March 9, 2003
OUR PECULIAR INSTITUTION:
Foetuses 'may be conscious long before abortion limit' (David Derbyshire, 10/03/2003, Daily Telegraph)Foetuses may develop consciousness long before the legal age limit for abortions, one of Britain's leading brain scientists has said.Baroness Greenfield, a professor of neurology at Oxford University and the director of the Royal Institution, said there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks, the upper age where terminations are permitted.
Although she fell short of calling for changes in the abortion laws, she urged doctors and society to be cautious when assuming unborn babies lacked consciousness. "Is the foetus conscious? The answer is yes, but up to a point," she said.
"Given that we can't prove consciousness or not, we should be very cautious about being too gung ho and assuming something is not conscious. We should err on the side of caution."
Last year, a Daily Telegraph straw poll found many neurologists were concerned that foetuses could feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks after conception.
Many believed foetuses should be given anaesthetics during a late abortion, after 20 weeks. Some also believe pain relief should be given for keyhole surgery in the womb.
Sadly for the children, abortion isn't about them and when they're conscious. It's about us and our convenience, and especially about women, long oppressed, getting to finally wield power over someone else. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2003 9:10 PM
I think the most revolting part is this:
"Many believed foetuses should be given anaesthetics during a late abortion, after 20 weeks."
So instead of making the normal, human leap and saying, "Hmm, if they can feel pain, perhaps we shouldn't be aborting them," the answer is, "Well, we should still abort them, but let's make sure it doesn't hurt too much."
Dear Heaven above, this is chilling.
Yeah
Posted by: Harry at March 10, 2003 4:05 AMAmong the rationalist intelligentsia, it is dogma that only religious beliefs can lead one to deeming abortion ethically unpalatable. As a non-religious person, I am increasingly convinced that the more "rational" benchmarks that you throw at the discussion, the more ethical paradoxes you run into. Consider the ethical paradox that relying on "just consciousness" as the demarcation line. If a person falls into a comma, who would countenance "euthanasia" one minute afterwards. The possibility that that member of the human race could regain consciousness would make that untenable. I think the odds of a "pre-conscious" fetus of achieving cosnciousness if not aborted are much higher...Well for now, this should at least continue to isolate the unfettered abortion rights crowd.
Posted by: MG at March 10, 2003 4:29 AMRe Mr. Badeaux - Yup, it makes my skin crawl. Didn't Jeremy Bentham say the standard is "Not, 'are they human', but 'can they suffer?' " You'd think a consistent Benthamite position from the left would entail an abortion prohibition because the fetus can suffer.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 10, 2003 8:39 AMMG:
The problem being that all you have to do is change the definition from "consciousness".
I despair of ever persuading people with arguments about when life begins be arguing from the start.
So I take it backwards. Define death (however you like), then take the moment just before that. Work backward and tell me (objectively, since I am a materialist), when that life was non-life. You get pretty close to the formation of the zygote. It's seamless.
QED