can understand why they equate abortions with murder.

Most, but not all. I find the "phase transition" from a bunch of cells to a living being fascinating. My view on abortion is very limited. In my opinion, life should be preserved whenever possible. However, I recognize that I'm a man. I think this disqualifies me quite a bit to say what women are allowed to do or not. I consider abortion to be a dire circumstances only option. I'd prefer increased sexual education and less need for it (I know I'm dreaming again).

[technomage]

I'd prefer increased sexual education and less need for it (I know I'm dreaming again).

Amen!

[ENeGMA]

Hi ENeGMA,

Thanks for trying to articulate your position so clearly.

I have some questions about your above statements:

You mention that people in a PVS are unconscious, and therefore there's nothing to be lost to death. I think you need to make a finer distinction between "unconsciousness" and the deeper status of someone in a PVS. PVS is, from what I am told by my physician friends, actually much different than mere unconsciousness. A person who falls and hits his head on the wall might lapse into unconsciousness. Surely you do not equate that accidental state with the same type of deeper, more fundamental lack of normal neural function experienced by those in a PVS? In other words, surely a boxer knocked into unconsciousness by his opponent's punch still has some claim to "life" and cannot be arbitrarily put to death by someone claiming he's no longer fully human, or something similar.

You're right in that the term "unconscious" is ambiguous on this front.

The sort of "unconsciousness" I meant in PVSs is the sort from which you don't come back. Yes, someone knocked out or sleeping is "unconscious" but they still have the capacity to be conscious later.

Someone who is in a vegetative state and who has had their brain atrophy away has no capability of being conscious, and thus are truly "unconscious" in a much stronger sense.

I take it, however, that people in a PVS are no longer really "human" according to your view and that we therefore need not get worked up about terminating their lives. Is that correct? If so, I wonder what you would say to the numerous cases of people "waking up" (for lack of a more precise phrase) from PVS. In these cases, your view seems to lead to a "now you see it, now you don't" type of classification of what constitutes life. One minute, the water-filled bag of skin on the hospital bed is merely an agglomeration of chemical elements, yet the very next minute, it has suddenly become a human being with moral worth and deserving of protection. Could you please comment on the nature of this transition?

I should have said brain death instead of PVS. I should know better as well because I've read about the distinction before.

Since brain death is a much clearer criterion, I should make that my cut off point.

I should say that while there is a realistic chance of resumed mental function, they're still properly classified as a human, just as a sleeping person is, etc.

Additionally, what happens if this cycle of PVS followed by awakening happens several times? Personally, I find it difficult to accept that our "personhood," if you will, is simply switched on and off according to electrical impulses in the brain.

Peace.

Is it more difficult to accept than someone dying, and being legitimately dead, and then being brought back by the paddles?

Surely for those ~30 seconds when there's no heart activity they're in cardiac death and are unconscious, and they'll stay that way. But through intervention, it can be reversed.

It would seem odd to say that they're not dead for whatever time period their heart has stopped, yet they can "come back to life" as it were.

So that's a case of personhood being "switched" on and off. It doesn't seem all that puzzling to me.