My observation is that in these debates people talk past each other, maintaining Objective Model beliefs that are related to the "mind-body problem," without ever addressing those beliefs directly (because, I believe, of the recognition that so far there has been no accepted solution to the "mind-body problem").

The abortion debate often seems to hinge mostly on some concept having to do with when "life" begins (as indicated in the phrase "pro-life"). I have not seen anyone define "life," however. Instead, there seems to be a mixture of the concept of "life" and "spirit." So the embryo is pictured by some as having something extra (beyond its cells) instilled in it, namely, its "spirit." And as we have seen, this concept of "spirit" is closely connected to the concept of "mind," though usually not identical with it. As far as I can tell, this is what is being referred to by "life."

Within the Physical Model, there is the scientific model of "life" that considers the term "life" to be an "entity" by definition only, since the assumption is made that the development from what we consider inanimate matter to "living" matter is a gradually developing process according to the rules of the universe, such that the line between that which is not life and that which is life can only arbitrarily be drawn, by definition only. And this model does not then add into the physical world another entity, called "spirit," attached to or existing within this living matter.

Within the Mental Model, as we have seen, there is an entity, "mind," that exists by definition only, and is the "container" for all of the mental "entities," such as "feelings," "thoughts," "memories," etc. We have seen that when this entity, "mind," is introduced into the Physical Model, producing the flawed Physico-Mental Model, then the pseudo-problem develops as to when this entity appeared in the history of the universe. And the same problem is produced when this entity being considered is referred to as "spirit." And it appears even more significantly when the question is asked as to when "mind" or "spirit" enters the body of an animal, especially a human.

In all the debates about abortion, I have not heard this issue conscientiously discussed and understood.

There is also a question that I have not seen dealt with in any public discussions of "animal rights," namely, the question as to what animals, other than humans, have "minds" and/or "spirits."

We have a certain amount of ambivalence and confusion in this area. There are certain animals that are considered to have "rights," and others that don't. And this varies from culture to culture. There are very few cultures that assign "rights" to insects or fish. But certainly many cultures assign "rights," in one way or another, to animals that are used as pets. There is much ambivalence and inconsistency regarding how to treat the animals that we eat, or kill to use their body parts, or use for experiments.

The relevant issues seem to be whether the animal has a "spirit" ("soul"), whether the animal has a "mind," and whether the animal can suffer or not. I believe these same issues are involved in the abortion debate. But because people can't come to an agreement regarding these issues, the debates seem just to involve saying the same things over and over, without responding to what the other side is saying. And I believe there is much suffering produced by the decisions in this area.

So let's say a woman becomes pregnant. Now we know that there is probably a wide range of responses to that fact, perhaps especially related to how the pregnancy occurred. What tends to happen, to a greater or lesser extent, is that the woman (and perhaps also the father of the embryo or fetus, and even perhaps other family members) develop the phenomenon that has been discussed earlier, regarding "spirituality." These individuals develop that same feeling toward this entity growing in the womb that has been developed toward other people, present and absent, and other species, and even occasionally to inanimate entities, as has been described above. The embryo, or fetus, is thought of as not only a collection of cells that can be studied by the biologist, but also as that collection of cells plus a "spirit," or "soul," and ultimately a "mind." This is how this pregnancy is subjectively experienced and consequently modeled (believed to be) within the Subjective Model.

So if something fatal happens to that embryo or fetus, then one can expect, to a greater or lesser extent, the same kinds of reactions that occur if an adult human that one is close to, or even an adored pet, dies.

Now in the first part of this presentation, we saw that from the standpoint of the Objective Model this "spirit" actually exists in the brain of the person having such reactions, not in the entity that has died. And there is some recognition of this fact, in that people will talk about, as an existing entity, "the person he or she could have become," implying accurately that such "becoming" had not yet occurred. What produces an unanswerable set of problems is the attempt to place this "spirit" into the Objective Model of Reality (that which exists independently of any perception of it or beliefs about it), as if it were actually somehow there and attached to the collection of cells the biologist studies. Remember, within the Mental Model, even if we are talking about "consciousness" (or "mind"), the collection of mental entities associated with that person's brain, we are using shorthand for "whatever exists in the brain that corresponds to the reported subjective experiencing of those mental "entities" ("feelings," thoughts," etc.).

