Do they have enough cognitive capability to show up as human? — frank

I'd say it's with the development of thalamocortical connectivity, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception.

Are these capabilities that a newborn would have? Newborns are unable to focus their eyes, their muscle movements are reflexive, and when they smile, it's a sign that they just passed gas. Do they have enough cognitive capability to show up as human? — frank

Yes, you have to remember, to legally abort in some countries the foetus can not be any more then 24 weeks old. There are humongous differences, the foetus's lungs and brain are not sufficient enough to work independently, whereas a new-borns is. A new-born's organs are fully developed and functional, allowing the new-born to breathe, eat, and regulate body temperature independently. A foetus can't. A foetus can only react to light and sound where as a new born has more developed motor and sensory skills, a new-born can see (limited), hear and respond to touch and other stimuli. Of course they aren't going to be as developed, (it is a new-born) but comparing it to a 24 week foetus because it has bad eyesight and they smile when they fart is just not correct.

I wasn't suggesting that a 24 weeker is identical to a newborn.

I'd say it's with the development of thalamocortical connectivity, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception. — Michael

So there's nothing behavioral that signals cognition to you. It's a matter of wiring?

So there's nothing behavioral that signals cognition to you. It's a matter of wiring? — frank

There are behavioural differences between a 24 week old foetus and a new-born though.

Before 24 weeks foetus exhibit reflexive movements but this is not indicative of conscious, more for neural development.

And your question of, is it a matter of wiring? wiring is essential for all life.

So there's nothing behavioral that signals cognition to you. It's a matter of wiring? — frank

Yes, which is why it would be wrong to kill someone who’s asleep or unconscious or with locked in syndrome but not wrong to take someone who’s brain dead off life support.

Yes, which is why it would be wrong to kill someone who’s asleep or unconscious or with locked in syndrome but not wrong to take someone who’s brain dead off life support. — Michael

I don't think there's really a scientific dividing line when it comes to consciousness, owing in part to our lack of understanding of what it is and what's required for it.

I think the reason it would feel wrong to kill a fetus over 24 weeks is that it could possibly survive outside the womb.

I was hoping that you would say something like this because I think it goes to the heart of the matter. You grant a human zygote fully developed human status but don't grant a seed fully developed plant status. Why? Because you don't care about seeds nearly as much as you care about your own species. A million seeds could be destroyed and you wouldn't bat an eye.

A nourished seed is analogous to a fertilized egg. A seed and the nourishment required, taken separately, are the egg and sperm, taken separately, respectively (in the analogy).

Are you conceding that you are an ableist? That quote was a consistent consequence of your own thought.

I don't think there's really a scientific dividing line when it comes to consciousness, owing in part to our lack of understanding of what it is and what's required for it. — frank

We know that adults are conscious and zygotes aren’t. We know that (in humans) a functioning brain is required. We have reason to believe that certain areas of the brain are more relevant than others.

We don’t need certainty or a single, unambiguous neurological process to make (accurate) moral judgements.

I think the reason it would feel wrong to kill a fetus over 24 weeks is that it could possibly survive outside the womb. — frank

Why is it wrong to kill something that could survive outside the womb?

We know that adults are conscious and zygotes aren’t. — Michael

There's science that says that?

Why is it wrong to kill something that could survive outside the womb? — Michael

Sentiment probably. That's what's behind morality in general.

A zygote is a very brief stage of development of an individual human organism, — NOS4A2

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

I can't figure out your terminology . What do you mean when you use the terms "personhood" vs. "human organism / human being"

There's science that says that? — frank

Yes. Consciousness requires a sufficiently complex and functioning brain (and plausibly some other brain-like structure). A zygote is just a small collection of cells. It lacks the necessary physical stuff that allows for an organism to be conscious.

Consciousness requires a sufficiently complex and functioning brain (and plausibly some other brain-like structure). A zygote is just a small collection of cells. It lacks the necessary physical stuff that allows for an organism to be conscious. — Michael

Per CBC theory, cells are conscious in that they have awareness of their environments. How would you show that this view is wrong?

How would you show that this view is wrong? — frank

I wouldn’t. I’d dismiss it as nonsense, much like the theory that consciousness is some immaterial magic that arbitrarily attaches itself to random clumps of matter.

I’d dismiss it as nonsense, — Michael

So your view isn't scientific. You just hold to that folk wisdom.

So your view isn't scientific. You just hold to that folk wisdom. — frank

The scientific evidence supports the claim that consciousness requires a brain-like structure; it does not support the claim that grass is conscious.

