4 ms·

Scientists have shirked their responsibility around abortion. The vacuum and silence around this topic helped push towards this day. The "viability" debate, or

Scientists have shirked their responsibility around abortion. The vacuum and silence around this topic helped push towards this day. The "viability" debate, or the re-branded "when does this ball of cells become a person" debate, has been monopolized by philosophers and religious people. And as a result many women will die due to botched abortions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro or the inability to get one in the case of complications (which are fairly common) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar . We can absolutely arrive, with a reasonable degree of certainty, when the ball of cells is capable of executing the processes we associate with consciousness. We can track the development of the neocortex, and monitor its activity to derive an answer to the consciousness question. We can do so via careful observation, and comparison with equivalent brain damaged patients, including those that we otherwise pull the plug on. For what is the moral difference (from a consequentialist, utilitarian standpoint) between taking previously conscious humans with minimal brain function off of life support and an abortion of a non-sentient and non-conscious fetus? There is none, except for the fact that, in the case of a uterus, a human being is forced to act as life support. Science can answer these questions. And do so with greater precision and accuracy over time. We can draw a map and arrive at a more enlightened conclusion. But the act of doing so, of so clearly putting a line down in the sand, makes most scientists uncomfortable. So they don't. And now many people will die because we created the vacuum that irrational belief filled. We stopped engaging. They never stopped fighting.

onychomys 4y ago
Sure, blame the biologists instead of the religious goofballs who think that something becomes human at the instant of gametic fusion.
- mjh2539 4y ago
  I mean it's got to be something; if it's not (a) human, then what could it possibly be?
  - onychomys 4y ago
    It's definitely NOT human. For the first day or two, all cellular processes (basic cell metabolism, protein synthesis, that sort of thing) are controlled by extranuclear DNA that comes only from the egg. So instead of having a chromosome number of 2N=46 like all the somatic cells in your body, the embryo is functionally haploid. While that's going on in the cytoplasm, the nucleus is a real mess. Sometimes it's 1N, sometimes 2N, sometimes even 4N! If we accept that humans are a species because of our DNA, then there's just no way you could ever call that embryo human in the first 36ish hours post-fertilization. I don't know quite what you'd call it, but it's definitely not that.
enragedcacti 4y ago
None of this matters because the majority (probably overwhelming majority) of pro-life people also don't believe settled science like evolution or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. If we can't reach consensus on those things, how is telling someone that believes a zygote has a human soul that its okay because it isn't conscious? Keep in mind that the protections provided by Roe and PP v. Casey only extended to 24 weeks. If scientists gave an answer to the question anywhere past 24 weeks then I don't see how it would move the debate even the tiniest smidge. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.h... https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/40-percent-of-americans-55-percent-of-republicans-still-believe-in-young-earth-creationism https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/40-percent-of...
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Absolutely. No scientist was going to be able to convince these people that their pastor is wrong about how precious a fetus is.
- areoform 4y ago
  It's not the ardent pro-life people that I'm concerned about reaching, but most Americans who aren't that radical. The lack of scientists speaking out about abortion and bringing reason to the public discussion has led to a vacuum where the only voice they hear are either religious nuts or social activists trying to be heard. Social activists usually lack the scientific training and background to break it down and explain the problem.
dahfizz 4y ago
> For what is the moral difference (from a consequentialist, utilitarian standpoint) between taking previously conscious humans with minimal brain function off of life support and an abortion of a non-sentient and non-conscious fetus? There is non, except for the fact that in the latter, a human being is forced to act as life support. There is one obvious difference: in one case, the person's consciousness has been irreversibly destroyed. In the other case, the person's consciousness is imminent. From a utilitarian standpoint, the fetus has a considerable upside while the brain dead patient does not. Utilitarianism is largely unconvincing anyway, IMO. A much more convincing pro-abortion argument is how the unwanted fetus infringes on the rights of the mother.
mike00632 4y ago
Women aren't just "life support"; that is an inaccurate view as well. When a fetus is growing it takes from the womans body. For example, a woman's bones are dissolved so they can be repurposed to to fetal skeleton. The woman is literally giving up her body. The fetus is the woman's body in a literal way. She is not a passive incubator to something like an egg that has all it needs.

onychomys 4y ago

Sure, blame the biologists instead of the religious goofballs who think that something becomes human at the instant of gametic fusion.

mjh2539 4y ago
I mean it's got to be something; if it's not (a) human, then what could it possibly be?
- onychomys 4y ago
  It's definitely NOT human. For the first day or two, all cellular processes (basic cell metabolism, protein synthesis, that sort of thing) are controlled by extranuclear DNA that comes only from the egg. So instead of having a chromosome number of 2N=46 like all the somatic cells in your body, the embryo is functionally haploid. While that's going on in the cytoplasm, the nucleus is a real mess. Sometimes it's 1N, sometimes 2N, sometimes even 4N! If we accept that humans are a species because of our DNA, then there's just no way you could ever call that embryo human in the first 36ish hours post-fertilization. I don't know quite what you'd call it, but it's definitely not that.

enragedcacti 4y ago

None of this matters because the majority (probably overwhelming majority) of pro-life people also don't believe settled science like evolution or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. If we can't reach consensus on those things, how is telling someone that believes a zygote has a human soul that its okay because it isn't conscious? Keep in mind that the protections provided by Roe and PP v. Casey only extended to 24 weeks. If scientists gave an answer to the question anywhere past 24 weeks then I don't see how it would move the debate even the tiniest smidge. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.h... https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/40-percent-of-americans-55-percent-of-republicans-still-believe-in-young-earth-creationism https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/40-percent-of...

DangitBobby 4y ago
Absolutely. No scientist was going to be able to convince these people that their pastor is wrong about how precious a fetus is.
areoform 4y ago
It's not the ardent pro-life people that I'm concerned about reaching, but most Americans who aren't that radical. The lack of scientists speaking out about abortion and bringing reason to the public discussion has led to a vacuum where the only voice they hear are either religious nuts or social activists trying to be heard. Social activists usually lack the scientific training and background to break it down and explain the problem.

dahfizz 4y ago

> For what is the moral difference (from a consequentialist, utilitarian standpoint) between taking previously conscious humans with minimal brain function off of life support and an abortion of a non-sentient and non-conscious fetus? There is non, except for the fact that in the latter, a human being is forced to act as life support. There is one obvious difference: in one case, the person's consciousness has been irreversibly destroyed. In the other case, the person's consciousness is imminent. From a utilitarian standpoint, the fetus has a considerable upside while the brain dead patient does not. Utilitarianism is largely unconvincing anyway, IMO. A much more convincing pro-abortion argument is how the unwanted fetus infringes on the rights of the mother.

mike00632 4y ago

Women aren't just "life support"; that is an inaccurate view as well. When a fetus is growing it takes from the womans body. For example, a woman's bones are dissolved so they can be repurposed to to fetal skeleton. The woman is literally giving up her body. The fetus is the woman's body in a literal way. She is not a passive incubator to something like an egg that has all it needs.