So there may or may not be reason to avoid abortion on the basis of spirituality, but it would have to do with the spirituality of the mother (or others involved), not the embryo or fetus. The suffering of the pregnant woman, now and in the future, will depend to a great extent on her own idiosyncratic way of experiencing the awareness of being pregnant. One could readily imagine more suffering by virtue of having an abortion or by virtue of not having it. And who is in a better position to have an accurate belief about such predicted suffering than she herself? There may turn out to be exceptions to this principle, but it seems to me that they would have to be exceptions for specific reasons. So, to me, it seems obvious that as a general principle it should be the pregnant woman who decides.

Note that there have been attempts to decide exactly when this "spirit" appears as an attachment to the embryo or fetus. Although there have been proposed answers, such as "at conception," there has been little or no debate about the issue, because, I believe, of the awareness that there is no answer that can be legitimated by any other criterion than how the having of such a belief affects the feelings of the believer. There is no way of coming up with an answer in the Objective Model, other than by definition only (in the Mental Model). In other words, it is purely arbitrary as to when the spirit can be said to become attached to the embryo or fetus. There is no objective criterion that can be scientifically ascertained, because the entity exists by definition only. ("Has the egg been fertilized? Yes? Then by definition it has a spirit.")

Now the issue of "suffering" is substantially different. "Suffering" is connected to the concept of "consciousness." That is why we anesthetize people for surgery, assuming that if they are "unconscious," that is, displaying none of the behavior we have come to associate with suffering, then they are probably not suffering. So we are talking about the Mental Model, with its entities associated with reports of suffering and certain other behaviors that are the equivalent in our modeling to such reports.

It is important to note that suffering, within the Objective Model, is assumed to be a process within the brain, and dependent upon the brain functioning relatively normally. Anesthesia is a good example of this dependence upon normal brain function, as is any kind of unconsciousness produced by abnormal brain function. Non-dreaming sleep and coma may be other examples.

But it is therefore important to note that other animals than humans probably can suffer, and indeed their behavior under circumstances that cause ourselves to suffer indicates similar suffering on their part.

So the question then becomes: At what point in the development of the embryo/fetus does suffering become possible by virtue of brain development?

Now if we use the criterion that abortion must occur before the embryo/fetus has the capacity to suffer, by virtue of brain development, then we are attempting to adhere to some ethical principle that says we should avoid causing needless suffering. If we do that, then, since the mechanism for suffering is in the brains of other animals, we would have to avoid needless suffering of other animals, unless we decide not to care about them. So we are now back to the "animal rights" issue.

Some, however, introduce another "entity" into the discussion, namely, the "soul." As we have already discussed, this concept is almost identical with the concept of "spirit." However, my impression is that many people believe that the "soul" is an entity that is attached only to human bodies. In that case, an ethical rule can be constructed that applies only to the human embryo/fetus, and therefore the issue of what is done to the human embryo/fetus is entirely separable from the issue of what is done to non-human animals.

This way of disregarding the suffering of other animals would seem to be the same phenomenon as dehumanization when applied to humans. We have ways of deciding what living things we do not have to have empathy for.

The same way of disregarding the suffering of other animals is produced by saying that all animals have souls, but that the human soul is somehow different from the souls of all other animals. However, there has never, as far as I know, been any general agreement regarding any of these ideas regarding the concept of the "soul." I believe that it is fairly clear that this entity, the "soul," is an entity by definition only.

And does the entity have utility? It certainly does for those advocating certain positions regarding abortion, but the problem is that those who advocate other positions regarding abortion do not necessarily accept the definition of the entity.

My impression is that people mostly stay away from the issue as to whether there is a soul or not, perhaps out of fear that they will be regarded as inferior by virtue of lack of agreement with that which is considered obvious by a large portion of society. (A form of disparagement of an individual is the statement that he or she "has no soul.")