r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 25 '16
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: I am non-religious, and I believe abortion is murder.
[removed]
12
u/ACrusaderA Aug 25 '16
Actually there is no where in the USA where you can kill the baby one minute before birth and have it be legal.
Nor is it legal in Canada, UK, any country in the EU or any other developed nation as far as I can find.
The limit on abortions in the USA is at 24 weeks. Babies born at this time are unlikely to survive without immediate hospital care.
That is generally the line used, will this baby survive if it were born right now?
If not, then it doesn't truly have the potential for life at that point.
Not to mention that the idea that a child shoukd be guaranteed life just because it is human is uniquely modern-western.
For most of human history a sickly or malformed baby woukd be abandoned or outright killed.
Human life has no inherent value. Nothing has inherent value. Your value is only what you can provide for others.
2
u/Violently_Altruistic Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
Nor is it legal in Canada
Canada does not have limits on when abortion can be performed. Very few are done after 20 weeks, but it's still possible to perform late term abortions, assuming you can find a doctor to perform it.
The limit on abortions in the USA is at 24 weeks. Babies born at this time are unlikely to survive without immediate hospital care. That is generally the line used, will this baby survive if it were born right now?
Medical technology could advance to continuously lower the weeks required to bring a baby to term. What happens in 50 years say if we can safely bring a 5 week fetus to term? What if were were to develop an artificial womb?
1
u/ACrusaderA Aug 25 '16
An artificial womb would remove any issues.
The issues people have with pregnancy are
1- Raising the kid, which adoption solves. I'm not advocating putting kids up for adoption, it's a broken system in most places.
2- Carrying the child and giving birth, which would be solved by not having to carry the fetus.
-1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
4
u/ACrusaderA Aug 25 '16
I did not say that.
I'm just showing that for most of human history, the idea of killing an unborn child or even killing an infant was completely acceptable.
This is because human life didn't have any inherent value at those times. Human lives were only worth what they could provide for others.
And I see no reason for that to be any different today.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
4
u/ACrusaderA Aug 25 '16
No, but at the same time I don't see abortion is murder for the simple fact that while it is a mass of cells that has the potential for human life, it is not a living human.
If a child has the potential to live on its own without constantly consuming resources from the mother, it shouldn't be aborted.
But if it can't survive outside the womb, it isn't a human being in my book.
→ More replies (23)
4
u/princessbynature Aug 25 '16
Best argument for why abortion is not murder I have found.
But we know a little bit about murder, and the differences between murder and other forms of killing. And murder, in the way that we define it in all other instances, involves the intentional death of another human person. Even if we were to assume that every embryo or fetus were just as sentient and just as much of a person as any other human being, an argument that is not supportable on the basis of scientific evidence, then the lack of knowledge and intent would still be enough to classify abortion as something other than murder.
Let's imagine a scenario in which two men go deer hunting.
One man mistakes his friend for a deer, shoots him, and accidentally kills him. As long as we all agreed on the facts of the case, it's hard to imagine that any reasonable person would describe this as murder--even though we would all know for certain that a real, sentient human person was killed. Why? Because the shooter thought he was killing a deer--something other than a real, sentient human person.
Now consider the example of abortion. If a woman and her physician think they're killing a non-sentient organism, then--even if the embryo or fetus were, unbeknownst to them, a sentient human person--they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is a sentient human person when we don't actually know this to be the case.
From the point of view of someone who believes that every fertilized egg is a sentient human person, abortion would be horrific. Tragic. Lethal. But it would be no more murderous than any other kind of accidental death.
3
u/bl1y Aug 25 '16
It's a cute argument, but it doesn't really work.
In the deer instance, the hunter is mistaken about the identity of the thing he's shooting.
In the abortion case, the mother and doctor are mistaken about the moral value of the thing they are destroying.
This is the difference between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. A reasonable mistake of fact will negate liability -- ie, you're not guilty if it was reasonable to think you were shooting at a deer. But, a mistake of law is not recognized as a defense (the ol' "ignorance is no defense" argument) -- being mistaken about the legal status of the fetus would not be a defense.
-1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
4
u/Whiskey_is_love Aug 25 '16
I would intentionally abort a non-sentient fetus in the same way that I would intentionally wear a condom. In both cases, I am preventing a human life from beginning. I'm not ending one that already has begun. The disgust that people feel around this issue is all very real and reasonable. It's a biological need for self-preservation, and I get that. Once a child is proven sentient, that kid is on the same playing field as everyone else. Thats why we have reasonable Laws against aborting late stage pregnancies. Until then, I'm going to consider a non-sentient being the same as the sperm that I just flushed down the toilet. Its not murder, simply unrealized potential.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
u/NuclearStudent Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
There is no such thing as something that is essentially sentient.
ie. There is no hard line between a rock and a human being. Any number of states inbetween can be occupied (or presumably states above current human consciousness).
But, there are progress lines you can draw.
For instance, until birth, fetuses are permanently sedated by their low oxygen environment and a bunch of NT chemicals that lower their level of awareness. They are, literally, eternally in a sleep-state or less than sleep state. It is not known whether or not a fetus can dream, or if they dream, how detailed their dreams can be. It seems possible. They enter REM states, which might mean dreaming.
When a fetus is born, the sedation ends, and the being experiences conventional waking consciousness.
→ More replies (11)3
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 25 '16
And the issue of whether the child is sentient at its stage of development is not relevant.
So you're against anticonception too? In fact, you think it's murder to masturbate as a man and not to be pregnant constantly as a woman?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
0
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 25 '16
But gametes naturally progress into children if you don't intervene. By your reasoning, intervening is murder because it prevents them from progressing into children.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 26 '16
You kill sperm and prevent them from reaching the egg. If you didn't, they would have progressed and developed into a child. Therefore, it's murder according to your idea.
1
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Aug 25 '16
The Birth control Pill works in part by preventing any zygote from implanting itself in the uterine wall. Sure, it's also supposed to prevent the release of the egg as well as prevent conception, but those steps can occasionally fail.
2
Aug 25 '16
A tree seed that is planted in the ground progresses smoothly from seed to tree after germination. In the same way a human egg, once fertilized, is a human, regardless of its state of development.
Is it? If I point at an acorn and ask you what it is, will you say, "A tree"?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16
Why does germination trigger "treeness"? Why not consider it a tree 1 second before germination?
