So I read the article in psychology today. The crux of their argument is that they don't see "evidence" of self-awareness until 1-3 years. And everything they mention as evidence has to do with communication.
Absence of evidence (as in a 1 month old that cannot communicate) does not mean absence of self-awareness. It just means we can't see it or identify it in any way we can confirm. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that we have no way to prove it. Just because we cannot prove it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Human are notoriously fallable. Another quote.
Just because they do not seem to recognize it doesn't mean they are not self-aware. If you had never seen your reflection before, or only rarely, then the first time you ever did you would not be inclined to first respond "hey that's me" since you would have no idea what that image was to begin with. You would have to learn that. Just because they haven't learned that yet doesn't mean they are not self-aware. Even their summary is a nod to the possibility that self-awareness is still there, just perhaps not fully developed.
And in the second article it is far from definitive. It again relies on seeing the evidence in the same way we would expect from an adult. But they do acknowledge there is still a ways to go in this.
So the best these say is that the earliest we can DETECT something similar to consciousness or self-awareness (not necessarily the same thing) is at maybe 5 months. Just because we cannot detect does not mean it definitively does not exist.
Here is an article with somewhat similar, yet contrasting, viewpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
Who is to say that true self-awareness doesn't start when the physical constructs are in place, yet the motor abilities and cognitive abilities to manifest it to our observation and understanding are simply not yet in place.
But I guess in context of this thread, the argument is that it isn't a "person" or a "human" until it is shown to be self-aware. In that context we could justify all kinds of things. Someone who is incapable of showing their self-awareness could then be determined to no longer be a "human", instead simply an animal, and therefore there would be no moral qualms about terminating that life (someone who is catatonic due to injury perhaps, or severely mentally handicapped, for example). Seems to be a slippery slope. If the organism is going to become a human being, then it is such at conception, for all intents and purposes.
But that is the age-old debate in this particular issue, one that I suspect will never be resolved. When is the baby "alive", when is it a "person" when is it ok to kill and then suddenly after it crosses some (largely) arbitrary finish line NOT ok to kill it?
I personally have no idea what the
truth is to this. I doubt anyone does.
My
opinion is that if it has the capability to become a human being left to its own devices and with reasonable care (as in, unaborted, or unabused by drug intake by the mother or similar) then it is, in essence, human from the get-go, and should be treated as such.
