re: Cleveland Clinic Performs Its First In Utero Fetal Surgery Stolen from O.T.

Foo,

I examine sapience rather than sentience for one simple reason. We are attempting (as a starting point) to determine why it is unacceptable to kill an adult human (a point on which there is near unanimity), but acceptable to kill the vast majority of the other organisms on the planet.

If we can identify that trait, we can examine whether it is a trait which is ALSO shared by adult humans and a human fetus. Sentience does not answer that question, because it is a trait shared by humans and MANY species. Sapience, by comparison, is a trait found ONLY in humans ... so far as we have been able to determine.

Someone asserted that I have taken the position that any organism that is not fully-sapient can be killed with impunity. Of course, I said nothing of the sort.

Most human cultures thru history have reached the conclusion that the negative right to life vests at birth. I see this as being entirely reasonable and also as being entirely consistent with the foregoing analysis. At that point, the former fetus (and extant newborn) is no longer encroaching upon the self-determination rights of a pregnant woman.

The examination of philosophical questions THRIVES in the gray areas. It is what makes them interesting. By contrast, the law loathes gray areas and NEEDS sharp dividing lines. The moment of birth provides a convenient such line for the vesting of many rights

But all rights need not vest simultaneously, and I have ZERO problem with precluding elective abortions at some point LONG before birth. (Medically-justified abortions are a topic for another day, because the analysis is entirely different).

This is where your concerns about “measuring” sapience come into play. No, we cannot measure that trait. So, it is entirely reasonable to pick a point LONG before that the point at which that trait could conceivably be argued to have developed… just to be safe.

ANY black line will be inherently arbitrary, but the law draws arbitrary lines all the time. (Every 16yo is not inherently better-able to drive than every 15yo, for example). We just must pick a line that the vast majority of citizens can accept.

20 weeks certainly seems to satisfy the sapience criterion, but one might actually argue that sentence has begun to develop at that point. As such, I have no problem with a 16 week cut off… a point at which even sentience could not conceivably be argued to exist.

A cutoff in that range gives a pregnant woman PLENTY of opportunity to exercise her own rights of self-determination LONG before she would be terminating the life of a sapient or even merely sentient organism. I could easily be convinced that twelve weeks satisfies this criterion as well

By contrast, the recent spate of “heartbeat” laws do NOT provide a woman with such an opportunity, because many women (especially the significant percentage with an irregular cycle) would not even be aware of a pregnancy at that point.

For now, we will not dwell upon the fact that a heartbeat does not REMOTELY distinguish that which cannot be killed (e.g, humans) from that which CAN be killed (essentially every animal on the planet). As such it us a ridiculous criterion for an abortion cutoff.

As I said earlier today, I thorough examination of each of these issues would involve literally chapters of writing. I have not in this post examined in detail each and every nuance, and I will not be doing so. because we all know that it would be a complete waste of time in this venue.