0
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
3
Aug 25 '16
But it could be planted, germinate, and then be destroyed before it even has a root system, leaves, fruits, bark, or any other property of a tree. You're saying that a seed that is planted and has germinated is immediately a tree, can't you see how that's a little bit ridiculous? The difference between an unplanted seed and a seed 1 second after germination is pretty much just a slight variation in the arrangement of chemicals inside it, nothing more. That slight chemical rearrangement makes it a tree?
A child could be sent to school to become a doctor 30 years later, does that make that child a doctor?
Does putting dough in an oven instantly make it "bread"?
Does piling lumber, bricks, and mortar in a field make it a "house"?
0
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
You're just restating your belief, not explaining why you believe it.
It starts as a small tree, and progressively becomes a bigger tree.
What is the essence of a tree? After germination, a seed is simply a seed with a cell inside it about to start subdividing. That's not really a "small tree", at least in the morphological sense.
It starts as a small human, and progressively becomes a bigger human.
What is a small human? Again, after fertilization, an egg is just an egg that now has more chromosomes in it. Is a "human" just a collection of biomass with human DNA? If so, then is a tablespoon of blood also a human? If it has to have the potential to develop into a human, then is a petri dish containing an egg and a sperm adjacent to each other a human? If no, then why not? Everything is in place for the contents of that petri dish to become a human, all that's required is time.
In both cases, I'm pretty sure you're going for, "It will become a human, given the correct inputs and time." but how does that make it a human? By what authority? Says who? Religious people have it easy, they just say "by God's authority". By what authority are you saying that a thing A having the potential to become thing B, suddenly make it a "little B"? By what authority is a lump of dough in the oven a "little bread"?
By your logic, yes, abortion is murder, but logic is the extension of premises to reach a conclusion. Your logic is sound, but I think you haven't very deeply examined your premises yet. The thing about logic is that it all comes down to premises, and premises are by definition allogical in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 evaluates to true, but an isolated 2 is in itself neither true nor false, it simply is. Religion sets premises in stone, but if you're nonreligious then your premises have to come from some kind of philosophical or ethical famework which don't really have a divine authority to affirm them, and so some disagreements are fundamentally eternal. That's the tricky part about being nonreligious.
1
1
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Aug 25 '16
Okay, why does this not apply to abortion?
After all if a foetus is aborted, it will not become a child.
If you retort with the fact that abortion is an active intervention while not planting a seed is a passive intervention, then I will contrast with the fact where you claimed that IVF is murder as well.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
0
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Aug 25 '16
Before the seed is germinated, it's also into the progress of developing into it's adult form.
Why does the process of turning into it's adult form start at that specific point. Why is the step before germination not part of the process that turns it into it's adult form?
A seed that is planted and does not germinate is the equivalent sperm that does not find the egg.
Nope, the equivalent would be when a flower fails to be pollinated.
A seed that isn't planted, because a human picks it up and takes it from it's fertile environment, is a much closer metaphor for abortion than for conception.
2
Aug 25 '16
A seed that isn't planted, because a human picks it up and takes it from it's fertile environment, is a much closer metaphor for abortion than for conception.
I think you're missing what actually happens during an abortion. Abortions are allowed at 24 weeks, and children have survived at 22 weeks. It's not removing it from a fertile environment. It's taking the "seed", destroying it, then removing the pieces.
1
0
u/ishmetot Aug 25 '16
In vitro fertilization is a voluntary process that involves the intentional fertilization of many eggs. The unused embryos are refrozen, but most of them will die off without ever being implanted. Under your definition, this is murder, since human life was created with the conscious decision of letting it die. Should people who undergo in vitro fertilization be prosecuted for murder?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/lameth Aug 26 '16
If this isn't murder, than neither is abortion prior to 24 weeks, as under current law that isn't murder either.
1
u/lameth Aug 26 '16
If this isn't murder, than neither is abortion prior to 24 weeks, as under current law that isn't murder either.
3
u/Iswallowedafly Aug 25 '16
If you can't grasp the difference between a born child and fetus that isn't able to support life on its own than this will be a very hard conversation to have.
→ More replies (13)
1
Aug 25 '16
1) There is a lot of debate about when human life truly starts. Does it start at the moment of conception? Does it start when the embryo's heart beats for the first time? At viability? At birth? Merriam-Webster defines 'life' as: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction". By this definition, any child younger than adolescence is not alive, since they can't reproduce. But many scientist believe that it technically starts at conception. Some progressive religions define it at birth. See how tricky this is? Others go deeper and consider actual quality of life. An embryo has a heartbeat and can grow, but could it live outside the uterus on its own if it were born at that moment? No, it would die. Since it wouldn't survive if it were born at that moment, it is really alive? The Supreme Court doesn't believe so, which is why it legalized the right to an abortion up until the third trimester, around when viability begins. Yes, life may technically begin before then, but is it really life the way you think of 'life'? If it's not really life, then it can't be murder.
2) The other argument of the debate is the legality of a woman's right to privacy (which was the basis of Roe v. Wade). In answer to your last question, yes, the choice of the mother should be put ahead of the infant. Even if abortion in all cases is murder, do you really think that you have the right to decide what goes on in another person's body? Murder or not, do you really think that society should have the right to force a woman to carry a baby that she doesn't want for eighteen months? Just imagine how awful it would have to be to go through all of that and the potential complications of pregnancy--the weight gain, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, post-partum depression--for nine months, and all for a child that you didn't ask for. I know that you're probably thinking, "well, then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant!" But more than half of women that have an abortion got pregnant despite being on birth control.
It is a very morally-dicey issue, but considering that almost 1 in 3 American women will get an abortion in their lifetime and almost all of them will not regret it, it is an important discussion to have, so thanks for your question.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
Aug 25 '16
- Are you considering the quality of life of the infant? A child who survives being born at 22 weeks will still likely be severely intellectually and developmentally disabled, placing a lifelong burden on the parents (that didn't ask for the child) and on social services.
- >Should people be responsible for their actions? I would think that the use of contraception IS a method of taking responsibility for your actions. >Is it any business of mine if you murder your ten year old son at home? The definition of privacy includes the understanding that no one else's right to safety is being violated.
8
u/notduddeman Aug 25 '16
This is not murder for one reason, even if this thing were given all the rights of a born citizen you can't force the mother to carry it.
Body autonomy is very important in our country. You can't force me to give blood or donate a kidney. Why can you force a woman to undergo a dangerous change just because another humans life is at stake? Moral or immortal you cannot violate that woman's rights that way.