I am no more going to use CBC as a reason to condemn abortion than I am going to use it as a reason to condemn mowing the lawn.

Per CBC theory, cells are conscious in that they have awareness of their environments. How would you show that this view is wrong? — frank

There’s around five pounds of single-celled organisms in the human body that few care enough about to even feed properly.

Beautiful work.

The scientific evidence supports the claim that consciousness requires a brain-like structure — Michael

Ok. The fetus has a brain-like structure at 3 weeks. I'll put you down for supporting abortion up to 2 weeks after conception. :up:

There’s around five pounds of single-celled organisms in the human body that few care enough about to even feed properly. — praxis

The human body contains 37.2 trillion cells. I guess that means that I am in fact 37.2 trillion conscious individuals.

The fetus has a brain-like structure at 3 weeks. I'll put you down for supporting abortion up to 2 weeks after conception. — frank

No, because it needs to be a sufficiently complex brain functioning in the appropriate manner, hence why the brain dead and those with anencephaly aren’t conscious.

As mentioned in an earlier comment to you, the evidence suggests that thalamocortical connectivity is required, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception, and so I support abortion up to around that point.

The fetus is minimally conscious before that. I think you're looking for a higher level of consciousness.

The fetus is minimally conscious before that. I think you're looking for a higher level of consciousness. — frank

I'm just reading what the neuroscientists have written, e.g. here:

Functional MRI and electrophysiology studies suggest consciousness depends on large-scale thalamocortical and corticocortical interactions.

So no thalamocortical interactions, no consciousness.

So no thalamocortical interactions, no consciousness. — Michael

If you look back at any source that asserts this, you should see that it's based on an assumption that consciousness is "localized" in the cerebral cortex. So if there are no connections between the thalamus and the cortex, one assumes that the discharges from nociceptors can't make it to the area that governs consciousness. Therefore, no pain, no awareness.

A good source should also warn you that we don't presently have NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) pinned down. What we have are theories. Do our theories on this front conform to observation? One problem with verifying this particular theory is that the fetus is sedated by the conditions in the womb. We can't just thump them and wait for an "ow." What we commonly do in medicine is look for a stress response to confirm pain, such as an increase in heart rate, or a cortisol bump. We actually do see stress responses in fetuses around 18 weeks, but are they actually conscious of anything? The truth is we don't know. We have theories.

When making a decision about life and death, one would really like to have more than a theory that any scientist would tell may change tomorrow.

We actually do see stress responses in fetuses around 18 months — frank

Shouldn't you guys check a bit sooner?

As mentioned in an earlier comment to you, the evidence suggests that thalamocortical connectivity is required, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception, and so I support abortion up to around that point. — Michael

This says:

"Functional connectivity between thalamus and cortex develops rapidly between 30- and 40-weeks’ gestational age and has been shown to be disrupted in preterm infants using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859832/#:~:text=Functional%20connectivity%20between%20thalamus%20and,et%20al.%2C%202015).

40 weeks is 9.2 months. That's a pretty lenient standard.

It would seem that the primary concern of the pro-choice side would be to protect the right to choose. As long as the deadline (so to speak) is sufficient to offer an opportunity for consideration and action, I would think the objective is preserved. That is, if a woman is aware of her pregnancy in the first trimester, the choice for abortion need not wait until the second when it starts becoming more difficult to distinguish the fetus from a person.

I was getting my information from the emergence of consciousness: Science and ethics:

Consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22-24 weeks in many countries makes sense.

Assuming your source is correct and mine isn't, the problem I still have is that there is no cite to the laws in the various countries referenced that suggests there is a relationship between the abortion laws and when consciousness begins.

For example, in the US, abortion regulations were based upon the viability of the fetus outside the womb and not with consciounsess. If consciousness and viability happened to occur at the same time, that was coincdental.

Well I'm not talking about the law? I'm only saying that something being a living organism with human DNA is insufficient grounds to conclude that it would be wrong to kill it. I think that consciousness is a morally relevant faculty, and so to determine whether or not it is acceptable to kill a foetus we must determine whether or not it has developed such a faculty to a sufficient degree. The literature seems to suggest that this is determined by the presence of thalamocortical connections, which occurs towards the end of the second trimester, and so I tentatively place the limit there.

If consciousness and viability happened to occur at the same time, that was coincdental. — Hanover

Also I'm not sure if it's coincidental. I suspect that a sufficient degree of consciousness is required for a human life to be viable, and as the brain is the most complex organ it stands to reason that everything else is likely to have already developed enough.