Sentience/abortion

I think that there is no rational reason why abortion is not ethically tolerable for children in the womb and even in the earliest years of childhood. Up to 18 months approximately, it is ok.

The ‘abortabality’ of babies, in usual debates, centres on the concept of 'sentience'. Humans find it immoral to abort a life that is sentient, because supposedly a sentient being is one human enough to make taking its life away tantamount to murder. In the most extreme case, god-fearers believe a two-week-old embryo has sentience.

The problem with the concept of sentience is that it’s totally nebulous and undefinable. It aims to isolate exactly what is specially human about a human.

For god-fearers, all human life is special and therefore sentient.

For the average social liberal sentience kicks in at about 12 weeks.

For sceptics of the concept itself sentience is just a myth.

I am part of the third group, because this is the only logical one. Sentience is an ill definable concept so we must just use a practical definition. A practical definition would be when a human organism reaches a point of sophistication whence it becomes a functioning social animal. Language is the first staple in this requirement. No human can be considered wholly human/sentient without being able to talk and interact with other humans. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, ‘language is the house of being’. This is exactly why you probably don’t have any memories of your pre linguistic childhood. You lacked the inner richness required to be a functional, potent being. The criterion for sentience, then, should be precisely linguistic competency.

It always pays to err on the side of caution, especially where ‘morals’ are implicated, but one could rationally say without any immorality that putting a 2 month old child down if it is not wanted, or, especially, if it is genetically deficient and expecting a hard life is O.K.

This runs contrary to moral norms, but putting a 1 month old child down takes away no more sentience than putting down a full grown German Shepherd of Border Collie, which is routinely done.

or maybe don't use sentience as an argument and just use viability..

that would make more sense I think. I don't use the word sentience as the thread starter does anyway. I use it to mean someone or something that can feel (especially the sensation of pain), at least in the context of discussions on human or animal rights.

Where does the sentience kick in for animals, on the philogenetic ladder?

• ants
• toads
• wombats
• dogs
• chimpanzees

All cellular life feels, in a sense, that is their agency, how they mutate, etc.

This is the solution. Sentience should be dropped from every lexicon. if for no other reason than that its gives people a misguided sense of self worth.