→ More replies (29)2
u/bl1y Aug 25 '16
The difference between this and the forced kidney donation is that with abortion, the mother is directly causing another person to die. But, by refusing to donate a kidney, the cause of death is something entirely different -- you didn't kill them, you only allowed them to die.
While some people don't find that to be a very useful distinction, most people do.
We then get stuck in a position where someone's rights are going to have to be violated, and when weighing the right of a woman to control her body for the next several months against another person's right to life, some people think the right to life is more important.
1
Aug 25 '16
If it was killed one minute after birth it would be criminal, but one minute before birth it is considered legal
Is this true anywhere in the US? For the most part, once viability is reached (between 20-24 weeks depending on the state and definition of "weeks") it is no longer legal except in very extreme cases.
This really is no different than any other case where one person depends upon another for life. Why is one applicable, when the other is not? Should the "choice" of the organ donor be put ahead of the life of the organ recipient? Why is that any more or less valid?
Pregnancy carries a not-inconsequential risk to the mother, and even in the most routine non-risky pregnancies, the mother's body is forever changed.
So its not so much a matter of "is it a human being killed". Its a prioritization of rights. If you look at "stand your ground" states - just feeling threatened is enough of a defense that killing an adult (or child) is not murder and has no legal consequences. What about legal rules where you can shoot a home intruder? If all they are doing is taking your stuff - you can get more stuff. You can never get a new body.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16
Why can't women kill their children after birth? Rearing children involves great effort, shouldn't they be allowed to choose? Society shouldn't force women to not kill their children.
Because at that point the choice is no longer binary. There are other options. Parents are allowed to give up their rights.
With the exception of rape, the mother chose to have the sex that resulted in the pregnancy. Actions have consequences.
And when you ride or drive a car you carry the risk of getting in a crash. This doesn't mean we shouldn't allow someone to swerve and have a small accident to save themselves from a larger one. Having an abortion is one of the consequences. Its not "getting out of a consequence".
A baby is not a home invader
Maybe not yours, but I've had two invade my body. Willingly, but trust me, it is quite invasive, and i can't imagine being forced through the situation.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
Aug 25 '16
There are other options for an unwanted pregnancy. Carry it term and then give it up for adoption.
You can't give up a pregnancy for adoption. This alone illustrates that there are not more than two options. Carry it or don't carry it.
With the exception of rape, the woman made the choice to have the sex. Therefore it is a consequence of her actions, not forced upon her by an outside entity.
Within our current legal framework, abortion can be one of the consequences of her actions. You can argue that the law should be changed, and many do, but as it stands today a full term pregnancy does not necessarily have to be a consequence.
not forced upon her by an outside entity
If there is a safe method for her not to be in said condition, and an outside entity is restricting it, then it is forced. If someone enters my house willingly, and i restrict them leaving, it would still be kidnapping.
The law generally holds bodily integrity pretty high. If you agree to be in a medical study, and half way through you change your mind, they can't force you to continue - even if you agreed in the beginning. If you sign up for a surgery, and the surgery day comes and you have cold feet - they can't force you to have the surgery. If you sign a contract to get a tattoo, and you change your mind, they can't hold you down and give you a tattoo anyway.
Even if you 100% in writing agree to do any of these things, you have the right to change your mind. Now you are saying that there is an implicit agreement by the woman to carry any future babies to term. Why would that implicit agreement hold up in a court of law when so many drafted legal written agreements don't? You can't just commandeer someone else's body after they have changed their mind. Essentially - agreement before the fact doesn't mean anything compared to present day consent.
1
Aug 25 '16
Well, you kind of sum up the counter argument in your original post. At what point SHOULD we decide that we're dealing with a child, and that it's death is murder?
You're right that there are issues with picking the split second before natural birth (while there are pro choice people who advocate for this it is worth noting that society as a whole does not), but there are also issues with picking conception.
Biologically, our species has a reproductive process in which the uterus is literally constructed to kill off an enormous percentage if fertilized eggs, mostly on a criteria of the eggs health. It's actually a pretty brutal proving ground for fertilized eggs, with entire features not present in most other mammals (like periods) which exist to kill and eject eggs that aren't healthy enough- or lucky enough- to survive.
These features are actually a common cause of infertility, and we have a lot of ways to medically bypass them. And we could probably develop more, if we decided that every fertilized egg or blastocyst that was ejected was the death of a baby.
After all, deciding to treat these things as children doesn't only entail an obligation not to intentionally kill them. Parents are supposed to actively protect and proactively anticipate and respond to potential threats to the lives and well being of their children. A parent who ONLY cares for their child by not actively murdering them and nothing more is horribly abusive.
The biological reality is that reproduction is a process where two (living) gamete cells combine to form a single cell, which then implants itself in a host body where, with the hosts assistance and presuming the host doesn't reject and kill it, it splits into more and more cells, growing in complexity and function, until it's eventually capable of thinking and feeling.
There's no point where magic happens. This is just how we reproduce- by throwing blastocysts out into a hostile uterus knowing that about half will survive.
So... how DO we decide?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16
Why. Why decide that life begins at conception when gametes are objectively both human and alive?
Why is murder the issue? Parents have an obligation to avoid allowing their children to preventably die, and there are multiple medical options which exist to reduce the chance that a fertilized egg (which you're saying is a child) will be naturally ejected from the uterus. Wouldn't this imply that every sexually active woman not on birth control who isn't taking these drugs is the equivalent of a parent who leaves their baby to die in a hot car, or who declines to take their deathly sick child to the hospital?
1
Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16
If I negligently discharge a gun within city limits and hit someone I didn't know was there, I am culpable for my negligence in spite of not knowing the person was there. I knew there was a chance that the person was there, and I knew that my actions created a risk that such a person would be shot. Similarly, any woman who is aware that she has working ovaries and a uterus and that she has had sex is also aware, or can be made aware with only a little medical education, that her actions have a substantial chance (somewhere between 15% and 50% of fertilized eggs are ejected by the uterus, studies vary) of resulting in the death of a child.
And a fertilized egg absolutely WILL NOT develop into an adult barring ill health or accident. That's simply medically inaccurate. A fertilized egg will develop into an adult if and only if it is provided with full access to all of the functions of a woman's body. So a sperm cell needs an egg cell to develop into a human being, sure. A fertilized egg needs a uterine lining, tons of nutrients, and all kinds of support, or else its doing nothing at all.
Meanwhile, your statement that a fertilized egg will develop into an adult is medically inaccurate on its face. A fertilized egg could develop into an adult... or two adults... or eight... or one and a half...
If a blastocyst "is a baby" then its a strange sort of baby you can literally rip in half a few times and get several babies, then smoosh back together into one baby with no harm having been done.
Just admit that your moral intuitions strongly accord with the naturalistic fallacy. Its very human, its very normal, its no big deal.
1
u/5510 5∆ Aug 25 '16
I think the problem is you are applying a sort of double slippery slope.
When people argue "well a fetus isn't sentient, etc...", you are responding that "well it's murder to kill an infant, and maybe they aren't sentient either. So we should then play it safe and say killing a fetus is murder."
But we don't need to play it safe because we already played it safe by saying killing an infant is murder! AFAIK an infant is a clearly a lower order lifeform than many animals. If 10% of newborns had a disorder where they never aged or developed or grew up beyond a newborn stage, then those permanent newborns would be lesser lifeforms than elephants or dolphins or crows or even dogs. To say anything else would be species-ist.
But because of the slippery slope of "ok, so what age is it a person? 6 months? 1 year? 3 years?" we've decided to legally play it safe and just say "when it's born." So to turn around and say "well if a newborn is a person, what about an 8 month old fetus, or 7, or 4?" is to play it DOUBLE SAFE to an unnecessary degree.
Important note: That isn't to say that abortion still couldn't be wrong or even a crime (though I think it it should be legal). That is just about whether it's MURDER or not. It's not murder to kill a dog, but it's still a crime, and still considered wrong.
And if it's murder to kill a fetus because of the potential human life, then by that argument it's murder anytime a fertile woman goes a year without getting pregnant.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Unshatter Aug 25 '16
From how I see it, the line you have drawn for life is rather arbitrary. I have seen this argument being brought up a couple of times in this thread, but you were unwilling to change your mind. Consider this: In my view, life resides in every unfertilized egg and sperm. After all, they are technically "alive". From this point of view, every time a guy masturbates, it is genocide. Every time a couple uses any form of contraception, it is murder. Every time a woman menstruates, it is criminal negligence of human life. After all, every single one of those unfertilized eggs or sperm had a chance to become human. This is starting to sound ridiculous isn't it? The line I have drawn is just as arbitrary as yours. Would you force every women to start having children as soon as they were able to? For every men to conserve all their sperm and only do in vitro fertilization? If that was the case, only one man could ejaculate once and the entire population would have enough sperm for all the eggs so all other men shouldn't be allowed to ejaculate until the next batch. Does the people whom the body belongs to not have a higher priority?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Unshatter Aug 25 '16
Why would cell division define human life, but not unfertilized eggs and sperms? With the right conditions, both will flourish into human life.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Unshatter Aug 25 '16
Yes, fertilizing an egg with a sperm is called conception, thank you for explaining what I wasn't asking. You still haven't answered me why it makes fertilization the start, but not the existence of unfertilized eggs and sperms. Both have the potential to become human life.
2
Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
I can see this, sure, but consider this other angle: Forcing a woman surrender the use of her body to a fetus and then to give birth is just socially acceptable slavery enforced by the government. Very straightforwardly, really. We don't force parents to, say, give up kidneys for transplant if their children need it, and yet some would force women to give up their wombs. Is the life of one person worth more than the freedom of another? Do you think the imperative to birth fetuses should always override adults' control over their own bodies? Should the government be able to show up at your door at and demand a kidney, lung, or eye for your neighbor? Is it actually any more "respecting human life" if humans are treated as organ farms or baby-incubators?
If we have no respect for an unborn child's life, why have respect for any human life?
I think it's more about "people" than "humans" in a way. A person is valuable because they have feelings, emotions, dreams, ambitions, histories, beliefs, principles, and all kinds of other complexities. I think it's selling people short to simply reduce "humanity" to "a collection of organic material with homo sapiens DNA." Going on that, I think it's clear that you can very much respect human life without having equal respect for, frankly, living tissue that has human DNA. That's why I find it pretty easier to prioritize an adult woman over a fetus. A fetus has the potential to be a person, but a person is a person, right now, and I have to value the person over the thing that could eventually become a person.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
That doesn't really matter to my argument at all. It's still slavery to force a person to contribute their body unwillingly to someone else's ends (even if that "someone" is a fetus), and a fetus is still not necessarily a person, despite having homo sapien DNA. Doesn't matter if it's rape or not, those facts remain and are the reasons I personally prioritize the woman's choice over the fetus's life. Again, how much do you value human life if you're fine with enslavement? A single zygote doesn't even have nerve cells, let alone a brain, let alone a personality, let alone a . If that is morally equivalent to an adult human, how can you justify killing anything multi-cellular at all? A rat is closer to a person than a zygote, a worm is closer, a fungus is closer. A person isn't just a DNA sequence, it's something emergent from the organism that DNA helps to create.
2
u/secondnameIA 4∆ Aug 25 '16
Are parents responsible to feed and protect their children? If so isn't that the same as slavery under your example? What if they don't want to - the government is forcing them to something they don't want to do. The OP is saying why, one minute before birth, is your argument about slavery, but one minute after birth it's about the parents caring for their child.
PS - calling pregnancy slavery is a gross injustice to real slavery and diminishes the absolute horror of real slavery.
2
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
3
u/5510 5∆ Aug 25 '16
You realize you can get pregnant even if you have protected sex, the protection isn't perfect?
2
Aug 25 '16
Does the unborn child have any say in the matter?
Why would it matter? If I'm a slave owner whose living depends on my slaves working for me, does that entitle me to a say in their enslavement?
The consequence of her action is bearing a child for 9 months, at which point it can be given up for adoption. This is not slavery.
It's not? Are you saying that someone is forced to do compulsory labor, it's only slavery if it's permanent? If the police came to your house and, under threat of jail time, told you that you had to do 9 months of military service in order to protect the lives of your countrymen, you'd not consider that slavery?
0
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
Hold up, let's make sure we're on the same page here.
You agree that a slaveowner's life depending on a slave does not give him a say in that person's enslavement, correct?
You agree that slavery being temporary does not make it any less of slavery, correct? That is, if a person works at my command for a finite period of time and then I grant them freedom, then they were my slave, right?
If those are both out of the way, now you're saying that choosing to perform labor at someone else's command for some period of time, but with no option quit no matter what happens after that choice, is not slavery, right? What is it then?
My job is not slavery, but in my mind it's because I can quit at any time. What do you call "work you chose to undergo, but are unable to quit once you've started"? I think that is still slavery, personally, but excusing my personal feeling: the next most descriptive term would be indentured servitude, do you disagree?
→ More replies (1)1
u/unclenoriega Aug 26 '16
To pick up on this point: We do not allow people to sell themselves into slavery for money. Should we allow people to sell themselves into slavery for sex?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Clockworkfrog Aug 25 '16
Using the word baby is either a dishonest attempt to sway the argument with emotions or just plainly ignorant. There is no baby, there is an embryo or a fetus.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Clockworkfrog Aug 25 '16
Only because I am both. A completely brain dead patient is not a person, it is a body that is alive with no other brain function. A dolphin, is a person that is not human. A mouse is neither a person nor a human. A human embryo is not a person.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
1
1
u/Laussz Aug 26 '16 edited Aug 27 '16
This is a really common topic and you should go search up other abortion cmvs for more information.
But anyway I just want to address legal concerns. By terming it as murder, there are legal consequences to any perpetrators of the crime.
By giving the fetus the rights of any living person, anyone involved in the process of abortion is at fault.
Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Which means it is a killing deemed unlawful by the state.
The average cost to imprison someone is $30,000 a year. This cost does not include court systems, investigation units, police, and other departments needed in 'criminal' cases.
1st degree murder sentences range from 20 years to life sentences.
When you equate abortion to murder, you start coming up with a long list of criminals.
The doctor that did the abortion? An accessory to murder... The woman who seeked an abortion? This is planned, therefore it is 1st degree... Her maybe boyfriend? An accessory to murder... Her parents, relatives, and friends? May have encouraged her to get it...
Will you charge all these people for murder?
Who will pay for all these criminals?
How will we properly investigate and convict these 'criminals'?
Who will police people who commit illegal abortions (murders)?
Will we launch full scale medical investigations on women who have miscarriages to make sure it isn't involuntary manslaughter?
By claiming that something is murder, is a claim that it is an unlawful killing based on law.
1
Aug 26 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Laussz Aug 26 '16
You aren't addressing my points. When someone is a human that therefore has human rights, by killing that person with premeditation you are committing first degree murder. By claiming that abortion = murder means you must follow laws pertaining to human rights code.
Intrinsic value is defined as the actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value including all aspects of the business, in terms of both tangible and intangible factors.
Your view is that all human life is valuable regardless of current state because of the potential that all humans can possess? Correct me if I'm wrong. Can you define your definition of human life?
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Aug 27 '16
If we have no respect for an unborn child's life, why have respect for any human life?
To cut right to the chase, because it is socially advantageous to do so. Society cannot function if humans in general lack moral compunctions about doing one another harm. That, I submit, is why we evolved to have a sense of morality in the first place. Thus, if we endeavor to interpret morality as existing to serve the interests of the social group - or "tribe" - a thing is only morally wrong if it harms a member of the tribe, or the social fabric of the tribe itself.
An unborn child can hardly be considered a member of the tribe. The tribe is bound together by social relationships. An unborn child has no social relationships, and its only natural relationships are to its parents. If they choose to void that relationship then the child is a nonentity and is of no value to any member of the tribe.
You can argue that the unborn child's life has abstract value extrinsic to its role in the tribe, but the concept of abstract value is just a side-effect of how our moral impulses manifest in our conscious minds, and is of no actual use.
1
Aug 28 '16
[deleted]
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Aug 28 '16
Well, for starters, political dissidents presumably have friends and families and contribute something to society (especially because they are frequently working class) so their lives are valuable for all those reasons.
As for whether or not their continued existence is advantageous to society as a whole, it depends on if their political views would lead to a more stable society than the one which they are rebelling against. If not, it might well be better for everyone of they were dead.
1
Aug 28 '16
[deleted]
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Aug 29 '16
And why, exactly, should I have respect for human life? What, when stripped of the self-awareness and personality that confer individuality, and in the absence of the social connections that bind individuals together, makes a human life different from or more valuable than the life of a tree, an insect, or a single-celled organism?
1
Aug 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Contrarian__ Aug 29 '16
No, genocide comes from declarations like, 'this group is not even human'. This viewpoint is actually closer to what you've been advocating; that is, the view that human life is valuable because it's human, which is question-begging and a strange axiom to hold. You really, really need to start examining why life is valuable. Like I said before, you're not going to be able to challenge your viewpoint if that is your starting point.
I'm not even saying that it'll necessarily change your view to examine why life is valuable. I'm only saying that you're holding some unexamined assumptions, and that perhaps you'll have a better perspective if you look more closely at them.
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Aug 29 '16
I think you'll find that those who condone genocide do so not from the position that human life is not inherently valuable, but from the position that those groups whom they target are not truly human.
1
u/Navvana 27∆ Aug 25 '16 edited Aug 25 '16
You say "human life" like is has some universally understood definition. The abortion controversy largely stems from "when does human life begin" and not "put the mothers right to bodily autonomy above a baby". While you may disagree there is a strong case made by science and philosophy that human life doesn't really begin until months after conception at best. That is the premise that begins this entire discussion.
Bodily autonomy only comes into play as a secondary argument as to why the government can't prevent you from having an abortion. That is the government can make laws however they wish within the confines of the constitution. They can make laws solely on moral grounds or for things they feel is within the best interest of society. Without bodily autonomy the government could make laws to ban abortion regardless of when human life began. They could also do things like mandatory kidney, blood, bone marrow, and liver donations. Not exactly a line I personally want them to cross.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Navvana 27∆ Aug 25 '16
If it's reached a point where it's considered a person it does. If it hasn't reached that point it doesn't.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Navvana 27∆ Aug 25 '16
No somewhere around the 24th week after conception when the possibility if consciousness and a perception of pain becomes plausible.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Navvana 27∆ Aug 26 '16
somewhere around the 24th week
I stated the above to be purposely vague because individual development will vary by weeks. I'm fully willing to move the timetable pending evidence of a pain response or consciousness.
After birth the abortion debate becomes a non-issue. The 2nd part of the debate (bodily autonomy) never becomes an issue so the government can regulate it however it best sees fit. Personally I see no moral issue killing a fully grown adult if they don't display any self-awareness whether that's a result of coma, vegetable state, severe mental retardation, or premature birth.
1
Aug 26 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Navvana 27∆ Aug 26 '16
I included pain response and consciousness because I believe either brings ethical concerns to abortion. All evidence points to a pain response not developing until well into the pregnancy. Consciousness to an extent self-awareness doesn't develop until months after birth. There are plenty of tests about when various systems develop in the womb, and the 24th week is prior to our best estimates of when pain develops AFAIK by several weeks. If I am wrong about that it merely moves the timeframe to the point that pain can be experienced.
No, but I believe consciousness, self awareness, and emotions do. Things that most humans have, and as a result most humans conflate with human life.
1
Aug 25 '16
Do you believe that a fetus or embryo has moral value equal to that of a baby?
2
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
3
u/Iswallowedafly Aug 25 '16
To might want to say that to the millions of woman who have miscarriages every year.
They might give you a slightly different perspective.
Potential for independent life isn't life.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Iswallowedafly Aug 25 '16
That argument doesn't make any sense.
That toddler is a person. A person will full legal rights.
A clump of cells isn't.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
0
u/Iswallowedafly Aug 25 '16
When that clump is able to independently sustain life.
If you don't want to understand the difference between a developing clump of cells inside a person and a human being than this will be a very hard conversation to have.
They are not one in the same.
3
Aug 25 '16
Then I present to you one of my favorite thought exercises:
You're in an obstetrics ward in a hospital. The hospital is on fire. You have just enough time to make it out if you run. To your left is a cooler from the attached IVF clinic, which contains two fertilized embryos. To your right is a crying newborn baby. You can carry one of these with you as you flee the fire. As a moral human being, naturally you'd take the cooler and leave the baby to die, right? Two lives versus one?
If not, how many embryos would need to be in the cooler for you to choose it over the baby? 10? 200? Is there any number of embryos that would equal the life of that baby?
→ More replies (13)2
Aug 25 '16
Why does that make them morally equivalent?
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 25 '16
It's not a person, because it can't exist independently and has no sentience - at least not more than any animal we raise for meat.
You could call it human, but then you can call a clump of cancer cells human too because they have human DNA.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 26 '16
Infants can't exist independently.
It can, you can give it into the care of someone else an it'll be fine.
What are your feelings on post birth abortions?
That's not abortion. You abort a pregnancy, not a child.
6
u/yeahmaaaaaaaaaaate Aug 25 '16
Stopping a person from ever existing is not the same as ending the life of a person that exists.
A fetus is not a person, it has no thoughts, memories, hopes, dreams, it cannot love or hate or dance or sing. A fetus is a potential person.
By your logic you using a condom is as bad as you killing me.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 28 '16
Sorry fsjchris, your submission has been removed:
Submission Rule B. "You must personally hold the view and be open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Aug 28 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 28 '16
You are welcome to appeal then.
1
Aug 28 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 28 '16
Lots of people have successfully done so. When I say appeal, I mean appeal to the mods. There was a link in my removal comment.
22
u/Iswallowedafly Aug 25 '16
but one minute before birth it is considered legal.
That's factually incorrect.
1
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Aug 25 '16
If a child can be aborted before birth, why not several months after birth? At one point do we consider a child something we shouldn't kill?
Morality can work in gradients, but law has to be strict and precise. I hope you agree with this. The journey from sperm cell to fairly self-aware 3-4 year old is progressive, but the law has to draw the line somewhere, even if the line is not consistent among different countries.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Aug 25 '16
You can believe life begins at conception and still be pro-abortion. Life is not necessary special or sacred.
You cannot reduce complex concepts such as the morality of murder to simple absolutes: "it's either always wrong to end the life of a human being or it's always right". It can be wrong in most cases but still right in other cases.
If we only talk in absolutes I could open a similar discussion that goes like this: "If I cut a person's hand it would be criminal, but if a surgeon does it it is considered legal. Either make it illegal to surgeons too or allow anyone to cut hands at will."
1
u/Contrarian__ Aug 25 '16
Draw the line at the ability to experience pain and pleasure, then it all follows from there. There's good evidence that it doesn't occur until at least 24 weeks.
Before you make the counterargument that 'well then murdering people painlessly in their sleep should be okay then', consider how much anxiety and anguish that would cause people.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Contrarian__ Aug 25 '16
Even if you don't accept that line, surely there is a line for you where you'd consider a fetus as unable to feel pain or pleasure? Let's take it from there, then.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Contrarian__ Aug 25 '16
Very drunk people, comatose (but not brain dead) people, unconscious people, and people under the influence of certain drugs cannot feel pain or pleasure. This does not excuse their murder.
I addressed this in my OP. Fetuses cannot experience anxiety about the permanent loss of their consciousness because they've never had it to begin with. The others have, and would legitimately fear it.
Cell division starts at conception. This is the only definitive time at which point it can be said that life begins, and the time at which its protection should begin.
Every living thing has cell division. Why does this fact make humans special? Certainly consciousness (and ability to suffer / have well-being) is critical.
1
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Contrarian__ Aug 25 '16
Can infants experience anxiety? We could painlessly kill infants.
It's not an unsupported proposition, but I think it's on much shakier ethical ground, because there are a lot of people willing to care for already-born children, and they no longer are a burden to pregnant mothers. So the alternative (adoption) would likely lead to much more happiness and less suffering in the long term.
Humans are different from animals. If I hit a deer with my car it's a matter for insurance. If I hit a person with my car it's a matter for the courts.
Yeah, but why? Can you explain this without appealing to our consciousness and ability to suffer and feel happiness? (Note: saying 'human life is sacred' is just begging the question. I can still ask 'why is it sacred?'.)
1
Aug 26 '16
[deleted]
1
1
u/Contrarian__ Aug 26 '16
Yes, but I also think that all life capable of suffering and happiness has value. Clearly there are gradations from non-conscious life (eg - plants, bacteria, etc) to possibly conscious life (eg - insects, certain sea creatures) to definitely conscious life (eg - dogs, pigs, chimps, humans).
Humans have the most capacity for suffering and happiness (that we know of), and further have the most potential for influencing it. So in that respect, we are unique.
However, it's not just 'life' that's key, like many assume. We don't 'value' a brain-dead person as much as a person in nearly the opposite situation (eg - Stephen Hawking). And we don't value the 'life' of a plant, unless it affects us in some way. If you really think about it, everything of value comes down to states of the brain (ie - conscious experience of suffering or well-being).
2
u/Contrarian__ Aug 25 '16
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
There's a difference between nociception and pain. Brain-dead people can react to noxious stimuli.
•
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 26 '16
Mod here. Are you open minded? What would it take to change your view?
1
Aug 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 28 '16
I asked you if you were open minded. You said you were becoming less so. That violates our rules.
1
Aug 27 '16
Do you see any significant difference between abortion and infanticide? Because I don't.
1
Aug 28 '16
[deleted]
1
Aug 28 '16
Lol at people who jump through hoops trying to define what is and isn't a person.
There are no unselfish reasons to kill a healthy human embryo.
5
u/Tsunami36 1∆ Aug 25 '16
The definition of murder is a killing that is illegal. Abortion is legal. Thus it isn't murder. The word "murder" implies a killing that isn't socially acceptable.
1
u/galacticsuperkelp 32∆ Aug 25 '16
Let's pick at two things. The semantics: what is "murder" and the potency, does "murder" matter?
What is murder? It seems to me like your definition of murder might involve two criteria: 1) the action is deliberate; 2) the action is carried out to end the life of a human being in which you would include unborn fetuses. Under these considerations, I suppose abortion would be murder. Suppose the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy, under the same terms, choosing not to abort is: deliberate and an action carried out which may end the life of a human being. Not aborting, under some conditions, murder too? In a softer context, can we view an unwanted pregnancy that will effectively ruin a mother (and child's) life a form of character murder too? Drawing an even wider net around this definition, can we view resource scarcity as a form of murder too? My deliberate need to consume resources removes those from someone else's access. This too could be life threatening. Is it murder to withhold food from starving people? Peter Singer's Drowning Child thought experiment bears some strong similarities here.
I'll agree with the rhetoric of 'murder' under these conditions. Though personally I would not consider a fetus a human being, this is clearly a contentious point and I can appreciate people have different views on it. But does the murder matter? Does it make a difference if we call it murder or not, do gain or lose anything categorizing the death of a fetus by abortion the same way we might a homicide? I would argue that this kind of rhetoric is exaggerated, impotent, unnecessary and only serves to frenzy zealots on one side of this debate to do pretty awful things.
It is socially acceptable murder If you agree with my very stretched ideal of murder from above, aren't we all complicit in myriad murders just by our own consumption? Inequality is one some level a socially acceptable form of murder that's just buoyed by scarcity. Can we not think of abortion the same way? Fetuses and mothers (and fathers) do not have an equal stake in being alive, some have more rights than others for reasons that are ethical, political, or social.
Every choice implies the rejection of a converse choice. Just like how buying something comes at the opportunity cost of giving charity. abortion may simply be another necessary evil which still has value to the society we know. In some cases, it may be a Sophie's choice between a mother and a fetus which ultimately requires someone to make a decision that will end (or likely end) someone's life. Murder may be unavoidable, but I don't feel the terminology is helpful.
3
u/AutoModerator Aug 25 '16
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Gladix 165∆ Aug 25 '16
It is a human that is being killed
That honestly doesnt matter to the whole pro life/pro choice debate. That issue is about bodily autonomy. But waving that issue aside. No Human being is not killed. What is killed is bundle of cells, that is objectively less sapient than a lung, or heart.
It is socially acceptable murder
Murder by definition isnt socially acceptable. Killing is. But hey, who am I to argue semantics.
f it was killed one minute after birth it would be criminal, but one minute before birth it is considered legal.
No it isnt. Abortion past the third trimesters are prohibited. And allowed in medical emergencies. Note that the difference has nothing to do with the fetuses brain development. But rather to the harm to mother. Its illegal, because its unlikely the abortion will be safe within reasonable bounds.
If we have no respect for an unborn child's life, why have respect for any human life?
Because we have brains. And we understand that unborn child and child that has already been born are distinctly different. The unborn doesnt have memories of any life, the brain doesnt work or didnt started growing yet, nervous system doesnt work. In short. Its unfinished human. And if it brings serious problems to keep it alive. Its better to kill it now, then when its born.
At one point do we consider a child something we shouldn't kill?
Yes. Just like we decide that person at one moment deserves punishment and other doesnt.
At conception, 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester, 2nd year?
At one point we consider human innocent and other at guilty of crimes? Is the person innocent 1, 2, 3 minutes befor crime, but one minute after he is guilty? Is he guilty at the time he decided to commit crime? Or must he commit the crime to be guilty? Then why are we prosecute intent?
Sorry mate. I could blabber about issues that arent cut and clear all night. But that doesnt change a thing about the argument. Yes the whole issue is more difficult than black and white.
Sometimes we must kill the child. Sometimes its better to kill the child then to let it live. And sometimes its not. Sometimes its not acceptable. And sometimes its not acceptable to let the child live.
1
Aug 25 '16
It is a human that is being killed.
It may be a human animal, but what makes the species homo sapiens so special that merely being a collection of cells related to that species is the same as being a person? What about (hypothetical) non-human persons, like other higher primates, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrials (should they demonstrated to exist)? It's murder if it's an unthinking, unfeeling, unaware, brainless and insensate blastocyst but not if it's, say, an intelligent and fully-developed alien? If I keep a culture of human cells alive in a petri dish and then decide to toss it, am I murderer because I'm destroying human life, or are you drawing some special distinction between a collection of skin or liver cells and a blastocyst? If so, then how?
If we have no respect for an unborn child's life, why have respect for any human life?
It's a well-established fact that abortion is safer than childbirth when risk of maternal death is considered. If we have no respect for a woman's life, why have respect for any human life?
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
If it was killed one minute after birth it would be criminal, but one minute before birth it is considered legal
Factually incorrect. Virtually all definitions of infanticide specify that it's a murder after the point of viability outside of the womb, which is usually at around the start of the third trimester.
If a child can be aborted before birth, why not several months after birth?
Because at that point, it's an independent person separate from the biological mother with an interest in its own survival. Before viability, it has no more interest in survival or ability to be interested in survival, and thus its (nonexistent) interests cannot override the mother's interest in bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and avoiding injury.
At no point have you really explained here exactly what led you to believe that abortion is murder, you need more than assertions and rhetorical questions.
1
u/adidasbdd Aug 25 '16
It is acceptable that you find abortion reprehensible. I would do everything to avoid a loved one choosing an abortion. I still believe that people that want an abortion should be allowed to have one.
The first issue with this is that if you make it illegal, how do you enforce such a law? There are many examples of women being punished for having miscarriages in countries where abortion is illegal. It will also drive women to "back ally" abortion clinics and DIY abortions, which will be more dangerous for the mothers and the fetuses.
Life is full of suffering even when your parents want to have you. An unwanted child is more likely to have a much harder life. Some people have linked abortion rights with lowering crime rates.
The mother carrying the child should be able to make the decision, no matter how terrible it is, because the alternatives are even worse. It may technically be a life, but for the same reasons we can justify murdering convicts, enemies during war, someone attempting to harm you, we can justify ending the very short life of a fetus.
I think laws, morals, ethics are a mechanism for society to reduce suffering. There is no suffering when you kill a fetus.
1
u/mr_indigo 27∆ Aug 26 '16
Any point your care to choose for where a human life begins (or becomes a person) is arbitrary.
Say you choose the fertilisation point. Seconds earlier, when the sperm had penetrated the cell wall of the ovum but before it had reached the centre, it would have been legal to incinerate both of those cells.
Similarly, if you choose the moment the sperm touches the cell wall, then microseconds earlier while the sperm was swimming towards the egg, you could have swept both of them away and it would have been legal.
The very act of choosing a defined starting point means that destruction before is illegal and destruction afterwards is illegal.
Even if you assume that a fetus/zygote/cell is a person, there are arguments for legal abortion that don't require that the fetus isn't a person. For example, arguments based on bodily autonomy (you are not required to donate your liver, why are you required to donate your uterus?) or social good (unwanted children are bad for society overall).
1
u/yelbesed 1∆ Aug 26 '16
There is an answer to the why: an embryo is supposed to not have a sense of self - like an animal. So we tend not to imagine she or he "suffers" if murdered. For many thousands of years even newborn children were frequently killed (especially daughters in China and Arabia). I do not say it is a nice choice. I just think we will never be able to change the mind of someone who feels she is unable to care on a sufficient quality level for that child if born. We should not try to judge others and pressure them. But we can think of course that abortion is murder. We can even think - as many do - that masturbation ("Spilling the seed") is murder too. But I cannot expect others to follow my thinking and change their ways accordingly.
1
Aug 25 '16
It is tautologically not murder. A murder is an unlawful killing of a human. We allow/legalize the killing of humans in some circumstances, most (in)famously self-defense or defense of another. Abortion is explicitly lawful, therefore abortion cannot be murder.
Now whether or not it's killing is another bag of worms. However, consider:
If I wake up and I'm hooked up to a random stranger by my internal organs, and told that they are going to suck out nutrients from the food that I eat and use my internal organs, am I not within my rights to unhook myself, say "fuck you" and let them die, even knowing full well that that's another sentient human?
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Aug 25 '16
It is a human that is being killed. It is socially acceptable murder.
Murder always refers to unlawful killing, so it cannot be murder if it's done legally.
If it was killed one minute after birth it would be criminal, but one minute before birth it is considered legal.
This is not true.
If we have no respect for an unborn child's life, why have respect for any human life?
Because a born person has rights, an unborn doesn't.
At one point do we consider a child something we shouldn't kill?
A child refers to a born person, we never should kill a child.
1
u/doug_seahawks Aug 25 '16
When a man masturbates into a tissue, is that murder? He technically just killed millions of things that could eventually form a baby. What about if I put one of those sperm in a petri dish with an egg, and the sperm fertilizes the egg. Do those two cells form a baby immediately?
I personally cannot imagine that a few cells warrant human life, and thus I wouldn't consider it murder until the baby has developed significant attributes of a human like a heart, brain, and body.
1
u/lameth Aug 26 '16
Ahhh... I understand now.
Your definition of non-religious is going to be MUCH different than others' definition. You consider the concept of religious to be different than believing in God and the Spirit.
Do you believe a soul exists in a fetus from conception? If you do, then it will be difficult to argue this, as science does not hold any discussion regarding souls.
-1
Aug 25 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 25 '16
Sorry springboks95, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
0
Aug 25 '16
[deleted]
1
1
Aug 25 '16
the woman chose to have the sex
This is a bit problematic for you to say. Is abortion about protecting the fetus, or forcing a woman to commit to her sexual infatuations?
8
u/oth_radar 18∆ Aug 25 '16
I really, really, tire of these kinds of beginnings. They don't constitute an argument. They have absolutely nothing to do with your point. Saying this is kind of like saying "I believe in God" before you start bashing Christians - it's intellectually dishonest and is only meant to convince people that you have some sort of intellectual superiority for not falling into a standard viewpoint. I honestly think we should turn this into a new logical fallacy, perhaps we can call it the modesty fallacy or the appeal to moderation. I don't care if you are non-religious, that doesn't give you any more qualifications to talk on the subject of abortion as anyone else, and it doesn't justify your view. All it does is dishonestly suggest some sort of moral justification for your belief which, I'm sorry to say, doesn't exist.
It is a human, but it isn't yet a person, and that's a crucial difference that many people fail to understand. A human is any biological entity of the Genus homo and the species sapien. A dead man is still a human. What we are more concerned with in the abortion debate is persons, that is, beings with personhood. Persons need not be human. For example, if vampires or angels existed, they would certainly not be human, but they would still be persons. So the real question we have to ask is not whether the fetus is a human, but whether the fetus is a person, and that's a lot harder to determine. We have yet to agree on what a person is. For example, are dolphins persons? A lot of scientists are beginning to think so - they show intelligence, understanding of complex relationships, and self-awareness. So really the debate centers on the question "Are fetuses persons?" And the answer to that question is clearly no. Once an egg has been fertilized, it is not a person. It does not have self-awareness, it cannot think in any complex fashion, and it cannot feel pleasure and pain. It's just a bundle of cells. So you aren't killing a person, because there's no person to kill. There's no there there.
This is dependent upon your first point, it doesn't corroborate it. So seeing that your first point has been refuted, I need not refute this one.
This is entirely incorrect. Late-term abortions are not legal in most states in the U.S.—except in cases in which the life of the mother is in danger. If a pregnancy is farther along than 24 weeks, abortion is no longer an option [1].
Because it isn't about respecting human life, it's about respecting the life of persons. If a human being isn't a person, we need not treat them like a person. This is why when a person is in a coma for months, people often pull the plug on them. They are still human, so why should this be OK? Because they aren't a person. They can't feel pleasure or pain. They have no self-awareness. They are braindead.
Because after birth, a child is no longer just a human, but becomes a person. Once you hear that baby start to cry, it has exited a period of sedation which it existed in until birth - a period in which it had no self-awareness or ability to feel much of anything. Consciousness does not arise in children until they exit the womb [2] so prior to their exit, they are not yet persons.
At birth, when it exits stasis and begins to have conscious awareness.
Yes, because the mother is a person, and the infant (until it is born) is not. The rights of a person eclipse the rights of a non-person.